Feminist Theory, Article Review Example

 “This Sex Which Is Not One”

The title of this article reflects the author’s intent.  In very biological language, Irigaray walks the reader through every aspect of female genitalia, which she asserts is completely capable of sexually fulfilling its female owner.  Her point is made at the start and repeated throughout: women are essentially autonomous sexual beings, and the presence of the male component in sex is an unnecessary violation of this autonomy.  The tone of the essay holds to this aggressive stance from the start, as Irigaray begins the article by declaring that a woman’s sexuality has always been defined by masculine terms.   This manner of viewing a woman’s sex is so pervasive, the author states, that women are basically molded to express penis envy; since the female genitalia is thought of as nothing but a receptacle for what Irigaray calls the “noble phallus”, it is only natural that women would want to possess what the man possesses.   This is the perceived history the author sets out to contradict.

Irigaray’s essay is extreme and specific, and the author goes a long way toward defeating her own purpose in the extremity.  There are no middle grounds regarding sexuality in Irigaray’s view.  Men use women as props to fulfill their intrusive, sexual desires, and that is all.  Even the pleasure a woman may feel from sex with a man cannot be anything other than masochistic and unhealthy, in the author’s eyes.  Women, so long accustomed to – in Irigaray’s own phrase – prostituting themselves as objects for men have developed slave mentalities which block them from achieving freedom.   In this essay, Irigaray basically takes Freudian thought to its farthest reaches, and in doing so does a real disservice to women, and to feminism.

Most importantly, Irigaray’s agenda is so pronounced that she chooses to ignore the fundamental reality of male and female genitalia, in that each is endowed by nature to be either auto-erotic or employed in mating.   To insist, as Irigaray does, that the vagina is perceived as nothing but a vessel for men truly debases women who, it is reasonable to expect, have known better than that for many centuries.   That is to say, it is just as incorrect – and pointless – to label a man’s penis as nothing but a breeding implement as it is to refer to a woman’s vagina as nothing but a “sheath”.   Men and women have battled over gender rights for a very long time, but even the most adamant feminists and reactionary sexists understand that nature does not so limit the human body, and that male and female sexual organs primarily exist to compliment one another.  If man debases, nature does not, and this knowledge is common to all.

It may be that Irigaray’s essay was valuable at the time of its release, when modern feminism was just beginning to be heard.  Unfortunately, her viewpoints are so severe that feminism itself is damaged in the process.   “This Sex Which Is Not One” is a drawback to feminism because feminism relies on human understanding and a mutual respect between genders.  Irigaray is instead promoting an Amazonian Utopia, where women can be happy and fulfilled as long as males are never present.

A Black Feminist Statement

This article, published during the pivotal era of the 1970s,  begins in as straightforward a way as can be imagined.  In the opening statements, it is angry in what it has to say. The anger is controlled and the writing is clear and calm, but the first paragraphs of the article read as, essentially, an ultimatum. What they intend is a reflection, and a consequence, of the “life and death struggle” of  the African American woman in the United States. Moreover, as the work repeatedly asserts, the position of the black woman is uniquely victimized, for she suffers under multiple forms of oppression.  Gender is only one in the mix, and it is compounded by racism, which in turn is enhanced by the power of the rule of white men.

There is another component to this statement, and it is largely responsible for the severity of the anger. The women behind the article identify themselves as black feminists and lesbians, and this adds heterosexuality to their list of oppressors.   The picture painted of the black lesbian here is as bleak as can be conceived; the authors plainly state that, as black women are stereotyped as either “mammies” or “whores” in the society ruled by heterosexual white men, the black lesbian is an even greater figure of contempt. This is what the authors claim to have fueled their purpose in banding together.

What is most interesting, then, is that the article then veers into a less enraged, or strictly defiant, stance. It acknowledges that the biggest obstacle in increasing awareness of the black woman’s identity, as a lesbian or otherwise, lies not in overcoming white bigotry, but in the minds of the black women themselves. Then, the authors rationally state that they are not interested in a separatist agenda for black lesbians because that would be counter-productive to everyone’s well-being.  From an irate opening, the piece goes on to treat the issues in an expansive way, and does not even make villains of white men, who the authors see as victims of oppression in their own right.  Most importantly, the article refers to the inescapable fact that no women’s movement of any kind can succeed if it does not admit to the fact that all men and women must live together.

That “A Black Feminist Statement” evolves so unusually, moving from an angry stance to a more calm and open-minded platform, marks it as perhaps not especially well-written. What is more important, however, is that there is a great deal of thoughtful reflection in the piece.  If the authors begin by loudly proclaiming how unjust the American experience is for black lesbians, they take a deep breath, in a sense, and serve the feminist purpose better through reason and consideration. This is, in fact, how feminism must grow, no matter how strident and/or justified in anger a feminist is, because feminism is ultimately humanism.

“No More Miss America!”

In evaluating this brief tract, it is easy for the modern thinker to dismiss it as hysterical rhetoric. The view is understandable; the two-page brochure is almost adolescent in its rage and outpourings. It must be remembered, however, that this was 1968. There was no “feminism” at all, and the women who passed out this brochure at the Miss America pageant in Atlantic City that year were, in fact, doing something radical and groundbreaking.

In strictly technical terms, there is a great deal of this little brochure that is weak. For example, in explaining what form the protests will take, the women behind them make it clear that even men sympathetic to the cause will not be welcome.  Their money and vehicle support, however, is, and this as a rather arbitrary way of accepting help. Then, the ten points enumerated as the chief objections of the group begin by specifically addressing important feminist concerns, such as how Miss Americas are deployed to promote the war effort, and how they perpetuate the image of the American woman as a sexual commodity. There is even an objection on behalf of men, that the pageant reduces both genders in a “win or you’re nobody” mentality. They devolve, however,  into repetition. There is no escaping the sense that it was felt that ten points were needed, and some stretching took place to make it happen.

There are situations, within feminism as in any other cause that must fight to gain attention, when excess is more than excusable because the impact is what chiefly matters. In 1968, there could be no subtle proposing of feminism because the concept did not yet exist in a living way.  What was needed was the outrageous, such as a band of women marching outside an Atlantic City hotel before a beloved, sexist tradition was to be televised nationwide.  If  “No More Miss America!” is a clumsy exercise in early feminism, it nonetheless forged the way for greater things to follow. Just as the suffragettes of earlier years committed illegal and even dangerous acts to make the point that women required the right to vote, the women behind the feminist assault on the 1968 Miss America pageant took great chances and exposed themselves to ridicule, for the greater dignity of women and what would evolve into the feminist cause.

“We Egyptian Women”

Inji Aflatun’s article, “We Egyptian Women”, reflects the very specific concerns of the title. This is not a general piece on feminism, or even on feminism issues in the Middle East.  Aflatun’s entire point is that Egyptian women face certain obligations and obstacles different from women elsewhere, and this is clearly her focus.

Moreover, the author does not dwell on the concerns typically associated with feminism, such as gender bias and cultural roles.  Her agenda is chiefly political. She does give some history on what Egyptian women have endured through sexism, but the emphasis is really a rallying cry for self-empowerment. Aflatun does not suggest strategies wherein women of her country negotiate power and break through sexist boundaries; she is not very concerned with how it happens.   What matters to the author is that the fate of Egypt is at stake, for the political well-being of the nation cannot occur without the full participation of women in the political arena.

This is, of course, a localized article.  The concerns of the writer are born from what seems to be a deep devotion to the welfare of her country, as she is appalled by the limits in education, voting, and seeking political office placed on Egyptian women.  It is easy, then, to view the article as not applicable to global feminism because Egypt is a uniquely placed nation in terms of gender roles.  However, the points  Aflatun makes do indeed apply universally, even if they emerge from her reaction to an especially repressive nation.  Only educated women can properly serve the state, she argues, and the state cannot succeed if it lack this vital element of support.  If moral issues of feminism do not seem to absorb much of the author’s interest, they are nonetheless reflected in the deeper morality of what she has to say.  Egyptian women are citizens who, because of their sex, have too long been denied their right to participate in the operation of their own nation.

“Feminism:  A Movement to End Sexist Oppression”

This thoughtful article by Bell Hooks does a great service to feminists everywhere. Decades old, it still, in fact, has enormous value today, because it takes a necessary and internal look at how feminism is perceived by women themselves.  The focus is crucial, and just as important today as it was when Hooks first addressed the issue.

She argues that, fundamentally, feminism is held back by the confusion it creates in women. Many women are uncomfortable in being designated as feminists because the term is both unclear to them and vastly subject to derogatory interpretation. It has a strident, militant quality even women who hold to feminist values dislike. As Hooks strongly suggests, this ambivalence does more to hold women back than male oppression.  When feminism has no clear significance, it is diffused and ineffective.

After going into some of the reasons for this dilemma, Hooks sets out a clear, elegantly written definition.  Hooks states that the entire reality of the women’s experience must be central to the significance of feminism; when it is seen as either a social or political concern, it defeats its own purpose by ignoring how all the elements of a culture reflect each other.   Political and social forms of sexist oppression, for example, cannot be eliminated without a proper understanding of what sets them in place initially. Moreover, real feminism, as Hooks promotes it, must be seen as free from any agenda to elevate women over men. This seemingly obvious point is important, in terms of adding value to Hooks’s work, because it goes to what must be the core of all feminist struggle. It is not, ironically, actually about gender at all, but about how all people must be permitted to live as freely as all others. Feminism is humanism, and this is the greatest contribution Hooks makes to the argument.

Works Cited

Aflatun, I.  “We Egyptian Women.” Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Combahee River Collective. “A Black Feminist Statement.” New York, NY:  Feminist Press, Monthly Review, 1978. pp. 210-218. Print

Hooks, B.  “Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression.”  Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives.  New York, NY: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Irigaray, L. “This Sex Which Is Not One.” Trans. Catherine Porter with Carolyn Burke. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985. Print.

New York Radical Women. “No More Miss America!”  Brochure, 1968. Print.