|
|
 
|
 December 2, 2000 Saturday Kate Bornstien said (quoting Minnie Bruce Pratt), "Our imaginations are enthrall to the institutions that oppress us." I've not really been reading any theory lately. I'm too frustrated with its lack of applicability. I'm a very practical person in some ways. I feel like Gender Theory is not utilizable. I've spent, on and off, a good portion of the past five years learning about and thinking about theory. Now what am I supposed to do with it? I have to say that what I most enjoyed were my debates and discussions with Sal over the last three years. I miss them. I don't know of anyone in the Boston area who is also interested in discussing gender theory. Ty and I can't. We disagree on what terms to use. He's so frustrated with the limitations of the words that he refuses to use them. I share his frustration but my need to discuss, debate, compare and contrast ideas outweighs that frustration. The very word "transgender" proves as Kate Bornstien said (quoting Minnie Bruce Pratt), "Our imaginations are enthrall to the institutions that oppress us." How can we work to overcome gender oppression when we name it with the very term that continues to oppress us? It ends up validating the very system we seek to overturn. I remember one discussion that Sal and I had in my kitchen. There we were - two very opinionated people in a fairly small room. We were debating the merits of working towards a world with many genders versus a world with no gender. At one point we both ended up getting into each others faces screaming the merits of our side while pointing out the flaws in the other. We both had to take half a step back (the limit of the distance available to us) and regroup. Then, in much calmer voices, we continued. We finally realized that, in the main, we were saying essentially the same thing. However we were using different terms to describe it. You see to a certain extent I *like* gender. I like the play, the variety. I don't like the price we pay. I think we *all* pay a price, whether we realize it or not. The price set by society is always too high. Whether you fit into the roles it sets up or not. At the same time Sal's argument for no gender does not mean we would loose the variety of self expression (my big fear). Rather it would expand it. It would allow that expression to, in a way, be free of charge. However my imagination is still, no matter how much I dislike it, enthrall to the institutions that oppress us. So I've combined Sal's terminology with my own. I want gender to be free of charge. I want our various modes of expression of our selves to be free. No one should have to pay a price to be true to the expression of their innermost self. You know I *do* enjoy a good debate. Debating pushes me to clarify my own thoughts. It pushes me to continue to learn and to expand. I like it when people tell me that something I've said is unclear or point out flaws in my arguments. It requires me to clarify not only to them what I mean but to myself as well. When folks point out the flaws in my arguments it pushes me to do more research. I'll then either find the information that backs up or refutes my argument. Gender theory, theory in general, is messy nasty stuff. It can take everything we use to stabilize our world view and toss it out the window. I wish I could go beyond comprehension and into true understanding of the dominant view of gender. For some reason it seems to be beyond me. The very concept of that understanding freaks me out. It makes me think that I'm accepting something without question. Something that is too ephemeral, not concrete enough to grasp with any sort of grip. Something I would have to take on faith. There are some things I am able to take on faith. The existence of G-d is an example of one. But they are things which I know I cannot look at too closely. Gender impacts my daily life too much to go without that examination. After all I don't come face to face with G-d every time I go to the bathroom. |
