The readings presented today were certainly interesting and eye opening. I would have to say that I found "
Womyn to
Bois", and "Bad hair day" to be similar but totally different at the same time. In "Bad hair day" the reasons for the epic crew cut by the author was she felt the need to defy society, defy why women have to do so much primping and prepping in order to fit the attractive mold. On the other hand, in "
Womyn to
Bois" although it states "Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather on of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male
supremacy."I feel like Levy's writing is mostly about..... sex. Her book takes butch as a totally different meaning than
Myhre's article. She graphically depicts many relationships, and many certain
individuals in her writing. I feel like
Myhre's writing was about showing her
Independence, her free spirit, and her defiance against stereotypes. Levy instead chooses to show a realm where the term "Play" and the carefree idea of hooking up in lesbian/transgender society has really shot off. Levy shows the differences of Lesbian America, and that society has changed so non-
commital sex is totally acceptable in that group. She shows the carefree
boihood world, where living is easy and fun without responsibilities of being a man. It shows these women, in their various appearances and preferences are doing what they want, but are doing it for the fun or playfulness of it all. They are also doing it for
each other, wanting to impress whom they are attracted to.
On the contrary, Myhres article is about what she wanted. If barely even mentions sex. Her message is simple, that she thinks that society shouldn't be so focused on the feminity of a woman, but the substance of her. She states that the fear of being butch scares us, and silences us because we are so concerned with what people think. She does not go through this radical change for anybody but herself. I particularly like her last line of the article.
Butch, femme, straight, gay, transgender, we can all take away something from this reading. I believe that these two unique perspectives can provide new light to what we sometimes fear. We can see from Levy's that there is a wide spectrum of preferences, and times have changed. People are more free to be who they want to be in life, rather than hide in the mold of a typical woman. From the other article we can see that perhaps instead of judging on appearance, we should try to change society by being attracted to other great qualities individuals have.
I agree with Brittany in that the underlying messages that both Levy and Myhre were trying to convey were very similar to one another; the method each chose to get this message across was very different though.
ReplyDeleteLevy thrusts us into "the scene" where lesbians go on "playdates," from New York to San Francisco. There are different types of lesbians too, there are femmes, butch tops, bois. Even though this scene is about girls who want to be with other girls, Levy points out that the way that some of the women act would definitely be considered "masculine" or "acting like a man." Many of these girls have their identities muddled in questions of who they are -- but they feel like their person, who they are can't be defined as a simple "he" or "she." Levy drives this point home by giving direct excerpts from an FTM's LiveJournal webpage and direct quotes from lesbians of all types in this chapter.
Myhre meanwhile didn't really focus on sex too much at all, as Brittany points her out. Her article is about what she wanted to do so that her identity was a human being was not tied up in her appearance. She didn't even really define herself as homosexual or heterosexual; I think that added to this piece because at the end of the day, why does it matter? Her whole thesis was that people should be interested in the substance of a person, and want to get to know someone based on being genuinely interested in them as a person -- not because they want to have sex with them, or on the other end of the spectrum, fear them because they have a shaved head.
Both of these articles articulate that woman or man, straight or gay, white or black, we're all human beings. We can recognize our differences and be uncertain about them of course, but then we must also acknowledge that we DO all in fact have some obvious, and some not so obvious similarities. At the end of the day, we're a lot more alike than we may think. This point relates to Lorde's article that we read last week in that Lorde points out that it's important (as women) to realize that we're all women, and that we might be different in some aspects, we have many commonalities as well.
As Brittany and Lisa have both pointed out, the Levy and Myhre articles explain that there are so many different types of people that exist in the world, many of whom deviate from the stereotypically defined "male" and "female" genders and fall into a category that may not be easily understood. In Myhre's article, we learn first-hand from a woman who ignores all of the social rules or norms of femininity including shaving your legs and armpits, wearing make-up and styling your hair. But why are these the standards that women must live up to in order to be accepted in today's society? This touches on Fausto-Sterling's article about what really defines someone as male or female? In the example of Maria Patiño who grew up and physically developed as a female but contained a Y-chromosome, despite her feminine appearance and personality is she technically a man?
ReplyDeleteAs Myhre argues and Levy also touches on, these definitions of gender, specifically of females create high and burdensome standards from women to live up to. Although it could be argued that some women find a sense of empowerment through looking attractive and dressing well -- I myself am guilty of this -- these are only social constructs that we have been programmed to believe. We associate self-satisfaction and confidence with fitting our appearances to ones that are thought to be beautiful and feminine. However as Myhre points out, putting on make-up, styling our hair, shaving our legs, buying the right clothes and wearing high heels is time-consuming and expensive. On the other end of the scale, for the women that do not buy into this image of femininity but instead are "butch" and act like "bois", they are criticized and judged for not being feminine and "acting like men." What's more is that these women feed into this criticism by treating and judging other women the same way. "Bois" judge women who are not "femme" enough or who are attracted to other "butch" women or who do not fit their standards for the ideal woman. The commonality in all of the examples presented in Levy's chapter is that in almost every case, the woman is devalued or made less of based on their appearace or sexual behavior. I think this is Levy's point: that the system we live in is condescending towards woman. Myhre's solution is that we must erase these limited definitions of "male" and "female", and as Lisa mentioned, focus on the person for who they are below their appearances.
As we all have agreed so far, Levy and Myhre share the same underlying message in their piece. However, as Brittany pointed out, Levy seems much more concerned with sex, while Myhre’s article seems concentrated on finding an “inner peace,” and acceptance of her sexuality.
ReplyDeleteThe confusion amongst women that Levy often talks about is definitely present in her chapter “From Womyn to Bois.” Just like the ringleaders of organizations like CAKE are confused about how to claim their femininity and empowerment, Levy expresses a similar confusion about the young women who are participating in this new social construct, labeling themselves “bois.” I felt that at several times Levy was being judgmental while making her points, as she often criticized rather than attempted to understand certain women’s decisions about surgeries. Her commentary on Rosskam’s surgery to receive a mastectomy was harsh, I thought. “The confusing thing, of course, is why somebody would need serious surgery and testosterone to modify their gender if gender is supposed to be so fluid in the first place.” I think this chapter, more than others, highlights some of Levy’s flaws. Instead of understanding a certain action or belief, such as a promiscuous lifestyle among lesbian women, she clearly makes it obvious that she does not agree with their lifestyle rather than presenting an objectified argument.
I thought Sterling’s reading was a strong contrast against Levy’s and Myhre’s pieces. Although all three are fighting against the labeling of sexuality and the social construction of it, Sterling’s piece was much more scientific and provided some historical basis, which reminded me of Miles’ piece; we must know and understand our history in order to function in the present.