Analyzing The Language of Choice & Control

(source)

"Are you on the pill?" seems to dominate the modern American question of contraception. It's assumed that "the pill" is synonymous with birth control and reflective of a woman's full autonomous choice. This language of the pill is symbolic of control, the practice of consciously ingesting a pill every day physically gives women control over their bodies. But is that sense of control misleading? How much control do women have over the forms of birth control they take? And how much control do drug and insurance companies have? Are women always given the choice of lesser used methods of birth control? What about specific brands of the pill and the drug companies that manufacture it? What about accessibility of the pill? The language of "the pill" feeds into the false belief that women have sufficient control over their birth control options, especially in regards to women in underprivileged circumstances.

Among other marginalized identities, Native women's experiences get erased in the conversation about contraception in America, a dialogue that largely centers around a false dichotomy of choice. Supporters of widespread contraceptive methods and legal abortion access are "pro-choice," a term that widely assumes an equal ground for all women to choose. In reality, this language overshadows the gaps in individual autonomy. Certain social identities are better positioned to exercise choice; other identities are not as privileged to access or information. 



I want to step back from the assumed autonomy that tags along the conversation of contraception. Choice is not so self-determined; women are given strategic, meditated, limited options for birth control influenced by consumer culture and drug companies. And not every woman is given the same choice to make. Falsely labeling this market as a place for women having autonomous "choice" over their bodies disregards the structures that place female bodies as helpless consumers first.

Through the Indian Health Service (IHS), Native women living on reservation land are not given the same options, and therefore do not have the same choice to make. In "Better Dead Than Pregnant," Andrea Smith discusses the narrow birth control options for Native women on reservations using data pulled from the 1980s and 90s, which was typically a choice of either Norplant or Depo-Provera. These options were not the safest for Native women, with the most severe potential side effects ranging from cancer to depression. I am having trouble finding updated statistics on IHS and birth control, but furthermore, I would be dubious to trust any findings. I cannot find anything specifically about birth control on the IHS website. I did find a 2013 petition demanding that Native women gain access to emergency contraceptives like Plan B. Narratives from these women share that reservations did not even stock emergency contraceptive pills or required a prescription from a doctor. Optimistically, the petition reports a successful outcome in changing policy to require all Indian Health Service facilities to carry emergency contraception without requiring prescription

Still, statistics on birth control usage reflect the cultural assumption of birth control equality for all women. All of the following statistics come compiled from from the Guttmacher Institute circa 2010. Here are some of my initial responses based on compiled research on birth control usage in America.

1. Four of every five sexually experienced women have used the pill.
   
   Firstly, I wonder if the surveyed population include Native women on reservations, and my instinct is to assume not. Presenting these statistics in such a way works to erase and obscure the experiences that Native women have. If Native Women still do not have access to the same birth control options, than these statistics work to erase that inequality.
   Secondly, I wonder if these four out of five women were given options, and how much their "choice" to take their specific birth control was influenced by drug companies, as well as what their specific insurances cover. All of these factors work to doubt the real nature of the choice women have.
   
2. The pill is the method most widely used by white women, women in their teens and 20s, never-married and cohabiting women, childless women and college graduates.
   
   After reading Andrea Smith, I wonder if certain social identities like white women more frequently use the pill because they are privileged with easier access to the pill through social structures. I am pondering the history of involuntary sterilization in women of color and how that contributes to these statistics.
   
3. Reliance on female sterilization varies among population subgroups. It is most common among blacks and Hispanics, women aged 35 or older, ever-married women, women with two or more children, women living below 150% of the federal poverty level, women with less than a college education, women living outside of metropolitan areas and women that are publicly insured or are uninsured
   
   Andrea Smith discussed involuntary sterilization of Native women as a common practice on reservations. I wonder if these statistics of sterilization among different groups of women reflect wholly voluntary and informed decisions, or population control strategies.
   
   In all of this, I think it's important to stay informed about the history of birth control and how certain social groups are underprivileged. It is important to think critically about statistics and the way information is presented, and recognize underprivileged identities and narratives such as those of Native women that may be frequently overshadowed. These are all ways in which education can help women have more control.

male birth CONTROL

The experiences of motherhood and fatherhood are inherently unequal unless you're receiving babies via stork. The differences stem from intrinsically different reproductive systems in male and female bodies, in which only female anatomy is able to carry a child. I am not looking to denounce the immense social impact a father can have on a child, but rather I seek to highlight mothers as unsung heroes through the biological lens of parenthood.

(And to be clear, I am talking about parents with biological children. With fathers, I am talking about men with strict male anatomy, wholly incapable of carrying a child. Period. I am not talking about adoptive parents. I am sticking to good, old-fashioned, invasive, oppressive hetereonormativity which seems undenied)

The Personhood Movement is fighting for the recognition that one's Personhood begins when sperm meets egg. Ok, Personhood, I see your radical claim and now raise one of my own. I propose that Fatherhood begins once the infant is born. I am not trying to dismiss the father's role in conception, the loss and sense of sadness that miscarriages and other pregnancy complications may bring to both parents, and unlike Personhoood USA, I am not taking away anyone's reproductive or bodily rights. The genetic makeup a father contributes is equal but the mechanical, bodily role fathers play in prenatal development is very small.

(What does personhood really means behind ethereal and patriotic language, anyway? Personhood USA uses the Thomas Jefferson phrase "inherent and unalienable rights of man" for their campaign, which is perfect for Father's Rights seeing as women and mothers in the early 19th Century didn't have unalienable rights. Anyway...)

(source)

I am simply unimpressed with fathers equalizing their prenatal parenting experiences to mothers. Taken from Susan Bordo's "Are Mothers Persons," I am unwaived with clients such as Eric Conn who argues for his rights as a father by equating his experience in pregnancy: "[the mother] you know, wants control of her body. But what about me? Am I not allowed to have control of my body? The baby is part of my body also."

By arguing that Fatherhood begins after birth, I am recognizing the unique experiences mothers endure in pregnancy that fathers simply cannot. I am recognizing female bodies as special and fully human, and not the incubating machines Bordo writes, and the culture has written mothers as. Men: you brought a dish to the potluck, but that doesn't make it your party.

Accordingly, I am equally unimpressed with recent advancements in male birth control. The "problem" in the past? Men haven't taken in an active-enough role in birth control options. (Note: men also haven't taken an active role in giving birth.) Although the attempt to alleviate biological and financial burdens of women can seem sweet and endearing, the attempt to equalize contraception cycles back to issues of control. 

Although I will discuss positive and negative effects, male birth control ultimately comes back to controlling the female body and, as Bordo discusses, superseding the rights of the mother.

(source)

Parsemus, makers of the future male contraceptive Vasalgel, are predicting availability by 2017. So far, Vasalgel has successfully been tested on baboons. What exactly would male birth control look like? According to this recent Daily Beast article, the unique contraception Vasalgel is a one-time, non-hormonal treatment for men. Similar to a vasectomy, the vas deferens would be altered to physically inhibit sperm passage. However, unlike a vasectomy, this process could be reversed.

Today, popular women's birth control options look a lot different. (Granted, all of these statistics are heteronormative, Westernized, and derived from self-reporting surveys.) According to this data, 27% of all sexually active females between the ages of 15 and 44 are on the pill; further, the same research testifies that 4 in 5 "sexually experienced" women have ever been on the pill. Statistically, the pill is used most frequently by white women, women in their teens and 20s, and unmarried women. Male condoms are also frequently used, with over 6 million users in America.

(source)

(source)

Would the widespread introduction of male birth control alter these statistics? Male birth control hasn't exactly been at high demand. A New York Times opinion piece laments that "developing long-acting, reversible [birth control] methods for men is still not seen as a priority...[different sources of funding] are getting serious about new long-acting options for women; not so, yet, for men." This equation of male and female contraceptive needs erases the financial and biological consequences that only women face through pregnancy.

Why would a man even want male birth control? The same NYT article further argues that men need their own contraception because they can't. trust. women. The article opens with the following scenario:

Imagine you’re a 20-something or 30-something man, out on the dating market. You have grad school planned for the fall and your whole life ahead of you. You meet a woman who seems pretty promising; after you’ve been dating a number of months, you stop using condoms, because she’s on the pill. But you just read an article that said even among highly motivated young college women, about half forgot to take roughly three pills per cycle. Nervous yet?

I am nervous, yes, that this rhetoric can attempt to equate the burden of unplanned, undesired fatherhood with unplanned, undesired motherhood. I am indeed imagining that I am this bright, educated, 30-something man who has consciously decided to stop using condoms and who needs to prove he knows more birth control than his female partner. Male birth control is posed as a sneaky back-up plan to female birth control pills because women are lazy and forgetful and not to be trusted. God knows how I, a smart 30-year-old man would handle the the immense burden of someone else's pregnancy. Women don't know my struggle!

(Note: the NYT article is written by director of Parmesus, maker of Vasalegel. So really, like everything else American, these claims are advertisements.)

I won't neglect any positive outcomes male birth control could create. The cost of monthly birth control pills, as we all know, are not necessarily covered by health insurance and can put an unequal financial strain on women, which male birth control could potentially alleviate. (Although it's also important to realize that there are MANY reasons why women are on the pill, from hormonal imbalance to blood disorders to acne control.) The average cost of an abortion is $485, and can run considerably higher, and in some parts of the country, abortion centers are few and far between (from The Daily Beast). Male birth control could reduce the rate of abortion, and thus ease these financial, emotional, and physical burdens that women typically face.

Birth control pills often come with unpleasant and unruly side effects, such as high blood pressure, nausea and vomiting, irregular bleeding, weight fluctuation, changes in mood, and depression (from The Daily Beast). If male birth control replaces female birth control in these circumstances, women can be relieved of these symptoms. It could also give both males and females a sense of personal responsibility.

By recognizing that Fatherhood begins after birth, the female body is seen as disproportionally affected by the physical manifestation of pregnancy. Men's reproductive rights are never just an issue of men's rights, as the female body is always the consequenced body.

Alternative Solutions to Male Birth Control:

• 30-something male? College-educated? Bright? Afraid your partner isn't properly using birth control? Instead of being a condescending asshole, talk about birth control options together.
• Seriously, have open communication with sexual partners because ??? why not
• Use condoms, which are cheap and protect against STIs. Male and female birth control do not.
• If negative side effects of birth control pills are overwhelming, talk to your doctor about switching methods
• Don't be a dick

Beautiful and Sexy and Problematic

Our culture has an addiction: an overload of thin. Our culture hoards thinness, falsely equates thinness with health, and values thinness as intrinsic in beauty. I agree with Kathleen LeBesco's revolt, to reframe the public view of fatness in a way that "alter(s) the discourse of beauty" (LeBesco 53).

I decided to sample how our culture perceives these ideals, a mini-experiment, if you will. Inspired by Chapter 3 of Revolting Bodies, I chose to examine the images recalled when searching online for "health," "beauty," and "sexy."  I decided to use Pinterest, which I imagine is a better reflection of women and culture than the very pragmatic and literal findings from Google Images.

[One quick sidenote: I realize that issues of body size are not strictly a women's issue, but I am going to focus on female bodies for my post, particularly in relation to male gaze.]

Health

Throughout her book, LeBesco examines how fat bodies are perceived as Other and diseased, how fatness is posed as a health epidemic, and how losing weight is often posited as a magic bullet solution to life's imperfections (41). Our culture falsely equates weight with health and denies the existence of a spectrum of healthy bodies. 

I expected the results to mimic this blurring of healthy and skinny. I see this in everyday life. Women are advised to diet and shed pounds in order to look their best. In our culture, health is centered around "looking" versus "feeling". Women want healthy, glowing, poreless skin. Women want healthy, shiny hair. Who cares about a healthy liver? because no one is going to see your liver. Health is an aesthetic. 

I searched simply "health" on Pinterest and here were the first results:

&&

Ok, let's pull out some headlines here (again, these came from just "health"): "Victoria's Secret...Workout," "35 Amazing Foods for Weight Loss," "5 Ways to Sculpt Lean Thighs," "9 Ways to Shrink Your Muffin Top," "Most Effective Fat Burning Foods." "5 Ways to Stop Craving Cards," "Apple Cider Vinegar... Clean Skin, Weight Loss, and More!"

The images shown vary from food, exercise poses, and lean white bodies.

All simply from "health"... are any of these really about health?

As I scrolled through the search results, there were occasionally less skinny-and weight-loss charged results such as tips of staying hydrated and health benefits from certain foods. But nearly everything was overwhelming soaked with a conscious of hyper-appearance. 

In Chapter 2, LeBesco discusses how in altering the discourse of [beauty, health, etc.] and addressing the public health crisis, the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance focuses on locating the problems within the greater cultural industries instead of the behavior of individuals (36-38). If this smattering of headlines is any sample of the discourse of public health, than not only is fatness socially constructed through discrimination and submission and power structures, but so are our cultural ideas of health in general. 

Beauty

In Chapter 3, LeBesco explores fat in relation to ideas of "sexy" and "beautiful." Culturally, fat seems to be at odds with beauty. Our society likes to highlight *other* beautiful aspects in women that carry fat and encourage fat women to be beautiful in spite of their fatness. LeBesco challenges these ideas by sharing the work of Debbie Notkin and FaT Girl, among others, who encourage women to embrace their fat as a component of their beauty. LeBesco also highlights the elusive, ethereal, and unattainable goals that beauty constructs, citing that Wendy Chapkis wrote "to be beautiful is to exist in a moment framed by expectation and fear" (51).

Our culture posits expectations for beauty that ensure that no woman can perpetually meet them (51). The text highlighted cultural constructs of beauty are usually clustered around innocence, youth, and slightness, and I expected to find these results in my search.

I repeated the exercise for beauty:

Headlines include: "23 Unbelievable Beauty Hacks," "How to do Your Eye Make Up Correctly," "Coffee Scrub [for] Acne and Cellulite," and "Home Remedies for Stretch Marks". 

All the people featured are young, white, thin women.

No internal beauty. Nothing deviant. 

Even though LeBesco's book was published 10 years ago, I feel like there have been few advancements on undoing the cultural equation of beauty = thin. I think LeBesco's efforts are important, but sadly not embodied yet. I do not see progress at all.

[Interesting side note: I chose to search "beauty" and not "beautiful," because in the latter results, nearly 100% of the search results on Pinterest were Nation Geographic-esque pictures of animals. I am not exactly sure why every animal on Pinterest is filed under "beautiful," but I was pleasantly surprised on how the word beautiful transcended the Western white woman and her beauty tips. Interesting the differences between two variants of a word. Language is so interesting!] 

Sexy

Speaking of the intricacies of language, I think sexy is a loaded word and here's why:

I question if one can be "sexy" independently, not in relation to other people, without relying on others for value, without necessary judgment from others. I feel as if being sexy is something that stems from the opinions of others. Does being sexy necessitate a relationship with the gazes of others? A topographical relationship between bodies? A power dynamic? Does feeling sexy mean feeling like you're worthy in the eyes of other people? Does it depend on feeling socially competent? Is being sexy a social phenomenon? I am curious but unsure.

In Chapter 3, LeBesco details fictional work of Terry Early and her suggestions that "ultimate goal" of a fat wanted is "being wanted by "normal" men." Although fictional, LeBesco finds truth here: cultural ideas that thin women have better lives, and that in a fair world, size would be disregarded.

Last week, some of my friends were discussing this song, "All About That Bass" by Meghan Trainor. I was not previously familiar with the song, but it centers around embracing bigger body types. Although refreshing to hear popular music take this perspective, the song (1) shames skinny women and (2) tells women that they should love their thicker bodies because that's what some men prefer. Men's opinions should not be integral for a positive self-image! Yuck.

Decide for yourself what you think of the song! Here is the video below. Also, notably, the singer is white, presumably straight, and conventionally attractive, and although perhaps plus-sized by our society's definition, not a terribly large woman. To be honest I could only get through half of the music video.

I think there is a problem with "sexy" if it is indeed a social phenomenon; if it centers around the male gaze, social relationship, and being deemed worthy my men.

The exercise for "sexy" yielded these results:

The images shown are all young, thin, white bodies, either in whole or fragmented [disembodied stilettos, braceleted arms, and a faceless fashion look]. The headlines are less captivating here - the focus is on the images. Shocking? Not at all. Influenced by the male gaze? Definitely.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the epidemic that women think men's opinions and social hierarchies are important to maintaining a positive self-image, and I am skeptical if one can claim "sexy" without implications of the male gaze. In altering the discourse of beauty, we have a lot to change.

Stop claiming; Start caring.

I can't remember the last day I didn't wear any make-up. Not this week. Not last. Maybe once or twice this semester. Maybe not. I also can't remember the last day I consciously thought about putting make-up on, or tried to look "special" or "pretty" or whatever. Usually I just aim for awake and/or human.

And although I'm being facetious, that's exactly what Sandra Lee Bartky is getting at in her chapter "Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power" of The Social Construction of Women's Bodies; femininity is required for women to be taken seriously, but femininity is not implicit in femaleness. Femininity is constructed, no, it is chiseled. It is choked. Women are held a much higher standards than men in terms of their everyday appearances and social behavior. 

To women, I ask: in re-claiming femininity, what are you claiming? Is claiming enough, or must we restart altogether? Does "claiming" still recognize an androcentric system? Should we be using different, more drastic language? 

These are big questions, I know. I do not think claiming is enough. We need a stronger vocabulary. We need to erect a new feminine. By recognizing that the "choice" to be feminine to is implicitly controlled and made inferior by male dominance, one must realize that "claiming" feminine as-we-know-it is insufficient. We must work on defining feminine without dichotomizing it with dominance. Secondly, we need to stop attacking or judging other women (and non-women) for not adhering to the system.

Bartky focuses on the ideas of Michel Foucault--who emphasized society's production of docile bodies or bodies complicit to social expectations--and applies Foucault's ideas to the unique and underrepresented experiences of women. In Foucault's prison design Panopticon, prisoners were visible from a guard's tower with the threat of potentially being watched at all times. This possibility forced the prisoners in a "constant state of conscious and permanent visibility" (Bartky 79).  Through this allegory, Bartky relates how women are likewise imprisoned by internalized social expectations of acceptable appearances and behavior, and how women must negate the natural processes of their bodies in order to remain culturally relevant. 

Alternative solution: let's all wear scary masks

Through countless examples of daily female altercation of appearance, Bartky proves that being born female does not equate to being born feminine, highlighting the pressures of the modern female to“construct a “feminine” body out of a female one” (Bartky 86). Society today has callous expectations for women and the body is seen as the enemy. Women are expected to uphold standards from slenderness to meekness, fighting fiercely against natural inclinations. Even the creases of an expressive face can cause unsightly wrinkles that "subvert the disciplinary project of bodily perfection;" therefore, women should suppress their emotions to stay young, coy, and docile (Bartky 81).

Inspired by Julia Serano of Whipping Girl, particularly of her chapters on femininity, I ask, in claiming femininity, what are we claiming? In class, with the guidance of Serano, we discussed the inevitable "Catch 22" that women face with their appearances in daily life. If women dress up to go out, it is presumed to be for the attention of men and they are either mocked for being slutty or blamed "looking consenting"; conversely, if women put less effort into their appearances, then they are viewed as sloppy or careless or gross. Is it anti-feminist to choose to dress up for men, or for whatever damn reason? Or does any choice fail to subvert the system?

Although women can make day-to-day personal choices about their appearances, participation in this society is not a choice. It is marketed as a choice. Women are thrust into this system of meticulous scrutiny.  Make-up is marketed as expressive and artful and frivolous, but harshly implies that "a woman's face, unpainted, is defective" (Bartky 85). Female, without the painted feminine, is defective. It's exhausting to me how Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Body illustrates how massive the influence of the rigid male/female dichotomy is on our culture, yet "female" as a category is necessary but not sufficient. In claiming femininity, what are we claiming? The illusion of choice?

In Bartky's perspective, traditional femininity is enslaved to the male gaze. Women may dress up for men, or in competition with other women, but to be taken seriously at all, a woman must dress up. Traditional femininity is the modern-day foot binding of stilettos, it is "a spectacle...in which virtually every woman is required to participate" (Bartky 86). WHAT REALLY IS femininity when it is unprompted, unrestricted? What is femininity when it is not being contrasted with dominance, power, and male?

To me, it seems like "claiming" is not sufficient if what we're claiming is shaped by male dominance.

And why is this system being perpetuated at all? By law, women are not required to wear make-up, to dress up, or to act submissive. Bartky explain that there are no authoritarians enforcing these cultural ideals; there are strong influences from visual media, parents, and social circles, but nothing forcing this upon women--"the disciplinarian is everyone and it is no one is particular," or in other words, it is "institutionally unbound," and it is largely self-regulating (Bartky 86-89).

This. Should. Sound. Absurd. WHY would women participate in this rigid regulation? According to Bartky, the lack of clear authoritarians administering these social "rules" helps add to the illusion that dress-up is only harmless and creative and voluntary. 

You too are beautiful

In my psychology junior seminar on morality, we have been discussing similar self-regulating systems, particularly how propriety morals and interpersonal morals are taught and how they perpetuate in society. There are certain social rules we uphold: don't cheat on tests, don't park in handicapped spaces if you're able-bodied, don't shoplift. Most of the time, people are concerned about "appearing" moral, rather than actually "being" moral. They are also more concerned with getting caught. These systems are compatible with the Panopticon; that is, when people are reminded that they are being watched (and could face consequences for immoral acts), they are more likely to exhibit moral behavior. Even when these "reminders" are superficial. People are more likely to cheat on exams in dimly-lit rooms than a well-lit ones; researchers proposed that a darker room creates a false sense of anonymity that catalyzes cheating. A darker room seems less monitored. Studies show that people are even less likely to cheat when there is a large decal of an eye in the room; while a picture of an eye clearly isn't doing any watching itself, this visual reminder prompts cheaters to feel more self-conscious about their immoral behavior. The eye acts as a metaphor for the watchtower of the Panopticon. This article from The New Yorker recaps some of these studies in morality and surveillance. 

Society self-regulates interpersonal morals like "don't cheat" for the better of a collectivist community; a cheater rips off the hard work of others; a cheater spoils a fair system; a cheater ensnares innocent workers; a cheater creates tension and distrust. Everyone is brought down by a cheater, and that is how the self-regulating system is perpetuated.

But a woman who doesn't wear make-up? What does she steal from society? What does she detract from other women? What injustice does she cause? 

She causes an injustice to men. If femininity is defined SEPARATE from men's views, if it DOES NOT contrast men's power, than it refuses to ENFORCE male as dominant. Although there is freedom in the way women dress, there is a platform for creativity and self-expression, there are practical components, appearance is NOT without male influence. And by influence, I mean chokehold. 

So how can women stop self-regulating this system? Here are some fun tips:

• stop putting down other women
• don't call people ugly
• stop caring about what other people wear
• don't wear stuff you don't want to
• be nice

How to Study (And Invent) (And Dichotomize) The Human Body; or the Fallibility of Knowledge

Gilmore Girls is Always Relevant

In her book Sexing the Body, biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling discusses the gender binary-turned-spectrum in relation to shifting cultural insight, global perspective, and organization through dualisms. In the first chapter of her book, Fausto-Sterling stresses the counterintuitive fact that scientists and cultures create “truths” about sex, gender, and sexuality. I am going to offer a feminist perspective by analyzing and challenging the ways in which these “truths” and dichotomies have been shaped by a biased androcentric school of thought incumbent upon dualist language.

With a background in biology, Fausto-Sterling explains the ways that scientists and scholars invent sex and gender based on their implicit cultural understandings. Although the general public may think of sex and gender as interchangeable, it is taught by feminists and social science courses that sex refers to the biological characteristics and gender as the social identity. Fausto-Sterling challenges this “knowledge,” by arguing that our idea of sex as a physical characteristic is already bound up in our social and cultural ideas of sex. Fausto-Sterling cites that beyond reproductive function, there are few finite physical differences between the dualism of men and women, citing that there are not significant distinctions between the physical strength of male and female athletes. Fausto-Sterling thus concludes that “labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision … only our beliefs about gender, not science, can define our sex” (3).If so, why does the belief of sex as a purely physical and unbiased category persist even within the most educated realms of our culture?

 I argue that this belief helps reinforce implicit Western androcentrism. Our entire language is constructed with implicit sexist bias.  Firstly, the dichotomy of sex as male/female reinforces the insufficient yet prevalent gender binary. Even if a spectrum of social gender identity is recognized, the Western compulsion to classify any deviant sexual anatomy as “disorderly” helps reinforce the patriarchal culture.  Why? The sex and gender spectrums are threatening to androcentrism. Erasure of trans* people and the gender spectrum helps to reinforce the aforementioned binary. For androcentrism to prevail, it must operate on a norm of dualisms that extend beyond just male/female. The sex and gender dualisms are bolstered by related cultural ideas which help to perpetuate androcentrism.

In my epistemology class last semester, we discussed context in relation to theories of knowledge (on our ONE DAY of not only feminist epistemology, but our ONE DAY of reading ANY female philosophers AT ALL). Traditionally, epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, seeks to strip down to the bare bones of knowledge, to find what is universal truth. If one philosopher claims to find truth, it is claimed to be truth for all people. And how does epistemology attain universality? Obviously by asking only educated, affluent, straight, white men of Western world on their opinions. On our one rogue day of feminist epistemology, we challenged the idea of a *universal* white, male knower and introduced the idea that the social context and power structure surrounding different knowers influences what is taken to be knowledge. In our class materials of traditional epistemology, this idea of knowledge being not universal was not presented until twenty-first century philosophy readings! Why is context a new thought?

One feminist philosopher we read was Elizabeth Anderson who spoke similarly to Fausto-Sterling of obliterating gender dichotomies. One really important thing Anderson said that stuck with me is that nearly all conceptual dichotomies mirror the male/female and masculine/feminine dichotomies and can be divided into male and female. For example, in the dichotomy of reason/emotion, reason can be seen as “male” and emotion as “female.” In the dichotomy of objective/subjective, objective can be seen as “male” and subjective, “female.” In our culture, it is possible to “gender” non-gendered things based on implicit polarized, internalized misconceptions. The interplay of language and culture is so frustrating in this way!

In an even more ridiculous tangent, why can the silly, trivial false dichotomy of dog/cat can be predictably explained in terms of dog as “male” and cat as “female” when obviously there is no one who thinks that all dogs are males and cats are females. It would be an interesting research project (or comp….hmm) to explore these weird gendered linguistic mental biases and why they persist beyond reason or function. How could it possibly be useful to gender these random false dichotomies? Why has our culture shaped this school of thought? BUT ANYWAY.

Marrying the ideas of Anderson and Fausto-Sterling, the entire concept of dichotomies work in favor of male privilege. If we are able to “disorder” the daunting “third genders” then we can sustain the gender binary. If we live in a dichotomized world, than we sustain the ability to unconsciously force gender onto ungendered beliefs. And typically we do this in favor of males, as we think of strong as “male” and weak as “female,” active as “male” and passive as “female,” etc. Furthermore, the system of dualisms works to systematize and de-individualize experiences.

It is impossible to study culture in isolation. In much of the first chapter of Sexing The Body, Fausto-Sterling discusses anthropologists who go abroad to study (gender in) other cultures bring their own implicit cultural ideas (about gender) to unconsciously shape their own research. I am not sure how to propose a solution to these multifaceted problems of implicit gender bias. Dichotomies are used because they are a useful way to organize and systemize information. There has to be some system of organization for communication to be possible at all. I would just reiterate that an awareness of these biases is the first step in the right direction. Secondly, I would suggest to keep intersectional feminism and identities in mind, and remember the intersection of different identities in different context. Contrary to most of the study of epistemology, I think context is extremely important. I really like talking about linguistic bias so I will probably extrapolate more in the future.

If you want to look up “Feminst Epistemology” or really any of Elizabeth Anderson’s work, be my guest, that can be my first supplementary source.

Secondly, HERE is another (less feminist but still interesting) perspective from TED on how languages are not biased, and how different languages are organized in different ways. I think it helps bolster a global perspective on what is "knowledge" versus "culture."