The Political Agenda of Sex/Gender

Yesterday’s class discussion was a really good discussion and raised many questions that we should seek to, if not answer, thoroughly understand the rewards and consequences of plausible resolutions. The piece of the discussion that stood out the most to me was the political agenda of feminism. According to Judith Butler in “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution,” feminists Gayatri Spivak and Julia Kristeva push for a feminism that is composed of a feminist theory that calls for a radically new concept of “woman” but argue that for political interests no attention should be paid to the subject of gender constitution.  If it is generally understood that there is something inherently problematic with the current understanding of the term “woman” and the resulting concept, why then would feminists, and women, in general use it as a tool in eradicating the many issues that feminism seeks to correct? Where does the liberation come from if the only thing done is a redefinition of woman at the surface level?

                There are some points of Butler’s overall argument that I do not support, or don’t fully comprehend enough to give an opinion one way or the other, but I must say it makes total sense that to separate sex and gender is futile and to try to separate feminist theory from its relation to gender constitution is even more futile. Separating feminist theory from gender constitution while aiming to move forward with a political agenda based on the concepts and ideals tied to the out dated concept of woman is an end in and of itself. There is no expectation for progress if feminism seeks to construct and perpetuate a new view of womanhood yet it fights with one that it renders obsolete and oppressive. Really, what is the point to all of this? Butler makes a really good point by stating: “It is primarily political interests which create the social phenomena of gender itself… without a radical critique of gender constitution feminist theory fails to take stock of the way in which oppression structures the ontological categories through which gender is conceived.” In order for progress to be made it is imperative that feminists theory aligns with that of gender constitution and that the two are in sync with one another.

                So I wonder, how has feminism taken an account of society’s concept of gender constitution? Besides Butler, what other feminists push for a radical critique of the fundamental principles laying at the foundation of the current view of gender constitution that causes so much inequality? What can we do to set up “checkpoints” that serve as evidence that such things have come into question and that we are trying to reconcile feminist theory with gender constitution?