Photo by Kristen A
Gender can be an oppressive and restrictive role we take on, but is it necessary to do so?
“On n’est pas naît une femme, on le devient.”
Gender has a complicated relationship to subjectivity. The universal binary genders are a restriction — a limitation on the level of subjectivity imposed. “Man” and “woman” are titles that impose an identity to conform to in various ways. This idea is harmful and must be done away with if a person is to realize their freedom as an individual.
The binary itself is divided into two camps: Subject and Other. Throughout history, man has taken the role of Subject, and as such the male identity has come to be synonymous with “human”, though to their detriment. Man’s role is rigid, his subjectivity mutilated by his pride. When we look at a vast majority of masculine archetypes — the technocratic geek, the sports enthusiast, the entrepreneur, the Freudian father, and so on — they are cold, stoic, removed from general expression of qualitative feeling. They placate their emotions through superficial interactions with the herd (the ‘squad’ or workplace). Since male is attributed to human, to act otherwise is to move towards subordinance, to become something other than human. This is why women performing the masculine is normal — they are merely taking on the attributes of their species — but when men perform the feminine, it is a call for concern. It is seen as moving towards the Other, and as such moving toward taking on weakness.
“Throughout history, man has taken on the role of Subject, and as such the male identity has come to be synonymous with ‘human.’”
Women are in a much better position to express subjectivity. Their role as Other has made it more-or-less acceptable to choose whatever mode of dress or character they choose. A woman can play Margaret Thatcher and conform to the male concept of human, or else engage in full-blown histrionics, and anything in-between. Sweat-pants and hoodies are as normative as miniskirts and dresses, a single woman can engage with a masculine herd without being assumed homosexual, and so on. Ironically, by being placed outside of humanity, women have the potential to become themselves by assuming their subjectivity in nearly all of its worth. There is, however, a fundamental detriment to this position. By taking the title of woman, a person accepts their place as Other, thus of being less than human. They contribute to the cycle that makes masculine behaviour so absurd and cowardly.
“To move forward, we must take what is good in the feminine, assuming subjectivity, as well as the masculine, asserting subjectivity.”
To be neither man nor woman, to assume subjectivity without contributing to a complex and dangerous power structure, is essential for the free spirit. To move forward, we must take what is good in the feminine as well as the masculine. In other words, we must both assume and assert subjectivity. By working with these two seemingly antithetical concepts in conjunction, the free spirit is able to transcend the binary and exist independently of gender. Here we have an advantage to the free spirits that came before; language and culture has developed so that we may exist. Language has become more inclusive with the introduction of new pronouns, such as the singular ‘they’ and ‘ze.’ Social pioneers have set precedents with new forms of parenting and literature. We, the free spirits of today, can use these as weapons against the binary, to manufacture what is currently obscure into the norm via their propagation. We strive towards a future where the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are archaic, and where their restrictions on subjectivity are reduced to figments of the past.