… that gender is a choice, or that gender is a role, or that gender is a construction that one puts on, as one puts on clothes in the morning, that there is a ‘one’ who is prior to this gender, a one who goes to the wardrobe of gender and decides with deliberation which gender it will be today.
- Judith Bulter, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
What makes a man a man, and a woman a woman? Please leave your anatomical musings to one side and I’ll rephrase the question. What makes a man masculine and a woman feminine? Or simply: what is masculinity and what is femininity? Unfortunately, modules in Feminism or Gender Studies managed to elude me during my time at university, so I’m currently filling this gap in my spare time to bring you, not so much the answers to the aforementioned questions, but a few thoughts at least.
Within my own experience, the two primary components that have influenced my understanding of gender identity have been my parents and religion, specifically evangelical Christianity in Northern Ireland. My understanding of gender identity has been mostly untouched until a recently kindled interest in feminism and gender studies was set in motion. I’ve read bits and pieces on these subjects, but the two main books that stand out as significant texts are: ‘Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women’ by Susan Faludi, and ‘Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity’ by Judith Bulter. Backlash is a brief history and exposition of the women’s liberation movement, whereas Gender Trouble deals more with gender identity. Both books are regarded as game-changing works within their respective areas and I highly recommend both.
‘Backlash’, as the name suggests, is about how a male-dominated America reacted to the rise of feminism and the woman’s liberation movement of the last century. It examines the national view of feminism and womanhood in mainstream media, film, politics, academia, religious groups, and the fashion industry of the United States. Although women remain the dominant gender in terms of percentage of the population, the influential figures in these aforementioned sectors, particularly media and marketing, were almost all men. The book examines how this male monopoly has fostered inequality. Faludi begins her exposition of the women’s liberation movement by examining the nature of its main opponents, she notes:
“The Victorian era gave rise to mass media and mass marketing – two institutions that have since proved more effective devices for constraining women’s aspirations than coercive laws and punishments. They rule with the club of conformity, not censure, and claim to speak for female public opinion, not powerful male interests.”
Those involved in American mainstream media and marketing seemed to ignore, cover-up, denounce, and sometimes praise female empowerment, but only when it suited them to do so. Many reputable magazines at the time created fallacies such as a ‘man shortage’ to encourage women to marry sooner rather than later, and claimed that the demographic with the highest rate of depression was single women. During this period, the backlash of the popular press, including many magazines, declared that ‘successful women’ are actually miserable because they are too liberated. This national criticism of female empowerment, Faludi notes, helped nurture the idea that one should get married and do so quickly. Consequently, many young women found themselves enrolling in college with the primary goal of finding a suitable husband.
The long and short story of these claims is that they were completely untrue or had been blatantly over-stated. More comprehensive, reputable research, which was ignored because it aided female empowerment and gender equality, proved that there was no ‘man shortage’ that had reached pandemic levels within the United States, and the demographic with the highest rate of depression was actually married, not single, women. Furthermore, single men seemed to be more prone to mental health problems than single women.
The backlash in popular film was also unsettling. Almost all major studios were saturated by male influence which resulted in the demonising of strong, independent women on screen, and glorifying the passive, brooding, subordinate, Marilyn Monroe types. This ‘model woman’ is seen in many films from the 1940s and 1950s, particularly Westerns, and evolved into a different but equally subordinate model in later decades. Of course there are exceptions, but very few. Faludi points out, and much to my own personal disappointment I must add, that even the strong-willed, mouthy space engineer, Ripley, is portrayed as a maternal figure in Aliens, protecting the child, who calls her ‘Mommy’, from the monsters. In my mind, Ripley’s relationship with the young girl, Newt, did not complete her as a woman but kind of ruined her as a character. Poor show, James Cameron.
In her list of other note-worthy films, Faludi includes, Fatal Attraction, which she believes contains a core underlying anti-feminine point: the best kind of single woman is a dead one. Another is ‘Three Men and a Baby’, where the film derives all its humour from the reversal of what it deems the natural order: mum in charge of the baby. Faludi continues:
“By comparison the Movie ‘Patti Rocks’ got a good share of reviews but mostly animosity and rejection from Hollywood. Field [The Female Director] was turned away from many studios because the film’s message was irresponsible as it showed a single woman indulging in sex with whomever she pleased. (This same moral concern never surfaced in three men and a baby, where the randy bachelors randomly scatter their seed.”
Following her critique of the inequality within American film, Faludi moves to the politics of the fashion world. Like the film industry in Hollywood, most of the top designers and CEOs of major firms where male and sought to stamp their rule over, what they understood to be, the subordinate women of America. I’ve heard people say that the fashion industry is the way it is because of simple supply and demand, i.e. large firms supply what women want. However, I don’t believe this because not everyone played by this rule. Rather than prioritising profit, many designers and stores sought to mould and shape the female appearance as they saw fit, much to their own detriment, as Faludi notes:
“despite the fact that demand hadn’t fallen, major department stores phased out the executive-dressing wings that they had opened for profession women of the 1970s. The 1987s saw the arrival of ruffled dresses but the subsequent bankruptcy of Alcott & Andrew in 1989.”
The story that Faludi is trying to tell is the story of the uphill battle that was (and is) the women’s liberation movement. Although there were great successes within the movement there were, and still are, many obstacles impeding the march for gender equality. Faludi’s offers a bleak diagnosis of the effect of the continuing backlash upon women’s liberation movement:
“Instead of assailing injustice, many women have learned to adjust to it. Instead of getting angry, they have become depressed. Instead of uniting their prodigious numbers, they have splintered and turned their pain and frustration inward, some in starkly physical ways.”
This is a great book for anyone interested in gender coercion, particularly those who are troubled by human trafficking, which continues to grow in negative publicity (and rightly so). Human trafficking and prostitution is an obvious form of how women are coerced into doing things, and becoming things that men want them to be. Faludi’s intension is to show the extent of gender coercion, even in supposedly developed and democratic nations, in everyday life. Even today, coercion of women exists well beyond the realms of the whore house and strip club. In fact, confronting institutions, such as film, fashion, politics, and mainstream media, which exercise many (often subtle) forms of coercion, should be equally as high on our list of priorities.
Despite the fact that it makes for an interesting read, Backlash doesn’t get into the more juicy philosophical questions of female identity in order to find a way forward, so I still don’t really know the answer to ‘what is femininity?’ However, Faludi’s background is in journalism so we’ll let her off for now. Nevertheless, some questions continue to bother me. Could a true definition of femininity be developed providing it’s done through a truly female phenomenological examination? Is that even possible? And what would it mean for women (and men)? Some further reading is required me thinks.
Here’s a bit of relatively up-to-date Fauldi:
“And when women do not need to live through their husbands and children, men will not fear the love and strength of women, nor need another’s weakness to prove their own masculinity.”
- Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique.
The trial of Colin Duffy and Brian Shivers over the murders of two British soldiers back in 
2009 (and a number of other charges) thoroughly clogged up the old social networking feeds last Friday. As trending on twitter goes, it peaked at the fourth in the world, if only for a few moments before the inevitable barrage of more menial trends overtook it. Still, it had me hooked to the TV and interwebs all day.
Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar were the two young servicemen within the British army who were both due to begin service in Afganistan a few days after they were murdered. Both men were gunned down while stepping outside the barracks they were stationed in at Antrim to pick up a delivery in 2009.
I remember driving through Antrim in the early morning a few hours after the shooting took place. In the days to follow there was an almost tangible sense of national grief, distress and anger. These feelings were unearthed once more following Friday’s trial. However, for some the feelings of overwhelming grief and distress had veered off into the realm of outrage, or at least this is the impression I got from social networks. One aspect of the coverage of this trial that everyone couldn’t help but notice was that there was very little mention of the prosecution and sentencing of Brian Shivers after the news broke that the co-accused, Colin Duffy, was acquitted.
Now before I go ahead and put my foot right in it and confuse (you) the reader into thinking that I am defending Colin Duffy, let me now say clearly and categorically, that this is not the case. Having read the full version of the trial online, I found myself agreeing with the judge’s comment s that there were ‘strong suspicions’ about Duffy due to a sample of his DNA found in the vehicle used that night. However, instead of commenting on an individual within the trial, I wish to offer a brief comment on the trial itself (and perhaps all judicial trials) as a response to the many people who feel that the judge’s final decision was a colossal ‘failure of the justice system’ or that it was a ‘joke’. For all intents and purposes, I feel it is important to interject and state that acquittal is not a failure of the justice system per se but a vital element of a fully functioning one. One cannot be put in prison based on suspicion no matter how strong that suspicion may be. A judge must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sentence an individual according to the charges against them. Judiciary 101.
I believe that previous alternatives to the current judicial setup leave a lot to be desired as many are not conducive to the nurture of peace and stability in Northern Ireland. Putting people in prison indefinitely, based on a suspicion or rumour, no matter how strong or widespread it may be, should not be an option. I don’t believe that stepping back in time to a period when internment was exercised (although it may satisfy some) is an effective way of moving forward as a nation.
If anything, I hope by writing this I can coax a few people into taking a more eagle-eyed interest in the judicial proceedings in our country. The case in question will continue to have my interest as investigations continue. So, if, like me, this trial has sparked your curiosity in the workings of the justice system in Northern Ireland, you can register an account on the courtsni website and have access to full versions of all published judicial decisions. If you don’t register you can still get the summaries from the same site. The summary of this particular trial can be found here.
For those who aren’t following the theoreical physics trends on twitter, consider yourself filled in on potentially the most important science-related joke of the last 100 years. No doubt that if these discoveries turn out to be correct it will feature in all future science textbooks. Or perhaps it has already appeared in the textbooks of the past…?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/24/einstein-e-equals-mc2
I hope she doesn’t mind me doing this but I would like to draw attention to a newly born website of a local art college student here in Belfast. Check it out! She’s nay bad! On a side note sorry for the lack of images in posts lately. Believe it or not I didn’t bring a camera with me to the US…
Just because I’ve finished university doesn’t mean I’ve finished with Derrida. I think the following song is absolutely brilliant and John Samson is on of my all time favourite lyricists. I’ve listened to and loved this song for many years but gained a whole new appreciation for it after I began to learn more about postmodern philosophers such as Derrida and Foucault. I believe it’s about time I shared it.
The song is about the lead singer, John Samson, and his encounter with the writings of Foucault. In an interview, Samson claims that he had great difficultly with Foucault’s work and how it challenged the modernist concept of grand narrative. In the song, Samson uses his own personal qualms with Foucault and confronts him with what he sees as one of the last great stories of modernity, Ernest Shackleton’s expedition to the Antarctic.
The song plays out as a dialogue between these two characters of history and how their beliefs and careers collide in Samson’s eyes. It ends with the two parting ways and the Shackleton character leaving the discussion in a polite but dismissive fashion essentially saying that all this postmodern stuff is all well and good but I must get back to Antarctica. Although I may differ slightly from Samson in his perception and attitude toward writers such as Foucault, I like to think this is how this particular dinner dialogue would play out. It’s also a fantastic tune.
