CR #6

Feminism is by no means perfect and Judith Butler, in their book, "Gender Trouble", definitely makes a case against some traditional feminists views. In the very first chapter, Butler points out that using an identity such as "women" to unite can be problematic. The idea that there is an "ideal woman" is just asking for trouble...Gender trouble that is! Class, race, mobility, sexuality, and other intersections of identity create many various barriers and thus it is not possible to group any category of gender or any other identity for that matter under one term. Not all women experience life in the same ways. Not all woman have the same needs, wants, desires. In other words, Butler argues that using "Women" as a form of unity is not necessary for feminism to be successful and acknowledging difference is imperative. I think that this brings up a good point. While women based organizations can be very powerful when it comes to social justice, they can also be oppressive and further marginalize certain female populations without even realizing it. In connection with Qwo-Li Driskill's "Intentional Masculinities", they point out that "Second-wave feminists" supported the idea that a man can't be a feminist. This is based off the idea that men and woman are separate and that masculinity and femininity are only reserved to corresponding male and female. This again, is a constructed idea and "manifests in gender binary".

Butler further argues that gender and sex are both constructed. This is in opposition of the traditional feminist notions that sex is biological and gender is constructed. Identities themselves are not only constructed by culture/society, they are also self-constructed; which can be a form of resistance to the traditional gender binary. Butler explains that gender is "performed" and the example used is Drag because it can point out, more obviously, gender binaries. The gender binary also constitutes a "gender hierarchy" that places men at the top and woman at the bottom. It has been argued this creates a specific heterosexual norm or "box" that constructs specific male and female identities as normative. Butler argues that heterosexuality needs "homosexuality" in order to remain "stable" or the "norm". This is a concept we have discussed in class that "heterosexuality" wasn't even a concept or a norm before "homosexuality".

While I do agree that there is an link between gender and sex, I also think that through examination, gender and sex can be disassembled and reconstructed as Qwo-Li Driskill points out in "Intentional Masculinities". Some have argued that Bisexuality is the margin that breaks the sex binary of "Lesbian/Gay" and "Straight". What is so scary about dismantling gender? What is so bad about being "feminine"? I believe that plenty of people have been living lives resisting these binaries, myself included. Shouldn't that be a sign that it is time to re-evaluate how gender and sex constructions are impacting our lives?