It was difficult for me to integrate ideas from Monique Wittig’s piece ‘One Is Not Born A Woman’[1] into my own world-view. Wittig believes that wimmin are created as a social construct. On page 248, she dismisses those “who believe that the basis of women’s oppression is biological as well as historical.” Although the author gives some well-written defenses for her argument, I personally remain unconvinced. I see the world in a few more shades of gray than Monique Wittig.
Wittig cites archaic notions about womyn’s place in prehistory as proof that “this could never constitute a lesbian approach to women’s oppression, since it assumes that the basis of society or the beginning of society lies in heterosexuality.” The ideas she mentioned in making this defense are the notions of burly males being hunters and wimmin being nurturing homemakers. I take exception to these notions. The idea that most males hunted and most females nurtured seems outmoded. Wimmin can hunt, men can nurture. In prehistory, I suspect those that could do a task, did. Survival wasn’t guaranteed; people took on tasks they were good at. I strongly doubt there were strong sociological pressures to do anything one wasn’t good at – survival margins were too slim.
I do agree with Wittig’s notion of the “myth of woman.” Turning on the television, radio, or accessing the Internet, one is assaulted with claims of what “woman” is. Be skinny. Wear this clothing. In addition, as a transsexual womyn, I have had a lot of feedback from the ‘gender police.’ I have been asked to not move furniture because it is too masculine. I have been coached to not make direct statements, and to form statements as questions. If I receive one more cosmetics gift from a well-meaning friend, I may well implode. The “myth of woman” is alive and well. On page 251, Wittig rails against this myth:
“Thus a lesbian has to be something else, a not-woman, a not-man, a product of society, not a product of nature, for there is no nature in society.”
I disagree. In my opinion, there is at least an element of nature in society. Nature simply couldn’t be absent from a society made up of natural creatures. I am not claiming nature is the sole mast of human beings. We are creatures of reason, as well as of nature. I see the combination of nature and reason that makes us humyns the entrancing creatures that we are. Add in a modicum of spirit, and one can approach my personal world-view.
Also on page 251, Wittig goes on to show some dissimilar opinions held by other feminists. Andrea Dworkin’s assertion that many “have increasingly tried to transform the very ideology that has enslaved us into a dynamic, religious, psychologically compelling celebration of female biological potential.” Simone de Beauvoir is touted as extolling the virtues of “woman,” and thus believing in the concept of “woman.” Wittig uses these examples to show ways in which feminists are embracing concepts she sees as false. I am usurping these as examples that many feminists believe in “woman.” Wittig, by her own examples, does not speak for all self-identified “feminists” in the following quote from page 251:
“We chose to call ourselves “feminists” ten years ago, not in order to support or reenforce (sic) the myth of woman, nor to identify ourselves with the oppressor’s definition of us, but rather to affirm that our movement had a history and to emphasize the political link with the old feminist movement.”
Wittig sees older opinions as being limited to using the concept of “woman” because feminism hadn’t advanced beyond the concept yet. However, Wittig quotes Dworkin, a relatively modern feminist, as embracing the concept. Unless Wittig exists in a vacuum, she undoubtedly knows many modern feminists who accept “woman” as real.
I also take exception to the goal of ending gender. She shares this sentiment at the bottom of page 253:
“… let us say that a new personal and subjective definition for all humankind can only be found beyond the categories of sex (woman and man) and that the advent of individual subjects demands first destroying the categories of sex, ending the use of them, and rejecting all sciences which still use these categories as their fundamentals (practically all social sciences).”
Instead, why not decide, as individuals, to define (or abstain from defining) our own idea of gender. If we want to be wimmin, then let us each decide what that means to us. I am not going to abandon the concept of gender. Differences don’t have to result in inequity or in oppression. I feel that it has use and merit – maybe as a point to rally around? Let us redefine “woman” and make it over into something wonderful. If we want to band together with those who also identify as our sisters, then perhaps we should. Perhaps this has always been, and still is, the key to feminist revolution!
[1] ‘Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives,’ by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim (Eds.). New York and London: Routledge 2003, Pages 249-254
