Philosophy and Gender: Bri Blake

 I will admit, there were many parts of the reading by Asta where I found myself confused. I feel a lot of the other works that we read were debating on whether or not gender is something we are born with or if it is more pushed on us by society. There was a debate, but I felt a lot of the pieces we read said gender was more of a social construct rather than something that we just are. I felt that Asta was arguing the opposite of that. That we are what we are. It is not that people cannot identify as something else or anything like that, but a person is what others deem them to be. It is all about popularity and the way that you are perceived by others. On page 29 she talks about a married couple. If there is some legal matter involved in their marriage that does not make it official, then they are not a married couple. They can act like one, call themselves married, and whatever else, but it does not actually make them a married couple. I think that is Asta's main point. We can ch...

 After reading Judith Butler's "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution" piece, I have thought a lot about gender and the meaning of gender overall. One of the questions that seem to be brought up in the piece is about gender and if it is something that we have, as a society, created rather than it being something to do with our bodies. Butler goes a little bit into the difference between gender and sex, but I want to discuss what she says about gender. She feels that gender is something we create on our own. That "the body becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time" (523). Rather than gender being something that we associate with sex, it is something that we create through different clothes, acts, etc. related to society. Simone de Beauvoir says that gender is a "historical situation rather than a natural fact" (520). Gender is not inherent nor is it dependent on the body that a person is bo...

     Reading the fact that in the 2016-2017 Siena Climate student survey that 100% of transgender students said they faced some sort of harassmnet and/or discrimination on campus disgusted me. We are always talking about how great our school is, how accepting it is of all people. A student who goes to Siena is called a "Saint." To treat someone with disrespect because they are transgender is not what a Saint would do. We are meant to treat all people with kindness and respect. To go out of our way to help others and lift them up, not to bring them down. It makes me so angry knowing that our transgender brothers and sisters faced any sort of bias/discrimination/harassment on campus. I just see no reason why a person should be treated differently because they are transgender. In what way does a student/peer being transgender have any effect on you? Why would it warrant such a hateful response? I understand that the world is not perfect and college campuses are not Utopias. ...

  Collins writes: "Just as the traditional family ideals provide a rich site for understanding intersectional inequalities, reclaiming notions of family that reject hierarchical thinking may provide an intriguing and important cite of resistance." In light of the arguments that Collins makes about gender and race in the context of what she calls the "logic of the traditional family ideal", what could resistance of this sort look like? How effective do you think that sort of resistance would be, as compared to the efforts of other strategies political movements use in an attempt to bring about change?      Resistance to what is the "traditional family ideal" can look like so many things. First, I think it would be important to recognize what that traditional family ideal. To me, that is the family who benefits from our society the most and has the most privilege. To me, it would be a white family. White privilege is alive and real in our society. The tradit...

  Do you think that it was, in Rousseau’s time, genuinely in the interest of girls to be educated in the way he proposes? What about today?  As a person reading Rousseau's ideas in 2020 it can be difficult at times to appreciate what he is saying. To me, it felt so sexist and that he was forcing gender roles onto women and men. But after going back and reading it over, along with the pages following Rousseau's ideas in a modern perspective, I do see where he was coming from. He even said that he does not see women as inferior to men, that we are "different but equal" (153). I still don't know if I can totally agree that it was in the best interest of girls to be educated in the way he proposes. He felt women should be educated to know their place in society. To be taught the ways to attract and keep a husband, think about what you say because people will think of your remarks, and learn to grow accustomed to being interrupted (152). I do understand though, at the ...

  What do you think about women-only spaces? Are they appropriate? For music festivals? For protest marches? For rape shelters? Is there any reason to limit such spaces to cis-women? I understand the want for women-only spaces. It allows women to feel more safe and comfortable, not having to worry about certain issues that can come about when dealing with the opposite sex. It's one way that women can feel empowered, to have power in this patriarchal society. I think they can be appropriate, but it depends on what they are doing and who they allow.  The textbook discusses separatist feminists and their want for women-only spaces. In this case, I felt there were many issues. Separatist feminists do not believe that trans-women are real women. Separatist feminists "regard trans men as having abandoned their female identity in order to pursue male privilege. By contrast, they often regard trans women as still infected with the male privilege with which they grew up" (111). Th...