“Gender as Performance”

This lecture was by fair my favourite lecture of the module in the whole of the semester so far. Judith Butlers reading was fascinating. In class we first established that discourse was very important in the way words shape certain meaning in certain situations. The repetition of words, more specifically, and it associations with masculinity and femininity are embedded from the moment we are conceived. For example, pink is associated with females and blue with males. I agree with Butler that our sexual identities, in this way, are predetermined not only by our parents but by professionals which stabilise these ‘social constructions’. Meena’s example was very useful in hammering home the point – if a body by its physical was a female but the internal makeup suggested that the chromosomes was actually that of a males, doctors would encourage parents to ‘bring it up as a girl’ – whatever this might mean! Although I was aware that socially constructions existed I never really paid much attention to that argument in justification to homosexuality or even heterosexuality. I now agree with Butler that when we are born we are virtuously ‘sexless’ but our sexual identities in society becomes moulded by people around us who define what is right and wrong to believe, for the ‘ignorant mass’. The media uses serious political stances for it own benefits i.e. feminism and domestic house work and the bounty kitchen towel advert, where men dress up as women (to mock). Lastly, it is quite worrying that most women (as a generalisation) would view woman that either could not have children or did not want to have children as a lesser woman. I have been guilty of thinking this, myself. But Butler’s rhetorical question stunned me; ‘to what extent does a body get defined by its capacity for pregnancy? Why is it pregnancy by which that body gets defined?’ Just because one processes the ability to reproduce and conceive does not mean that she has to use it – the norm would explicitly suggest that as a female you must reproduce in order to be a female (this is certainly not the case). Females do not impregnate for most longer periods in their life, does that make them male? No! Females want females when they are young but we are constantly pushed away from this and manipulated into thinking that we should prefer the opposite sex because we can not be them (and this is commonly the norm), although their has been as outbreak of homosexuality – But Butler takes the same standpoint in view of homosexuality as she does to heterosexuality, as you can not develop a norm on what people do and suggests that once should be open to change. In accordance to Habeeba’s religious take on homosexuality or sexuality in general lies the double-edge-sword in the discussion. Religion determines sexuality to a certain extent i.e. Adam and Eve etc, which I believe is a fair argument. This thought is probably prevalent in pretty much all religions esp. Eastern religions. But this is quite odd since you take on a liberal perspective on multiculturalism but find it difficult that people freely choose to be homosexual? Does this mean that although people may have the freedom to do whatever they please we do not have to agree with it – or accept it? In agreement with Butler again, those that are fundamentally against homosexuality are indeed suppressed in their desires to become homosexual, since they dedicate so much time into ‘hating’ there must be some underlying interest. Take a look at this link. It questions the possibility that homosexuality is due to natural factors and least to do with nurturing, although this could play a small part. Furthermore its addresses a 'scientific' theory which suggests that those males who have numerous older brother increases their change of being homosexual by a third. The scientists debate on whether it is more to do with the distribution on hormones rather than genetics. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_Osw05HGe5I