Timely Readings

In almost uncanny timing, yesterday's editorial in the Spectator criticized the organizers of Queer Awareness Month for advertising the event "GenderFuck," an underwear party, far more-so than their educational programming. The piece has sparked virulent responses from many members of the queer community. In light of this week's readings I think it would be quite valuable to discuss this editorial through the lens of our readings. What does the editorial prove or disprove about the strides Rubin describes that have been made in the past several decades to reshape sexual attitudes in this country? Is this Spectator article a return to what Rubin describes as the penchant for sex negativity? The Queer community has responded to this article but what about the feminist community? They have not. Should they respond? And if so, what would that look like? To bring in this week's lecture, how might the community respond to this article using the construction of normative response and challenges? How does this article challenge, confront or problematize Butler's statement that "there is no question that gays and lesbians are threatened by the violence of public erasure, but the decision to counter that violence must be careful not to reinstall another in its place?"

Attached is the link to the editorial as well as two letters to the editor and the Editor-In-Chief's response.

THE EDITORIAL: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56558
THE LETTERS: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56569
THE Editor-in-Chief's Response: http://www.bwog.net/articles/groups_respond_to_inflatable_penis_controversy_plan_protest_outside_spec#jump

In reading Marcus’ essay on rape, I found that it reconfirmed a lot of the ideas in Rubin’s article on sex. Rubin makes some really interesting assertions about the evolution of sex as taboo in Western cultures. “This culture always treats sex with suspicion” and sex is considered to be “inherently sinful.” Could this be one of the causes for the cultural association between rape and death? Marcus points out that rape transcends the definition of assault crimes because of its sexual connotations. So if sex is this incredibly holy act reserved for “marriage, reproduction and love,” then of course sexual violence is going to be the closest a person can get to death while still being alive. But what if we began to de-stigmatize sex? Rubin asserts that the harsh judgments placed on the act of sex have justified the criminalization of prostitution and homosexuality. So what if sex weren’t so culturally taboo? What if people began to view sex in a more liberal way, as something we all do in whatever form we choose? Basically, why is sex such a big deal? I couldn’t help but analyze Marcus’ essay in the context of this theory within Rubin’s article. Can the de-stigmatization of sex in any way help the whole rape issue? If sex w I’m not trying to say that if sex weren’t “such a big deal” that women would be able to view rape as a less heinous crime. But what if we were to begin a revolution to subvert the sexual aspect of rape and emphasis the assault/violence aspect of rape in order to make it less traumatic for a victim? If sex were less taboo, then perhaps women could get real about sex, own their sexuality and break away from the stereotype are these sexually passive objects. And if women weren’t stereotyped as sexually passive, then perhaps rapists would not find them such an easy target. It’s a long shot, but what if…

Virginia, I completely was on the same line of thought when reading Marcus. It does make it an interesting point that in the ideal world, rape would not be embedded in the society with the opinion of women being passive and able to be raped but that we can find a way to prevent it. Rape and culture are very interesting to compare. In some cultures, women are married off to men only if they are virgins and pure....but that is not necessarily asked of the man. I found this following quotation to catch my attention: "A rapist's ability to accost a woman verbally, to demand her attention, and even to attack her physically depends more on how he positions himself relative to her socially than it does on his allegedly superior physical strength. His belief that he has more strength than a woman and that he can use it to rape her merits more analysis than the putative fact of that strength, because that believe often produces as an effect the male power that appears to be rape's cause." (pg 390) This is another interesting viewpoint of rape and society.

While reading the articles for this week, I really began thinking about being, existing as an individual, as a member of a labeled group, etc.  In lecture on Tuesday, Jess mentioned how identities are performed.  In "Decking Out: Performing Identities," Judith Butler writes, "Since I was sixteen, being a lesbian is what I've been.  So what's the anxiety, the discomfort?  Well, it has something to do with that redoubling, the way I can say, I'm going to Yale to be a lesbian; a lesbian is what I've been being for so long.  How is it that I can both "be" one, and yet endeavor to be one at the same time?  When and where does my being a lesbian come into play, when and where does this playing a lesbian constitute something like what I am?" (18).  While reading the paragraph the passage comes from, my thoughts became more and more muddled until my head was spinning trying to decide if playing my identity is creating it or if an identity must be performed in order to create it.  Is it a matter of performance or not?

Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words

Although I really enjoyed and resonated with Sharon Marcus' article, by the end of the article, I found myself wondering about female rapists. Where do they fit in in this picture? Are female rapists "manlier"? How do female rapists fit in in this portrait that Marcus has painted of male rapists? I would have loved to hear her thoughts on that, but since she didn't mention female rapists, the question has been turned to you!

Also, Marcus writes that the victim is "someone whom the would-be rapist assumes would not attempt to fight back" probably because of the "feminine fear [which] inspires the familiar sensations of 'freezing' -- involuntary immobility and silence." She contrasts it with the masculine fear, which "triggers the notorious 'fight or flight' response." Assuming that Marcus holds these responses to be inherent in all males/females, that is to say, a biological fact, then how does this fit in with the argument that "we recognize and enact our gendered selves as objects of violence" because "the criteria of feminine beauty and worthy feminine behavior, if enacted without any modification, create[s] a trammeled, passive person"?

In "Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention," Sharon Marcus discusses the idea of rape, arguing that it is a cultural script which is acted out over and over by two people who thus become the powerful rapist and the weak, passive female victim. She claims that instead of focusing on defining and punishing rape, we should put more emphasis on rape prevention-- she gives several examples of how this could be done, i.e. recognizing that it is a cultural script and then rewriting it, as well as focusing on self-defense techniques that women can employ in order to resist the powerlessness which rape imposes on them. Though Marcus gives these possible solutions to preventing rape, she concludes by saying that "self defense of course offers no final solution: it will not always be sufficient to ward off rape...While the ethical burden to prevent rape does not lie with us but with rapists and a society which upholds them, we will be waiting a very long time if we wait for men to decide not to rape." In concluding this way, it seems as if she is conceding that in the end the ultimate power to prevent rape lies with the masculine forces who rape/allow rape to happen, and thus once again assuming a position of powerlessness against rape. Do women assume the passive position in waiting for men to decide to stop raping?

I felt a strong personal connection to Judith Butler's statements in the "Personal Mimesis" section of her article, in particular to her claim that "identification and desire can coexist, and that their formulation in terms of mutually exclusive oppositions serves a heterosexual matrix." This idea was reified for me with a friend's statement as we were getting ready to go to a CQA sponsored dance: I wondered whether I should wear a dress or a button down shirt and tie; she resonded by asking whether I wanted to "attract butches or femmes". I was (probably naively) taken aback that she should see self-presentation as so fundamentally opposed to the presentation of the object of desire, and the categories as so mutually exclusive. So my question now is rather personal, very strongly biased to my own gender-neutral feelings, and probably unanswerable. Do you think that people who present as extremely masculine or feminine actually feel a strong sense of embodying the characteristics of that gender? Are they playing it up because, as Butler says, the norm is "perpetually at risk [of] becoming undone" (23)? Is it because they feel the need to create a dichotomy with the extreme of the other sex? Or am I completely off the mark and inappropriate for asking this question?

I wanted to respond to Kayla's post, because I thought it was a pretty provocative question.  It's interesting to look at parallels between white-black relationships and male-female relationships.  I feel as if there are many overlaps between the experiences of blacks and women, but I think that is because both groups are being affected by the same entity -- the white man.  It makes sense that some experiences of subordination are shared by both...  It's the approach/mentality that the white man brings to the table that dictates others respond -- if the white man comes in thinking that he the best and everyone should adhere, everyone else has to adjust.  Simone de Beauvoir would probably ignore the differences -- there wasn't really any acknowledgment of the non-white experience...yet if she thought about it she would probably agree.

In Adrian Piper's article, she quotes Davis' "Who is Black": 'The white person had to be clearly in charge at all times, and the black person clearly subordinate, so that each kept his or her place. It was a master-servant etiquette, in which blacks had to act out their inferior social position, much the way slaves had done. The black had to be deferential in tone and body language...and never bring up a delicate topic or contradict the white...this master-servant ritual had to be acted out carefully lest the black person be accused of "getting" out of his or her subordinate "place."' How does this same dichotomy relate to the relationship between men and women? What would Simone Du Beauvoir say? What positives and negatives could come of making such conclusions?

Fighting Fire With Fire

"Although on one level the men are opponents, on another level they cooperate in their agreement to play the same game" (Marcus 396)
In suggesting that we "change the script" regarding the way we think and speak about rape in modern culture, Sharon Marcus suggests that women beat rapists at their own game, by exerting their own forms of violence, thus proving themselves unfitting of the weak or vulnerable stereotype of women. Could we apply this proposal to general interactions between men and women? What would it look like if women decided to shed their mannerly demeanors and defy their expectations of vulnerability? Have we already begun to move along such a path? I think that the answer to the latter is yes, and I find it interesting to note that most women who do so become known as bitches, and "ugly feminist" ones at that. So, has this simply exacerbated violent relations between men and women? Or could this be a new form of competition between men and women as equals- both playing the same game at last?

Butler reiterates that one must define an "Other" before conceiving of a "self" (27), as Lacan originally proposed with the concept of "mirror image" self-identification. I wonder whether one is forced to define one's self in response to perceptions of "otherness" - is it not possible to develop a sexual preference before heterosexism is societally imposed on an individual, or before one recognizes in oneself and labels it with the restrictive language constructs? And speaking of language constructs - when faced with an unknown, one must either search for existing knowledge of it, or define it using familiar terms. Is it then really that surprising that identification of sexualities forms from the majority sector, which has been established as a "norm" far earlier than other gender identity labels came into existence? People tend to favor connections with others who have similar experiences, hence the formation of cohesive groups based on nationalities, races, classes, genders, etc (see current politics). Those refusing to choose a side or to play a role are categorized anyway by the existing groups. Is it possible to remove the factor of public scrutiny, and if it were possible, would the result then somehow detract from one's self-identity?

Butler describes her discomfort with "being" a lesbian: "So what's the anxiety, the discomfort?...How is it that I can both 'be' one, and yet endeavor to be one at the same time?". She goes on to discuss how the body is a cultural construction rather than a product of nature-it is constructed by our actions (i.e. bathroom scenario). Do you agree with this statement? Yes, there are socially constructed labels and roles that are expected of certain groups however, is the body truly culturally constructed-is there even a definite answer? 

Butler is my personal hero. Maybe after Foucault. But she writes following Foucault so that makes sense.

Butler talks quite a bit about the homosexual being thought of as derivative of the heterosexual... when in actuality it is the categorization of homosexual that creates the norm of heterosexuality. It exposes the "fundamental dependency of 'origin' on that which it claims to produce as its secondary effect." (22) In this way, the homosexual precedes the heterosexual. This is much like Jean Paul Sartre's theorization of the anti-semite and the jew. In order for the subject 'anti-semite' to exist, there must be an object of hatred- the jew. Subject-hood is often thought to be created through such inversions. 

Butler does, however, recognize the fault in such inversions, even when used productively. 

As gender is a performance, this subversion and resistance takes place through the performance. Performance of gender- of drag- (they are basically the same in Butler's eyes) are flexible forms of resistance. They can parody. They can simply reveal.

Does this place too much responsibility on the homosexual to reveal? Does this power/responsibility emerge by default? How can this exposition be translated onto the heterosexual subject? Can we share such power/responsibility?

10/30

Sharon Marcus discusses rape as a performance by discussing the language and "script" used to describe it. Are her solutions to confronting and changing the "rape-script" actually offer ways to change the performance of rape? To me, it seems like she adds more language and dialogue, by describing both verbal defense and female violence to fight off rape. However, I don't think that her suggestions really change the performance of rape, it only adds more of a role for the female victim. I am not convinced that her examples of self-defense really contribute to writing a new "rape-script." I guess my question is whether or not other people found her argument convincing.

Oct. 30th discussion

We talked a lot about Butler's essay in class on Tuesday, specifically about how to answer her question: "How then to expose the casual lines as retrospectively and performatively produced fabrications, and engage gender itself as an inevitable fabrication...?" Both Jess and Agi gave very concrete answers, but Butler's solution seemed considerably vaguer to me. What does it mean to "wor[k] sexuality against identity"? How can we "redeploy norms with a difference" when so many of our repetitive performances are compulsory, like the bathroom problem?