Gayle Rubin brings up a lot of good points in this essay. I like the way she addresses what she is going to be discussing right away, and doesn’t cloud up the essay with unnecessary things (the way I feel most other theorists do). In the third paragraph on page 1664, she introduces a comment by Marx. It seems to me that as she goes on, answering the question she poses by Marx, bashing what he asks. She says, “A woman is a woman. She only becomes a domestic, a wife, a chattel, a playboy bunny, a prostitute, or a human dictaphone in certain relations”. I get the feel here that she’s really trying to tell him off, or maybe it’s just how I’m reading it. But she is very good at making a strong point of the oppression of women.
Her main target in this essay is to provide a better definition for the sex/gender system. When she first introduces this system she defines it as, “a set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed sexual needs are satisfied” (1665). She states this definition in the beginning of the essay and then goes on to discuss the work of Levi-Strauss, Freud, and Marx. Rubin discusses women as the capital in capitalism, their place in the work force (or working in the home), and the need for sexuality and procreation for generation to generation.
After a discussion of all those things the definition of the sex/gender system is given again as, “a set of arrangements by which the biological raw material of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention and satisfied in a conventional manner, no matter how bizarre some of the conventions may be” (1668). Here it hasn’t changed much but a few words were added or removed. She then discusses patriarchy as “a specific form of male dominance” (1669). Rubin also introduces the idea of women as a gift to men, they system of kinship, and the incest taboos of women marrying women, or men marrying men.
One point I really like that she brings that sort of dwell off of the women as gifts or the ‘exchange of women’ as trafficking women. I enjoyed this because it is a perfect way to describe it! She states, “The ultimate locus of women’s oppression within the traffic in women, rather than within the traffic in merchandise” (1673). Essentially the point seems to be women as objects for people to just take dibs on. A lot of what she presents in this essay to show the oppression of women seem very disturbing and could really get to me at times. I like, however, the way she presents the information and tries to defend it with various examples.
She touches on heterosexuality and homosexuality, how it can work and how it can’t, which seems to be essentially aiming for a division of the sexes that will hopefully make men and women closer. Then, what I think is her last definition of the sex/gender system, states; “the sex/gender system is not immutably oppressive and has lost much of its traditional function…it will not wither away in the absence of opposition. It still carries the social burden of sex and gender, of socializing the young, and of providing ultimate propositions about the nature of human beings themselves…the sex/gender system must be recognized through political action” (1680). I found it interesting how after all of the information she ties in to this essay to define the sex/gender system, in the end she describes it as having “lost much of its traditional function”.
Your description of the main point of the essay regarding the definition of sex/gender system was clearly discussed. By using the text to back up your view it brought forth a sense of a great understanding of the material. However, I thought that the usage of the theorists weren’t as affective as they could have been. I feel that Rubin should have reached out to use not only men, both for and against her argument, but also reach out to women. Granted there weren’t any famous/known women theorists, I feel that it would have been in her favor to gain a credible source. Overall, I found Rubin to make good points, but leave a lot of room for debate…Your post helped to clear up some foggy points for me, Thanks!!
[...] “Gender,” and the resulting relationships are a social product. (1668) Marina provides us with a very clear and concise definition of the sex gender system and the way in which [...]
I have it written down that I commented you on this blog, but it’s not here, so I’m going to try again! I agree with you when you say “I found it interesting how after all of the information she ties in to this essay to define the sex/gender system, in the end she describes it as having “lost much of its traditional function.” I too thought the same thing. I also agree with you that Rubin is, in a way, telling Marx off by saying “A woman is a woman. She only becomes a domestic, a wife, a chattel, a playboy bunny, a prostitute, or a human dictaphone in certain relations.” I like that she is strong in her defense. As for Rubin’s stance on “women as gifts,” I think you hit the nail on the head! I believe that you are correct when you say that women are”objects for people to just take dibs on.” I think that this is one of the main points of her piece. I think her main goal here was to point out the oppression of women and mostly to defend them. Great observations!