GENDER BENDER
In order for there to be a truly universal play I think that all gender norms need to be removed. So from that technical standpoint the answer to whether there is a gender neutral play/movie/show is, no. What I mean is, that the very idea of gender can't exist. We would just be people and not "perform" our genders. And I think that's impossible.
So, there are inherent differences between male and female bodies. From that we learn how to behave. So, how would this work in a void or if we were given a do-over? Would human sexuality be more fluid? Would males still be hunters and would females still be caretakers? But then this is still thinking in binary terms. The majority of the worlds population is either male or female. There are definitely transgender people as well, but to a lesser extent. In my opinion, even in a void, there would be gender and we would behave in a certain way because our bodies are built a certain way. Of course, this would be to a lesser extent then how gender is performed now. I think in order to understand the gender non-binary is to understand that it there is more than just male and female not that there is no male and female.
With all that said, what can be done in terms of film/tv/theatre? Well we can have shows that are written neutrally. In my previous post I said that sometimes a person's race doesn't matter when telling a story, and I think this is true for gender as well. If the piece of work is written about the male/female/transgender/something else experience then, yes, it needs to be cast as such. If the story is about something else entirely then it doesn't matter. In my opinion this is much harder to do because gender is even more difficult to understand/identify then race. Our gender is who we are at our core more so than race.
I think that we can only accept that masculinity and femininity in men/women/transgender people to any extent is okay. That one does not negate the other. And like Erica said in class, I think it really has so much more to do with attraction. Who should we be sexually attracted to? If there is a binary then how do we justify to ourselves if we fall for someone we're not "supposed" to fall for?
For the most part sex is binary. There are males and females and sometimes people are born with both or no genitalia. Gender is non binary. I'm not sold on the "fact" that gender is a complete social construct. People are built a certain way. On average, most males have similar characteristics and most females have similar characteristics physically so it makes sense that certain traits are considered feminine and other masculine. But that doesn't mean there's no overlap and there is nothing wrong if there is either. The issue then becomes one of power/marketing etc.
This weekend I had a conversation with 5 women. One asked how I fit my "giant phone in my pocket." I said, "like this" and put it in my pocket. They were shocked and found it funny how deep my pockets were and how shallow their pockets were. Then one woman said that it was all a marketing ploy to get women to buy purses. I'm not sure how true that is, but I agree with her. Someone wanted to make money so they created a need by taking something away. Plus, if we're talking about the "male gaze" then less pocket space means a more streamlined look, which means an accurate portrayal of a woman's silhouette. Is this completely true, maybe not, but likely. Just like how all of a sudden the "nuclear family" was the ideal norm even though most families had 9 kids because they would all die and/or help on the farm. I don't know.
Once again, I think we can only accept the degree to which someone chooses to display their masculine/feminine sides regardless of their sex/gender. Be attracted to who you're attracted to and let the rest go. But, it clearly won't happen because of power dynamics and people's inherent greed and savagery. Not too mention centuries of mindless conditioning to believe in antiquated books that don't reflect modern society.
So, I'll leave off here with this clip from Mad TV. BTW DARRELL IS PLAYED BY A WOMAN.
https://youtu.be/kTFZyl7hfBw
So, there are inherent differences between male and female bodies. From that we learn how to behave. So, how would this work in a void or if we were given a do-over? Would human sexuality be more fluid? Would males still be hunters and would females still be caretakers? But then this is still thinking in binary terms. The majority of the worlds population is either male or female. There are definitely transgender people as well, but to a lesser extent. In my opinion, even in a void, there would be gender and we would behave in a certain way because our bodies are built a certain way. Of course, this would be to a lesser extent then how gender is performed now. I think in order to understand the gender non-binary is to understand that it there is more than just male and female not that there is no male and female.
With all that said, what can be done in terms of film/tv/theatre? Well we can have shows that are written neutrally. In my previous post I said that sometimes a person's race doesn't matter when telling a story, and I think this is true for gender as well. If the piece of work is written about the male/female/transgender/something else experience then, yes, it needs to be cast as such. If the story is about something else entirely then it doesn't matter. In my opinion this is much harder to do because gender is even more difficult to understand/identify then race. Our gender is who we are at our core more so than race.
I think that we can only accept that masculinity and femininity in men/women/transgender people to any extent is okay. That one does not negate the other. And like Erica said in class, I think it really has so much more to do with attraction. Who should we be sexually attracted to? If there is a binary then how do we justify to ourselves if we fall for someone we're not "supposed" to fall for?
For the most part sex is binary. There are males and females and sometimes people are born with both or no genitalia. Gender is non binary. I'm not sold on the "fact" that gender is a complete social construct. People are built a certain way. On average, most males have similar characteristics and most females have similar characteristics physically so it makes sense that certain traits are considered feminine and other masculine. But that doesn't mean there's no overlap and there is nothing wrong if there is either. The issue then becomes one of power/marketing etc.
This weekend I had a conversation with 5 women. One asked how I fit my "giant phone in my pocket." I said, "like this" and put it in my pocket. They were shocked and found it funny how deep my pockets were and how shallow their pockets were. Then one woman said that it was all a marketing ploy to get women to buy purses. I'm not sure how true that is, but I agree with her. Someone wanted to make money so they created a need by taking something away. Plus, if we're talking about the "male gaze" then less pocket space means a more streamlined look, which means an accurate portrayal of a woman's silhouette. Is this completely true, maybe not, but likely. Just like how all of a sudden the "nuclear family" was the ideal norm even though most families had 9 kids because they would all die and/or help on the farm. I don't know.
Once again, I think we can only accept the degree to which someone chooses to display their masculine/feminine sides regardless of their sex/gender. Be attracted to who you're attracted to and let the rest go. But, it clearly won't happen because of power dynamics and people's inherent greed and savagery. Not too mention centuries of mindless conditioning to believe in antiquated books that don't reflect modern society.
So, I'll leave off here with this clip from Mad TV. BTW DARRELL IS PLAYED BY A WOMAN.
https://youtu.be/kTFZyl7hfBw
ReplyDeleteBiological Evolution is an arbitrary leveler. The selection of certain physical traits and aptitudes that favor a species’ survival don’t bend to politics, personal tastes, or superstition. It certainly doesn’t operate according to an absolute binary protocol. But, to look at the idea of how this can affect social status and roles within a society, let’s look at your hunter/caretaker question.
Would males still be hunters and would females still be caretakers?
The hunters were the ones who did not have babies. Their bodies were, on the whole, larger framed and stronger, but, above all, they were not either pregnant or nursing babies. So yes, it would have been the set of this species that was not possessed of a baby-incubating uterus that went out and ran around after edible quarry. Only from this biological fact did we begin to ascribe our own subjective values to “bringing home the bacon”. As a little side note in the interest of getting something of a more complete picture, the hunters often returned to camp with...mushrooms (i.e. not always successful at hunting). Early humans were called hunter-gatherers because a lot of what they ate was gathered, picked, and dug out of the ground. This was done by both those carrying spears and little ones. But I digress.
So there were certain aspects of the human development that fell, for the most part, into something like a binary structure. Like I said, anatomy. Important and undeniable stuff, but who among us would make an argument for anatomy as the deciding be all and end all of the human experience? There so much more to talk about...enter Social Evolution, and things get all mucked up when the brute facts of anatomy are used to assign unbending norms and expectations: those of the species with this gear do a, b, and c. Those with that gear do x, y, and z. Etc… Remember the politics, personal tastes, and superstition that biological evolution didn’t pay attention to? Well here they are all the rage.
I think little by little we are exploring, learning, and wising up about how humanity’s first attempts to engage with the swirling world of the gender spectrum did not take into account a detailed picture of this landscape.
Very thought provoking, Dharmik! Also, I'm always happy to see Darrell! After being inspired by your post, I sort of grabbed a hodge-podgery of links.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, when it comes to attraction outside of the parameters of gender and/or sexuality, there is an excellent essay written by Alyson Stoner (the little girl from the Missy Elliot music videos) on just that topic: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/alyson-stoner-when-its-right
"Cut to therapy. I spent years — not months or weeks or days, but years — trying to identify the source of my attraction to her. Like many, I had internalized some of the harmful beliefs and misconceptions about LGBTQ people and identities... I pored over texts, contemporary and ancient, seeking truth and answers from professors, scientists, church leaders, friends, and family. I didn’t want to get this wrong."
Or, of course, if that was too touching, you could always take a peek at Mac and Carmen's relationship in seasons 1-3 of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.There are plenty of these stories in the ether and they are fascinating not only because it makes holes in our societal concept of gender more glaring but also because they are usually stories of self-discovery and that's pretty cool.
Beyond that, I was also thinking about pockets. Good lord. Fashion has a long history of some sexist (and racist) BS. I'll begin with saying small pockets can be attributed to all of the clamping down on independence that one would cite while shaking their fist at the sky and cursing the patriarchy. Pockets used to be inaccessible under clothing, women in pants terrified men for decades-- if not centuries-- and pockets were a part of that fear. Some more details can be found succinctly summarized here: https://mic.com/articles/133948/the-weird-complicated-sexist-history-of-pockets#.yPJrJ8x2N
But heels, for example, are no different! Here's the skinny on that one: https://www.racked.com/2015/2/3/7997175/high-heels-history
"Makeup and heels are good for business:" http://time.com/4503598/workplace-sexism-study-heels-makeup-women/
Idk, I just thought those were interesting items to chew on. Erica gave us an awesome, challenging, and multifaceted question!