A Quick Comment on Part VII

In the introduction to Part VII: 1995-2003, Kolmar and Bartkowski write “Feminist politics in this period was being reshaped by a discourse about generations: second wave and third wave. While the third wave seemed to be articulating its developing identity in online zines, music lyrics, and websites, the second wave was consolidating and reframing the fast four decades of feminism through an outpouring of memoirs, documents collections, and histories” (531).

The first reading in this section--"Riot Grrrl Philosophy"--is written by Bikini Kill, a punk band comprised of members Kathleen Hanna, Kathi Wilcox and Tobi Vail. One of their assertions is "...doing/reading/seeing/hearing cool things that validate and challenge us can help us gain the strength and sense of community that we need in order to figure out how bullshit like racism, ablebodyism, ageism, speciesism, classism, thinism, sexism, anti-semitism and heterosexism figures in our own lives" (532).

To be honest, punk music isn't my thing. But I relate to what Bikini Kill is saying about the importance of engaging people--especially younger generations--with different forms of communication. For example the 30th anniversary edition of Our Bodies Ourselves and an old Janis Ian record comprise one of my first recollections of feeling feminist sentiment.

From my experiences as a teenager with "Society's Child" to the readings and theories I've discovered and dissected in this class, my progression as a young feminist is something I'm proud of. I certainly don't feel like I have all the answers. In fact, I hope I never feel like I have all the answers. What I've learned from feminism is that growth requires constant questioning of the powers that be. I've gained an ability to synthesize big picture and overarching issues which makes me feel confident that my understanding of women's issues, issues of gender and sexuality and other feminist topics has just begun to broaden.

Continued Reflections on the Handmaid's Tale...

In Maneuvers: The Internal Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives, Cynthia Enloe writes "[In Three Guineas] Woolf not only points to the continuing masculinized culture of the government's civil service, for instance, but warns readers that even supporting women's colleges or backing efforts to promote women in law and medicine could serve to make women complicit actors in militarism if those young women adopted uncritically those professions' masculinized norms of hierarchy and competitiveness" (562).

I'm unsure of how I feel about Woolf's statement that women in law and medicine could contribute to a militarized society. In part it makes alot of sense. However, I think the most important part of her argument is the addition of the word"if." Woolf is obviously saying that women's presence in these disciplines is only progressive if they questions the norms of their professions.

In a way I feel like Enloe's argument about the militarization of women's lives also relates to the growing tension between the East and the West and The Handmaid's Tale. Hasn't it been hypothesized that the Third World War will be between religions (I think by Fareed Zakaria)? Anway, the fact that there is ongoing military conflict in the Middle-East and the plot of The Handmaid's Tale is set against an insurgency makes it easy to envision the theory Enloe writes about.She describes militarization by saying "There is nothing automatic about militarization. None of the items listed here [laundry, girdles, feminine respectability, democracy, marriage, fashion, security, liberation, feminitity, to name a few] will inevitably be militarized. Militarization is the step-by-step process by which something becomes controlled by, dependent on, or derives its value from militaristic criteria" (562).

One example of women organizing against militarization that is happening on local, national and international scales is the Women in Black campaign. Women in Black hold vigils to protest the manifestion of violence, militarism and war in not just the lives of women, but in the lives of all people. Often a group of women--dressed in black--meets in downtown Meadville to protest the war and make a feminist statement. To put theory behind praxis, this excerpt from Enloe's piece reflects the Women in Black campaign "...feminists concerned about the masculinized privileging effects of militarization on society have become convinced that monitoring and responding to the militazion of women and of feminity are necessary activites during even what looks on the surface to be peacetime, or 'the postwar era'" (564). She concludes "A major stumbling block on the road to ongoing militarization--between and within states--could take the form of feminist curiosity" (568).

Feminist curiosity--in the form of questioning and protesting the status quo--seems to be a valuable tool in dismantling patriarchy, the underlying structure of militarization.

The Handmaid's Tale, Behind the Veil and Dislocating Cultures

The Handmaid’s Tale, written by Margaret Atwood is a dystopian, speculative work of fiction. The state of Gilead is essentially the worst-case scenario of how society may be in the future. However, because the novel was written in 1985 it could be argued that Atwood was writing then of events that are current now. Of the many themes that run through the novel the concept of “freedom to and freedom from” particularly struck me—especially in terms of the relatively recent and ongoing class between the West and Middle Eastern societies. Atwood writes “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it” (24).

The concept of freedom to and freedom from is eerily similar to Fatima Mernissi’s summary of the differences and similarities between Islamic and Western exploitation of women. In Beyond the Veil, she writes “While Muslim exploitation of the female is cloaked under veils and hidden behind walls, Western exploitation has the bad taste of being bare and over-exposed” (269).

Atwood’s and Mernissi’s commentaries further overlap in this passage, where Aunt Lydia says “The spectacles women used to make of themselves. Oiling themselves like roast meat on a spit, and bare backs and shoulders, on the street, in public, and legs, not even stockings on them” (55). This description represents the general appearances of women in the West. While Muslim women may be shrouded, most women living in Western societies are objectified and overexposed.

Another similarity between Gilead and some Middle-Eastern states is the government regulation of communication, transportation and public elections. In Gilead “Newspapers were censored and some were closed down, for security reasons they said. The roadblocks began to appear, and Identipasses. Everyone approved of that, since it was obvious you couldn’t be too careful. They said that new elections would be held, but that it would take some time to prepare for them…” (174).

These restrictions, coupled with the clothing women in Gilead must wear evoke the traditional view feminists in developed countries have of women in the East. But, such a dichotomy—between the West and East—is misleading and does not represent the true complexity of the clash between both cultures. Uma Narayan summarizes this dichotomy by writing “…the concerns and analyses of Third-World feminists are rooted in and responsive to the problems women face within their national contexts, and to argue that they are not simpleminded emulations of Western feminist political concerns” (543).

Neither way is ideal—both deny agency and choice, whether overtly or not.

One Indian-American Muslim woman, Asra Nomani, has written a memoir, Standing Alone, about her personal journey to bridge the gap between her cultures. To listen to a NPR interview with Nomani click here.

Lakoff, Butler, Halberstam and The Man with a Pussy

In Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Judith Butler contends that gender is an act; a repeated performance. To be honest, after reading an excerpt of her words, my head was spinning—not because what she said didn’t make sense, but because she explains gender so well that I can't even wrap my brain around the complexity of it.

Butler highlights the difference between performance and performativity. Performativity is unconscious and constant, it is pervasive. Performance is episodic and purposeful. An example of performativity is the way women and men communicate differently. In Language and a Woman’s Place, Robin Lakoff says “’Women’s language’ shows up in all levels of the grammar of English. We find differences in the choice and frequency of lexical items; in the situations in which certain syntactic rules are performed; in inotonational and other supersemental patterns. As an example of lexical differences, imagine a mane and a women both looking at the same wall, painted a pinkish shade of purple. The woman may say: The wall is mauve, with no one consequently forming any special impression of her as a result of the words alone; but if the man should say ‘the wall is mauve’ one might conclude he was imitating a woman sarcastically or was a homosexual or an interior decorator” (264).

Minus the bizarre combination of “homosexuals and interior designers,” Lakoff has a point—the way we speak exemplifies the performative nature of gender. For example, the word choice I use when writing this blog—or when speaking—is indicative of how I’ve been socialized to communicate in a way that identifies my gender. This is gender performativity. Check this out.

As far as performing my gender, I think I do this when I knowingly showcase the fact that I am a woman and identify as so. For instance, when I wear heels or makeup or allow a man to open a door for me. Sometimes I wonder if there is any merit to being aware of gender performance. If I make the active choice to do these things I am still contributing to the very institution that oppresses me by making and effort to look feminine and act submissive? Isn’t feminism about choice? Yet this doesn’t seem like a step towards eradicating sexist oppression…and my head is spinning again.

Another key question Butler asks is where gender identities come from. She writes

“…how is [identity] shaped, and is it a political shaping that takes the very morphology and boundary of the sexed body as the ground surface, or site of cultural inscription? What circumscribes that site as ‘the female body’? Is ‘the body’ or ‘the sexed body’ the firm foundation on which gender and systems of compulsory sexuality operate? Or is ‘the body’ itself shaped by political forces with strategic interest in keeping that body bounded and constituted by the markers of sex?” (496). I can’t begin to answer this set of questions, but I think she vaguely answers herself by writing “gender does not necessarily follow from sex, and desire, or sexuality generally, does not seem to follow from gender” (500). What happens when the lines are blurred and individuals step outside of their prescribed roles? Butler says “…as a strategy of survival within compulsory systems, gender is a performance with clearly punitive consequences” (520).

A question I have, though, is do these punitive consequences differ depending on the offense? For instance, Buck Angel—who markets himself as the first female-to-male transsexual porn star—is followed by both men and women, of all sexualities. Clearly he has deviated from his prescribed gender and while I can’t definitely say this—especially not in any politically correct way—it doesn’t seem that he faces punitive consequences. I understand this is a generalization and not all transsexuals are porn stars. Obviously most of them are pushed to the margins of society because they choose to perform their gender and sexuality in a way other than prescribed. Angel seems to have turned this around and capitalized on his transsexuality…and I’m not sure how I feel about that.

Buck Angel started his career as a female fashion model. Now he is a porn star. In Female Masculinity, Judith Halberstam states: “If we study the fault lines between masculine women and transsexual men, we discover…that as transsexual men become associated with real and desperate desires for reembodiment, so butch women become associated with a playful desire for masculinity and a casual form of gender deviance” (550). I think this excerpt applies to Buck; self-described as a “man with a pussy” he gains acceptance by allowing himself to be fetishized as a transexual person, which in a way undermines how seriously he takes his gender and sexuality.

I have to admit that I'm uncomfortable with this particular form of gender and sexuality subversion. I consider myself a very accepting person who embraces the continuum of gender, but this just gets me. When I try to identify exactly why he makes me uncomfortable the best I can come up with is that it seems wrong for someone who identifies as male to be able to have such direct power over the female body. If he were out in public, clothed from the bottom down, no one would know he had a vagina and he would be treated with male privilege. Who is he, then, to exploit the anatomy that by cultural construction makes me inferior? I understand that challenging notions of gender falls in line with feminism, but I can’t quite get behind Buck Angel.

Part VI: 1985-1995

In "The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology" Ynestra King writes "...in patriarchal thought, women are believed to be closer to nature than men. this gives women a particular stake in ending the domination of nature--in healing the alienation between human and nonhuman nature" (470).

While I can see why the idea that women are closer to nature could be demeaning to some, I personally feel that I because I am human I have a connection to nature and the world around me, and because I am a woman and a feminist this relationship is stronger than it would be given a different set of descriptive characteristics.

I'm an Environmental and Women's Studies double major, so clearly I have come to see the correlations between the two fields and this background helps me to understand and place my relationship with the natural world around me.

Growing into this field of study I have read things like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the Brundtland Commission Report (which was headed by a woman, Gro Harlem Brundtland), Wangari Mathaai's memoir Unbowed and Vandana Shiva's Soil Not Oil. All of these women would probably testify to the closeness to nature they--as women--feel. Is this just because they are women? No, probably not. And dissecting our human experiences to fit within certain labels isn't what feminism is about, either. Furthermore, there are plenty of environmental scientists who are men (and feminists), and probaby plenty of environmental scientists that are women but don't identify as feminists. Take for instance Robert Engelman, author of More: Population, Nature and What Women Want. Clearly Engelman isn't a woman, but he is an environmentalist, a writer, and perhaps a feminist.

I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't just because I'm a woman or a feminist that I have an affinity for environmental justice. It's because of who I am that I have this affinity. Yet who I am--my very essence--cannot be peeled away from the fact that my gender is female and I identify socially as a woman.

And, while nature and culture are pitted against one another in just one of many socially constructed binary systems, I think advances for both the feminist and the environmental movement could be made by deconstructing this binary. When we start seeing nature (woman) and culture (man) as intricately linked to one another and promote a symbiotic relationship between the two (instead of the current parasitic relationship) that will be great progress.

Wangari Maathai "Taking Root":




Vandana Shiva press conference:

Part V: 1975-1985

In “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” Laura Mulvey writes “the determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly” (299).

Most of the time advertisements, commercials, TV shows and movies are shot from the male gaze, meaning the perspective of the camera—everything from its angle to what it sees and the things it focuses on—are from a dominantly male perspective.

I think this directly relates to Meredith LeVande’s presentation on “Women, Pop Music and Pornography,” particularly the relationship between consumerism and patriarchy. Heidi Hartmann writes in “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union” that “we can usually define patriarchy as a set of social relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women” (358).

This is so obviously true of the communications industry which produces and airs everything from cell phone commercials where Beyonce seductively asks viewers to “let me upgrade you” to porn starring barely legal blondes. Mega mergers have created a near monopoly on the market and it’s probably safe to assume those pushing such mergers were men who sit comfortably at the very top of the patriarchal structure. And, they have benefitted in everyway from these mergers, too; they’ve cornered the market and are living in opulent wealth, probably ordering porn from HBO in penthouse hotel suites as I write.

I did take away some new knowledge from LeVande’s presentation. But, I also have a critique to offer. What LeVande had to say ties nicely into the readings we’ve done on race, from “Chicana Feminism,” written by Anna NietoGomez to “A Black Feminist Statement,” written by the Combahee River Collective and “Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” by Audre Lorde.

The women writers of the Combahee River Collective have it right when they say “the major systems of oppression are interlocking” (312). LeVande had it wrong. While she spoke out against the male gaze, she spoke from a very white perspective—a “caucasian gaze”—if you will. Quite frankly I was uncomfortable with the way she didn’t incorporate images of minority women throughout her talk but rather gave them their own section sandwiched between points about white women. While I respect that women of color often reject the typical definition of feminism—for obvious reasons—I don’t think it’s a white woman’s place to isolate these women or to ignore the interlocking systems of oppression that further oppress women of color.

Audre Lorde writes “…it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (338). But this statement shouldn’t be taken to mean that the oppressors have no responsibility in consciously avoiding making mistakes or being open to learning from those they oppress. It seems to me that LeVande—as some one who has studied feminist theory (presumably)—would have a better grasp on this concept. Apparently she needs a refresher course in interlocking systems of oppression and the responsibility all women have to one another to avoid the pitfalls of such systems.

Oh, one more point...LeVande is a children's singer/songwriter who decided to leave the adult music industry after feeling pressured to fit into a semi-pornographic image to further her career. To me this just seems like false empowerment, a sort of fake agency. Which is worse: fitting a hypersexualized image or a mothering/infantile one? Don't get me wrong...what she's doing is great; kids need positive role models. But, is it really the best way to react to the increasing pressure women performers feel to fit a certain image in order to be successful? I don't think so...I think LeVande copped out and she needs to face the music. Here's her latest music video:

More Part V: Separatism

In "Some Reflections on Separatism and Power," Marilyn Frye writes "Feminist separation is, of course, separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationship, roles and activities which are male-defined, male-dominated and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege--this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women" (333).

So, Frye contends that feminist separatism is a personal decision which can be used for political means. Separatism comes in many forms. She says it can mean "Breaking up or avoiding close relationships or working relationships; forbidding someone to enter your house; excluding someone from your company, or from your meeting; withdrawal from participation in some activity or institution, or avoidance of participation; avoidance of communications and influence from certain quarters (not listening to music with sexist lyrics, not watching TV);withholding commitment or support; rejection of or rudeness toward obnoxious individuals" (333).

Here's my issue: I think separatism is theoretically an interesting and sound concept. But I also think theory and praxis are two separate things. I think it would be a step backwards to avoid working relationships with men and I think it's just ridiculous to think being rude to men is any kind of an effective resistance to patriarchy, either.

While I see the theory behind the concept of separatism--and while I agree it's important to assert female independence and solidarity--it's absolutely ludicrous from a practical perspective to think that half of the population could go through life avoiding the other half of the population.

What feminism needs is not separatism. What feminism needs is to emphasize woman to woman relationships--both personal and working--while still recognizing instead of denying the existence of woman to man relationships. Nurturing woman to woman relationships, focusing on women centered spaces and the positive portrayal of women in television and music seems to me like a far sounder plan than living as part of a commune. As appealing as communal life sounds--and regardless of my tendency towards radical feminism--I feel the need to challenge the concept of radicalism--maybe it's the easy way out?

Just a Little Bit More of Part IV: Problems that had No Name

Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Betty Friedan published important pieces of feminist writing decades apart. Gilman wrote “The Yellow Wallpaper” in 1892 and Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963. And while seventy years separate these pieces publish dates, the same current runs through them.

Gilman wrote “The Yellow Wallpaper” in a semi-autobiographical nature. She struggled throughout her life with depression. After the birth of her first child Gilman suffered from post-partum depression, which was diagnosed as hysteria. Gilman was ordered rest and for months was not allowed out of bed let alone to lift a finger for any purpose, including writing--her passion. Aside from just this difficult time in her life, in general marriage and motherhood had not fulfilled her. She questioned the decision she had made to marry in the first place; Gilman writes in her autobiography The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman that part of her longed to follow a career as a writer.

Betty Friedan identified a similar—if not directly related—problem in the Feminine Mystique. She noticed her classmates were unfulfilled by what they had been taught should fulfill them: a husband, a home and children. She writes: “Over and over women heard in voices of tradition and of Freudian sophistication that they could desire no greater destiny than to glory in their own feminity” (198).

The "woman problem” doesn't stop there...just to throw one more example into the mix, Anne Koedt—author of “Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm” (published in 1970)—identifies yet another male created problem for which women are blamed. Koedt deconstructs the Freudian concept of frigidity and redirects the blame for this “problem.” She identifies numerous reasons why the myth of the vaginal orgasm is still believed and essentially debunks the idea that frigidity is woman’s dysfunction. Rather, Koedt writes, frigidity is a result of a patriarchal understanding and misuse of the female body.

Koedt says: “looking for a cure to a problem that has none can lead a woman on an endless path of self-hatred and insecurity” (230). This statement sums up not only her argument, but also Friedan’s and Gilman’s. While women forced to partake in the cult of true womanhood found themselves wrestling with post-partum depression and insanity, and housewives during the 1950s turned to popping pills and buying ready-made clothing, women caught between the first and second wave of feminism found themselves feeling misunderstood and their bodies being misused for male pleasure only.

These trends will continue so long as women don't ask the important questions they owe it to themselves to be asking: Should I accept the answers a male dominated society has handed me? How can I push past the oppressive structures of patriarchy that force me to feel unhappy and uncomfortable in my own body? What will it take for me to find my own truth, one that isn't relative to role I play in the dominant system of male hierarchy?

More Part IV: Difference...

Difference is natural, right? Well, maybe not—I guess it all depends on how you define difference. I say difference is natural because I define it as the uniqueness each individual is born into the world with. What isn’t natural is the value placed on some characteristics and not on others—whether they are physical or mental, tangible or abstract.

Joan Scott--in "Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference: or, The Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism"--says "the concept of difference...is made through implicit or explicit contrast, that a positive definition rests on the negation or repression of something represented as antithetical to it" (448).

The most jarring personal experiences I’ve had with difference involve my father. He has cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair. Obviously the definition of him as disabled relies on the meaning and value of able being antithetical to disabled. Furthermore, all of us in the "able" category are constantly exploiting and oppressing those in the "disabled" category; these two terms and their meanings couldn't exist without one another.

In addition to the obvious—having limited mobility—my dad sometimes slurs his speech and can be hard to understand. While most people may not see past this description, I know that he is also a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, my local school board and for twenty years ran a successful law practice. He's also a self-centered person and a bad father. And while this blog isn't a critique of him our turbulent relationship some how makes me feel like I relate to Kate Millett--from her negative experiences with her father to the way she writes and what she has to say.

Numerous times I’ve had to witness how my dad's disability allows for others to see him as different and "less than" based on this difference. My earliest recollection of noticing this difference is when I was in the fourth grade; my family was running late to one of my soccer games and as my mom opened the sliding door of the family van and the handicap accessible ramp opened for me to run down to the field it hit me for the first time—none of the other kids had vans with ramps in them, or dads in wheelchairs.

Years later I was on a business trip with my dad at a prison where he was doing pro bono work. My neck burned with shame and sadness as I saw for the first time how some of his colleagues reacted to his disability and how he had to work ten times as hard to assert his masculinity in a simple conversation. Disability is just one factor that complicates the intersectionality of oppressive structures, which are almost always gender based. In this situation my father was treated as less than a man because he had a disability. Even though he is a man, he is rarely treated with the perks of patriarchy others that share his gender often recieve...I can't even recall how many times the waiter or waitress has given my mother the check instead of him, not to mention the numerous times I've been asked--as someone sitting next to him at the table--what kind of side or salad dressing he'd like.

Doesn't this lend interesting insight to the ways those not possessing traditionally "masculine" characteristics are essentially viewed--as not having a voice let alone economic power?

So here comes the million dollar question: how do we eradicate power structures based on difference?

And, in relation to feminism, how can we value the natural differences women have—from one another and from their male counterparts—without exploiting these differences? Do we want to be valued and allotted power based on our difference or do we want to eradicate the concepts of difference and power all together?

I agree with Kate Millett when she writes “The term ‘politics’ refer[s] to power structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another. By way of parenthesis one might add that although an ideal politics might simply be conceived of as the arrangement of human life on agreeable and rational principles from whence the entire notion of power over others should be banished, one must confess that this is not what constitutes the political as we know it, and it is to this that we must address ourselves…sex is a status category with political implications” (219).

And, while I appreciate Shulasmith Firestone for the idealistic concepts of which she writes: “…the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would not longer matter culturally” (227). When it comes down to it, I don’t think power can be erased, I don't think sex distinction can be ignored. The answer must be--at least for the meantime--to recognize and embrace difference, making sure not to value one “different” over another.

Probably easier said than done...

In Theory and In the "Real World," Trans Issues Relate to Feminism

VIDEO: Katelynn’s Real World ‘Secret’ Shocks Absolutely No One

In one of the first seasons of MTV’s show The Real World, Pedro—a gay man—was casted. At the time it was a big deal that his sexual orientation was being broadcasted—and recognized. Katelynn, one of the cast members on the current season of the show is Trans. This a great stride for the Trans community, and in turn for LGBT rights and even feminism.

In one scene, Ryan (another cast member) talks candidly with Katelynn about her identity. Their conversation is a little humorous but also really important. So, kudos to MTV for airing it and in turn for helping to open some minds that otherwise never would have thought about the subject of Trans issues. Oh, and snaps to Katelynn for being brave enough to be comfortable in her own skin—that’s more than most of us can say for ourselves

VIDEO: Katelynn’s Real World ‘Secret’ Shocks Absolutely No One




When Davey and Chase (two transgendered people) spoke to our class, this is what they had to say:

Feminism is about resisting patriarchy and because Trans people are--like women--oppressed by male hierarchy the two movements have a lot in common.

Economic Marginalization: unemployment rates for Trans people are overwhelming. In San Francisco 25% Trans people are employed full time, 15% part time and 10% are reported as unemployed. The rest are unofficially employed by the street economy prostituting themselves and/or selling drugs. This staggering unemployment--the result of discrimination--has the same effect on Trans people as it has historically had on women. When any individual is forced to be economically dependent on others--be it their partner, family or friends--a basic right of self-sufficiency has been denied.

Most of the time sexism/trans oppression happens simultaneously. "Normal" has to be measured against something and often because women are the victims of sexism, they (or maybe just the system that oppresses them) in turn oppresses trans people. Normal is defined in relation to abnormal--trans people as "other" helps women define themselves as the subject instead of their traditional role as other to the Male subject.

For instance, science and nature are used to justify sexism against women and Trans people. Women are perceived as the weaker sex and Trans people are also considered weak--whether because they are seen as being confused about their gender, psychologically unstable or weakness is associated with just not fitting neatly into one category of gender.

And, “my body, my choice” is not just a feminist statement. Just as the medical community has long dictated women's bodies, it also controls Transgendered people's bodies, too. For instance, being Trans is considered a psychological disorder that must be declared for treatment or change. This essentially proves that people are valued based on their reproductive abilities. So, by advocating for Trans rights, feminist can also make the statement that woman is not just a womb...hitting two patriarchal birds with one stone.

Davey's website