Comparison
Contemporary feminist theories and discourses are all anchored in the body. From views about gendered bodies, female sexual objectification, and motherhood to sexualized ideals on feminine beauty and dress, theorists have remolded modern thinking about women. The prolific feminist writers whose ideas and positions on the body will be compared are Susan Bordo, Shaw and Lee, and Shildrick and Price.
Contributions to Social Theories of the Body
Bordo highlights that social prejudices, control, and misconceptions are the basis for female subjugation. She theorizes that the gender duality is fundamental to oppressive norms and gendered bodies. She refers to twentieth-century folklore that viewed the body “as an animal, an appetite, a deceiver, and a prison of the soul” to illustrate the images ingrained in the Western collective psyche (Bordo 3). With references to Foucault, she shows how the female body became a subject of social control through socio-cultural norms. Shaw and Lee appear to echo Bordo’s sentiments on systemic oppression by positing that what we perceive as feminine and masculine inscribes gender onto the body (181).
The two writings attribute oppressive norms to historical power paradigms. Bordo regards the Victorian lifestyle with its localized pathologies, such as hysteria anorexia, and reproduction as means of maintaining feminine oppression (142). In contrast, Shaw and Lee opine that men would give power justifications if they were to menstruate (209). In their review diverse second-wave feminist perspectives, Price and Shildrick postulate the centrality of the body in theory (83). While the foregoing writers focus exclusively on gender duality, Price and Shildrick consider other socially constructed binaries (ability/disability), altered bodies, biomedicine, and race, among others, which are used to mark bodily dissimilarities, preserving oppressions.
How the Theories Complement and Challenge One Another
The writers’ theoretical positions are complementary to one another. Contextualized in the wider feminist discourse, the dichotomies that account for the oppression of the body can be seen in the theories. Shaw and Lee complement Bordo’s theory on gender duality as an instrument of female subjugation by explaining how the binary aspects require bodies to act within expected norms. Their view of gender inscription on the body through clothing and manner of walking and talking seem to be consistent with the normalized Victorian lifestyle and pathologies described in Bordo’s work.
Price and Shildrick extend the issue of gender duality further by considering other oppressive body categorizations. Thus, all these theories are complementary since oppression of bodies is seen in a continuum of repressive binaries (male/female), context, and privilege. However, Price and Shildrick appear to challenge the narrow and traditional view (gender duality) of the other two writers by indicating additional oppressive classifications, such as ability/disability, racial groups, and trans-identified people (91).
Lessons Learned from the Authors
The diversity of perspectives given by these writers can be summed up to the dualism that classifies bodies into the oppressor and the oppressed. I have learned that culture confines the body to social norms and behavior. The authors portray a picture of a disciplined body that conforms to the ideal masculine or feminine expectations. Through these feminist writings, I have learned that the body is “a practical, direct locus of social control” (Bordo 142). It is regulated by our politics, social obligations, and ingrained images. I have learned that the cultural norms developed over the years and popularized by early thinkers like Plato and Foucault account for the systemic oppression of bodies. In addition, gender-related disorders, such as anorexia in women, are bodily responses to oppressive power relations.
From these readings, I have learned that we see the body based on the gender inscribed on it – either male or female. This duality dictates our behavior and power relations. Issues of beauty, fashion, slender bodies, and motherhood, among others, are driven by the dualism (male and female) that creates systemic inequality. The confinement of bodies to distinct categories based on physical ability and race leaves out trans-identified people. Thus, to free ourselves from these oppressive norms, we must look beyond the body categorizations.
How the Theories are Feminist
The preface to Bordo’s text highlights the gender duality that forces women into subjugation and control. Her theory is feminist because she argues that the female form is viewed as “the mucky, humbling limitations of the flesh” by culture (Bordo 6). She further notes that aggression and oppression are the means through which patriarchy is sustained. Similarly, Shaw and Lee’s assertion that “self-objectification, seeing ourselves through others’ eyes, impairs women’s body image” features feminist ideas (193). To support their theory of gender being inscribed onto bodies, the authors note that sexualized media images influence girls to alter their appearances to fit the beauty ideal. Price and Shildrick’s theory also has feminist elements. In the introduction to their text, they state that feminism is “intimately connected to the body” and entails a response to masculine conventions (Price and Shildrick 14). Evidently, the authors offer feminist perspectives on different body categorizations, including male and female, abled and disabled, and white and black.
Self-analysis
From the arguments in Part I, the female body is viewed as an object to be controlled. This cultural position is evident in gender socialization that results in distinct identities, experiences, and skills from childhood. However, the gendered roles of male and female in reproduction, work, and sexuality grants women less power compared to men. In the context of the gender duality debate in Part I, the female body has been socially constructed as caring, subservient, and altruistic, not aggressive or competitive (masculine qualities). This dichotomy is reflected in gender-specific roles in health care, professional experiences, and identity politics.
Health Science – Nursing
Gender stereotypes that portray women as caregivers are evident in contemporary nursing. If the field of care is examined in the context of power and control of the female body, as discussed by Bordo, elements of oppression become apparent. A common stereotype is the social imagery of women caregivers as “Eves and Maries” to denote sinful and virtuous qualities, respectively (Pires et al. 1160). These labels seem to imply that femininity designates one to caring roles that are often linked to the female’s emotionalism rather than rationality.
In a professional context, nursing is portrayed as subordinate to medicine, as nurse evaluation tend to emphasize more on virtues than knowledge (Pires et al. 1160). Therefore, the Christian notions of Eves and Maries can be viewed as a subtle form of oppression. In my view, the impetus for the growth of specialties, such as home health nursing and midwifery, is the sexual stereotypes that regard women as natural caregivers and homemakers. Consistent with Shaw and Lee’s power justification argument, the entry of males into this profession can be seen as a way to maintain masculine supremacy. It is also justified by sexist excuses, such as men can excel in leadership roles despite being poor caregivers (Costa 487).
Nursing, from a masculine perspective, is considered a moral obligation. Female’s role as caregivers is based on their natural reproductive function, which is viewed as a medical issue (Matthews 21). Technologies of reproduction, breast and cervical cancers, menopause, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), and issues of abortion, rape, and female genital mutilation are all meant to control the female body. For instance, habitual low moods during menstruation are not seen as a normal outcome of hormonal changes but as a syndrome (PMS) (Matthews 23). In the context of feminist theory, women’s reproductive health can be viewed as a socially constructed practice meant to preserve power relations and male domination.
Nursing programs are structured to nurture subservience and socialize students to be submissive to physicians (Costa 489). This form of socialization is referred to as ‘normalizing judgment’, whereby power and control are expressed by discouraging deviance or independent action in conformity to the doctor/nurse relations (Costa 489). From a feminist standpoint, the patriarchal construction of nursing as a subservient, feminine profession coupled with the emphasis on physician practice as the center of clinical authority is a source of female oppression and alienation.
Professional Experiences
Patriarchal construction of caring occurs in the nursing profession. In my professional experience, I find the evidence-based clinical practice to be an effective way of challenging dominant medical norms that require nurse subservience and subordination. Through this approach, we can develop interventions for health promotion and patient-centered care. In this way, nursing can be established as an autonomous discipline that is not a subsidiary of medicine. As nurses, we are regarded aides to physicians. In my opinion, this view is meant to belittle nurses and preserve patriarchal power relations as a continuation of the male/female duality
Another facet of social control related to reproductive health and biomedicine. In my facility, more mothers than fathers come for contraceptive services. This scenario shows that reproductive technologies are a tool for the social control of women. The scientific knowledge for contraception, reproduction, plastic surgery and breast implants often comes from men. Therefore, medical interventions for ‘syndromes’ or imperfections of the female body can be regarded as tools for female social control. I think women as recipients of reproductive care have been deprived of feminine individuality through these technologies, though they rarely acknowledge it.
Identity Politics
The politics of the female body revolve around the subjugation of women and their handling of gender stereotypes. Feminine responses to male oppression may be passive, affirmative, or combative (Pires et al.1161). As discussed in Part I, gender duality and other categorizations are a means to direct and control the oppressed group, which, in this case, is women. The dualism creates feminine identities of caring and subservience and masculine qualities of aggression and dominance. Through passive resistance, modern women challenge the oppressive power relations by taking up careers or sports traditionally considered masculine. They may also affirm gendered stereotypes of beauty by participating in media entertainment that portrays the perfect female body as slender (Pires et al. 1161). Educated women are more combative; they reconfigure feminine identities through feminist movements and activism.
Conclusion
Feminist theorists stress the social construction of gender to maintain power inequality and oppress women. Their writings point to a gendered self-concept through which people view femininity and masculinity. Society has created a gender duality and other forms of body categorizations to grant one category privilege and oppress the other.
Works Cited
Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. University ofCalifornia Press, 1993.
Costa, Lúcia H., and Edméia Coelho E. “Ideologies of Gender and Sexuality: The Interface between Family Upbringing and Nursing Education.” Texto & Contexto Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 485-492.
Matthews, David. “Sociology in Nursing 3: How Gender Influences Health Inequalities.” Nursing Times, vol. 111, no. 43, pp. 21-23
Pires, Maria R., et al. “Politicy of Care in the Criticism Towards Gender Stereotypes.” Revista Brasileira de Enfermagen, vol. 69, no. 6, 2016, pp. 1156-1162.
Price, Janet, and Margrit Shildrick. Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader. Routledge, 1999.
Shaw, Susan, and Janet Lee. Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings. 6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011.