Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Would anyone like to talk about Judith Butler with me?

361 replies

LRDtheFeministDragon · 30/08/2014 17:31

I'm currently trying to get to grips with her writing. I read most of 'Gender Trouble' a while ago, in a rather hurried and sceptical mood. More recently, I've had a look at Undoing Gender. And now I'm trying to re-read Gender Trouble properly (there's an edition out with a new introduction where she explains how she's moved on a bit in response to criticisms, which is useful).

I'm really struggling, to be honest. My gut feeling is it's a bit Emperor's New Clothes, and I'm not keen - but I really want to give it some proper thought.

An example of what bugs me in a knee-jerk way is this sort of passage (from near the start of Undoing Gender):

If a decade or two ago, gender discrimination applied tacitly to women, that no longer serves as the exclusive framework for understanding its contemporary usage. Discrimination against women continues – especially poor women and women of color, if we consider the differential levels of poverty and literacy not only in the United States, but globally – so this dimension of gender discrimination remains crucial to acknowledge. But gender now also means gender identity, a particularly salient issue in the politics and theory of transgenderism and transsexuality.

I just can't help feeling this is an incredibly, even insultingly, privileged point of view? I mean, of course gender discrimination continues! She says it as if it's just in its dying gasp, but isn't it a huge issue?

Would anyone like to help me understand as I read?

Btw, I will totally understand if this thread dies a death, so don't worry!

OP posts:
almondcakes · 31/08/2014 16:18

I don't understand either what she says or the critique.

Original poster
LRDtheFeministDragon · 31/08/2014 15:39

Thanks andie, will have a look.

I should say, I'm not primarily interested in what she has to say about trans issues, really. I'm mainly trying to understand what she thinks about gender in general.

ezin - brilliant, thanks! The passage I quoted is from Undoing Gender (near the beginning). I've not read the whole book, just got stuck on that bit. I don't feel it makes a difference whether it's 'if' or 'whereas' - the point is that she puts the oppression of women into the subordinate clause!

I don't follow what new dimension 'gender identity' adds? Which may well be my issue with Butler rather than you!

scallops - I'm not quite sure. I think that's what she's saying, but she seems to be saying elsewhere it's not so much 'discrimination agains trans people is more important than discrimination against women' but 'discrimination against trans people tells me something important about gender'. Only, I don't get what that important thing is. Confused

OP posts:
scallopsrgreat · 30/08/2014 21:37

I literally don't understand what she is saying. Seriously, what happened to words, in the right order in a sentence?

So bear with me. After reading the first sentence four times I was expecting her to say discrimination on gender also applied to men. After the second sentence I was absolutely sure she was going to say that. But then, I think, she said that it applies to trans*? Is it significant that I thought that? Like: make way women again here come more pressing issues. Such a male narrative.

ezinma · 30/08/2014 21:12

I'd like to join in, as I'm probably a bit more sympathetic to Butler than you are. But then again I've only read Gender trouble. Later I'll search for the paragraph you quoted and read it in its context.

I'm sympathetic to Butler's ideas, but I find her reputation for impenetrable writing to be well-earned. And it's not a problem of being precise: she can be sloppy, and often I find her syntax unnecessarily complicated. If she did an extra re-write with the reader in mind, she could be more accessible. But I don't think she knows how, or cares.

Would your interpretation of her first sentence be any more generous if she had used 'Whereas' instead of 'If'? That's how I read it. (Maybe you do too.)

I don't think she's saying anything controversial up there (indeed I don't think she's saying very much at all!). The new concept of 'gender identity' does not alter the existence or pervasiveness of discrimination against "women" (I'm surprised she seems to be using "women" to mean "non-transwomen"), which is intersectional; it merely adds a new dimension. I don't think she does suggest that discrimination against women is in its dying gasp; on the contrary, I'd interpret it as a kind of corrective to backlash theory — the idea that intersectionality, queer theory et al mean that women's oppression is no longer important/existent.

Does that fit with what she says in the subsequent paragraphs?

"Salient issue" is always waffle isn't it? I used to put that in my undergraduate essays when I'd come across an idea I thought was important but couldn't work out how to squeeze it into the argument I was trying to make.

andiewithanie · 30/08/2014 20:57

I'm not qualified to talk about her (I find her almost enreadable), but I will be watching with interest.

A couple of my friends (academics) have pointed out that 'trans' as a field is the big new thing in academia, and that perhaps it's worth bearing in mind when it comes to the amount of coverage the topic receives (and also the concept of performativity). Not that I can really complain, being able to put I was trans on my personal statement meant I was able to punch well above my weight when it came to applying to uni (I start this year).

I do have a couple links to contribute though:

fwsablog.org.uk/2014/08/02/i-say-it-therefore-it-is/

And this:

Original poster
LRDtheFeministDragon · 30/08/2014 18:31

I think she means 'understandable', but I don't know why she uses 'legible' instead.

I'll post more bits as I come to them, and perhaps they will make things clearer.

And maybe other people will join in!

OP posts:
AskBasil · 30/08/2014 18:30

That's where I don't feel I can even join the discussion, because I have literally no idea what she means by "legible" in this context.

Original poster
LRDtheFeministDragon · 30/08/2014 18:23

I have, and I liked it (she's a such a clear writer).

I'm still trying to puzzle through, though (there is a good reason for me to do this, btw, I'm not just a masochist).

One thing I don't get - and I know this is to an extent me having issues with post-structuralism per se - is why Butler is so, so keen always to see gender identity in terms of what's 'legible' in the first place. I mean, I'm not quite clear why she chooses to use a metaphor from written language.

OP posts:
AskBasil · 30/08/2014 18:18

Oh gosh I'd missed that "if".

As if there's even a debate about it.

Have you seen Caroline Criado Perez's article?

www.newstatesman.com/voices/2014/05/caroline-criado-perez-judith-butler-whats-phallus-got-do-it

Original poster
LRDtheFeministDragon · 30/08/2014 17:59

Grin Well, I totally understand and respect your can't-be-arsedness. I'd love to post random ideas and get them deconstructed, so that works.

I felt really angry about that paragraph. She is big on saying that how you use language and grammar is terribly important, so I do feel it's acceptable to nit-pick - and in a nit-picking way, starting that passage with 'If' is immediately opening up the idea for disagreement, as if gender discrimination might very well not be real.

I agree with you fully on the point about not having a choice about gender identity.

OP posts:
AskBasil · 30/08/2014 17:44

I've never read any Judith Butler but am happy you're doing the job for me and I'd rather be reading by proxy as I can't be arsed. Grin Am happy to join in responses to random paragraphs / ideas you point to.

Re this one, she implies that gender discrimination is largely a problem for poor women and women of colour but this is simply not true. Gender discrimination is a problem for ALL women. Also the idea that gender now also means gender identity, is only true for a teeny weeny fraction of a tiny teeny percentage of people; I hate this lofty assertion that gender identity is the issue of the day, when in fact for most women, they don't have a choice about their gender identity, it's imposed on them from birth and they suffer the discrimination that goes with that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread