Stay Feminist and Study Your Body by Lay Sion Ng

Issues Under Tissues

Image by Elisabeth Fredriksson

How well do you understand your body?

Do you think your body can change your mind?

Or it is only our minds that can change our bodies?

Throughout history there have been many different definitions as to what constitutes our bodies. Some theorists of the social body regarded physical bodies as objects that need to be “trained, manipulated, cajoled, organized and in general disciplined” (Turner 15). Similarly, some considered the body as “a play of forces, a surface of intensities, pure simulacra without originals” (Braidotti 21).

This thinking becomes a problem as it conceptualizes the body as simply a biological object that is apart from rational faculties and furthermore, a gender biased object, which leads to a conception that “[w]omen are somehow more biological, more corporeal, and more natural than men” (Grosz 14). As a result, women become relegated to being apart from reason and culture and their bodies are conceptualized as passive objects for others. In addition, this thinking enforces a false belief in which the true essence of human nature is information and that human bodies are limited and thus, humans can be still human by uploading their consciousnesses to a vast computer network.

Can this transhumanist utopianism be achieved?

Can we still call ourselves humans when our minds and bodies are separated?

            In order to answer these questions, I would like to introduce some materialist feminists’ thoughts. Refusing to see our bodies as passive objects, Claire Clorebrook calls for thinking of our bodies as a form of “positive difference” (71). Moreover, Karen Barad introduces a concept called “agential realism,” in which she sees matter or the natural world as a “substance in its intra-active becoming—not a thing, but a doing, a congealing of agency” and that all bodies “come to matter through the world’s interactive intra-activity” (139, 141). Barad further encourages us to dismiss the inherent difference between human and non-human, subject and object, mind and body, discourse and matter through emphasizing that “we are of the world” (147). Similar to Barad, Donna Haraway attempts to blur the boundaries between man/woman, machine/organism, culture/nature, and representation/real that have been enforced by modern scientific thought through using the cyborg as a hybrid tool (1991: 149-150).

            All these modern feminist thinkers are tying to tell us that our bodies are active agents and thus they should not be neglected when we are talking about our mind. More specifically, mind and body should not be separated because they are a “collective.” In fact, there are evidences showing that our bodies can actually change our minds and therefore, shape our future. In 2012, Harvard psychologist Amy Cuddy gave a speech at Ted Talk about how our bodies could shape our minds. In the talk, she claimed that our bodies actually hold the power to change our minds and “our minds can change our behavior and our behavior can change our outcomes.” But how? She then told her personal experience about her “change” and further suggested a small experiment: do some powerful postures—stretch your arms or spread your legs—for two minutes whenever you are nervous. For instance, right before a stressful job interview. Does this really help? It does! Because when you are in a high-power pose condition your bodily hormone does actually change—the decrease of cortisol or stress hormone—and therefore you feel more powerful afterward. Cuddy concluded her talk by emphasizing that we could fake it until we become it; “do it enough until you actually become it and internalize.”

            To sum up, Cuddy’s study and those material feminists’ not only come to deconstruct the thinking that privileges minds over bodies but also deliver an important message to us, which is our bodies are our future.




Barad, Karen. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter,” in Material Feminisms. ed. Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2009. Print. 120-154.

Braidotti, Rosi. Metamorphoses: Towards a Feminist Theory of Becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002. Print.

Colebrook, Claire. “On Not Becoming Man: The Materialist Politics of Unactualized Potential,” in Material Feminisms. ed. Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2009. Print. 52-84.

Cuddy, Amy. “How Body Language May Shape Who You Are.” Ted Global. June 2012.

Haraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,” in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, 1991. Print. 149-181.

Turner, B. Regulating Bodies: Essays in Medical Sociology. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.



Women and Space by Lay Sion Ng

Issues Under Tissues

Image by Frank Schott

Whether it is defined as a container for things or the relation between things, the nature of space is often limned with the body-matter of women. Ever since Plato first introduced the existence of space and claimed the nature of space as the figure of the mother, women have become the body-matter for man (Plato 65; Best 184, 187). This linking of space and woman leads to a conception that woman is seen as “the body, the earth, the springboard for man,” which, as Irigaray suggests, enables men to place themselves as a higher subject whose “only connection to the corporeal is his imprint left upon ‘his’ object – the body of woman” (Best emphasis 187).

This hierarchal thinking is parallel to the relation between man and space, in which men see their countries (motherland) and languages (mother tongue) as feminine. In fact, not only countries such as Britain and France are characterized as women—“Britannia stands for Britain, Marianne for Republican France”—cities such as New York, Los Angles, Paris and so forth have also been characterized as women (Best 181). In Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form, Marina Warner calls Paris as a feminine city (36). She describes the public space of Paris as a feminine flesh and the buildings as having “bosomy and vaginal contours…pillowy roofs and open-mouthed entrances” (36-7; Best 182). Also, drawing on Scott Fitzgerald’s description of New York as an “essentially cynical and heartless” woman (143), Sue Best comes to see New York as “an active libido”—she has “a clitoris at the entrance to her harbour” (182). Furthermore, Los Angeles is also named by scholars such as Joan Baudrillard (1983) and Edward Soja (1989) as the representation of woman (Best 182).

If we change our scale into a domestic view, we also find that the representation of our home has been always a feminine one. In Gaston Bachelard’s The Poetics of Space, a house is a “maternal” feature: “a warm, co[z]y, sheltering, uterine home” (7; Best emphasis 182). It was as though our home serves as the womb of our mother, where we receive foods, waters, sense of security and comfort. This metaphor of home is parallel to the earth we are living, in which we gain foods, water, materials for shelter, and even natural cycles such as climate and nutrients from our Mother Earth. And yet we have so disconnected ourselves from the natural world, the space that we are living, the womb that we come from. The rise of technology and industry has led us toward a modern and convenient life. However, under the influence of capitalism and the rising of consumerism, we come to “forget” about there is only one Mother Earth. As even it vanishes little by little, we still take everything in nature for granted and keep consuming. If our planet were a woman, we were all cannibals, as our lives are fed on the blood and sacrifice of a single living female body.

In The Production of Space, Henri Lefebvre links the female body to the contemporary neo-capitalist space: “The ways in which space is thus carved up are reminiscent of the ways in which the body is cut into pieces in images (especially the female body, which is not only cut up but also deemed to be “without organs”!)” (355). Lefebvre’s description calls attention to the danger that lies underneath this shifting of space and female representation in the contemporary time: from the maternal body to the sexually available female body and now towards “the fragmented female body of postmodern industry” (Best 183).

Furthermore, the female body has been linked to the image of the cyberspace. The association between the female body and the cyberspace is derived from a stereotypical thought that women are technologically incapable, which, is derived from the separation of labor between men and women, whereby women participate mainly in cooking and childcare. Drawing on this, Judy Wajcman calls for a re-definition of technology because this thinking is indeed gender-biased (137). In fact, cyber-feminists claim that women and technology together are viewed as a double threat to the rational patriarchal order (Huyssen 71) and thus, a gender-biased idea in which men are technologically capable while women have always been re-emphasized. Alternatively, some feminists suggest that by embracing cyberspace as female space, women can actually change the “male-defined technological landscape” (Toffoletti 24). As Sadie Plant suggests, “Cyberspace is the matrix not as absence, void, the whole of the womb, but perhaps even the place of woman’s affirmation” (60). By embracing the cyberspace as feminine it becomes possible for women to liberate themselves from the structure of patriarchy.

Image by Frank Schott


Best, Sue. “Sexualizing Space.” in Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism. ed. Elizabeth Groz and Elspeth Probyn. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. pp. 181-194. Print.

Fitzgerald, S. F. “My Lost City.” in The City: American Experience. ed. A. Trachtenberg, P. Neill and P.C Bunnell. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. Print.

Friedberg, A. Window Shopping: Cinema and the Postmodern. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 1993. Print.

Lefebvre, H. The Production of Space. trans. D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Print.

Plant, Sadie. “The Future Looms: Weaving Women and Cybernetics.” in Cyberspace, Cyberbodies, Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment. ed. Mike Featherstone and Roger Burrows. London: Sage, 1995. Print.

Plato. Timaeus and Critias. trans. D. Lee. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965. Print.

Toffoletti, Kim. Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls: Feminism, Popular Culture and The Posthuman Body. London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2007. Print.

Wajcman, Judy. Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge and Oxford: Policy Press, 1991. Print.

Warner, M. Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form. London: Picador, 1985. Print


Rethinking Relationships: Monogamy & Polyamory by Lay Sion Ng

Issues Under Tissues

Image by Sam Chivers

The modern Western culture is grounded on identity dualities: man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual, white/black, virgin/whore, to name a few.

These dualisms encourage a hierarchial structure between the former and the latter, which then enforces a sense of cultural, political and social inequality in our society. This sense of inequality is obvious when one looks into the structure of human relationships. Except for heterosexual monogamy, other forms of relationships are often marginalized and marked as abnormal by mainstream society. However, this kind of thinking is wrong because all forms of relationships are equal; as long as the parties involved in the relationships are healthy and happy, there should be no problem with the relationship style.

So, how does monogamy gain its power? As Mint (2004) suggests, besides jealousy, monogamy is enforced by the cultural ideas of cheating. In general, we are taught that the act of cheating is bad. As we can often see in dramas or movies, those who cheat often end up being dumped, divorced or punished because they are regarded as morally corrupt. Also, through mass media, we are taught that any triangular relationship is going to be unstable, short-term and competitive. This conception leads us to think that in order to have a healthy relationship, monogamy is the best (and perhaps the only) option that we can have. Furthermore, it is suggested that the myth of one true love upholds the ideology of monogamy. Under the myth of one true love, monogamy comes to mean not only that one person can only have an intimate relationship with one person at a time but also the concept that a particular person is really only attracted to one other person during the course of their entire lives.

However, in reality, numerous surveys have confirmed that the number of people who cheat counts for almost one-third of the population (see Women are now cheating as much as men and Infidelity rates in UK). From these infidelity statistics, one comes to understand that the myth of one true love is a sociocultural (romance) constructed idea, that not everyone is suitable to this kind of relationship style. From this aspect, those who cheated in the monogamous relationship are not only cheating their partner but also the system itself. Among these cheaters, some would choose to cheat again while some would choose to uphold what they view as the truth about what would bring the most benefit to everyone involved. For instance, the polygamous community is facing off against the system of monogamy and the myth of one true love.

In the practice of polyamorous relationships, one needs not to give up one partner in order to be intimate with another because it is not morally or ethically wrong to have sexual and/or romantic relationships with more than one person at a time. Also, bisexual and polygamous communities have come to reclaim the stigmatized three-person situation as cooperative, long-term, and positive for everyone involved. More specifically, polyamorists strike to expand the definition of monogamy through promoting an alternative perspective towards jealousy and the act of cheating. Regarding jealousy, many polyamorous individuals are happy to see their partner meet and enjoy the company, passion or whatever of someone else (Moosa, “Why You Should [and Shouldn’t Be] Monogamous”). This reaction is grounded on the conception that one can attempt to meet the desires of others but one does not rule over their desires.

Moosa further explains, for polygamist, a relationship that expects “complete sexual or emotional linking might be not only impossible but immoral: why can’t we have multiple individuals meeting us in our multiple desires?” As to the system of “cheating,” it serves a different meaning in polyamorous relationships. According to Kakdera, “If there is a concept of ‘cheating’ or ‘infidelity’ in polyamory, it is usually lying or being deceptive about one’s activities [with any other partner].” In other words, not the act of having sex with the others but the act of hiding it from the others is ethically wrong in polyamorous relationships.

Whether it is monogamy or polyamory, the most important thing is to stay happy and healthy in that relationship style that one has chosen. It is also important to note that there is no hierarchy between monogamy and polyamory, as each form is created and applied in order to suit the needs and desires of human beings. So, mono or poly: your choice.

Whether it is monogamy or polyamory, the most important thing is to stay happy and healthy in that relationship style that one has chosen. It is also important to note that there is no hierarchy between monogamy and polyamory, as each form is created and applied in order to suit the needs and desires of human beings. So, mono or poly: your choice.


Freaksexual. “Jealousy, Monogamy, and Power.” 11 August 2010. Retrived from

Kakdera, Raven. Pagan Polyamory: Becoming a Tribe of Hearts. USA: Llewellyn Publications, 2005. Print.

Moosa, Tauriq. “Why You Should (and Shouldn’t Be) Monogamous.” Bigthink. 2016. Web. 19 July 2017.

Pepper Mint. “The Power Dynamics of Cheating: Effects on Polyamory and Bisexuality.” The Journal of Bisexuality 4.3/4 (2004): 55-76. Plurals Loves: Designs for Bi and Poly Living, ed. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Haworth Press, 2004, pp.55-76.