Category: Rubin

In this weeks readings something that stood out to me was the explanation of “kinship” of Levi-Strauss explained by Rubin. First one thing that stood out to me is that even though thought Rubin argues that we can’t just take a Marxist capitalist approach to the oppression of woman, capitalism does play an important role. When we talk about kinship and the idea that marriage of a woman is really just an exchange of gifts that a man exchanges with other men and that at the end woman is really excluded and objectified in this transaction we are really talking about the exchange and production of goods especially when he talks about the genetical bond produced from this exchanges. I really don’t agree with this idea of marriage but it does highlight the fact that this idea of production of goods keeps on reoccurring in the reading. Also when he talks about the exclusion of woman from this exchange between men it reminded me of Cixous ideas that woman are removed from philosophical models and that the relation is more between father and son rather than with wife. Again here we see a exclusion of woman and instead a relation between men like in the idea of kinship. When Rubin takes this concept of kingship more deeply he talks about the difference between men and woman and he mentions : “wholeness when united with the other. Men and women are, of course, different. But they are not as different as day and night, earth and sky, yin and yang, life and death. In fact, from the standpoint of nature, men and women are closer to each other than either is to anything else – for instance, mountains, kangaroos, or coconut palms. The idea that men and women are more different from one another than either is from anything else must come from somewhere other than nature. Furthermore, although there is an average difference between males and females on a variety of traits, the range of variation of those traits shows considerable overlap. There will always be some women who are taller than some men, for instance, even though men are on the average taller than women. But the idea that men and women are two mutually exclusive categories must arise out of something other than a nonexistent “natural” opposition.” (782)Here again. We see a similar concept to Cixous where she mentioned that woman are always described in a binary relation to men and always in an opposite manner, but this relationship is not equal it is hierarchical and the male description is always superior that the female description. And like Levi-Strauss mentioned these ways of describing are not natural because men and woman are very similar.

I find very interesting the text The Traffic in Women, by Gayle Rubin. In first place, because she makes a review of some the theories of some authors that we have read or we at least we have references. In her review, she tries to find some convergences and divergences (I think there are more of this, in fact) with the ideas of this authors and feminism. I think this is a very good exercise of make theories alive, that is, make them talk among each other, discuss their possible strengths or shortcomings according to one’s perspective.

But, which I like most in his text are some ideas that are in the last paragraph of the part entitled “Psychoanalysis and Its Discontents”. There she says: “It [the feminist utopia that is, according to the author the exegesis of the works of Freud and Lévi-Strauss] suggests that we should not aim for the elimination of men, but for the elimination of the social system which creates sexism and gender” (787). I strongly agree with this idea, because, at the end, it is not only men oppressing women (this is the surface that we could see); it is a social system that creates his own systems of repression (here I remember Foucault). In it, the creation of the labels –because, at the end, they are not more than labels, like a lot of others regarding of race, for instance– of “sex” and “gender” have the aim to control, to order, to keep the status quo, to repress. And, as Rubin says, the social system not only repress women, but also men (I remember, for instance, that very common phrase in some male chauvinist –machistas- societies that literally says: “Men must not cry”. It’s a simple phrase, but hides a lot). It would be interesting to begin questioning why, if we know it (as the ideology), we still use and practice this labels.

The author also says: “It [the feminist movement] must dream of the elimination of obligatory sexualities and sex roles. The dream I find most compelling is one of an androgynous and genderless (though not sexless) society, in which one’s sexual anatomy is irrelevant to who one is, what one does, and with whom one makes love” (787). This is a very revolutionary idea. On the one hand, because it goes against the labels that I was talking about in the previous paragraph and gives complete liberty to the individual (maybe in this situation we can talk, finally, of an individual rather than a subject). On the other hand, this idea could have political implications. Nowadays, in many countries (Perú one of them) the debate of civil marriage between persons of the same sex is a strong debate. If societies fall apart from the ideas of obligatory sexualities, these debates would immediately dissolve. But, for any reason (maybe our education system or others institutions that preserve hegemony) we still believe in sexual role and genders. It would be a good idea to think, when human beings will stop to believe in labels. On one hundred years, two hundred… never? Even if we have the weight of hegemony upper us, I think there is always the possibility to revert oppressions.

.