Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Judith Butler has spoken

373 replies

lionheart · 22/09/2020 23:33

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.'

OP posts:
FloralBunting · 23/09/2020 13:22

🤣😂🤣😂

'Cannot fault the clarity of her prose'?

Och, away with ye. Satire is dead.

Escapeplanning · 23/09/2020 13:25

@DancelikeEmmaGoldman

😂
Brilliant.
Escapeplanning · 23/09/2020 13:28

Her work can be dense but a lot of theoretical scholarship is like that.

I agree with this but I'm thinking of a different meaning of the word dense.

crunchermuncher · 23/09/2020 13:30

@sith789

Yo Old Crone: "The journalist asked: "What do you have to say about violent or abusive language used online against people like JK Rowling?" What 'narrow views' are implied by this question?"

As Butler's reply shows, reporter only appears to care about abuse hurled at Rowling to the exclusion other far more vulnerable actors ie transgender people themselves.

That makes no logical sense. The interviewer has not said that they dont care about any other people getting abuse, but the discussion was about GC feminism.

That's just whataboutery.

If said I like dogs, would you immediately criticise me for excluding cats? If i support Save the Children does that mean i therefore hate old people? These are not logical leaps.

SophocIestheFox · 23/09/2020 13:37

@sith789

Yo Old Crone: "The journalist asked: "What do you have to say about violent or abusive language used online against people like JK Rowling?" What 'narrow views' are implied by this question?"

As Butler's reply shows, reporter only appears to care about abuse hurled at Rowling to the exclusion other far more vulnerable actors ie transgender people themselves.

Eh? Why shouldn’t she askwhat Butler thinks about the abuse Rowling has suffered? You think it’s ok for a woman to receive direct rape and death threats, because, what, she’s rich? Maybe you managed to miss the bit about her having been subjected to domestic abuse and sexual violence in the past.

Butler dodges the question anyway.

ErrolTheDragon · 23/09/2020 13:40

people like JK Rowling

The most obvious interpretation of that is 'women who refuse to be silenced'. Why on earth is it 'narrow' or invalid to pose that question? Hmm

crunchermuncher · 23/09/2020 13:48

Also, perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'far more vulnerable'?

Are trans people more vulnerable? What is your belief about this based on?

It sounds like you think there is a hierarchy of being somehow deserving of abuse, instead of condemning it across the board.

TheRealMcKenna · 23/09/2020 13:50

Her argument about the abuse of JK Rowling doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. She goes on to talk about trans people in Brazil and Poland as thought that’s the real feminist issue of the day. If we really need to ‘drop everything’ and focus on the big issues then wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to talk about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan etc - and that’s before we even get started on attitudes towards homosexuality in those countries?

What a load of nonsense. No wonder the likes of James Lindsay and Douglas Murray hold her in such low regard.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 23/09/2020 13:53

In teh old days, Judith Butler used to win writing prizes from the Graun

www.theguardian.com/books/1999/dec/24/news

Stripesgalore · 23/09/2020 13:55

The whole purpose of the terrible postmodern writing style is to make it as difficult to understand as possible.

Other forms of academic writing have specialist vocabulary because they want to be precise in what they are referring to. Judith Butler is deliberately incomprehensible to hide the fact that she says very little.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 23/09/2020 14:01

I remember crying with relief when I read this back in the day.

It made so much sense.

It is really worth a read. I have no love for Nussbaum, but she nails it here.

newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody

OldCrone · 23/09/2020 14:07

@sith789

Yo Old Crone: "The journalist asked: "What do you have to say about violent or abusive language used online against people like JK Rowling?" What 'narrow views' are implied by this question?"

As Butler's reply shows, reporter only appears to care about abuse hurled at Rowling to the exclusion other far more vulnerable actors ie transgender people themselves.

Which other vulnerable groups who are sometimes on the receiving end of violent threats and abuse do you think the journalist should have mentioned? Lesbians? Gay men? Ethnic minorities? Elderly people? Disabled people?

Butler's answer appeared to be "Why are you so concerned about misogynistic abuse hurled at a famous woman? What about the men?"

Stripesgalore · 23/09/2020 14:08

There is somewhere a feminist explanation of what queer theory is. Does anyone know where?

It basically seemed to mean that having boundaries was oppressive and talking down boundaries was liberating. Yet you would have to read incomprehensible jargon for hours if you wanted to find out for yourself, because to admit the actual theory in simple terms admits how ridiculous the idea is.

terryleather · 23/09/2020 14:09

Time to post this again...yon Judy one should take note....

Judith Butler has spoken
OldCrone · 23/09/2020 14:12

@Suffrajester

I keep hearing "trans women are discriminated against in men's facilities" but have never actually seen an example of this. There have been many cases of trans women going into women's facilities and being chased out by women defending their space, or they're attacked by men assuming they're there to perv on the women and girls and wait outside to catch them afterwards, but I've never seen any case of a trans woman being harassed or attacked in the men's. And there's been plenty of posts from trans women like Fionne Orlander and crossdressers like Hope Lye saying they've never had any trouble in the men's.
Someone on here said that when a male colleague turned up for work one day in a dress and declared that he was transgender, the men all told him to use the women's toilets.

I think those sort of men need some training about diversity and acceptance of gender non-conforming males. I don't think any threats of violence were involved, though.

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 23/09/2020 14:14

[quote YetAnotherSpartacus]I remember crying with relief when I read this back in the day.

It made so much sense.

It is really worth a read. I have no love for Nussbaum, but she nails it here.

newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody[/quote]

But in both the continental and the Anglo-American philosophical traditions, academic writers for a specialist audience standardly acknowledge that the figures they mention are complicated, and the object of many different interpretations. They therefore typically assume the responsibility of advancing a definite interpretation among the contested ones, and of showing by argument why they have interpreted the figure as they have, and why their own interpretation is better than others.

Yep. Butler can't write for toffee.

TheRealMcKenna · 23/09/2020 14:16

There is somewhere a feminist explanation of what queer theory is. Does anyone know where?

I don’t know about ‘feminist’, but the best ‘idiot’s guide’ to critical social justice ideology is often found on the New Discourses website:

newdiscourses.com/tftw-queer-theory/

terryleather · 23/09/2020 14:16

Whoops, will try again as some of it got cut off...

Judith Butler has spoken
CoffeeTeaChocolate · 23/09/2020 14:16

....but a fachidiot actually excels in one subject....? Does Judy?

terryleather · 23/09/2020 14:18

@CoffeeTeaChocolate

....but a fachidiot actually excels in one subject....? Does Judy?
She certainly seems to excel at "chatting shit"...
GirlOnTheEdgeOfThePark · 23/09/2020 14:20

Is she the one that's wreaked all the havoc and caused so much damage? What an amazing legacy.Confused

WeeBisom · 23/09/2020 14:25

Someone asked for a primer on Judith Butler's work and ideas, so here is a brief blurb. Judith Butler is an American academic who is most famous for advancing a postmodernism theory of feminism. The basic premise of postmodernism is there is no such thing as objective reality. Instead, the only thing that exists is 'discourse' or 'texts' - we humans socially construct our reality. What we think of as 'reality' is actually the dominant 'text', which has been put in place by those who are most powerful. For example, the idea of germs (as opposed to magic, or evil spirits) making you sick doesn't reflect reality as it actually is (because there is no reality). Rather, we think that germs exist only because that dominant discourse has won the day. These power structures are not neutral - they are also deeply oppressive. When one person declares reality to be a certain way they get to control what reality is.

Some areas of the discourse are involved in a constant power struggle, and one of these areas is sex and gender. The standard feminist view is that men made up the concept of gender in order to oppress women - women were put in the lower sex caste, with men being on top. And so the way to fix this is to get rid of gendered assumptions and say that men and women are equal, right? No, says Judy. When feminists campaign on behalf of women they are being just as oppressive as the men. The problem is that they assume there is such a thing called 'woman' which actually exists. This is erroneous. There is no such thing as 'women'. Women have been made up by oppressors, and so feminists are just copying their oppressive ways by campaigning on behalf of this thing which doesn't exist. By advocating for women, feminists actually create and make real the very category of 'woman' itself. That is bad because it makes feminists themselves oppressors, but it is also bad because it is exclusionary. To define something is by definition exclusionary - things are automatically put outside the 'woman' box. Like men. And black women (apparently. I find this point pretty racist. I don't think black women ever considered themselves to be outside the woman category.)

So how do we stop this horrible exclusion? We must accept that 'woman' as a concept doesn't really exist. Anyone can be a woman. Woman can mean anything. Once we accept that then the rigid categories break down.Judith Butler imagines a feminist movement that is reduced to 'playfully' deconstructing and riffing on what it means to be a woman.

Butler is also famous for her idea of 'gender performativity' which is actually rather trite. Butler thinks that gender isn't a real thing but is something we construct on a daily basis because we perform it. When I put on lipstick I am performing and strengthening the concept of 'woman'. So gender is something we make real by 'doing'. It is a social construction. Now, sadly, we can never get rid of gender completely. But what we can do is 'subvert' it or 'queer' it - basically taking the piss. So gender is 'subverted' whenever a man wears lipstick, for example. Or whenever a woman shaves her head. We can't get rid of gender completely but we can blur the boundaries between masculine and feminine and 'play' with it. And because gender is something entirely constructed, that we constantly make and re-make, this means that men can literally become women (because women literally create themselves as women everyday). There is nothing more to being a woman than performing the woman role.

If you want to read her directly, she's best known for her book "gender trouble'. But I warn you her writing style is really awful and designed to make you feel stupid. I must also warn you that because she just isn't clear about her ideas, and because she constantly contradicts herself, there is a lot of debate about what Judy actually means.

CoffeeTeaChocolate · 23/09/2020 14:27

Terryleather Grin

Stripesgalore · 23/09/2020 14:31

That was really clear Bisom.

I’ve always thought people who believe in postmodernism must develop some psychological issues by being so divorced from reality.

DancelikeEmmaGoldman · 23/09/2020 14:33

How come nobody argues that men don’t really exist? It seems only fair they they take a turn at being a formless void which anybody can be. I pull on my gumboots and old jumper in the morning, and voila, the void is looking back at me.