The Performance of Gender

In considering gender as a performance, a learned behavior acted out as a facet of identity, I began to think about the cultural relativity of gender and what it means to be specifically masculine or feminine in one culture compared to another. An individual’s identity seems closely tied to ones gender as gender is a means by which people understand how to act with each other and script the roles to be played in society. Gender seems to have rooted itself in peoples’ concept of self, making it hard to challenge the concept of gender. Gender has become an inevitable part of our society perpetuated by binary conceptions.

What astounds me, though, is that an aspect of femininity in one culture can be completely masculine in another. This highlights the fluidity of gender in that gender is not as rigid as we sometimes conceptualize it to be and that it is not a natural part of life, it is socially constructed. An example of gender performance that varies culturally, I think, is shaving. American women, at minimum, generally shave their legs and underarms. Women from other areas of the world are not as concerned with shaving as American women, yet in their own cultures are not seen as masculine or disgusting, they are still viewed as feminine. This emphasizes the malleability of gender and the fact that it isn't an objectively defined thing.

I Don't Want to be a Stupid Girl

I found Butler's points about gender and performance interesting, as well as the fact that people are constantly changing and identity isn't fixed. Although all these points are fairly obvious as you read them, it wasn't until I did read them that I started to critically think about them and how they apply, especially in media. This made me think about how from birth our gender identities are fixed, with baby blankets (blue for boys, pink for girls) to the toys that are supposed to be for girls vs. boys; i.e. Barbies and dolls for girls and toy trucks and action figures for boys. As we continue through high school we become even more separated, from classes that are predominately female (home economics) and predominantly male (wood shop). It isn't until we're older that we become aware of the distinctions that are made.

Helping us along the way of fixed gender identities is the media, from television shows to movies to advertisements, that tell us how to fit into the gender norms of male and female. Disney movies and television shows such as Power Rangers and Thomas the Train help show this separation. Advertisements as well show how men and women are supposed to act, such as with this clip which shows many good examples of advertisements that define gender for men and women.

To fix this Butler calls for a challenge to fixed gender norms by causing "gender trouble," by suggesting "that existing gender forms could [be] undermined through parody" and "she welcomes any alternative performances of identity," using dressing in drag as an example. This made me think of Pink's music video "Stupid Girls," where she pokes fun at girls that go along with the norm with such things as body image, and challenges girls to fight against these norms to become president or play in typical male sports.

Queer Theory and Objectum Sexuals

In class today, Stephanie brought up the topic of people who are in love with inanimate objects, and how it would be viewed in the context of queer theory.  Last year, I watched a documentary about “objectum sexuals”, and it still fascinates me to this day.  It’s never bothered me because it doesn’t harm me in any way, but I thought that our reading on queer theory could provide me with the language to describe exactly why I think it is okay.

            In the documentary that I watched, “Married to the Eiffel Tower”, one of the women that is featured is a world champion archer, who also used to have a relationship with her first bow.  Listening to her describe her feelings and experiences with her bow, it is similar to the way that a woman would describe her feelings toward a man that she loved.  She was fully aware that it was just an object, but she identified human characteristics and feelings in the bow that made it easier to compare to a relationship between two human beings.  Although it is odd, the relationship made her happy, and also led her to be a very successful archer.  Furthermore, I like to think of it in terms of Butler’s diagram in the Gauntlett reading.  This woman’s identity and her sex are completely separate from her desires.  Whether she loves a man, a woman, or a bow does not have to completely shape her identity. 

            Objectum sexuals and homosexuals both go against the dominant idea of a relationship as being heterosexual.  But in reality this dominant idea is just a social construct, we are not born knowing that we need to love someone of the opposite sex, just like we are not born knowing that we shouldn’t have relationships with objects.  These are things that we learn from society. 

            Furthermore, these people who have relationships with objects should not be marginalized from society.  Their desires are completely separate from identity.  A person who loves a bow is still a person.  I think that objectum sexuality is a really interesting topic and it’s really cool to think about in the context of queer theory.  It helps me to clarify for myself why I’m not fundamentally bothered by people who love objects.  It makes me a little uncomfortable, but at the end of the day who are what they love does not define who they are.