I like that Fausto-Sterling embraces in discussion with multiple facets of our society. I think it has been a trend in our reading, and in academia in general, to focus very specifically on a central thesis within one aspect of feminism, or media, or science. But Fausto-Sterling spreads her argument to apply to the multiple forms through which our society’s “norms” manifest themselves, which I think strengthens her points rather than making them unfocused or disorganized. Using our society’s need for strict gender and sex definitions is a good way to show how norms are constructed from the moment a person enters the world. I remember learning about a few counter examples in an Anthropology class I took abroad. For example, there are some pacific island cultures in which families will raise male children as women if they have not had any female children; it is a third gender called fafafini. This allows them to stay home and help around the house, but the males selected to be females are completely accepted members of society and are not seen as strange or non-normative. They are sexually active and revered for their ability to have both masculine and feminine attributes. There are a number of examples like this that support Fausto-Sterling’s argument that gender is a construct and can be approached differently if the society so chooses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EronVtKYr0c&feature=player_embedded#at=28
That video you posted was really interesting. But I wonder how they decide which boys to raise as fafafini? And if a boy does not accept his role as a fafafini, is his family accepting of his choice or will they force him to still take on the role of a woman? And is a fafafini require to only have sexual relations with a man?
ReplyDelete