Introduction

Constantly barraged by various and contradictory notions concerning sex and gender, we are all always engaged-explicitiy or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously-in the struggle over the relation between sexual difference and gender definition. As increasing numbers of women enter the work force, especially in occupations previously defined as “masculine,” and as governmental bodies debate legalizing “alternative families,” questions like the following have become common: What is “natural” about being a woman? About being a man? Is there anything “natural” about gendered social roles? About family structure? These questions imply the rejection of traditional notions of sex and gender and of their relationship. They rely, instead, on non-or antiessentialist concepts of gender. They imply that gender and, indeed, “reality” are social constructions. They indicate the assumption that Heidi Hartman put so succinctly: “Biology is always mediated by society.” 1 Sex we’re born with; gender we learn. Contemporary feminist theorists examine the manipulation and distribution of power in this mediation of biology, and feminist critics analyze representational texts, addressing questions concerning the manner in which social institutions-especially those of the arts and the mass media-exercise their power in the construction and enforcement of normative concepts and values concerning sexual difference and gender construction in and through their cultural products. As a theorist, I evaluate the bases for feminist textual analysis, addressing questions relating to the ongoing creation and re-creation of gender; as a critic, I read the struggle over the meanings of categories such as “female” and “feminine” and “male” and “masculine” in mass-produced, mass-consumed texts.