Judith Butler has spoken

[lionheart]

Damn.

www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times

'If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry.'

Jane Clare Jones has run Butler's wankery through a bullshit detector, and translated it into actual English.

'It is very important never to exclude and marginalise people, apart from when you are excluding and marginalising female people who centre female people in the movement for the liberation of female people from male dominance.'

'Its very important not to reproduce patriarchal gendered stereotypes apart from when you need to completely dismiss women's fears of male violence by repeatedly calling them hysterical 'fantasists.''

Bonus - 'who give a shit about cocks, I mean, it's not like we live inin a world where men have invested their dicks with omnipotent power and used them as a weapon against women or anything is it?'

Phallocentrism you say? What's that? Derrida who? You think I know anything about French philosophy??? LOL.

'I'm very concerned about gender and violence but I have totally failed to notice the tsunami of misogynist sexualised abuse and intimidation being unleashed on non-compliant women but I am TOTALLY the authority on this.

They're probably just fantasising.

Oh, and prudes.'

'It's very important to wilfully misconstrue the entire basis of second wave feminism as based on a biological determinist notion of gender, because we have to trouble gender, mostly by asserting that it exists in a real sense. They are the bad essentialists. HONEST.'

'Blah blah gender freedom blah blah gender equality blah liberal individualist bullshit blah IT'S VERY BAD WHEN YOU MAKE 'TACIT ASSUMPTIONS' THAT REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH FEMALE PEOPLE.'

I mean, who the fuck cares why women are oppressed anyway, amirite??

'I will now go on about how terrible it is to make 'demeaning' and 'phobic' misogynist 'caricatures' like I didn't just spend an entire paragraph calling women concerned about male violence hysterical fantasists.'

'It's probably bad to tell JK to choke on dick but I don't know anything about that and am puzzled why you bring it up when I need to talk at length about the abuse that really matters in the rest of the world that has nothing to do with those non-compliant British bitches.'

'I do kind of think we should have a free exchange of ideas and now I'm going to pretend I don't understand that the Harper's letter was about censorious authoritarianism on the left and not about trying to shut down demands for justice.'

'Now I'm going to say a bunch of ostensibly decent stuff about recognising dependency but I'm just going to completely ignore that that patriarchal structure is fundamentally based on the denial of dependence on women's bodies because NO ONE TALK ABOUT WOMEN'S BODIES.'

Thank you, JCJ. Sadly, it's spot on bloody accurate in every way.

[quote Gwynfluff]Jane Clare Jones has done a response - it’s brilliant

janeclarejones.com/2019/01/24/judith-butler-how-to-disappear-patriarchy-in-three-easy-steps/amp/?__twitter_impression=true[/quote]
Just read it, it's excellent,. Thank you for posting it Gwynfluff

I confess to being perplexed by the fact that you point out the abuse levelled against JK Rowling, but you do not cite the abuse against trans people and their allies that happens online and in person. I disagree with JK Rowling's view on trans people, but I do not think she should suffer harassment and threats. Let us also remember, though, the threats against trans people in places like Brazil, the harassment of trans people in the streets and on the job in places like Poland and Romania – or indeed right here in the US.

Why is she claiming to be perplexed about this? JK Rowling has been the victim of vile misogynistic abuse because she has spoken up in support of women. What has the abuse of other random groups of people around the world got to do with this? JK Rowling is not responsible for the abuse of these people, nor are her supporters.

The only reason the abuse of these other groups has any relevance to the abuse of JK Rowling is that in all cases, the perpetrators are predominantly male. But I suppose Judith doesn't notice that because she doesn't believe biological sex is important.

Thank you, JCJ. Sadly, it's spot on bloody accurate in every way.

Chat shit, get banged, as the young folks say.

Can I ask a big favour? Can anyone give me a brief summary of Judith Butler’s history, ideas and major contributions to academia? I studied chemical engineering at university, so never really came across or studied humanities/social sciences.

The only writing of hers I’ve ever seen was in Woke and The Madness of Crowds as examples of how unintelligible it is. I remember a lot of use of the word ‘hegemonic’, but the rest was incomprehensible.

I’m having a very bad eye day today (well, slightly worse that every other day), so can’t read through that JCJ article.

Butler's arguments make sense if you conveniently avoid acknowledging reality in the places where it matters.

Butler is often used as an example of how not to write and that's before you even get to the substance of her earlier work. But postmodern obsfuscation was not only very much in vogue at that time but also, supposedly, a demonstration of the principle that words are as unstable and fluid as idenitites etc blah etc.

In terms of academia there seems to have been a terrific rush, over the Summer, to embrace BLM and decolonizing the curriculum etc.

It will be interesting to see how easily this sits beside the Pride declarations and flags (and lanyards in the case of my institution).

Interesting (but depressing) to see the responses on twitter.

Triumphant responses to article and claims that JB has slayed the poor, uninformed interviewer.

She basically parrots all the TRA talking points and therefore is welcomed into the echo chamber.

She might as well be speaking Klingon for all the sense she makes.

Jane Clare Jones has got her pens out twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1308672369096118273?s=20

Gosh, I misread that, Millenium.

Judith Butler is a superior intellect, her effortless takedown of the likes of JK Rowling is stunning. Love the way she took apart the clueless reporter too.

I don't think so.

"Why is she claiming to be perplexed about this? JK Rowling has been the victim of vile misogynistic abuse because she has spoken up in support of women. What has the abuse of other random groups of people around the world got to do with this? JK Rowling is not responsible for the abuse of these people, nor are her supporters."

I believe is perplexed by how the ignorance of the question

@sith789

Judith Butler is a superior intellect, her effortless takedown of the likes of JK Rowling is stunning. Love the way she took apart the clueless reporter too.

I'm assuming that's sarcasm. I think even the Sith would find Judith Butler a bit dodgy.

sorry that wasn't English : I meant to say: Butler was perplexed by the reporter's narrow views

None of Jude’s purple prose is in any way effortless 🤣 it’s clearly very worked at.

Well, the TRAs on Twitter are loving it. Apparently she's 'destroying powerful women' or something, and this is, according to them, a good thing?

'Judith Butler is one of those weird things like Jell-O salads that Americans seem to like even though they make no sense' - Sarah DItum.

Yep.

' Judith Butler calmly eviscerating the NS journalists'

'as rabidly cloistered as the TERF bubble is'

'If I got bodied this hard by someone I interviewed, I would simply not publish it.'

'Judith Butler just demolishes'

'Truly a dream to watch Judith Butler straight-up body TERFS.'

'This interviewer brought a squirtgun to a steamroller fight.'

Why do all these people on Twitter frame this as a fight? Why are so many of the tweets couched in violent, war-referencing, battle terms? Why do they need to make it violent?

It's still violent imagery, the same as the threats we are all quite familiar with, just couched in slightly more colourful metaphor and politespeak.

Oh, shit, sorry, genuinely forgot we're not to use the T word here. Judith Butler has just promised it's not a slur, though, so maybe we're alright? .

The TRAs are coming across very like Ben Shapiro fanboys, all shouting about Butler DESTROYING her opponent.

Bless.

I meant to say: Butler was perplexed by the reporter's narrow views

What perplexingly narrow views did the reporter espouse?

She expressed perplexedness as to why why the reporter was asking JB's opinion about the threats to JKR.

Doesn't seem very perplexing to me.