Peeing, Hair, and Gender, Oh My!

            As the semester comes to an end it is amazing to realize the impact that this class has had on my viewpoints of all things media.  I was already a critical consumer, however, after completing the course packet and throughout the semester, I have noticed that my viewpoint has become even more critical.  Although my critical viewpoint continues to grow, it has also become more thoughtful, and more hopeful for change.

            Throughout the semester we have read several articles, including Sloop’s book, Disciplining Gender, in which one of the main topics of discussion in terms of gender is what haircut the person has and which restroom they use.  Do they stand up to pee or do they sit down, that is the ultimate question.  It is interesting to see how transfixed our society is on simple things that we claim distinguish if a person is man or woman.  Until we completed all of the readings, I had never realized how important these factors are to our society.

            One of the most popular and award winning shows on television right now, Game of Thrones, only reiterated how gender is distinguished through hair and peeing.  In the second episode of the second season, one of the main characters, Ayra, is performing as a boy in order to stay alive.  In the opening scene of the episode, Ayra is shown squatting in a stream urinating.  Later on in the episode she is conversing with one of the other men in her group and he claims to know that she is a girl.  Outraged, she says that she is not, which then leads to him telling her to pee in front of him to prove that she is a male.  She refuses which proves her friends point, that she is female because she will not whip out male genitalia and pee in front of him.

            Not only to Ayra need to pee like a boy, but in order to “fit in” with the Knight’s Watch, the commander cuts her hair so that she will be less distinguishable.  While he is only looking out for her welfare, there are several male characters in the series that have longer hair. It is arguable that she is a younger character, therefore her gender needs to be reinforced by these established norms, however, there are several other boy’s in the series that have longer hair.  The actress who plays Ayra does not have any stereotypical distinguishing feminine qualities.  It is interesting that even in this fictional place in a medieval time period, hair is a determining factor of gender.

            I love this show.  It has strong female characters who challenge the normal gender roles.  They are powerful, they are in control, and a lot of times they do not need a man to help them.  They are conquering kingdoms and vying for the crown that so many of the lead male characters lust after.  However, despite all of these progressive traits for the female characters, I still find it disturbing that the young girl Ayra is confined to the gender stereotype of short hair equals boy and long hair equals girl.

If Ayra was a person existing in our society today, her hair would most likely be a large topic of discussion in the media, especially once it was discovered that she is a girl posing as a boy.  I am sure that there would be discussion and interviews of her peers, much like the discussion surrounding Brandon Teena, about whether or not they saw her pee with them, which obviously distinguishes her gender.  However, unlike Brandon Teena, I do not think that Ayra would be villainized in our media, solely because she is a young girl trying to stay alive.  Her deception has purpose outside of her “selfish” gains to find love.

After this class, I know that I will never consume media in the same way.  I see gender norms and am frustrated by it in every television show, every movie, every media outlet that I enjoy.  There is no going back, and I think that is a good thing.

            

Women Soldiers at Abu Ghraib; Leadership essay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA43BhdXUmw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yxdKolSkg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

 The Abu Ghraib scandal that came to light in April 2004 was a powerful and horrific display of human brutality orchestrated by several of America’s soldiers in Iraq. The article, Gender (In)Visibility at Abu Ghraib, by Marita Gronnvoll, examines the media presentations of the story and how gender played a role in this coverage. The media focused most of its attention on Lynndie England and her fiancé Charles Graner. England and Graner, among others, forced Iraqi prisoners to pose in sexually explicit photographs, often with their heads covered. England and Graner appeared in many of these photographs, either smiling or holding a ‘thumb’s up’ sign. Gronnvoll organized this reading into different sections that focused on different aspects of how the media covered this scandal. Gronnvoll began by examining the contrast between the way the women and men involved in these incidents were portrayed. Previously, in this class, we discussed the work of Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex. In this work, Beauvoir noted that “Women are defined in gendered terms, but men are simply defined as universal humans” (p 374).

Gronvoll goes on to give numerous examples where the women involved in Abu Ghraib were described as “women soldiers” rather than just “soldiers.” It is as though their gender had to be qualified by adding in that they are women, not just soldiers. The norm for soldiers is male, so the women automatically differed from the norm. The media also had to provide some kind of explanation as to why a woman would behave in such a masculine manner. England’s physical body was called into question, and she was described as tough and as a tomboy, in order to prove her abnormality as a woman. However, no media outlets called the physicality of the male soldiers into question. Gronnvoll makes another connection to previous class readings when she discussed Sloop’s book, stating, “this binary gender system leads us to expect as normal particular behaviors from men and particular behaviors from women” (p 377). Gronnvoll goes onto explain “the media coverage of England’s behavior at Abu Ghraib focuses on her failure to behave as a women should, whereas the media coverage of Graner’s behavior focuses on his failure to behave as an honorable soldier should” (p 377).

England received a lot of scrutiny from the media and her character was frequently attacked. She was said to be sexually promiscuous and seductive, often baring her naked body for the camera. Graner’s behavior, however, was almost explained away by the media. His wife had an affair while he was off at war, making him heartbroken and angry. Whereas England was just a sexually promiscuous deviant who cannot seem to follow traditional gender norms. Gronnvoll also chose to discuss the sexuality of the male soldiers and the male prisoners in this story. She discussed how the male soldiers were never seen alone in pictures with the naked prisoners. I believe she included this section in order to make the point that “the ultimate humiliation is to be feminine” (p. 389). However, this is where I would like to insert my first weakness of the article. To be honest, I felt as though this is a critique of the soldiers, rather than how the media regarded these soldiers. Therefore, it seemed like an odd discussion to insert into the article, since most of Gronnvoll’s discussion was of the portrayal of the media, rather than critiques on the individual soldiers. She does bring it back full circle when she discussed that no media called for a review of the military’s demonizing of the feminine. I just feel that the reader could get a little lost trying to follow along waiting for her to get to her point during this section.

 One strength of the article is the amount of research that she brings in to examine. The reader was better able to see that Gronnvoll’s points are valid and real because there was so much evidence to back them up. Also, the research cited was from some of the most well known media outlets in the world (Washington Post, Rolling Stone, New York Times). Anytime research is brought in from such a wide range of highly respected media, it is pretty clear that the author has done his/her homework. Another strength is the ease of readability of the article. This article could be useful for both rhetorical scholars and curious laypeople alike. The article was written in such a way that draws the reader in, even if they have no rhetorical experience. And the points that Gronnvoll made were also backed up by numerous research from a variety of sources. Even though the text was small and contained many pages, it was still an interesting and insightful read. In addition, I admit with most of the points that Gronnvoll made in her discussion. Especially the points about how the media portrayed England as a “woman soldier” rather than just a soldier. There was so much focus on why she deviated from traditional feminine behavior, and how a woman could perform such horrific acts.

One news sources said that they actually expected a woman to know better. What I just don’t understand is why? Why do the media and people in general expect women to act so different than men? Gronnvoll asserted that it is because women are traditional expected to be more docile and nurturing. And it become unnerving and uncomfortable when a woman deviates away from this behavior. Throughout this reading I kept being reminded of the article we read about Brandon Teena. He deviated from typical feminine behavior and acted in accordance with more masculine gender roles. People around him did not know how to react and respond, so they turned to judgement. They called his character into question in order to try to explain why he acted the way that he did. This is similar to what the media did to Lynndie England in the Abu Ghraib case. As I previously mentioned, the media had a field day taking shots at England’s physical body, her history, her sexuality.

 The media had to provide some kind of explanation as to why she was deviating away from traditional gender roles. That is why the behavior of the males in this story doesn’t have to be explained away. Males are traditionally expected to be violent, going along with the warrior mentality. So, naturally, the men in this story were just doing what men do. That is why it was not nearly as shocking for the men to be involved in something so horrific than it was to see women involved. Interestingly enough, England does not see herself as the media sees her. In this interview clip from the Associated Press, she described herself as victim of love, doing what she thought she needed to in order to please her male fiancé. I see this as a way that England wants to prove her traditional female role; wanting to please a man any way necessary. She wants to get back in the good graces of the media and the public, and this is one “excuse” that positions her as a helpless female, powerless to stop the orders of a man.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQ3pvi6JLY

 Overall, I really agreed with the points made in this reading, but was obviously sickened to read about such a horrific event. But I was also sickened to see how the media handled the coverage of this event. It frustrates me to see women constantly gendered and referred to as “women.” Yes, that is what we are: we are women. But why does that word have to qualify everything that discusses us? Women soldiers, women police officers, women doctors. In a world where the norm is to be male, women still make some people nervous. Especially women who are infiltrating traditional male roles.

Threats to Masculinity

Amy Yount

The two articles for this week (Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s “Mr. Mom” and Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity: Reclaiming a Life & Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality) contained a common theme and that was the fact that men feel threatened by a lack of heteronormativity. In the first article, the stay at home fathers can almost be seen as a threat to masculinity because these “Mr. Moms” are not conforming to the typical gender norms of working hard and ‘bring home the bacon.’

Mr. Mom refers to “the inversion of traditional heterosexual family roles such that the husband stays a home to care for the children while his spouse is employed outside the home to earn the family’s income” (p. 355). However, this inversion of traditional gender norms represent a straying away from the ideal nuclear family where either both parents work outside the home, or the father works outside the home while the mother stays at home to rear the children. And even more interestingly, in order to explain away this “threat” the media explains this decision for the father to stay home as a “choice.” Even if the father was laid off from work and that is why he is staying home, it is still a choice, a decision. However, if it was the mother who was staying home with the children, these same types of explanations would not have to be offered. It would be a much more logical and common decision to come to.

In the second article, the boys who murdered Brandon Teena were threatened by Brandon’s new brand of masculinity. Brandon was sensitive, and shy, and “different” from other men. That is why women fell for him, because he could offer them something different. However, this was a complete and total threat to the men in that city. Brandon felt he had to conform to the traditional ideals of masculinity, such as being aggressive and tough. When he acted just like the other men, he was accepted, even admired. However, when he strayed away from the aggressive behaviors of the other men, his gender was called into question. Because how could a man possibly dare to not act like a “man?” When he stopped acting like the other men, more women began to notice him, especially Lana. And when Lana started to notice him, the other men became jealous, because Brandon was different, and was taking their women from them.

It wasn’t just the individuals in each of these stories who felt threatened by these challenges to traditional masculinity, but it was also the media who felt threatened. This can be seen in the portrayal of Michael Keeton’s character (in the movie, Mr. Mom) as a incapable, almost humorous fool trying to do the laundry and take care of the children. This is almost the media’s way of saying, “see, it’s not natural.” The media couldn’t possibly portray this gender norm inversion as anything other than awkward and abnormal. And even more obviously this can be seen in the coverage of the Brandon Teena case. As we saw last week in John Sloop’s book, Brandon was portrayed as sinister and deceitful, trying to fool the poor innocent Midwesterners. The media has to convince the public that these cases are not normal, and are a threat to traditional masculinity. Unfortunately, mainstream America might seem to still agree with this view, but hopefully that will change someday.

Troubled Gender, Identity and Home

How important is it to society to promote a philosophical ideology that gender is ambiguous, or troubled? Reading Sloop’s book, Disciplining Gender, one might have the impression that it is extremely important, and that those who attempt to define themselves as existing within a specific gender category are selling out to the establishment. Even with the expanded societal acceptance of non-traditional gender categories, Sloop suggests that the mere identification of one’s self within a category, traditional, or otherwise, reiterates and reinforces the existence of categories. Only by resisting categorization, he posits, do we create a space where gender is allowed to become more fluid; where it can be viewed on a continuum rather than as discrete entities. He argues that society conditions us to expect categories, so we discipline each other to conform to categories, even if those categories are in and of themselves non-conforming.

For instance, in the chapter on k.d. lang, Sloop argued that in her early years (before she came “out”) she was “far more troubling” than later; that she “moves from troubling gender, sexuality, and genre categories . . . to reaffirming generic and gender categories” (p. 102). He suggested that she moved from the troubling approach due to a need for society to define her. He even hinted that as a result of her decision to identify as butch she was rewarded by society in the form of better musical contracts, more fan support, and greater monetary reward, because she finally fit into some norm that society was willing to accommodate.

But is this the only explanation that can be rendered for k. d. lang’s increased success? I would argue that an alternative process might be at work that is of equal importance—if not to society, certainly to the individual. That is the notion of identity. This notion is hinted at in one of lang’s comments about coming out. She described her move as freeing because it “eliminated a lot of tension. . . . It’s really a fantastic feeling. I highly recommend to anybody in this situation to live in the truth” (p. 96).

In order to understand lang’s position better, I watched several videos of her, both prior to her coming out—the period Sloop argues is far more troubling—and after. I noticed a significant difference in these pre- and post- performances. She seemed more comfortable with herself after she decided to come out. Everything about her music seemed to fit together, from style of dress to style of music. I could see the difference she described. She appeared to have found her personal identity, and was living at ease within the construction she had claimed.

On the other hand, other individuals described within Sloop’s book had difficulty finding a sense of personal identity within a societal-described category. Societal discipline around sexual preferences collided with societal discipline around violent behavior and for two individuals, their exploration of the boundaries describing options for identity resulted in death. So, is this really where Sloop is going with all this rhetoric about creating space for troubling gender? That we need to provide a wider range of options for individuals who can’t find a sense of their personal identity within existing options?

One of the most significant courses I have taken thus far in my doctoral program spent a significant portion of time on theories of student development, which in large part focus on how students sort out a sense of personal identity. These theories are subsets of the broader field of human development, which also includes identity as a major factor of development. I would propose that what our feminist rhetoric is “all about” ultimately, is this search for identity. For lang, finding and claiming her identity was important to her for her personal development. An alternative reading of the other case studies could also make the same claim.

Where does this get us with the notion of troubling societal gender categories? I think it recognizes that many traditional categories give many people fits, even if they aren’t specifically questioning sexual orientation. For instance, as I grew up, the expected activities for a female my age weren’t what I wanted to do. I didn’t like playing with dolls or dressing in pink. I was good at math and science, and could take almost anything apart and put it back together again.

When I got into college, I rebelled at the notion that I was attending to get my MRS. degree. I suggested that in my church's Young Women’s and Relief Society instruction, we should prepare our girls and women for roles other than wife and motherhood, because the reality was that many girls and women would grow up and choose alternate paths. We shouldn’t be so short-sighted that we fail to acknowledge the legitimacy and normality of alternate paths, because the search for one’s place in the world—one’s identity—is important for people. Thus, if troubling a gender category is what is necessary to provide people with alternatives in order to find identity, I can see where there is value in pushing those limits.

However, as I read Sloop’s (2004) arguments of how culture disciplines gender, and drives rhetoric around sexual identity, I didn’t have a sense that he was working towards providing people with additional options for seeking identity. He seemed to argue that the important thing is the turbulence; that reducing turbulence is antithetical to the feminist movement. So, throughout the book, I couldn’t help but wonder how comfortable any person might feel living a life of “troubled gender” as proposed by Sloop. For me, it would leave me too troubled to feel human—to feel like I had any sense of purpose or direction—that I was just another animal—and that is what human development theorists say is the point of establishing identity in the first place—becoming human.

That leads me to wonder if discipline is the practice that makes us human. As we learn to control our thoughts and actions—as we discipline our own selves, we enter into a social contract with those around us, and we become part of humanity. Discipline, therefore, is not a bad thing. It helps us enter into relationships with others so that we can create bonds of understanding. If everything in life were always random, where would we find understanding? Sloop's examples of violent reprisal for gender non-conformance demonstrate what happens when too many life events are random. All discipline departs. Perhaps our categories are too narrow, and they need to be broader, but I can’t agree with Sloop’s final argument that we need more troubling without coming to a final sense of one’s place. Every person wants to find a home.

So, while Sloop talks about the implications of the “politics of ‘homes’” (p. 149) as if it is a bad thing, I am reminded of a song from Pippin entitled Corner of the Sky. Even as the main character explored the breadth of human experience, he always wanted to find his sense of identity—his personal place. It wasn't a societal push, it was an inner urge. I think for humankind this feeling is universal. While we may explore and push our boundaries, ultimately, the search is for a solid place where we can proclaim “This is Who I Am” to the world. We can finally declare, “I am human, and here is my home.”

Where is the love?

I have to admit that confusion is my default feeling after reading Chapter Two: Disciplining the Transgendered: Brandon Teena, Public Representation, and Normativity in the Sloop book.  This confusion is caused by several different factors.  First I think it is wise to acknowledge that the whole Brandon Teena case in itself is a complicated and somewhat confusing case study to analyze.  However, Sloop does not just focus on the case study itself, he branches out to analyze how the media framed this case and the discourse that it caused in society.  All of these layers of analysis within the chapter are enough to make one’s head spin (and I am hoping that I am not alone in this feeling, although it is okay if I am).

Throughout the chapter Sloop discusses how our society thrives on labels and boxes.  The fact that Brandon Teena did not fit into one box or adhere to one label was and still is troublesome to society.  We have discussed in previous classes how the fact that gender and sex is not a fluid construction in our society causes a great deal of trouble.  Sloop’s analysis of Brandon Teena just re-affirms that notion.  It also served to be eye opening as to how narrow minded our society truly is, which for me, is extremely disturbing.  What is even more troublesome for me is that only through the readings of this course and through the light in which Sloop discusses this case have I realized how narrow minded I have been when it comes to gender and sex.

One of the first things that Sloop discusses that caused me anxiety was when he analyzed the rhetoric surrounding the murderers and their motives for killing Teena. The media as well as the two men responsible for abusing and murdering Teena justify their actions by saying that they were hurt by the “deception” that they experienced.  While I can understand that people do not enjoy being deceived and lied to, I hardly think that is just cause for the brutal actions that both men inflicted upon Teena.  The fact that the media framed Brandon Teena as the one who was guilty of deception simply created an out for his two murders and gave society a reason to excuse the acts of violence and abuse that they participated in.  It is easier for our society to accept and understand something if we are able to relate to it.  Since majority of our society are unable to relate to Brandon Teena, the media needed to find a new spin on the story.  Everyone has experienced deception at some point and level in their life, thus the story becomes relatable.

The media makes this case relatable and accessible in other ways as well.  The audience is validated when it is revealed that there was something “wrong” with Teena, there was a deeper penetrating issue that caused his sexual confusion.  Either there was a hormone imbalance during his mother’s pregnancy or he was sexually abused as a child.  By exposing these tangible instances, it makes it easier for society to accept Brandon Teena’s actions.  We need to be able to create scenarios and instances to make it easier for the situation to accommodate our frame of reference instead of just accepting the fact that Brandon Teena thought he was male, wanted to be male, or whatever he believed. 

I also found it mildly horrifying that the media was so transfixed with determining what Brandon Teena’s true gender and sex was.  I understand that as a society, we need to be able to define the unknown in terms that we are able to understand, but it seems as if in the whole mix of all of this society and the media lost sight of the big picture: someone was sexually abused and murdered in what I see as a hate crime.  In all of the drama surrounding determining if Brandon Teena was male or female, gay or straight, transgendered or transsexual, we forgot one thing: despite what he was or how he identified, he was murdered, and shouldn’t that action in itself speak louder than defining his “true” identity?

Reproduction ability: The root of all evil?

In Linda Alcoff’s article, “Cultural Feminism Versus Post Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory,” Alcoff discusses the differing methodological and philosophical views held by Culture and Post Structuralist feminists. In her discussion of cultural feminism she mentions the views of Mary Daly who asserts that “male barrenness leads to parasitism on female energy” (p. 408). She goes on to say that since men cannot physically have children, they become dependent on women for reproduction. In turn, men become insecure and want to dominate the women in their lives.

Alcoff states, “The only real difference, the only difference that can change a person’s ontological placement on Daly’s dichotomous map, is sex difference. . . her definition is strongly linked to female biology” (p. 409). Thus, Daly (as cited by Alcoff) is saying that the biggest differences between men and women lie not in the construction of gender, but rather in the physical and biological anatomy of the two sexes.

So then does Daly not believe in gender at all? Or is she merely saying that it is not as important as sex? This particular discussion within cultural feminism reminds me of the article, “The Evolution of Gender and Communication Research,” by Dow & Wood that we read a few weeks ago which said, “Cultural feminism, the goal of which is to celebrate a distinctive women’s culture that reflects essentialist views of femininity” (p. 14). So then what makes up this “distinctive women’s culture”, or even more specifically, what makes up a “woman”? It seems that some cultural feminists, such as Daly, believe that men are more dominate and powerful in society simply because they are ‘overcompensating’ for their lack of reproductive ability. But what if a woman is not able to reproduce? Is she automatically equal to a man because the man no longer feels threatened by her?

 It is an interesting perspective that Daly takes within cultural feminism. However, I feel it is not possible to talk about male/female inequality without taking gender into account. I believe it is the replication of certain gendered actions, such as those discussed by Butler in “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution” that make a woman a woman and a man a man. Alcoff, who quotes another feminist, Rich, states, “The ancient, continuing envy, awe and dread of the male for the female capacity to create life has repeatedly taken the form of hatred for every other female aspect of creativity” (p. 410). To me, this means that the ability to reproduce, or the biological sex differences, create the basis for hatred which then carries over into everything that is ‘feminine’ or gender related.  The foundation of this need for control and patriarchical hierarchy among men has its foundations in the male’s lack of ability to reproduce.

Cultural feminism is an interesting perspective that Alcoff discusses in her article. However, it is the view point taken by Daly that really captured my attention as an interesting explanation into the creation of continuation of feminism.

Beauvoir Literature Review

De Beauvoir, S. (1972). Introduction. In H. M. Parshley (Trans.), The Second Sex. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm (Original work published 1949)

Summary:

In her introduction to The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir established her argument that women have traditionally been treated as other with a woman’s context existing only in relation to men. Thus, she claims, “humanity is male” and women is “not regarded as an autonomous being” (para. 6). She claimed that the category of other is “a fundamental category of human thought” (para. 7) that is juxtaposed against the self. In addition, Beauvoir argued, by creating a division between self and other humans justify treatment of those defined as other as less-worthy of a host of privileges. Hence non-natives are generally labeled ‘foreigners’ by those who are native to a country, and non-white races are often labeled ‘inferior’ by those who are white. Beauvoir also claimed that the notion of other turns that individual inessential; or “the object” (para. 9).

Beauvoir next argued that in most cases where the concept of other exists, people are often awakened to the realization that they, too, can be considered other by changes to their environment, such as moving to another country. Oftentimes the other is defined by virtue of a minority status. But women are not a minority—most statistics show them slightly exceeding men in total world population. Beauvoir noted that power inequities have often created other populations; however there have always been women. She claimed that throughout history women have always been subject to men, and that the bond of subjectivity was created by virtue of women’s biological differences from men.

Beauvoir explored the impact of women living in a world where men make and enforce the rules. She claimed that many of the accomplishments claimed by previous feminists were only those that men had been willing to grant, as a master grants his slave certain privileges, but the slave remains in slavery. Furthermore, she suggested that women have been unwilling to claim complete freedom for fear that they will lose the few privileges they have been afforded in the past. “Refusal to pose oneself as the Subject, unique and absolute, requires great self-denial” (para. 24).

Next Beauvior visited the arguments that are often posed as justification for either men or women to be viewed as superior, including the notion of creation (e.g., Adam was first, therefore Eve is secondary to him vis a vis Adam was a rough draft, and Eve was the culmination of God’s perfection in creation). She proposed that the conflict created by these arguments only adds to notions of superiority and inferiority, and we need to start over. However, she cautioned, a sex neutral individual would not have the understanding of the situation, and it is only women, who have experienced the state of womanhood, who can adequately speak for their state and status.

Finally, Beauvior argued that happiness is not the measurement by which we need to assess women’s place in the world. She posited that much of the world views the state of happiness as equivalent to rest. However, she stated, “every subject plays his part as such specifically through exploits or projects that serve as a mode of transcendence; he achieves liberty only through a continual reaching out towards other liberties” (para. 30). Rest is always accompanied by a “degradation of existence . . . and of liberty into constraint and contingence” (para 30). Thus, she stated, she is interested in the “fortunes of the individual as defined not in terms of happiness but in terms of liberty” (para 31). Only by understanding how biological, physiological, psychological, and economic forces have contributed to attempts to control women’s destiny can women “envisage the difficulties in their way, as endeavoring to make their escape from the sphere hitherto assigned to them, they aspire to full membership in the human race” (para 32).

Connections:

The concept of other has been explored by a number of philosophers. Buber (1927/1971) referred to this concept as I and Thou, where the creation of Thou occurs when the I individual views the partner in the relationship as subject rather than object. Otherwise, he described the individuals as I and It. Buber argued that when people view each other as I and Thou, they are able to build relationships with each other. He described the I and It view as merely experience, without engagement. Buber stated that when we view objects (or It) we engage in classification, counting, perceiving, subjugating, dissipating, perpetuating, or any number of actions on the object. Our sentence construction demonstrates this idea: I (subject) tossed the ball (object) away. It is only when we view another as subject or Thou that we engage with that person. Again, sentence construction demonstrates this idea: You and I (subject) discussed our ideas (object). We allow that person the freedom to act for him- or her- self, rather than expecting the person to behave in some manner we have created expectations of or for.

Beauvoir’s arguments echoed Buber’s writings from two decades earlier. In this case, Beauvoir has applied them to an entire group, rather than focusing on a single interpersonal relationship, as Buber did. These views are often placed in the existentialist camp of philosophy—a belief that the agency of humankind allows men and women to direct their own existence, and the quality of their lives will be driven by the choices they make, good or ill. Beauvoir clearly argued that women are not condemned by their biology to a specific destiny; rather women need to find their own path unrestricted by the views of men who classify them as other.

With her insistence that it is women who need to speak for women, and who need to work for their liberty, Beauvoir set the stage for what is now referred to as standpoint theory. Standpoint theory suggests that differences in perception (caused by different lived experiences) are necessary to understand and explain how an individual frames his or her way of knowing and acting. Standpoint theory tends to be critical of claims of objectivity and the scientific method when researching because researchers often do not recognize their own limitations due to unshared experience. Beauvoir’s argument that women need to do their own research laid a foundation for the second wave of feminism—of women who studied their own situation and made claims for their own direction. While many have criticized Beauvoir for her attempt to be inclusive—to create a world where men and women worked towards equality and liberty together—her emphasis that the woman’s voice was required in order to achieve that goal is solidly within the philosophical tradition of standpoint theory.

Finally, Beauvoir introduced the notion that one’s sex does not predestine one’s gender. While she denied the value of a neutral gender, she did object to the idea that one’s biological conformation predetermined how a person should live and act. Rather, she argued that women and men should have the ability to self-determine what characteristics they deemed important, and not some notion of femininity or masculinity. As people increasingly feel the need to understand how the concept of gender plays into their personal identity, we can look to Beauvoir for an initial reading of the difference between one’s biological sex, and one’s gender identity.

On a side note, I found an interesting connection to this concept in part of our scripture reading in church yesterday. The scripture exhorted a man’s sons (biological sex) to rise up and be men (gender identity) (2 Nephi 1:21; Book of Mormon). Our discussion revolved around what it meant to be men. We may believe that sex and gender are one and the same in the religious setting, but they are not.