Critical Reading Log: Mikdashi and Sara on How to Study Gender

The Two Articles

This is a critical reading log of two articles. The first article is “What Is Troublemaking?” by Sara, a post on her blog TROUBLE. The second article is “How Not to Study Gender in the Middle East” by Maya Mikdashi, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. An objective evaluation of gender develops as one thinks critically about this concept. Mikdashi indicates that the study of gender is not “the study of what is evident, it is an analysis of how what is evident came to be.”¹ Therefore, researchers ought to acquaint themselves with the history of a specific region before engaging in a discussion about gender. In a similar way, Sara indicates that reflecting is a critical skill when it comes to matters concerning social transformation.² Sara develops the concept of troublemaking to explain how she organizes her feminist and queer thinking. She indicates that reflection directs her thoughts as she deliberates on troublemaking.

Where the Readings Meet

I find Mikdashi’s and Sara’s articles insightful as they inform the reader about the intricacies that underpin gender. I connect these works with my understanding of gender as a construct that involves men and women rather than directing all the focus on issues concerning women in society. Mikdashi is mostly concerned with studying gender in the Middle East, and her article sets out principles for the study of gender.³ She asserts that researchers should direct focus to the object of the study. In particular, Mikdashi emphasizes that a researcher should be specific about the country, region, and time period that form the background picture of a study. Sara’s article complements this idea by indicating that troublemaking has significant value to the individuals who engage in ethical, political, personal, and theoretical projects of social transformation.⁴ I connect with Sara’s position because she emphasizes that troublemaking helps her organize her feminist and queer thinking. Mikdashi adds that studying gender requires the incorporation of sexuality since this is an integral part of gender analysis.

Gender Involves Everyone

My evaluation of Mikdashi’s and Sara’s works leads me to conclude that gender involves every person. Mikdashi indicates that no body is ungendered, while Sara contends that critical thinking about troublemaking plays an integral part in challenging the status quo. Mikdashi supports this position by indicating that gender is not a lens to be applied according to the genitalia or sexual practices of the people being studied, as this reduces the study of gender to “the study of how (other) men treat ‘their’ women and gays.”⁵ Sara conceptualizes troublemaking as a way of looking at and acting in the world.⁶ She indicates that troublemaking brings together a wide range of practices as a way of developing critical thought, which is designed to challenge the status quo. Mikdashi’s article complements this position: she warns that gender politics and feminist concerns do not always come in neat and familiar packages, and that some studies of gender are, at worst, “exercises in epistemological hegemony.”⁷ Taken together, the two readings support the position that matters relating to gender should be evaluated through an objective lens instead of dwelling on the prevailing social norms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mikdashi and Sara both articulate how gender issues should be approached. Sara advocates troublemaking as a way of addressing systemic gender issues. For her part, Mikdashi presents gender issues in the Middle East as not exclusive to women or the LGBT community but as also affecting men. Both articles, therefore, call for an open mindset rather than reliance on mainstream notions about gender or established ways of doing things.