"The End Of Men"

     In Gaga Genders, the role of men in reproduction and relationships is discussed, in the broader subject of new family structures. I found this discussion particularly interesting because it suggested that the "end of men" is a very real possibility, although I'm not quite sure it is as readily attainable as Halberstam and others suggest.
     Halberstam talked about Shulamith Firestone and her application of the Marxist theory to "the woman question." According to Firestone, as artificial reproduction becomes more available and able to replace natural reproduction, the sexes will become equal because the child will be born to the parents equally, thus liberating women from the idea that anatomy is destiny. Despite the fact that Firestone was discredited and labeled mentally ill due to her extraordinarily radical ideas, she was onto something. Halberstam goes on to provide examples of films in which women decide to have a child without a husband, but through a sperm donor. This supports Firestone's philosophy in a way, though it does not simply equal the sexes - it elevates women. In these stories, men are an afterthought. Women who are already economically successful are able to have and care for children without a man being necessary.
     Halberstam then discusses how women are becoming more dominant in society: holding high-paid managerial positions, having larger numbers in higher education, and having a lower rate of unemployment. This was, to me, what "the end of men" really was. This gender power reversal meant that men were being taken down from their positions of power due to the idea of "anatomy is destiny." The end of men signifies that just because a man is born a man, and men traditionally have more power, does not mean that he will necessarily attain that power.
     The reason for "the end of men" is gaga feminism. This type of feminism asserts that women can be "traditionally feminine" or "traditionally masculine" at the same time. It plays with the idea of gender roles. I thought that Halberstam's use of Lady Gaga's Telephone was more suited to the discussion of lesbian parenting. To me, what would be more applicable to the discussion of women assuming the position of the dominant sex would be a discussion about how Lady Gaga plays multiple roles within her female gender. This suggests that many actions are not, in fact, based on gender. It is easy to mimic and even internalize the mannerisms and such of the opposite sex. I thought of Barbara Hammer's lecture last week, when she recalled a time when she went to a dinner party dressed as a man. She said she just observed the men and, within a short period, it was pretty easy for her to act like a man. So if acting is what has determined what is masculine and what is feminine, then one can say that gender is not relevant. The only important element is how a person acts.
     While I definitely do not think that men will become obsolete, especially as mentioned in Roger Dodger, I do think that their traditional role will change. Due to the changing reproductive possibilities and the rise (if slight) of socioeconomic status of women, men cannot hold onto their traditional roles in society.
     Although I enjoyed the idea that women do not need men, I disagreed with Halberstam's claim that traditional families do not work. I felt as though there were many generalizations in this section of the chapter. Halberstam said that since so many women have been raising children on their own, fathers are not actually very relevant. There was nothing to really support this claim. Just because a mother raises children on her own does not mean that she was a good mother or that a father would not have been an asset in the children's lives. At the same time, some single mothers are wonderful mothers and their exes would have been detrimental in raising the children. Halberstam ignores those possibilities and just says that mothers can raise children on their own. I know plenty of families who have a mother and a father who work out just fine, if not better than fine. It was just a bit hypocritical, in my opinion, for Halberstam to discuss how all sorts of family structures can work and be successful, but then turn around and say the opposite for the "traditional" family.