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…)