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?