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?