Generally, Judith Butler is the mother Theresa of feminism/gender theory. They think the only real solution is to fetishize hierarchical structures, and because we do fetishize them, we shouldn’t try to dismantle the hierarchies that currently oppress people.
And yet, they’re seen as a representative of and righteous fighter for the people they’re harming.
Gender necessary, because how hot is a schoolgirl scene? We’d never get that if we weren’t constantly hemmed in by gender. Anyway, the best way to deal with the inherent oppression within the system is to parody gender and play with it while you fetishize it.
Mother Theresa thought pain ennobled the spirit, so she didn’t allow traditional pain medication doses even for palliative cancer patients. All the people in her hospitals suffered completely needlessly
I honestly don’t see how this is an unreasonable take.
A lot of people, a lot of TRANS people, feel extremely positively about their gender. Not everyone is agender. Some sort of innate feeling about gender seems to be ingrained in many people.
But just because I am a trans man, does not mean I want to associate with the hierarchy of it. I’d prefer people see my gender as a playful expression of being than an indicator of status. Fetish/sexuality/camp are all just a few examples of ways people could express gender without reinforcing hierarchy.
I think you’re getting a bit too stuck on the “fetish” bit. But because you seem interested, I’ll bring up that I think expressing a desire for hierarchy though fetish is great. If you have a desire to dominate someone, why not play it out in a safe and consensual environment rather than actually hurt someone? And just because something can be fetishized, doesn’t mean it will be. Lots of people have gender-related fetishes as is, but also a lot of people just see their gender as an expression of who they are.
I think it’s unreasonable to say that there will always be a hierarchy associated with gender, to the point that I’m very skeptical of Butler. It feels almost like they’re trying to discourage people from fighting for their rights, but regardless of how it feels, it does have a chilling effect on gender equality.
I’m not against fetishizing hierarchy, but I don’t think it’s the solution to our frustration with gender. I think fetishization (there’s just not a better word) can help people heal to a degree (a lot of people feel that they can take power back once they role play their rape, for example), but I don’t think it’s a societal solution to gender inequality at all.
I don’t know if I think gender is inevitable, but I don’t think gender inequality is, and I don’t think Judith Butler is working towards getting rid of it.
I think whenever you have “groups” of people, if not deliberately prevented, a hierarchy will develop. I can’t think of any situation where this isn’t true to some extent. Even blondes have more fun.
And with gender, the gender for whom most people are able to be pregnant and therefore have the capacity to be basically incapacitated by pregnancy and childcare for years, while also being physically weaker and shorter, is going to be the less dominant gender. I don’t see that going away.
Yes, trans men can get pregnant, but most men are cis men and I don’t see that changing. Trans women (and many cis women) might not be able to get pregnant, but they still are subjected to the social stigmas related to being a woman all the same.
So by acknowledging the tendency and weakening it’s power by playing into fetishization, you don’t have to work against people’s tendencies to otherize. And it’s not just fetishization, it’s also camp and playfulness as well. Fetishization could also be described as a playful preference, that in the instance of gender is sexualized because sex/sexuality/gender are so inter-related.
I think people naturally want to form hierarchies, but I also think people naturally want to steal. It’s normal, but that doesn’t mean it’s desirable, especially if the hierarchy is based on stereotypes instead of, say, the hierarchy that exists in a classroom.
Women on the whole tend to be smaller, and get stereotyped as more childlike, which seems natural, but we hold totally different stereotypes for other groups. Asian men tend to also be smaller, but they face stereotypes about being smart and sly, nothing at all childlike. These are huge generalizations, obviously, but the only thing in common about the stereotypes people hold about all groups is that these stereotypes serve the people already in power.
Yes, it’s not just fetishization, but honestly, suggesting playing with gender as a solution is more offensive to me. It feels very much like “it’s too bad you’re always going to be in the losing position, but here, you can be an X who Ys, isn’t that fun?” To be clear, I like playing with gender. My preferred hobby is about 10% dudes in skirts (not being transphobic, it’s folk dancing and skirts are spinny, so everyone loves them), but that doesn’t fix my problems.
And I do think the problems can be fixed (I’m willing to accept 99% fixed, if there’s some degree of inevitability to it, which there may be), because we’ve already made a huge dent in the problem in some places. Even since Judith Butler stopped thinking there was another way out.
I don’t think Judith Butler is opposed to policies that demonstrably improve gender equality such as abortion. Correct me if I’m wrong here?? I think the playing with gender is just part of it. And I feel like it has a real impact, idk I know a lot of nonbinary and gender fluid people and they are not, on the whole, hierarchy-obssessed people.
The biological conditions that lead to patriarchy can totally be leveled out somewhat, but it’s hard to rule out the reality of how testosterone impacts physical strength, and the impact of pregnancy. It’s not really about stereotypes it’s about sex differences.
I think playing with gender isn’t just for the “oppressed” to have fun under a difficulty hierarchy. If more dudes were wearing skirts and participating in feminine activities, it would be harder for them to be violent against women. Think about all the incels who worship masculinity and never talk to girls and are just scary as hell. And if the incels wanted to fetishize this masculinity worship, it wouldn’t be as serious you know? Like they are serious about their violence as is, but if they successfully recontextualized it as a fantasy that they partake in during a specific context with consenting people, that might be better?
I don’t think she’s opposed to them either, but that’s not what she’s suggested (though she may have come out in favor of abortion specifically since roe v wade was overruled, which is frankly a must for anyone at all associated with feminism). She suggests working within the system to find your own private fulfillment.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept, but it seems too stoic, in that it seems to be about coming to terms with your oppression instead of fighting it. As a model of feminist thought, I think it has a chilling effect on people trying to change the system.
You’ve got a very good insight on the effects of testosterone if you’ve undergone any hormone treatment, so I suspect you understand its effects on the body and mind than I do. I don’t see why physical size and pregnancy should directly correlate to stereotypes about mental capabilities, especially given that we have anthropological evidence of contradictory stereotypes from different cultures.
I agree that subverting gender can have positive ripple effects, but I don’t think Judith Butler effectively makes this claim. It’s cool that it works, but they haven’t done their academic duty with this, which I think also dampens the likelihood that it will be taken up.
I’m sorry how has gender anything to do with hierarchy, inherently. Why would you create or reinforce that kind of spook. It’s the -archy that’s the problem, always has been.
Judith Butler argues (ish, they’re more one for implications) that gender exists to serve a hierarchy, from which it can never break free, and that it’s completely arbitrary. However, they also suggest that any rejection of gender will not work, as it will destroy our libidos and reform from nothing anew (though the genders could be completely different). Their proposal for dealing with it is to subvert gender from within it and fetishize it.
I say that’s harmfully pessimistic, bordering on FUD.
that gender exists to serve a hierarchy, from which it can never break free
Yeah that’s the kind of stuff that happens when you talk to your Animus more often than actual men I’d say. “UUUUh men are big and scary” – so are roller-coasters. Just make sure it’s well-maintained before getting on. Some may be so fucked up they collapse on you while walking by but that’s not an inherent property of roller-coasters.
Of course, that could be what she means, wrt. subverting gender to redefine it, hidden beyond layers of philosophical jargon meaning things just ever so subtly different than what you expect it to mean – honestly haven’t read her. But there’s nothing to define, really, once you do the good ole anarchism and replace hierarchy with horizontalism (that kind, not the tehe one) you’ll see that it’s always been there. Thinking that there’s nothing wholesome in the biotruths is rather anti-materialist as our inherent notion of wholesome co-evolved with our sexual dimorphism. Also, pushes you back into 2nd wave political lesbianism eugenics, “we need to change the species itself”. I think Andrea Dworkin was reincarnated as a duck.
Caveat: I didn’t go around the paywall.
Generally, Judith Butler is the mother Theresa of feminism/gender theory. They think the only real solution is to fetishize hierarchical structures, and because we do fetishize them, we shouldn’t try to dismantle the hierarchies that currently oppress people.
And yet, they’re seen as a representative of and righteous fighter for the people they’re harming.
what.
Gender necessary, because how hot is a schoolgirl scene? We’d never get that if we weren’t constantly hemmed in by gender. Anyway, the best way to deal with the inherent oppression within the system is to parody gender and play with it while you fetishize it.
Mother Theresa thought pain ennobled the spirit, so she didn’t allow traditional pain medication doses even for palliative cancer patients. All the people in her hospitals suffered completely needlessly
I honestly don’t see how this is an unreasonable take.
A lot of people, a lot of TRANS people, feel extremely positively about their gender. Not everyone is agender. Some sort of innate feeling about gender seems to be ingrained in many people.
But just because I am a trans man, does not mean I want to associate with the hierarchy of it. I’d prefer people see my gender as a playful expression of being than an indicator of status. Fetish/sexuality/camp are all just a few examples of ways people could express gender without reinforcing hierarchy.
I think you’re getting a bit too stuck on the “fetish” bit. But because you seem interested, I’ll bring up that I think expressing a desire for hierarchy though fetish is great. If you have a desire to dominate someone, why not play it out in a safe and consensual environment rather than actually hurt someone? And just because something can be fetishized, doesn’t mean it will be. Lots of people have gender-related fetishes as is, but also a lot of people just see their gender as an expression of who they are.
I think it’s unreasonable to say that there will always be a hierarchy associated with gender, to the point that I’m very skeptical of Butler. It feels almost like they’re trying to discourage people from fighting for their rights, but regardless of how it feels, it does have a chilling effect on gender equality.
I’m not against fetishizing hierarchy, but I don’t think it’s the solution to our frustration with gender. I think fetishization (there’s just not a better word) can help people heal to a degree (a lot of people feel that they can take power back once they role play their rape, for example), but I don’t think it’s a societal solution to gender inequality at all.
I don’t know if I think gender is inevitable, but I don’t think gender inequality is, and I don’t think Judith Butler is working towards getting rid of it.
I think whenever you have “groups” of people, if not deliberately prevented, a hierarchy will develop. I can’t think of any situation where this isn’t true to some extent. Even blondes have more fun.
And with gender, the gender for whom most people are able to be pregnant and therefore have the capacity to be basically incapacitated by pregnancy and childcare for years, while also being physically weaker and shorter, is going to be the less dominant gender. I don’t see that going away.
Yes, trans men can get pregnant, but most men are cis men and I don’t see that changing. Trans women (and many cis women) might not be able to get pregnant, but they still are subjected to the social stigmas related to being a woman all the same.
So by acknowledging the tendency and weakening it’s power by playing into fetishization, you don’t have to work against people’s tendencies to otherize. And it’s not just fetishization, it’s also camp and playfulness as well. Fetishization could also be described as a playful preference, that in the instance of gender is sexualized because sex/sexuality/gender are so inter-related.
I think people naturally want to form hierarchies, but I also think people naturally want to steal. It’s normal, but that doesn’t mean it’s desirable, especially if the hierarchy is based on stereotypes instead of, say, the hierarchy that exists in a classroom.
Women on the whole tend to be smaller, and get stereotyped as more childlike, which seems natural, but we hold totally different stereotypes for other groups. Asian men tend to also be smaller, but they face stereotypes about being smart and sly, nothing at all childlike. These are huge generalizations, obviously, but the only thing in common about the stereotypes people hold about all groups is that these stereotypes serve the people already in power.
Yes, it’s not just fetishization, but honestly, suggesting playing with gender as a solution is more offensive to me. It feels very much like “it’s too bad you’re always going to be in the losing position, but here, you can be an X who Ys, isn’t that fun?” To be clear, I like playing with gender. My preferred hobby is about 10% dudes in skirts (not being transphobic, it’s folk dancing and skirts are spinny, so everyone loves them), but that doesn’t fix my problems.
And I do think the problems can be fixed (I’m willing to accept 99% fixed, if there’s some degree of inevitability to it, which there may be), because we’ve already made a huge dent in the problem in some places. Even since Judith Butler stopped thinking there was another way out.
I don’t think Judith Butler is opposed to policies that demonstrably improve gender equality such as abortion. Correct me if I’m wrong here?? I think the playing with gender is just part of it. And I feel like it has a real impact, idk I know a lot of nonbinary and gender fluid people and they are not, on the whole, hierarchy-obssessed people.
The biological conditions that lead to patriarchy can totally be leveled out somewhat, but it’s hard to rule out the reality of how testosterone impacts physical strength, and the impact of pregnancy. It’s not really about stereotypes it’s about sex differences.
I think playing with gender isn’t just for the “oppressed” to have fun under a difficulty hierarchy. If more dudes were wearing skirts and participating in feminine activities, it would be harder for them to be violent against women. Think about all the incels who worship masculinity and never talk to girls and are just scary as hell. And if the incels wanted to fetishize this masculinity worship, it wouldn’t be as serious you know? Like they are serious about their violence as is, but if they successfully recontextualized it as a fantasy that they partake in during a specific context with consenting people, that might be better?
I don’t think she’s opposed to them either, but that’s not what she’s suggested (though she may have come out in favor of abortion specifically since roe v wade was overruled, which is frankly a must for anyone at all associated with feminism). She suggests working within the system to find your own private fulfillment.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept, but it seems too stoic, in that it seems to be about coming to terms with your oppression instead of fighting it. As a model of feminist thought, I think it has a chilling effect on people trying to change the system.
You’ve got a very good insight on the effects of testosterone if you’ve undergone any hormone treatment, so I suspect you understand its effects on the body and mind than I do. I don’t see why physical size and pregnancy should directly correlate to stereotypes about mental capabilities, especially given that we have anthropological evidence of contradictory stereotypes from different cultures.
I agree that subverting gender can have positive ripple effects, but I don’t think Judith Butler effectively makes this claim. It’s cool that it works, but they haven’t done their academic duty with this, which I think also dampens the likelihood that it will be taken up.
I’m sorry how has gender anything to do with hierarchy, inherently. Why would you create or reinforce that kind of spook. It’s the -archy that’s the problem, always has been.
Judith Butler argues (ish, they’re more one for implications) that gender exists to serve a hierarchy, from which it can never break free, and that it’s completely arbitrary. However, they also suggest that any rejection of gender will not work, as it will destroy our libidos and reform from nothing anew (though the genders could be completely different). Their proposal for dealing with it is to subvert gender from within it and fetishize it.
I say that’s harmfully pessimistic, bordering on FUD.
Yeah that’s the kind of stuff that happens when you talk to your Animus more often than actual men I’d say. “UUUUh men are big and scary” – so are roller-coasters. Just make sure it’s well-maintained before getting on. Some may be so fucked up they collapse on you while walking by but that’s not an inherent property of roller-coasters.
Of course, that could be what she means, wrt. subverting gender to redefine it, hidden beyond layers of philosophical jargon meaning things just ever so subtly different than what you expect it to mean – honestly haven’t read her. But there’s nothing to define, really, once you do the good ole anarchism and replace hierarchy with horizontalism (that kind, not the tehe one) you’ll see that it’s always been there. Thinking that there’s nothing wholesome in the biotruths is rather anti-materialist as our inherent notion of wholesome co-evolved with our sexual dimorphism. Also, pushes you back into 2nd wave political lesbianism eugenics, “we need to change the species itself”. I think Andrea Dworkin was reincarnated as a duck.