Can paradoxical or ambiguous sexual identities and practices change, or even go beyond, the meanings of masculinity and femininity? In other words: can the body be a source of social change? To answer this question I turn to the work of two theorists: Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler. After an account of their ideas, various sexual practices and identities will be described. The question is whether these practices and identities affect the meanings of masculinity and femininity. It will be concluded (...) that, even in our postmodern world with its technological opportunities the division into the two sexes is extraordinarily persistent. However, we can expect some change from the extension of the categories of masculinity and femininity, rather than from attempts to break free from them altogether. (shrink)

There is a respectable feminist tradition in utopian thought. Dreams and fantasies about gender-equal, women-friendly or female-dominated worlds have been formulated abundantly. However, utopian thinking has also met with severe criticism. By definition, utopias were said to be too idealistic, and of little use in the process of societal change. More recently, it has been stressed that the concept of utopia has been superseded by postmodern awareness, in which general explanations of gender inequality (and, along with them, general utopian views) (...) are disqualified to the benefit of more local and more specific theories. In this book, the reader will find not one general, broadly defined utopia, but instead, a wide array of more or less specific, feminist utopias. Utopias are viewed as preliminary and imaginary goals from which present situations can be revalued and from which strategies for change can be developed. As such, utopias have not lost their significance. (shrink)