moesunamigendertheory-blog

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Scopophilia — There is pleasure in looking —

My final portfolio in ART 506 is the prequel to my final project for this Colloquium, the Metaphors series. This artist’s statement analyzes the portfolio through the lens of Laura Mulvey, Audre Lorde, Freud, and bell hooks. In my reflection, I discovered that my strategies for making the women in the photos appear beautiful subjugated her to the viewer in a passive/active dichotomy that objectified her body. I note, however, that one of the photos psychoanalytically deny visual pleasure to the masculine gaze by bringing an erotic gaze head-to-head with a maternal symbol. I end off the reflection wondering how women can appear actively in a photograph.

By plastering images onto white clothing, I wanted to engage in a sort of critical fashion design. However, by projecting images over a body-conscious white dress of an anonymous woman, I have unintentionally coerced the viewer into participating in a scopophilic, masculine gaze. Laura Mulvey, a British film theorist, has said that the traditional white, masculine, heterosexual gaze in Hollywood films uses white women’s bodies to provide a pleasurable viewing experience. What artistic choices did I make to be complicit in a patriarchal gaze?

To make my photos pleasing and striking to the reader, I silenced and idealized the woman in my photos. Two strategies of objectification and passivity are clear to me. These photos objectify the woman by dehumanizing the woman into a geometric figure that shapes an internal object. For instance, one photo traces the outlines of an arching body with a staircase; another fills a woman’s back with a horizon. Furthermore, these photos show a passive woman to be consumed by the audience’s gaze. In all of the photos, she is anonymous and faces away from the camera. Under a cinematic gaze, a passive woman is glamorized, and the gaze seeks to dominate and contain a woman by “solving” her mystery. As a consequence, there is pleasure in looking at silent, passive female suffering, which needs saving. Dirt has ruined a pristine, white dress: her victimhood is beautiful. To borrow a phrase from Audre Lorde, I have used Tools of the Master’s House to make photos of a white woman appear beautiful. These photographs have a limited creative expression where women appear non-threatening, and their suffering is neat.

Perhaps the one redeeming point about this collection of photos is that one of my photos reifies a woman untraditionally. Nature — life-giving, “Mother Earth” — is juxtaposed with a woman’s body, cut so it almost looks like a surgical specimen. Thus, an erotic gaze (scopophilia, pleasure in looking, coined by Freud) must compete with a gaze towards a maternal symbol. Given that, in Freudian psychoanalysis, the conflict between fear of incest and physical desire is always present and obstructive to heterosexual masculine pleasure, this photograph challenges the male gaze gaining visual pleasure. It does not protect the viewer from castration threat.

Yet, I must wonder if it is constructive to critique these photos as belittling, as not transformative enough, as weakening women. If all photographs are silent, and viewers are habituated to identify with the male gaze, then is it possible for women to exist in a photograph, not for the consumption of the male gaze? How do you take a feminist photograph of a woman in a body conscious dress? Can a woman’s body be reclaimed? Art is always lauded for its radicalism and unwillingness to follow rules, but one only needs to look at bell hooks’ criticsm of Beyonce’s Lemonade to show that art — at least those made for pleasurable consumption in a capitalist society — supports and is venerated by the same oppressive norms it claims to destroy: in Lemonade’s music videos, black women’s bodies are featured prominently for consumption. Mulvey, however, points to a strategy of Hollywood films that I believe can be repurposed for a feminist gaze in photographs. Old Hollywood Films are designed, cinematically, for the viewer to identify with the male characters. Unlike this collection that sanctify women to-be-looked-at, in my next project in photography, I hope to take photographs that identify with women.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Final Reflection

My initial purpose for taking this class was to become more responsible with the power that I have as a would-be Andover graduate, a Japanese student studying in America, and a woman who loves technology. I felt insecure that my feminist principles were not grounded or informed enough. I could not answer if someone asked, “What is gender?” This knowledge seemed crucial as I navigate different manifestations of feminism after Andover, where I may not be surrounded by strong role models who speak for me. As a woman in STEM, feminism inevitably follows me, a brand of Sheryl-Sandberg feminism that is made necessary by trendiness, class, and capitalism — who does this feminism benefit? What does it bring that is new? In Japan, the word “feminism” has a different dictionary definition; how could I communicate the principles of feminism using different terminology? After taking this class, I wanted enough background in gender theory that I may be able to explain it and show why it matters, and how it is grounded in truth, even to people whose only encounter with feminism has been neoliberal or aggressive.

One theme that has left the strongest impression on me from this class is the constructed-ness of sexuality and gender. I learned to view gender and sexuality, not as timeless essences of human nature, but rather a description of a process of individual and societal habituation. This understanding began to dawn on me during Mr. Khactu’s class and the cartoon that explained Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity in simple terms. It surprised me how smoothly this theory fit into my own understanding of Buddhist teachings, which I learned about in the Global Buddhisms class in the Winter. Gender is not intrinsic to human nature but is a product of countless interactions of the past and present, which all inform ideas of what gender is, and they have been constructed around two poles of masculinity and femininity, according to a power matrix that aligns sexuality, sex, and gender. I believe one of the reasons why this theory has become so important to me is the universal responsibility it places on each of us to deconstruct and reconstruct concepts of gender and sexuality so that it can include more people. It is because that gender and sexuality are constructed that oppressive systems are not permanent, and can be affected by an individual so they can, one day, transform. As gender changes from moment to moment, we are called to be mindful of the consequences of our actions. As Audre Lorde says in “Uses of the Erotic,“ as women, we need to examine the ways in which our world can be truly different. I am speaking here of the necessity for reassessing the quality of all the aspects of our lives and of our work, and of how we move toward and through them.”

I had set three goals at the beginning of the term (below), which connect with the goal above. As the term progressed I realized that these goals interacted with the other classes I took: specifically, a Buddhism semi-IP, Nonviolence and Social Change, and Film Photography.

Understand the importance of activism and praxis within the context of the feminist movement and identify possible avenues for their own activist application of learned concepts.

Question perceived systems of privilege and hierarchy as they relate to their own experience and that of others (moving from self-based to empathy-based motivations)

Write both reflectively and analytically about the course materials.

The first goal especially connected with my Nonviolence class and Film Photography. I explored activism primarily through the function of Love, an idea brought forth by Gandhi as the most revolutionary and radical force. Love reveals Truth, for the universal sort of love — agape —seeks something that is inclusive and harmonious with all of mankind, which is the Absolute Truth. And as we discussed the Othering of discourse via Foucault, the manipulation of Love to exchange women, or whether Love required domination through Beyoncé’s Lemonade, I became convinced with every lesson that what I had wanted to do as an activist was to Love, and to stay firm to Truth, being loyal not to my immediate self but to the whole humanity. In Lorde’s words this may be an “erotic moment” — erotic because it is respectful of whole humanity, and not pornographic because it comes at the expense of another. It means expanding Realness, to borrow Butler’s language.

This term was an experiment in practicing such Love. What I found hindered my ability to Love was communication of my ideas to people who do not share the same viewpoints as I do, and I saw that this problem was shared by others, too. As I tried to communicate with my parents — with whom I have a tumultuous relationship — I felt anger, vengeance, despair, numbness. What helped me was expanding Love towards others, which brings me to my second goal. What I discovered with empathy-based motivation is that this does not equal agreement — which surprised me, since almost all of my close relationships seem to center on agreement and validation. It means agreeing with what is Real. Throughout the Colloquium, I paid attention to blackness and queerness, two facets of identity that I do not identify with. I first noticed how early gender theory left out discussion of black women, for instance, in discussions of the masculine gaze in Hollywood films. Reading bell hooks and contemporary feminist critics’ dialogue about Beyoncé’s Lemonade videos taught me the multiplicity of black feminist dialogue, of generational differences, and multiple perspectives on sex positivity in the backdrop of hypersexualization of black women’s bodies: how do you proceed? And the hypersexualization of black women in media especially resonated with Malika and Madison’s project on how black women navigate Andover’s hook-up culture, and where such validation can be found. Previous to this class, I also had not known that black male artists have a limited creative expression of hypermasculinity, one which is then set as an archetype of “blackness” that is consumed to personify white struggle.

I hope that Piper’s and my photography series, Sexist Alphabets and Metaphors respectively, can introduce students at Phillips Academy to the elasticity of gender and sexuality. By showing how gender theory and queer theory is liberatory and resists solidification, it counters the narrative of CAMD and student activists as “PC police,” enforcers of a rigid set of codes.

Moreover, I hope that Phillips Academy students may see that feminism is grounded in truth, not simply a mindless performance of East Coast intellectual liberalism, or a political philosophy to adopt in order to appear to be a “good person.” There is an idea that social justice is a separate issue from education, that the former is from an idealistic, impractical realm that is incompatible with the rationality of the real world. In other words, social justice is accused of being a lofty performance, a delusion, a daydream. Yet, this is a tactic that is generally used to silence marginalized people who advocate for themselves. For instance, Zoe Sotille’s Brace Presentation brought up an insightful point on how women who seek help for mental health are dismissed for “acting.” In this regard, Theory may be a better communicator to those not won over by moral appeal than mass-consumed, popular feminism. The logical and even scientific arguments for how sexism operates can invite Phillips Academy students to take feminism seriously as an intellectual pursuit and to add to it critically, constructively, and responsibly. (Just as History 300 classes prove that racism is more than a moral issue: by learning about exploitative and neglectful legislation, one learns that it is a systemic and societal injustice that has benefited whites at the expense of African Americans.)

My partner for the final project, Piper, inspired me to be positive, critical, constantly amazed, and focused on the intention behind an action. Her love of learning, questioning, and efforts to be intersectional in her feminism was inspiring to me, and I was in especial awe of what a great writer she was. I loved being able to take two classes — Film Photography and the Gender Colloquium — with her. Our photography series were complementary, and hers pushed me to make a greater effort connecting my photographs to practical, relevant issues at Andover.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Foucault

I will start by recalling Foucault’s argument in my own words. We have not escaped the power that “others” and stigmatizes sex as unnatural. The “repression” of sex since the eighteenth century is a regulation of coarse language on sex, while the utilitarian and rational discourse on sex has flourished. Sex became something to be managed, scrutinized, and analyzed. This “repression” is just as unnatural as language on sex that bills itself as transgressional and liberating. While meant to criticize the hypocrisy of repression, “transgressional” discourse on sex still makes sex disquieting by titillating it through language, tone, and context.

I am uncertain what a discourse that normalizes sex would look like, so long as no “normal” sexuality exists. People have different sexual attractions, histories, and preferences. Language that reinforces a default standard for sex risks marginalizing minorities. Normalization may occur at different points in time for different types of relationships, with monogamous, monoracial, married, heterosexual, and conventional sex accepted earlier than other types of relationships.

Language that normalizes sex, instead of enforcing a restrictive default standard, can include all types of sex, making them all “normal.” It would be helpful, here, to clarify what “normalization” means in the context of Foucault’s argument. If sex is normalized, the line separating sex from other typical, mundane activities would disappear. Sex would no longer be noteworthy and titillating, just like drinking tea, going on a bike ride, or eating at a restaurant. People may prefer different restaurants — Italian, Sushi, high-end, bars, take-out — and the variety of people’s experiences are all normal. Normalizing an experience do not necessitate a “normal.”

How can we move towards discourse that normalizes sex? Many social changes happen in increments so small that they are hardly noticeable. Over time, these increments add up to a cultural shift, but while the change compounds, each step hardly warrants resistance. Perhaps, discourse on sex that are intended to be “transgressional” cannot escape the stigmatization of sex because people find them to be too jarring. Some insidious process could habituate people to see sex as normal. At the same time, what steps would not be jarring? Avoiding bold steps may lead to complacency, and people’s well-being may depend upon a bold step. For trans and nonbinary students at Phillips Academy, all-gender housing could not come sooner.

I used to think that the subversive, titillating language around sex was an inevitable, even biological, product of a heteronormative society. I hesitate to label my sexuality — I do not know — but I generally not feel physically or romantically attracted to people of any gender. I noticed that my culture was saturated with romantic comedies, happily-ever-afters, asking people to dances, and scandalous affairs. Every adult seemed to have partners, or sought one (or many). So I had never questioned that people would put sex on a pedestal, although it was something that I never felt myself. If sex is so pleasurable and biologically imperative, the language around it would naturally be exceptional. Foucault suggested that the language around sex is also shaped by economic (capitalism), political (demographic control), and cultural (religion) norms.

For sex to be normalized, I believe that the absence of sex should be normalized, too. It seems to me that “transgressional” language sometimes criticizes the absence of sex. The world not be saturated entirely with language about sex, just as it should not be devoid completely of language about sex. This seems more natural, or at least, intuitive. Sometimes, people drink tea, and at other times, they do not drink tea. Having all-gender housing does not necessarily result in teenage pregnancies. Perhaps this will help to make language on sex more comfortable for everyone.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Gaze

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Project Write-up: Theorist Influences on Metaphors and the Sexist Alphabet

One salient influence on the content of Metaphors and the Sexist Alphabet for Phillips Academy was the theory of Carol Mavor, author of Pleasures Taken, a text analyzing the influence of sexuality and autonomy of the subjects within the photographic medium. In Pleasures, Mavor writes of one woman: “Hannah’s pictures annihilate us by refusing categorization, which then undoes our subjectivity . . . As Lacan remarked, ‘The picture is in my eye. But I am not in the picture” (Mavor 115). How does the patriarchy inform presence in the real world, and within the photographed image of Metaphors and Sexist Alphabet? In Rr: Racism, for example, a white woman commands the attention of the camera, blocking from view two women of color who, it is barely apparent, look at one another with frustration. In Oo: Objectification, set among bottles of shampoo and perfume, a woman’s face takes on the appearance of an appliance, separated from her body and placed among the inanimate. The picture is in her eye, in other words, but she is not in the picture. Within the community at large, the role of the camera in erasure is clear: the commercial camera’s love affair with white bodies serves to objectify white women and erase people of color while personal use of the camera allows the individual to force the subject into an attitude that expresses how the photographer views that subject. It is thus that Sexist Alphabet was designed to explore and test the power of presence as it is influenced by marginalization; here, women become objects and props to the agenda of male dominance. Additionally, Mavor suggests the ethics of “pleasures taken,” or the ability of the camera to disenfranchise and violate the subject. Sexist Alphabet explores different power dynamics—oppression between students, the injustice enabled by the administration, greater themes of subjugation not specific to Andover—in order to discuss the way in which pleasure is taken from the subjects of the photograph by the society in which they live.

With her theory of performativity in gender, Butler informed the creation of both Sexist Alphabet and Metaphors. As Metaphors delineates the ways in which sexism and misogyny function, Sexist Alphabet applies those forms of oppression to the context of Andover, allowing the audience to appreciate the salience of those themes in their own lives, as well as their own complicity with those systems. Within Metaphors’ Clenched Hand/Open Hand, the theme of performativity is directly explored; just as the hand clenches upon the flowered necklace, our society is inclined to hold tightly to the gender norms that govern our behavior. Because many of the people featured in Sexist Alphabet—including the project creator herself—do not align themselves with the values or beliefs depicted in the photographs in which they appear, an aspect of performativity was necessary to the project. This was perhaps most visible in Ff: F*ckboy, in which a young man in sportswear makes a gesture well-known as a symbol of the young men who participate in toxic masculinity and rape culture. The student himself self-identifies as a feminist, and professed his distaste for f*ckboy culture; in order for him to participate in the project, therefore, it was necessary for him to briefly assume a brand of masculinity that was not his own. Similarly, in Ll: Locker Room Talk, the male students involved in the photograph approached the staging of the shot with sheepish humor, simultaneously acknowledging both the ridiculousness they perceived in the macho behavior traditionally involved with the locker room and the fact that the nation’s current president is now generally associated with the toxic masculinity it evokes.

Butler’s theory of gender performativity impacted the choice of Buddhism as an inspiration for the Metaphors series. Like Gender and Sexuality Studies, Buddhism seeks to destabilize and reconstruct reality as it is easily perceived, and is rich with visual metaphors that show the constant evolution of of reality. This is a consequence of one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, which dictates that that delusion is at the root of all human suffering, and the spiritual path in Buddhism seeks to untangle the mind from these biases. The Buddhist acknowledgement of the constructedness of all experience has a specific resonance with Judith Butler’s theories of performativity. Buddhism says that there is no essential identity to a self, be it as a woman, son, merchant, or other identifiers; these are all habituations from past thoughts, behaviors, and actions. Likewise, Judith Butler criticizes the “essentialism” of supposing heterosexual norms of masculinity and femininity has some internal permanence.

Mavor and Butler intersect at the crossroads of identity politics: how can one engage in self-preservation and maintain one’s identity in a society bent upon erasing it or forcing it into an expression with which it does not align? As Metaphors’ Stool reminds us, things are not what they appear to be; as theory asserts, identity is far more complex than it may seem. Images of photography in Sexist Alphabet (i.e. Cc: Cultural Appropriation and Gg: Gaze) show the power of the gaze to perpetuate racism and sexism, as well as the Foucauldian obsession with the image of the self or Other. It is often more expedient to cling to normative forms of gender and sexuality, or to allow a camera to reduce one’s self to a single image, yet more fulfilling is an acceptance and embrace of the true self that a camera cannot capture. Sexist Alphabet is, of course, not a full depiction of sexism at Andover, because the truth is that most people tend to make exceptions in their prejudiced worldviews for the people they admire, like, and love. One cannot help but imagine the shouting male student in Mm: Misogyny returning to Commons to have lunch with a close female friend who is “not like other girls,” or speaking highly of a female teacher whose class he enjoys. As both Mavor and Butler assert, therefore, all forms of self-expression, especially the camera, can only explain a single facet of the systems of oppression at work in our world; our identities, particularly in terms of gender, cannot be contained within an article of clothing or a snapshot in a photo series.

Yet, we have attempted to work with and expand on the limitations of photography in capturing reality, with especial attention to the gazes employed. When viewed in the light of Laura Mulvey’s theory of a scopophilic gaze in cinema, our series do not allow the viewer from the satisfaction of being an ‘invisible guest.’ Our series invite confrontation, physically and thematically, whereas the masculine gaze seeks passive objects to glamorize. In Sexist Alphabet’s Oo: Objectification, the subject stares directly at the camera. Aligned with bottles of shampoo, it challenges the viewer to equate her with the other objects; although the photograph does not speak, it is not silent. Without an instrument of passivity it is impossible for the female figure to be tamed into an object for visual pleasure. Furthermore, our series reject one of the exclusive tools of a masculine gaze: identification with the male object. The photographs in Metaphors are impersonal, and thus there is no intermediary gaze that compromises the viewer from seeing reality as is. Meanwhile, no sympathy with one character is expressed in Sexist Alphabets either. Through this project, we sought to explore what a feminist photography may look like, one in which images of women exist not to give pleasure but to reach beyond the silence of photography. Just as Butler says that fantasy “establishes the possible in excess of the real” (Butler 217) photography serves to legitimize what we believe to be possible - a shared understanding of the causes and faces of sexism.

Can there be a pure feminism? Relying upon the master’s tools, can we bring down the master’s house? In “Moving Beyond Pain,” renowned theorist bell hooks criticizes Beyoncé for her depiction of pain and suffering as a result of male misbehavior in Lemonade. Cannot she rely, wonders bell, upon a new language, creating new tools for the deconstruction of the patriarchy? Responding to those criticisms, a round table of modern feminists have since weighed in, saying that it is unfair to expect Beyoncé and other women of color to use their power for social justice, as few white performers are held to the same standard. Sexist Alphabet in particular explores the notion of a new language; it redefines the traditional alphabet in terms of the injustices faced by women. While the words and concepts utilized in the project are familiar to the viewer, the placement of our alphabet in a new context allows for the understanding of language as an expedient of power and ideology. As most people at Andover are introduced to social justice through informal settings such as PACE and YouTube videos, many people, although passionate about radical transformations, lack the intellectual language and theory that enriches the understanding of the work they do. Photography, as an accessible medium, establishes connections between the intellectual feminism that seeks radical transformation and a practical, mass-consumed feminism.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Sides of a Hand / Diversity of Thought

There are untruths and there are truths. When one person sees the palm of a hand, and another person sees the back of a hand, they see relative versions of the truth: a hand. When a person says they see a foot, that is an untruth. 

A variety of truthful opinions helps us form a more complete understanding of the truth: all the angles and crevices of a hand. Truthful opinions come from open-mindedness, integrity, and knowledge, which give a clear view of the hand. 

Untruthful opinions are destructive to seeing the hand as it is. Hate, falsehoods, or ignorance distort the truth, so opinions that are conceived by them are untruthful.

“Diversity in thought” is good when it contains truthful opinions. In a “safe space,” you may see the palm of a hand. In a “brave space,” you may admit that the back of the hand looks different from the palm. 

The idea that there is a foot, not a hand, does not belong in either of these spaces. 

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Clenched Hand, Open Hand

If gender is performative, do they exist at all? Does that mean that we should get rid of the notion of gender altogether?

This is not a correct assumption. Gender exist; sexuality exists. It is not a stable thing, but rather an experience, and ongoing phenomenon, for which we have inadequate terms to describe.

The problem occurs when we hang onto these norms and frameworks of thinking about gender so tightly, as though we are clenching it so it is not allowed to move, to flow, to modify itself with the changing of a wind, to transform. Rather, what we should think about gender is a loosening of the grip, so that we acknowledge its presence and lift the limitations we place on it. 

For instance, black artists have a limited range of expressions they can find success in as an artist. Male artists must act in the trope of a real n*****, who is loyal, defensive of his mother and female relatives, and “takes care of” (dominates over) women. Meanwhile, black female artists must show that they are a boss bitch or a bad bitch. These limiting tropes it not to say that these tropes must be extinguished, or that race should not matter; race is still there, but it is important to allow a loosening of the grip.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

The Arm is Too Short

You cannot reach the bottom of a deep hole. Is the hole too deep? Or is the arm too short? 

The mission of feminism is daunting. It is difficult to seek radical change when the tools you have at your disposal has been used for oppression. 

Yet, there is no actual limit to creativity and empathy. The arm is too short. 

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Stool

Things that seem concrete to us are not what they seem. This stool looks solid, but it is made of atoms, whose volume is mostly empty, save for a few electrons and protons.

Likewise, the things we take for granted now are not as permanent and as unchanging as they seems. This is why it is important to question the rationale behind the beliefs we take to be permanent and solid.

In the context of gender theory, many questions can be asked. Why is incest such a taboo? Why do we consider the language around sex “repressed”? Why do Muslim women need saving? The answers to these lie in the intersection between knowledge and power.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Pointer

A finger points at an object, but it is different from the object itself. A pointed finger is like language. Language is a symbolic framework that we use to navigate the world, but it is different from reality. They are a are a way of representing the world in a way that makes it convenient and organized for us, but there is a risk that we cannot point to everything that exists. If there is no language that refers to a certain experience or trait, then it seems to not exist at all.

Language is a display of power. Power governs reality through norms and lexicon. They define what exists and what does not, and this distinction is internalized. Those who fall within the normative group are real. Those who desire to be non-normative re unreal. If gender is believed to be a pure dichotomy of masculinity and femininity, then nonbinary people do not exist within these norms. Without a legitimizing lexicon,it is not possible for them to exist in a reality governed by power.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Momentum

Sexism and gender inequality is like the momentum of a ball. When one ball hits a next ball, the next ball carries on the momentum. The vehicle is separate, and the direction of movement changes, but, the momentum is there, affecting the trajectory of the ball. 

To study the roots of oppression, it is necessary to look at history. History matters. Many people believe that advocating for gender equality is outdated. They say that sexism ended with the granting of the vote to women in America. They believe that people are purely products of their individual merits.

Systemic oppression is like momentum. Over generations, it accumulates and accumulates. It does not go away just because of one policy, or because people die and are reborn, and an entire generation is replaced. 

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

The lost wallet is a metaphor for the delusion of not being aware of issues until it seems immediately relevant to you.

When you lose a wallet, you do not first realize that you have lost it. You go about your day, believing that everything is alright, but it is not — the wallet could be anywhere. It is only when you reach to your wallet when it becomes necessary to you, that you realize that the wallet is lost.

While you have lost your wallet, as long as you do not realize, it seems as though you live in bliss. The same can be said for issues that affect another demographic of people.

Take, for example, the instance of a fuckboy. Prior to this class, I did not realize that the origins of rape culture may be found in a prison. The terms that we frame as “transgressional” are ones that we exploit and have taken from the culture that proliferates in prisons — and as soon as it leaves the prison, we are drawn to it and romanticize it. Yet while we take those aspects of a culture, there has not been adequate enforcement of laws that aim to prevent prison rapes from occurring. Yet, rape culture is something that affects all of us — and if it cannot be eliminated in prisons it cannot be eliminated anywhere. Thus, by closing our minds and awareness to one aspect of an issue we place ourselves at risk. We must attain universal responsibility.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Binoculars

The best binoculars cannot be used to take a look at oneself. Likewise, the most extensive theory cannot encompass all that is that is your self. 

Gender theory and queer theory is elastic. It operates in the anticipation of a continuous evolution. You, too, are part of that evolution, attempting to articulate what is wordless.

[moesunamigendertheory-blog]

Big Dipper / Does Gender Exist?

Like the names we give to constellations, the terms we use for gender — such as masculinity, femininity — describe patterns. A Big Dipper does not actually exist, but it exists as a phenomenon. Likewise, an essential masculinity or femininity do not exist in human nature. But they do exist as a phenomenon.

The stars do not have an intrinsic, “Big Dipper”-like quality. They each are probably light years away. Violence does not have an intrinsic, masculine quality; love does not have an intrinsic, feminine quality.