Mulvey Laura Visual Pleasure And Narrative Cinema

Mulvey Laura Visual Pleasure And Narrative Cinema Film Theory And

In “The Technology of Gender” (1987), Theresa de Lauretis explains that “In the feminist writings of the 1960s and 1970s, the notion of gender as sexual difference was central to the critique of representation, the rereading of cultural images and narratives, the questioning of theories of subjectivity and textuality, of reading, writing, and spectatorship” (713). First, what is “the notion of gender as sexual difference”? Second, why was this notion so important to second-wave feminists (“the feminist writings of the 1960s and 1970s” that de Lauretis references)? Third, what is at least one reason that more recent generations of feminists have largely abandoned the notion of gender as sexual difference?

Paper For Above instruction

The notion of gender as sexual difference is a foundational concept in feminist theory that posits that the distinctions between male and female are primarily rooted in biological and physiological differences. This perspective emphasizes that gender is constructed through these biological realities, which serve as the basis for social roles, behaviors, and expectations assigned to men and women. In the context of de Lauretis’s discussion, gender as sexual difference is seen as a way to critically analyze how cultural representations and narratives reinforce these perceived biologically rooted distinctions, shaping societal perceptions of gender roles and identities (de Lauretis, 1987, p. 713).

During the feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s, often referred to as second-wave feminism, the notion of gender as sexual difference held significant importance because it provided a framework to challenge and deconstruct traditional gender roles that were believed to be biologically determined. Feminists during this period aimed to expose how cultural images and narratives perpetuated stereotypical portrayals of men and women, emphasizing that these differences justified unequal power relations and social hierarchies. By highlighting biological sex differences, feminists sought to critique the societal structures that arbitrarily assigned roles based on these distinctions. For example, theorists like Kate Millett and Simone de Beauvoir argued that gender differences were culturally constructed but often justified by supposed biological differences, thus reinforcing gender inequality (hooks, 2000).

However, more recent generations of feminists have largely abandoned the notion of gender as solely based on sexual difference. One key reason for this shift is the recognition that emphasizing biological differences risks essentializing gender and ignoring the fluidity and complexity of gender identities. Poststructuralist and queer theories challenge the idea that biological sex inherently determines gender roles, asserting instead that gender is socially constructed, performative, and diverse. Judith Butler’s work, for example, argues that gender identity is not a fixed trait linked solely to biological sex but rather a series of repeated performances shaped by social discourse (Butler, 1990). The emphasis on social construction enables contemporary feminists to focus on how gender varies across cultures and historical periods and to advocate for gender fluidity, rather than fixed biological determinism.

References

• de Lauretis, Theresa. “The Technology of Gender.” In Feminist Film Theory: A Reader, edited by Sue Thornham, 713-744. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
• Halberstam, Jack. “Gender.” In The Queer Art of Failure, Duke University Press, 2007.
• Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.
• hooks, bell. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. South End Press, 2000.
• Connell, R. W. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford University Press, 1987.
• Shildrick, Margrit. Leaking Bodies, Persistently Female: feminist theories of corporeal difference. Routledge, 2008.
• Scott, Joan W. “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis.” American Historical Review 91, no. 5 (1986): 1053–1075.
• Lorber, Judith. “The Social Construction of Gender.” Sociology 31(3), 1997: 539-554.
• Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5, no. 4 (1980): 631–660.
• Black Feminist Thought. Collins, Patricia Hill. Routledge, 2000.