In “Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination,” Catherine
MacKinnon’s criticizes the foundations of the term “sex equality” while
examining why women have continued to be identified as “the other.” MacKinnon
articulates, “Under the sameness standard, women are measured according to our
correspondence with man, our equality judged by our proximity to his measure.
Under the difference standard, we are measured according to our lack of
correspondence with him, our womanhood judged by our difference from his
measure. Gender neutrality is this simply the male standard…” (82). Consequently,
rather than sex being a continuum, society has transformed sex into a “bipolarity,”
where women have to fight for the same privilege as men while being silenced
and deprived of recognition. (90). MacKinnon argues that for this season, sex
equality will never been achieved.
Reflecting on “Five Faces of Oppression,” MacKinnon’s discussion
of sex equality complements Iris Young’s rubric. In her piece, Young identified
oppression as taking five forms—exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness,
cultural imperialism and violence. Young recognizes that in order to impose
oppression, there must be the creation of a social group. Though social groups
can be created by people who share similar history and culture, Young writes, “For
our identities are defined in relation to how others identify us, and they do
so in terms of groups which are always associated with specific attributes,
stereotypes and norms” (46). Similar to MacKinnon, this “othering” allows women
to be measured by male standards, resulting in a sense of powerlessness.
Additionally, Young’s discussion of marginalization and exploitation supplements
MacKinnon’s discussion male dominance. While women yearn to be seen and treated
equally as men in terms of work and equal pay, their work in the domestic
sphere remains unnoticed and unacknowledged, continuing the cycle of exploitation
and marginalization.
Reading your post reminded me that I was confused on what MacKinnon meant by a continuum of sex. Rather I should say I don't understand the implications that would have on society. My first point of confusion is if she uses sex and gender interchangeably. If we are viewing sex as biological and gender as cultural, I dont see how there can be a continuum of sex. She may not be operating from that model though. Next, I feel as if we already has a gender continuum, it is just not recognized by the current order. (side note: Facebook recognizes 51 genders). Seeing as the current order is so embedded into society I dont see how this continuum could be applied. I feel like that calls for the complete destruction of said order and I dont see that happening. Any thoughts? I could be completely missing the point!!
ReplyDelete