513A Commonplace Entry #4: Feminist vs. Gender Literary Theory

I agree with Appleman's assertion to use the term "gender theory" instead of "feminist theory." In my conversations with women throughout my adult life, a prevailing idea I have come across is that while many enjoy the benefits afforded them by second wave feminism, they do not consider themselves feminists. The term "feminist" has, for many women, taken on the image that Appleman mentions students associate with it: that of man-hating, unfeminine, militant activists. The woman in the image below would represent the opposite of this idea, though the text includes common phrases that describe so-called feminists.

Additionally, the symbol adopted by the feminist movement suggests militant activism using masculine motifs and imagery.

While I do not agree that the term "feminist" means these things, and I am happy to call myself a feminist, I certainly understand how these stigmas can interfere when trying to convey the impact of feminist theory on literature to adolescents. This is one reason why I would choose to use the term "gender theory" for my own classroom.
Another reason I would prefer to use "gender theory" over "feminist theory" is because, by the nature of its title, "feminist theory" is very limited. As Appleman notes, "Men have gender, too." While it is, in my opinion, essential to examine the roles of women in literature through a critical lens, it is equally important to examine those of men as well as those of people who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles. Though men on the whole have not experienced the large-scale subordination that women have historically been subjected to, they are still exposed to gender-based ideologies that can be destructive. To give a literary example, The Catcher in the Rye's Holden Caulfield could be interpreted as responding to the push and pull of masculine expectations, both submitting to and rebelling against them.

It is no wonder the boys in Martha's class groan at the mention of feminist theory. To them, it means they're about to spend an hour exploring all the ways women have been wronged and victimized while men have enjoyed prospering at their expense. How dare we deprive these boys of exploring their own gender's history from a critical standpoint. To position women as the only victims of gender-based limitations and persecution is a blatant fallacy.
A modern example of offensive ideas of men that I often refer to is Carl's Jr. commercials. A common theme found in them is depictions of men as bumbling idiots who think of nothing but sex and food. In one, a man cannot even figure out how to open a box of cereal. Many of these are followed by the slogan, "Without us, some men would starve." The video below features a recent example of this type of commercial from the fast food chain.

This commercial features what I call Carl's Jr.'s "caveman" character, a man who has the intelligence of a brick and can only respond to basic animal needs. While this ad also has obviously sexist implications for women, it implies that cooking is not a man's activity and that men are not competent enough to take care of themselves. Does this mean that boys who do enjoy cooking are feminine or, perhaps, gay? Are bachelors who engage in domestic activities, such as keeping a tidy home and eating well, to be deemed "un-manly"?

It is as important for adolescent boys and girls to be able to read media and literary representations of men from a critical perspective as it is to critically analyze those of women, not to mention examining representations of sexual orientation and non-traditional gender identities. Thus, in my own classroom, feminist theory will be only one part of gender theory that is examined.