Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
With the development of culture, humanity imposed the concept of gender upon
consequence of reproductive biology, allowing the familial unit to emerge as a center for the
economic exchange of women for political gain. This system caused distinct views of masculine
and feminine to appear that grew to be seen as “natural”. The idea of the “exchange of women”
and its imposed gender categories remain present in our modern society, regardless of the fact
that they cease to serve an organizational function. As a solution to this oppressive system,
anthropologist Gayle Rubin suggests the need for a completely genderless society, in which
biological sex is the only distinction between men and women. Rubin sees the elimination of
gender as a moral necessity to create equality between biological sexes; however, she fails to
humankind’s habituated ways of relating to one another through social stereotypes. A genderless
society may in fact be essential, yet in order for it to be attained the obstacles of initiating such a
Rubin sees gender as a product of the sex/gender system created by culture and imposed
by societies. Rubin defines a sex/gender system as “the set of arrangements by which a society
transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed
sexual needs are satisfied” (Rubin, 13). Gender, from Rubin’s perspective, is completely
unnatural and wholly the result of cultural implications: “Gender is a socially imposed division of
the sexes. It is a product of the social relations of sexuality” (Rubin, 23). To Rubin, gender was
created as a way to define relationships between the sexes and to fit their seemingly “natural”
differences into some form of categorization. Rubin argues that sex/gender systems are the source
1
of female oppression and that our current system needs to be reevaluated and reconstructed in a
way that eliminates gender altogether: “Subordination of women can be seen as a product of the
relationships by which sex and gender are organized and produced” (Rubin, 23). Rubin explains
the development of our current sex/gender system as a product of the non-modern kinship
systems that have historically organized sexuality in economically and politically meaningful
ways.
Kinship systems are ways of organizing societies in which social connections are crucial
for survival due to a lack of resources and technology. In such systems, men are responsible for
the exchange of women between families as a means of developing relationships and status
within a social construct. Men marry off the women in their families strategically so as to gain
connections and resources through others: “As long as the relations specify that men exchange
women, it is men who are the beneficiaries of the product of such exchange—social organization”
(Rubin, 21). Women on the other hand, have no choice in the matter and have fewer rights in
It would be in the interests of the smooth and continuous operation of such a system if the
woman in question did not have too many ideas of her own about whom she might want
to sleep with. From the standpoint of the system, the preferred female sexuality would be
one which responded to the desire of others, rather than one which actively desired and
sought a response (Rubin, 25).
And, so, through this social construct out of which our current sex/gender system developed,
Although kinship systems no longer serve any functional purpose in our modern society,
the ideas behind them still remain apparent in our everyday practices: “Our sex/gender system is
still organized by the principles of kinship, despite its entirely non-modern character” (Rubin,
33). Women are no longer as bound and restricted by childbearing, yet typical practices in our
culture continue to hinder their autonomy: fathers “giving away” the bride at wedding
ceremonies, women taking their husband’s name when married, and often times the woman’s
parents paying for the cost of a wedding ceremony, a similar concept to a dowry that may exist in
2
kinship systems. Although the literal act of exchanging women and the practice of arranged
marriages no longer exist in our modern society, the roles of the man as the exchanger and the
woman as the exchanged still remain prevalent: “The asymmetry of gender—the difference
between the exchanger and exchanged—entails the constraint of female sexuality” (Rubin, 25).
Women continue to be objectified and subordinated by the patriarchal structure of our current
sex/gender system, regardless of the lack of purpose such a system seems to serve.
Due to the fact that our current sex/gender system no longer serves any necessary
function yet continues to oppress women and allow them to be dominated by the opposite gender,
Rubin proposes the elimination of gender entirely. For Rubin, abolishing the concept of gender is
a moral necessity if we are to establish equality between the biological sexes and end the
oppression of the feminine. However, Rubin argues that even without gender, we need some form
of societal organization and that there will always exist parameters and restrictions on people that
allow for the functioning of a cooperative society: “Any society will have some systematic ways
to deal with sex, gender, and babies” (Rubin, 18). She acknowledges the need for some sort of
sexual organization, yet she argues the insufficiency of the systems developed thus far: “It is
important to maintain a distinction between the human capacity and necessity to create a sexual
world, and the empirically oppressive ways in which sexual worlds have been organized” (Rubin,
18). Although Rubin addresses the need for ways of organizing sex and understands that some
form of such an organization is necessary for societal function, she does not address the extreme
Although Rubin's idea of a genderless society may be necessary for the moral reform of
sexuality to occur, there are numerous obstacles in the way of its achievement. People in society
are defined by the social stereotypes developed about them; they live by structuring their lives
around restrictions put upon them, and through this they "know" where they fit in. Stereotypes
give people excuses to act a certain way and allow them to formulate goals and ideas that fit into
the particular mold of the society they live in. A genderless society would be difficult to attain,
3
simply because throughout the course of history and in cultures existing today, people have
Relationships between sexes are shaped almost entirely by the contrasting ideas and
expectations a given society has for the masculine and the feminine. In our modern society, male
and female stereotypes have been established in such a way as to compliment each other and
confident, and reserved, while women are often visualized as weak, vulnerable, modest and
emotional. Additionally, opposite genders are generally attributed separate familial roles: women
are associated with housework and childcare, men with manual labor and outside careers.
Abolishing these stereotypes would leave people confused as to how to relate to the opposite
biological sex, and a great deal of work needs to go into preparing our male dominated society for
Rubin declares that gender is unnatural by explaining that the division of labor between
the sexes is a taboo against the sameness of men and women: “The idea that men and women are
two mutually exclusive categories must arise out of something other than a nonexistent ‘natural’
opposition. Far from being an expression of natural differences, exclusive gender identity is the
suppression of natural similarities” (Rubin, 24). Rubin claims that because of this, both sexes
would flourish in a genderless society, yet she overlooks the fact that people seek ways to
distinguish themselves from others for personal definition. The current mindset in our culture is
dependent upon institutions such as marriage, which give people contexts to define themselves
within; in order for gender to be eliminated, such institutions need to be evaluated and
challenged.
A general assumption in our culture is that the ultimate goal of dating throughout young
adulthood is to find a life mate and eventually settle down. “Starting a family” seems to be a
somewhat expected destination of growing up for many people, and this concept has existed
throughout history due to the necessity of separation of labor and the lack of sufficient resources
4
available to human societies. Because concepts of marriage and family and even heterosexuality
are so ingrained in our culture as “normal”, to eliminate gender would be to eliminate these
concepts, something that would shake the very foundation of our society’s existence.
Men and women find stability and comfort in discovering ways to distinguish themselves
from one another, and for the social restriction of gender to be eliminated entirely, men and
women either need to develop other ways to separate themselves or get rid of the need for
distinction altogether. Abolishing gender would require men and women to realize that there is
sufficient similarity between the sexes and that many of the differences that contribute to their
self images are merely social constructions: “Although there is an average difference between
males and females on a variety of traits, the range of variation of those traits shows considerable
overlap” (Rubin 24). Exclusive gender identity requires men to repress their “feminine” traits and
women to repress their “masculine” traits and is in fact restrictive rather than natural (Rubin, 24).
For the possibility of a genderless society to be considered, men and women need to break away
from the stereotypes that confine them and allow themselves to be defined separately from their
sexes.
Rubin describes the ideal, sexually autonomous society as “an androgynous and
genderless (though not sexless) society; in which one’s sexual anatomy is irrelevant to who one
is, what one does, and with whom one makes love” (Rubin, 36). Perhaps for such a society to be
achieved, men and women need to cease relying on one another for the division of labor in order
for new images and ideas about each sex to be independently developed. The ingrained idea of
the necessity of the institution of marriage would need to be driven out of the collection of
societal norms. With separately originated female and male identities, not socially constructed to
promote heterosexual union for societal function, perhaps the restrictive categories of gender
could in fact be eliminated and Rubin’s morally necessary, sexually equal society could be
attained.
5
Works Cited
Rubin, Gayle. "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the "Political Economy" of Sex." The Feminist
Philosophy Reader. Comp. Alison Bailey and Chris Cuomo. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
13-41.