Philosophy_of_Gender

In the paper “It’s All In the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation” by Patricia Collins, one of her arguments is to reform the power ‘family values’ hold in areas of gender, race, and nation social politics. One means listed by Collins is asking to reform the aspects of family that support hierarchical thinking and reject them. Resistance of this sort could look like small adjustments to the social organization of local communities. These changes could be seen in more cross-culture community engagement, social events hosted by religious organizations, or city/town hosted seminars. These suggestions would only find success if all parties were eager in sharing their cultures and experiences with one another. Learning about new cultures and ideas is the first step in introducing change. The next step would be seeing those ideas ‘in real life’ to actualize and normalize them.            In terms of effectiveness in relation to other strategi...

  Marxist-feminist philosopher Shulasmith Firestone (1954-2012) has argued that in order for women to be equal to men in society, women must be freed from their traditional roles in society as reproducers. Firestone’s solution for women’s freedom comes in eliminating the necessity of women in the reproductive process.  I believe that Firestone’s utopian society for women is possible but it will take a long time for it to be accepted as normal when compared to other methods . I think the beginning of such a movement would have a better chance in a more liberal-accepting country in Europe than the US (given the current unwillingness for public discourse). I would go further by saying Firestone’s utopia for women is playing out currently in  modern Japanese society. While reproductive technologies have not met the level of standalone embryo birth (beyond IVF), female citizens are not penalized for pursuing their own professional/personal careers independent of social pr...

In response to the question of whether sexual orientation is more liberating when one considers it as something one is born with versus something that develops over time, I think the latter is more liberating. I believe so based on the fact that each person is unique in their lived experiences and shape themselves based on them. This is not to say that one bad or good experience with the same or opposing gender wholly dictates where one falls, but may influence their range on, for example, the Kinsey scale. Sexual orientation influences both the socially drastic and socially insignificant decisions; for example, going to a gay club when we identify as exclusively heterosexual or being comfortable enough to dress in drag as a form of expression.  In support of sexual orientation as something more liberating when viewed as changing over time, here's an example.  In this (binary) scenario, let's say an individual, fe(male), goings off to war as a soldier. A fellow soldier of the ...

         In response to the question “ Is it possible to meet or interact with someone without performing a gender attribution,” I would answer yes.  As Kessler and McKenna note, gender attribution is an active opinion we form based on our senses. While the logical response given the social constructs we have grown up in is to assign a gender role (typically bi-gender), I believe if we exert a little care into finding the person and not the role it’s possible to avoid gender attribution. The key to doing so is losing the notion of different treatment based on social norms. I would argue this is easily accomplished when we form relationships beyond strangers.  Our behavior is largely based on judgement. Whether we seek approval or not, judgement from others and social norms guide our decisions. When we appear in public, some choose to abide by certain codes to be recognizable as a member of a certain gender/sex. When we are around family and friends, ...

    In the article He/She/They/Ze by Robin Dembroff and Daniel Wodack, the authors make their "Radical Claim," which states that "we have a duty not to use gender-specific pronouns to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender identity" (Dembroff and Wodak 372). I agree with their claim, but have a few additions to their supporting explanations (specifically the social operative(s) of new pronouns).      Dembroff and Wodack assert that misgendering is wrong because "of the social and psychological features of the world" (Dembroff and Wodack 380). I agree with their statement; however, I want to add the dangers of removing or inhibiting the more tradtional, gender-normative pronouns used in society today. Under no circumstance am I suggesting that s(he) will be removed from the English language with Dembroff's and Wodacks Radical Claim; nor am I saying s(he) falling out of popular use is a wrong given the conclusion provided by the Radical Claim. I am...