Bodies, Sexualities, Identities - Assignment Example

Bodies, Sexualities and Identities Gender Politics Indeed societal dynamism does not cease to bring with it some element of change and in fact thought provoking changes. It is on this basis that Judith Butler came up with is work on Gender Trouble in the 90’s. This is a unique piece of work that calls for a new realization on what qualifies as gender and/or sex. Since outset the society has always been categories or divided into two major groups as either belonging to the male gender (masculine) or the female gender (feminine). This grouping as qualified people into unique characteristics such that they are easily and often identified by the society. However, Butler (1990) is opposed to this kind of grouping reiterating the position that gender should be viewed on a wider scale of being a variable such that it is reflected in the way we choose to be or behave based on circumstances rather than what we normally perceive ourselves to be. This proposition sounds radical but furthermore Butler expound that people should transform their way of thinking and embrace a supposition that we are not to be entangled in a restriction of feminine or masculine roles. In doing so Butler has expatiated that what is paramount is the sense of equality between men and women. On the basis of natural orders of things we are used to the conventional ways of heterosexual behavior but human proclivity has proffered other dimensions that portend issues such as homosexuality, bisexuality and/or transexuality among others. All these sexual orientation is base on identity associated with the society and hence the elements of sex/gender play a crucial factor in propounding critical theories for the same. What these propositions have come up with is something of a great deal of discourse in the sphere of gender politics which therefore will be the task for this paper. The compelling arguments proposed by Butler (1990) has raised eye brows and made many comment of its practicability. In society we know the characteristics of a man as well as those that belong to a woman. However, there has emerged rights movement such as GLB, and the entry of transgender societies which has begun to dictate new order in the conventional manner of the general view to issues of birth sex. Just has the world has transformed in the sphere of science and technology, with this many changes has been perceived and the likely of modification or change of gender is no longer an issue of puzzle (Fineman et al. 2009). On this premise we can best distinguish ourselves in every manner based on this, however Butler’s view suggests that every individual be it a man or a woman is wonderfully peculiar and hence cannot be qualified into a homogenous class of grouping. On particularity Butler points out that the notion of feminism has been used as a political tool and thus not the way to view a woman since every individual woman falls under her own unique sphere be it based on race, class or ethnicity. Base on this a woman is not supposed to be grouped or rather identified in the form of sex. According to Butler (1990) sex is perceived as to emanate from the understanding of the society which is through consistent practice and tradition which has found dominance with changes in society both in social and political dimensions. Based on this argument it is further expounded by Fineman et al. (2009) that the idea of race is based on some static capacity while for the case of homosexuality just as it relates to sex is capture has occurring due the change in the manner of lifestyle. Well this is astounding arguments taking the recognition that majority of the people in the society had attributed this separation of male and female characteristics and their expected regime of actions and/or behavior to fall under only those categories perceived and identified by society to be qualifying and acceptable. Sexuality of a person was the fundamental basis upon which certain standards of behaviors was accepted and/or abhorred completely such as the biblical sentiments regarding homosexuality in the era of Sodom and Gomorra. But just as the days of Sodom so is the world of today and society is trying to come up with doctrine to justify the existence of such vice as perceive as being acceptable. According to Baumeister (2001) in recent times society has undergone a process of trying to mitigate the notions which has been ingrained in human society since time immemorial and bring about the element of homosexuality based on grounds of sexuality. In this case theories of sexuality have been propounded based on one hand the issue of “innate predispositions and evolutionary processes, and the other pointing to socialization and cultural influences” (Baumeister, 2001). Another tangent proposition is that touching on women being identified based on sex yet it has been found that not every woman has the capacity to reproduce based on the incapability on doing so or just being unwilling to pursue the same. This unique proclivities according to Butler best qualifies women to be separate them from that singleness in grouping just has she points out in his book that “The very subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms” (Butler, 1990). These sentiments would require a reshape in our thinking on the issue of gender. The issue of sex categorization has caused a great deal of problem in the legal dimension. The law normally requires the classification of a person either as being a male of female for purposes of marriage as well as identification documents among other but recent case law has demonstrated the confusion entangled in the use of the word “sex” as traditionally known. These issues are well illustrated in cases such as Littleton v. Prange, 1999 which held that “post-operative transsexual women who had received new birth certificates with female sex designations remained legally male for the purposes of marriage” (Fineman et al. 2009). Furthermore in the English case of M.T. v. J.T, 1976 which stated that, “The English court apparently felt that sex and gender were disparate phenomena…The evidence and authority which we have examined, however, show that a person’s sex or sexuality embraces an individual’s gender, that is, one’s self-image, the deep psychological or emotional sense of sexuality identity and character” (Fineman et al. 2009). On the other hand is the element of bisexual a strange and consistent emerging trend that has trickle a change in society’s way of life. It would be pointed out by any reasonable man in the society that the law of nature would want to show mankind the way of life as had been given to him/her all the essential tools for comprehending the way of life. This way of life is to be based on procreation which qualifies every expectation of nature and society. However with blatant disregard of this natural order of things mankind has been influenced into propelling some disorientation and caused a new way of thinking and identifying individuals. Lobby groups around the world have been formed to force governments to accept the existence of such odd phenomenon and that they are recognized under the law so as to provide protection. At this juncture it would be pointed out that there has been quite a significant change in the way sexual identities are today perceived. In the American sphere the black communities bear the burden of shouldering the sentiments of these vices and it is pit forth as “ the capitalistic nature of American society has reduced black male and female relations into commodities where men and women treat themselves as sexual objects” (Beemyn et al.). However Fineman et al. has portrayed that “race is static identity and that homosexuality is a changeable lifestyle.” The essence in these sentiments was a proposition by (Butler, 1990) in which basis the lifestyle poses to the black people was to be demystified by way of challenging discrimination against black. The position is that one is supposed to be aware that homosexuality is “ running through all racial groups” (Butler, 1990). The transient agitation for feminism equality has posed a challenge to the politics of gender. Feminism has lost its glory in grouping women has a single larger group as opposed to men. According to Butler (1990) the clash between men and women is what has fostered feminism and the continuum of reiterating this kind of grouping will albeit get or produce the desired result of equality which has long been sought after. The feminism force will just further cause disparity than bring about equality. Therefore radical feminist who perceive men has their enemy will further ignite the flame of inequality. Priority should be based on different needs that we all strive to achieve in this world. Feminism has been in existence for a long time now but still entangle in the fight for equality which despite profound efforts “many gender inequality still remains” (Walby, 2011). It is evidently clear that the world has been a creature of some higher phenomenal forces which had classified each being based on two sexualities which is a male and a female with the man being afforded power for dominion throughout the world. The existence of such has not been receive with welcoming hands from a great quarter of women who are in constant agitation that they are being oppressed by men based on the notion that they are the weaker sex and hence demands recognition that they have what it takes just as men do and as a result they want a level playing field base on equality of opportunity. In spite of the constant assertion of their movements they still face a great deal of challenges (Walby, 2011). The grouping of people in the society has always caused a ripple in the sphere of gender and politics. According to Butler (1990) “By conforming to a requirement of representational politics that feminism articulate a stable subject, feminism thus opens itself to charges of gross misrepresentation.” The grouping of women based on the foregoing is misinformed and prone to dissatisfaction which forms a good example to a unity which embraces the paragon of disintegration. Politics just as tool of democracy will never succeed in grouping a whole proportion or body of women into a system of feminism since the fundamental principle of democracy would have been made extinct and the is the freedom of choice and expression. It is trite that at no single time will peoples’ ideals come to an agreeable and stand still aims since oppositions will always thrive and in this opposing will be included a huge chunk of women. Therefore the fundamental basis for feminism is on and will always be on the brink of collapse. On the other hand the conventional theories strongly points out that there exists the two major genders which is the masculine (male) and the feminine (female). On this premise according to Butler (1990), this kind of grouping posses a tendencies to link a sex-gender- desires, in that some people will be prone to desire the opposite sex. Therefore, Butler (1990) insists that gender is not the basis for our identity, it only proffer our ground on how we behave at different times under different circumstances. The variation suggested above is that though one being a woman in nature she will at times have the inclination of possessing feeling of being a man or wanting to behave like a man. This can be illustrated by Butler (1990) in pointing out Aretha Franklin song. It is imminent and obvious that this notion can be pointed out in this changed dispensation such that the dressing code for women has changed drastically to resemble those of men. Just as espoused in this work, the desirous tendencies to an opposite sex has fomented breeding group to other social aspects such as homosexuality (gays and lesbians), as can be pointed out by the controversial celebrity Madonna as a good example for queer theory. According to Fineman et al. (2009) queer theory is meant to propel and expound on sex affirmative response hence the need to clarify pro-sex oppositions base on the “cultural feminist moralism and to male/female model regulatory ambitions. Consequently on the other hand it can be said to be Shame affirmative. The media in society has played a significant role in the manner thing are perceived and/or recognized in the society. In deed mankind would be living in bliss of ignorance if it were not for information being relayed to the masses by way of some sort of communication either through books, magazines, Television as well as internet. From these media people are able to gather information that are of interest to them such that others will be influenced by sentiments depicted in the information in order to adopt a new way of life and identity. According to Cromwell (1999) the information obtained from “the medico-psychological discourse shamed me into hating myself, as it does many other transpeople.” It is from this kind of literature that most people come to know their identities which in any event they have to accept reality and identify themselves with their body demand and/or morphology. This problem is widely experiences by those who are in the realm of transsexual (Cromwell, 1999). According to (Butler, 1990) gender identity does not depict the natural order but it is as a result of every day utterances by way of speech, representations, action, gesture, behavior and dress code among others. People faced with feeling inside their bodies that directs them to the opposite direction in clash to the conventional ways can be said to be under the force of body transformation. The thirst for change cannot be quenched and therefore the society will always undergo transformation in actions and in thoughts. What Butler propounded in the 90’s has found ground to expound itself and indeed many attributes such as homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality. transexuality and politics of gender comes in to perspective. A great deal of discourse has been expatiated on the subjects. The manner in which we perceive gender according to Butler must be changed and therefore the role attached to the different sexes can be shared based on circumstances and an eventual fruitage will be equality as opposed to the route taken by the feminist radicals. That being a man or a woman has no difference in achieving equality. Therefore detaching from the conventional thinking and perception and embracing the new view on the gender roles will be the basis for achieving level playing field for women in the political dimension and it will force the extinction of the dominant patriarchal society. Again the individual actions and behavior are part and parcel of hi/her life. The reality of thing has been made possible by the human mind which is the fundamental basis upon which thoughts and images are created which later can be made tangible. As a result nothing is impossible in the behaviors of man. From whence the mind perceives, the heart follows. Today’s world is full of different phenomenon that in a sense the freedom entitled to each individual propels him/her to hover around some mystic tendencies and come up with action pact results. Which when sieved reasonably with cause displeasure and abhorrence but nevertheless it is the freedom of expression and association that will dictate any eventuality. Those living within a certain space and time would have to appreciate any development and conform to the theories proposed on the body morphology, identity and sexual orientation. Gender aspect will have to come in handy to distinguish itself based on what one perceives it to entail. Various gender roles would play significant aspect in creating an attribute of what really an individual is according to his acts as suggested by Butler, in which case identity has been a creature of our persistent performances as can be captured from the following sentiments by (Butler, 1990), “In opposition to theatrical or phenomenological models which takes the gendered self to be prior to its acts, I will understand constituting acts not only as constituting the identity of the actor, but as constituting that identity as a compelling illusion, an object of belief”. References Baumeister, R. (2001). Social Psychology and Human Sexuality: Essential Readings. London: Psychology Press. Beemyn, B & Steinman, E. (2001). Bisexual Men in Culture and Society. London: Routledge. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of identity. London: Routledge. Cromwell, J. (1999). Transmen and FTMs: Identities, Bodies, Genders and Sexualities. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Fineman, M. Jackson, J & Romero, A. (2009). Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable. London: Ashgate Publishng, Ltd. Walby, S. (2011).The Future of Feminism. New York: Polity. Read More