A Friendly Response to Part 1

To be clear: I did not write the following post. In fact, a friend wrote this (so eloquently, I might add) in response to my initial post. I give all the credit to the following blog to Ed Fleming, as he writes:

Just thought I'd respond to your blog entry, and the silly comment box
has a character limit within which I refuse to work, for you offer far
too much to discuss. You present a beautiful, well-wrought argument. I
would like to suggest that Butler (and many deconstructionist
theorists) may be hitting the nail on the head with the suggestion
that the masculine and the feminine simply do not exist. We have seen
that these concepts are almost completely arbitrary and shift not only
from culture to culture, but from time to time as well. Who defines
the concept of the overriding "masculine" authority is much like the
concept of "whiteness": desirable traits are determined by a social
elite who wish to maintain a code of behavior among those in power.

In regards to biologically sexed identities, Freud argues that the
male identity comes from the castration anxiety, which directly
results in male behavior being territorial, guarded, aggressive, and
in some ways intellectualized; however, if the female is determined by
her envy of the phallus in turn, those same traits would be absolutely
beneficial in her control of the phallus. Why, then, should a woman
choose submission and emphasis on external beauty to achieve the same
effect? And, conversely, why can a man not avoid castration by making
the phallus (read masculine) beautiful? Wouldn't a male beauty pageant
be just as competitive in concept as an Olympic sport?

One can easily argue that the traits most valued by the dominant in
society have always been "masculine" traits because physical violence
has always proven a more effective method of control than beauty or
literature. This is, of course, untrue over time; violence is a sure
means of obtaining power, but often does not maintain a society.
Historically, civilizations that manage to maintain peace often do so
in periods of high cultural growth (art, language, music, etc.). In
the long-term, the "feminine", then, proves the most generative. You
may wish to tie that back to the biological as women, possessing a
womb, represent regenerative growth while males are more destructive,
but again, we run into problems in polarizing this argument. The
"masculine" does not disappear in peace-time, but it is, perhaps,
better restrained and more productively channeled through the
"feminine". The ideal state, therefore, is the presence of both
gendered identities existing in harmony within one larger identifiable
whole.

This is most apparent in religious studies. Religions are founded on
the masculine and feminine ideals in one entity; Jesus Christ does not
exemplify masculine traits alone, nor do the Bodhisattva. Male
stoicism is meaningless on its own without female compassion, yet we
have some strange preoccupation that these traits are contradictory:
how can one deny emotionalism (masculine), and yet have the level of
compassion necessary to sacrifice one's life for the common good
(feminine)?

In reality, gender roles have nothing to do with sex, but the
disenfranchisement of a minority, and as long as we argue that it is
possible for a woman to shift from the feminine to the masculine and
back again, we contribute to the maintenance of the status quo. A
woman in our society knows that playing sports is a masculine
behavior, regardless of the fact that just as many women are athletic
as men; conversely, she also knows that being a stay-at-home parent is
a feminine occupation. The curious thing to consider is: if the social
normative is determined by those in power, why has the adaptive woman
become more desirable than the traditional Stepford wife? My argument
would be that since the 1950s, the economy has grown (or declined
depending on perspective) to a point where dual-earner households are
almost required and women must be able to compete in the workplace to
complement the male role as breadwinner. Thus, our society is more
celebratory of a woman who can show independence, critical thinking,
and general masculinity because she ensures the economic survival of
the male; of course, the catch is that she still must conform to
traditional standards of feminine beauty while simultaneously
operating in a masculine world. You address this nicely when you
suggest that a woman who enters into a monogamous relationship is
somehow limited in her freedom (though discussion of monogamy is
probably better left for another day).

Conversely, the male is strongly discouraged from emulating the female
even in today's society: your example of men wearing mascara is
somewhat anomalous because it is not by any means as standard a
practice as women wearing pants. Men who wear mascara (or, more
strongly to the point, women's clothing) are marginalized for doing
so, and their sexual identity is always questioned (except, perhaps,
in the case of Alice Cooper). Long hair is the most accepted of male
emulation of the female look; however, it has a longer history and
most recently began in the US as a form of rebellion against the
patriarchal order of conservative America, and thus represented a
"masculine" ideal (emphasized perhaps more by the ubermensch hair
metal of the 80s than anywhere else). I would say arguably that male
fashion is nowhere near as feminized as it could be, but actually
revolves around hiding the male body as a potential sexual object; the
high point of male fashion being the tuxedo, there are a good three or
four layers of oversized clothing between the male form and the suited
appearance, leaving a lot more to the imagination than the average red
carpet gown. Even in dress, masculinity is expressed through guarding,
hiding, or showing superiority (even men who appear shirtless/nude
outside of homosexual culture are often muscular, athletic
individuals). The trend here is that males may not seek to emulate
female beauty, because anything "feminine" is taking step down on the
ladder of hegemony. The troubling part of this is that both women and
men discourage transvestite behavior, thus women reinforce the idea
that a man should not "sissify" himself by trying to look like her.
Here, we see a huge problem in the idea of a female separate from
gendered identity that goes somewhat further than her need to be
validated by a man.

I wish I had more time to go into the androgyne, but I have to wrap up
for now. Most of what I've said is reinforcing what you wrote, with
some different perspectives. I do think there's a biological advantage
to gendering; one of the things you learn in animation is that the
female is often exaggerated because she has to be in order to express
the fact that she is female. In a day and age where people are even
more disconnected and rely more on surface evaluations than ever
before, behavior and dress should be more important in determining
gender; however, through the various feminist movements over the past
century, we actually see a trend in the opposite direction. What I
would propose is that this "obvious" trend is somewhat false; while
women do not wear traditional female clothing as often as they once
did, female clothing is still very much about framing the woman as an
object to be desired/looked at, with the male as observer. This
continues to match up with instinctive reproductive drives; however,
we should be trending away from the necessity of reproduction as
society becomes less interested in genetic reproduction and more
invested in social forms of reproduction: art, culture, literature,
etc. Child-birthing is not a primary goal for many in today's society,
and certainly not to the degree that it was a hundred years ago, yet
we continue to follow archaic codes that separate genders and devalue
women, encouraging the female to validate herself through her
desirability to the male (or, more realistically, to other women,
which is where the real competition lies) and to submit her agency to
male authority. These value judgments are strongly related to male
hegemony and, like the concept of "whiteness", should be pushed to
determine whatever true values may lie within the dominant culture,
and what may need to be eliminated.

LF Part 1: Footnotes

Footnote to LF Part 1:

As I consider my comments about masculinity, I have to mention a few things:

1.      1) While I suggest that the pressure to conform to either a hyper-masculine or feminized-masculine identity is an existing and (perhaps) powerful force, I neglect to mention the implications of the gender-neutral masculine. If I propose that the vampire “look” is a current trend (and not just a Halloween costume), then I need to investigate the consequences of this appearance, this feminized “performance” where men wear make-up to seem fashionable. I think that my intention to mention both the “hipster look” with the tighter jeans and highly-stylized ensembles is for us to recognize that popular fashion is also inverting traditional conceptions of gender. If “the military look” is popular for women—now currently featuring fatigue greens (but with frills), lace up boots (but with high heels), straight-cut jackets (which highlight square, prominent shoulders)—to be feminine means to also be masculine. The same is true for men. What the hipster or vampire look articulates is that a man can be masculine even when he adopts the traits of the feminine in his outward appearance. In fact, he is also fashionable and, therefore, desirable. His look is intentional, thought out, and thus, we come back to our original notion that identity is synonymous with intent: we are what we do, and our intent is to perform gender identity. Despite what we want to believe, in a philosophical way, we really are what we want others to think we are. That being said, the hipster look adopts select traits that are typically reserved for the feminine: tighter fitting clothing (sexually suggestive), an interest in indie art or literature (the arts which are not necessarily associated with logic), longer hair (maidenhood), and a penchant for behaving socially reserved or mysterious (reminiscent of the hyper-feminine courtier).

2.       2) What does one do by doing gender? We demonstrate a cultural representation of gender. We either create stereotype or perpetuate it. We are express a (culturally-influenced) individual interpretation of gender as we adopt specific modes of behavior  so that we may produce an identity. We negotiate the boundaries that have been established by, in this case, historical fashion themes and create new meaning by inverting gender-specific fashion trends.

3.   3) Finally, the gender-neutral masculine cannot be regarded as more or less of a “man.” If anything, he allows for Butler’s argument to subsist—that we are not either feminine or masculine. We can be both.

She’s Out There Somewhere Part I: In search of the “Liberated Feminine”

Because most of my research investigates gender identity and the ideology of performativity, I have to comment upon the elusive “liberated feminine” which, it seems, theorists allude to yet neglect to satisfactorily define (in my opinion). In the past I have argued against the concept of the liberated feminine, suggesting that women are subjects, the “other” within the restrictive constructs of masculine hegemony. That is to say, the feminine is the secondary or converse reflection of the universal masculine. The identity of the feminine is shaped not as a autonomous body, but more so as an entity that is not masculine which prevents her from possessing an authentic identity. The masculine/feminine binary perpetuates this school of thought as previous theory has defined gender identity as either masculine or feminine. Yet while this perspective regarding gender dichotomy has been the prevailing trend, post-modernist theory helps us understand that the duplicitous nature of gender is, in fact, dynamic. And has many faces.

Judith Butler proposes that the feminine can be “liberated” if she is seen as a separate entity, a distinctive body of thought, action, and motivation. In fact, she argues that there are many “identities” of the sexed body that suggest more than the traditional masculine or feminine gender. She points to our understanding of gender as a performance, that we enact the feminine or masculine; we are not biologically inclined to be an Either-Or. Gender identity is more than an inherent product of nature. It is, instead, a product of performance: we are what we do. We “do” femininity. We “do” masculinity.

I have reason to suspect that the sliding (diachronic) scale of conventional masculine and feminine  behavior may be more “gender neutral” than our social history has previously demonstrated. If we think about masculinity and femininity on a visual X-axis, we can imagine that the space between the two opposing gender categories converges to a point of neutrality. It is possible to say that in 2010, it is more acceptable to slide upon this singular axis of gender identification towards the direction of neutrality.

(Hyper)Masculine<----------Masculine------------Gender Neutral-----------Feminine--------> (Hyper) Feminine

In other words, as a woman in 2010, I may more readily adopt traits of the masculine with facility. I can use foul language, make decisions, practice independence, and demonstrate emotional stoicism without consequence. In fact, it is a considered a desirable trait, at times, if a woman is able to oscillate between either gender convention with ease. I will elaborate on this in terms of “fuck” (for the visual learner).
I can say:

Fuck. (foul language)

Fuck this. (make decisions)

Fuck off. (independence)

Fuck me. Now get out. (emotional stoicism)

Aside from the comical nature of this example, it is important to note that femininity is not generally associated with the use (behavior) of foul or obscene language. Therefore, to say one is feminine indicates that one chooses not to use foul language. The point of this example is to illuminate that women—sexually feminine beings—have the ability to use the word “fuck” in common lexis because she is capable of adopting the more “brash” and unrefined traits of the masculine. Second, I want to point out that the implied theme here suggests masculinity is inherently associated with social independence and lack of emotional ties to others. An emerging theme in feminist pop culture reveals a woman who is less confined to social limitations; she is depicted in visual media as “the single girl” (sexually unrestrained) who lives in an urban environment (industrialization: masculinity) who tests her social boundaries with the success or failure of relationships. It is ironic that her feminine desire for a romantic counterpart be juxtaposed with the (masculine) “coming of age” narrative theme. One could say that if we were to investigate the concept of the liberated feminine, even this so-called “single girl” is bound to the stereotypical drive for romantic coupling. Her own ambitions for professional success or financial independence are contingent upon the prospect of a sexual mate; she will sustain her lifestyle to enable her reproductive success. Does that mean she “fails” at liberation if she chooses a monogamous sexual partner? For purposes of this argument, yes. She does—but only if her ambition is intrinsically mitigated by the circumstances of romantic partnership. If this woman maintains her lifestyle for the purposes of her own self-fulfillment, then it is possible to suggest that she is, in fact, “liberated.” But I have yet to find her. And if I do, I might just want to be her.

Before I move further into analysis, I’d like to expand this argument as we consider the possibility of the masculine-to-feminine inversion. Currently, male fashion lends itself to the feminine: tighter-fitting clothing, complex hair styles, bright and flamboyant fabric to name a few. Even the current “Vampire” look encourages young men to investigate the cosmetic aisle at the local drug store—a place typically (and quite explicitly) reserved for women to traverse without second glance. The boundaries of modern masculinity are shaded with messages that tell men to pay more attention to their looks, their “style,” their overall appearance as it can be interpreted as a sexual identity (and a sexualized man, therefore, achieves more “social status,” right?) Advertisers cleverly marry the promise of sex within (almost) every advertisement, as if to say: “These jeans will get you laid—but for a price.” So you can basically buy sex. And masculinity. I may say this as if this is present-day phenomena, but in reality, it is not. Advertisers have been selling sex for quite some time—or at least selling the promise of marriage or sexual attraction, as certain 1920s ads claim that a particular brand of socks wins the attention of potential admirers. So where does that put masculinity in 2010? I have to admit that I’m not much of an expert in this realm of gender identity. I do, however, understand that to be a sexed body, to be a “sexed” man, means that the pressures to conform to either the hyper-masculine or the feminine-masculine are, perhaps, modifying the rate of change in behavior—or the rate of behavior modification. Perhaps it is more accurate to suggest that while women may have more freedom (aha! Liberation?) to slide towards gender neutrality, men are encouraged to embody either the hyper-masculine (associated more with heterosexual identity) or to embody the feminine-masculine (associated more with the homosexual identity). I’m not talking about disparaging stereotypes, so I hope that this will not be interpreted as so. I am simply attempting to point out that the “pressures,”—the cultural boundaries that act as behavioral restrictions—are not confined to either biological sex or gender identity. Is it right, then, to propose that even the hegemonist nature of masculine  gender identity is suffocating itself?

I have a difficult time reconciling my feelings about true “liberation.” Perhaps I’ve spent too much time reading Friere in bed on Sunday afternoons; I believe we are all “subjects” and can never genuinely be liberated from cultural power and influence. However, if I am to truly do this investigation the justice it deserves, I have to take into consideration the disparaging differences between the representation of reality (via visual media, for example) and how/if this representation of the “real” is either reflected, rejected, or renegotiated in modern society. For interest of time (and focus), I will spotlight the version of the feminine whom I am having a hard time understanding: The Liberated Feminine. I think she’s out there. I’m just not sure where she is…

(To be continued…)