Gayle Rubin made me a little scared when she suggested that if male innate aggression and dominance are at the root of female oppression then extermination is the only solution. Lets just hope that they aren’t at the root, for my own sake. Now Im thinking I better watch my back at a school that is predominately women.

Rubin’s purpose is clearly stated as she explains how she wants to arrive at a more fully developed definition of the sex/gender system by taking a closer look at the works of Levi-Strauss and Freud.

Since we as a class were already dabbling in some Marxism it was nice to see Rubin starting out by pointing out the failures of classical Marxism and showing how it can be connected to labor force and capitalism. This just echoed the voice of that creep Althusseur. In relation to housework it was interesting to see how it linked with the worker making a consistent wage and yet a woman continually doing housework does not produce any wage at all.

As I continued on I really started to lose focus on what she was really trying to say. The next thing that I really took some time with was the section on gifts . Rubin explains on 1671 that “marriages are the most basic forms of gift exchange in which it is a women who are the most precious gift” As much as I agree with Rubins ideas I just feel that as each generation passes these traditional views of women will be ancient history. Even though these ideas may be passed own from mother to daughter, with easier access to the rest of the world the ideas have no chance of surviving. Now we could examine this notion even further by trying to find the root of sexism but this would turn into quite a frenzy. Hopefully a good ol class discussion will clear some things up.