Luigi perp walk reminded me to come here

🥰

thank you

Why didn't I hear congestion?

Bruh why do you read like a SPERG

Personal Bookmarks: 52:42

thank you sm homes 🫶🏼

23:43

part 4 2:41:06 4.2 3:15:37 more or less

Thank you ❤

How is this even more relevant in 2024 💀😭

o “woman” is in debate as even a category since there are different definitions from within discourse and identity which means it naturally leads to representational and identity politics  Butler fails to see or understand that it is only feminists which have an issue because of intersectionality which is their own political and identity framework to deprive them of having unified categories, that is, feminism since the second wave is itself confused since it desires to eliminate what defines women as women, as Butler does discuss in her evaluation of de Beauvoir  It could be said that Butler provides a series of circular arguments where she assumes binary sexuality and the heterosexual norm are unreal, proposes gender as the alternative option, and after constructing gender to replace the norms of the sexual binary and heterosexuality, she finds those norms are not needed for her reconstruction of sexuality o The evaluation of gender is tied to power, namely structures of language and politics, which means feminism (which cares about power, not taxonomy or scientific categorization) falls into a Marxist framework to create identity  Since power is the goal of feminism, not unity in understanding or categorizing or identifying women, defining women is foregone in favour of gaining power, including through coalition • Such reasoning opens up to the fourth wave of allowing biological males to claim to be women if they agree to similar political actions as biological females, thus rendering all of gender and sex moot because power is what matters  “There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results.”  There is no such thing as heterosexuality being the natural state of humanity; there is no true natural state of sexuality but an idea that there is one (thus making homosexuality as legitimate as heterosexuality); the reason why heterosexuality is taken as the norm is that has the most power and discourse • This places sexuality in the realm of the imaginary, not the real, since the real has physically corresponding substances (i.e. reproductive organs and children) which Butler is removing from discussion in favour of imagining about sexual orientations-of course imaginings of ideals will yield imaginary results, there is no reality in what she states since it is disallowed in her discourse/power o An extension of the notion of gender as power is the notion that anything that appeals to the majority of human sexual orientation (heterosexual) and the binary of the sexes by which the species propagates and naturally occurs is deemed to support only men (ignoring that woman is a biological reality within the binary) and oppresses anyone who does not adhere to the norm  “The univocity of sex, the internal coherence of gender, and the binary framework for both sex and gender are considered throughout [the chapter of this book] as regulatory fictions that consolidate and naturalize the convergent power regimes of masculine and heterosexist oppression.”  Empirical facticity of sex and orientation mean nothing (according to Butler) since desire and pleasure do not coincide with the body (which is an amazing statement by her since this implies an antimaterialist understanding of a materialistic desire and pleasure, thus a contradiction in terms) and people “forget” their innate homosexual desire for incest with their parent as they are influenced by their anatomy • She does admit that there is an argument to be made for the prediscursive (i.e. natural, unaltered by cultural conventions) binary of male/female in sex as the foundation for gender but ultimately thinks the binarism of sex is unnatural (without any real argument as to why); this is curious since she places gender as the explanation as to why it is unnatural (there are more than two genders therefore there must also be more than two sexes) even though gender is, according to her, is discursive/negotiated and separate from sex; Butler is using a circular argument to “prove” binarism of sex is impossible by claiming the binarism of gender does not exist because the binarism of sex is impossible • Recognizing the design/purpose/meaning of various aspects of the body, Butler introduces the notion that these purposes which “presuppose a heterosexual construction” must have their purposes ignored in favour of various performative acts (viz. sexual actions); this would have the unfortunate effect of suggesting and even promoting bodily harm through all manner of eroticism by subverting natural functions of the body; transgender surgery can be an application of this where reproductive organs are destroyed for the sake of appearance  Butler’s reinterpretation of Freud adapts the Oedipus Complex to be a repressive law following an initial adherence to homosexual attraction to a parent where (somehow) there are (magically) enforced sexual prohibitions in the psyche of the child to create heterosexual desire • Butler’s thinking is nothing short of magical where, even if the Oedipus complex were considered real, she introduces “the law” to somehow declare humanity’s innate homosexuality somehow changes to heterosexuality, despite the normality of heterosexuality and the biological drive towards it; it is more likely her rejection of Judaism and its condemnation of homosexuality actually drives this interpretation where she takes her personal experience and maps it onto all people o Performance takes the place of purpose where how an individual displays their gender is what determines gender, subverting the body to preferences of the mind  “…the body is not a “being,” but a variable boundary, a surface whose permeability is politically regulated, a signifying practice within a cultural field of gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality…”  There is an issue of reality where performing actions related to one’s preferences does not equate to being a different sex, merely a different gender (in Butler’s terminology) so that biology will never go away no matter how one acts-even if they act offended at being described as that biological sex or need medical treatment in relation to it  There is also an issue within Butler’s understanding of discursive cultural fields where this is according to the will of the majority; she laments heterosexuality being the mandatory norm, but if other people understand performativity as being related to something other than what the performer understands (i.e. a male performing as a female but no one accepting that performance as authentic feminine acts), then the negotiation fails  There is an issue of understanding where, if everyone performs according to certain norms, then no one actually knows what they are performing as, that is, if “feminine behaviour” is purely a cultural construct and not related to sex, then there is no such thing as feminine, merely what people have termed feminine; there is no ground to gender, however we do find excellent historical and biological correlation between certain traits, behaviours, etc. and the two sexes • Butler admits this but fails the principle of sufficient reason as to why any genders have any sets of traits (especially consistent groupings of traits) at all o Butler recognizes championing gender is a violent thing, although she does not describe it as such despite it conforming to how she understands violence/oppression with respect to heterosexuality, by continuously creating genders which split and “self-criticize”; she wanted to start a culture war by reformatting the culture to enforce new genders since, according to her, cultural norms are how one achieves gender

9:47:30

23:38

She is such a evil subversive heeeb, like the people who own Hollywood.

Anderson Matthew Davis Maria Thomas Betty

To this day i don't understand why people on the right hate Foucault so much when he seems to do nothing but object to mainstream leftist theory anyway.

I have no idea what any of this means

Gender is a sexist social construct, sex is biology and reality. Being a woman is not about makeup and boys is about being born a woman. Being a man is not football and beer is being born a male. Being a woman or a man is NOT a feelng but a *biological reality*. Read REAL feminists not Butler. Read radical feminism read books like "Who stole feminism" there is the audio book for free on YT

Thompson Lisa Johnson Laura Hall Brenda

Young Amy Clark Mark Thompson Paul

3:48:18

1:34:09 tsitaat

4:07:01

Thank you for this excellent narration. I really enjoyed it. Is it possible to contact you about doing a narration for another book by Foucault? Naturally you would be compensated for your work. Thank you.

very good reading !

pro tip click the cog in the corner of the video and turn up the playback speed

Narrated by Alan from smiling friends

01:03

Bookmark(s): 1:56:00 3:52:00 4:00:00 4:27:13 4:47:00 5:32:00 (IMPORTANT!) 5:43:00

I think my problem is that Butler's thesis appears to be incredibly limited in it's effectiveness. If we were to abandon the "subject-object" dichotomy of representation then aren't we severely handicapping our ability to view the problem in anything other than the broadest possible strokes? How can marginalised groups advocate on the behalf of a "we", if said "we/I" cannot be coherently defined? If parody is constituted in opposition to a contradictory "truth" to what extent is parody as a mode of deconstruction subordinate to the very thing it is attempting to "de-naturalise"? Doesn't drag insist upon an original gendered subject in order to provide a heightened rendition of a inversion? Let's take for example the image of a drag queen. Could it be argued that the exaggerated "feminine" aesthetic expression the queen takes on during "her" moment of drag, contrary to exposing an artificiality at the core of gendered/sexed bodies, produce laughter on the basis of the conflict between the performance of gender and the "reality" of sex? The double contradiction of drag only works if we pre-supposed that the interior of the performer IS indeed "feminine". Drag has been, and to a lesser capacity currently very much still is, a factice of hetro-normative culture; The Daily Wire production "Lady Ballers" could be cited as a recent example (Shakespearean/Tudor theatre tradition could be another although far less contemporary). Is it then necessary to distinguish between "queer" and "cis-het" variations of drag? Where the former is defined by this supposed "feminine" interiority. Could that not lead to these modes of deconstruction being written off as an expectation to the well accepted rule? Displaced to the very fringes of legible identities? To what extent does the contemporary act of drag take the "male"/"female" binary as a given? Is there a possibility of drag representing "non-legible" identities? Taken further, is it even possible to represent these identities at all? What other modes of deconstruction can we take up besides drag and parody in order to facilitate "queer" and "women's" liberation? In light of Butlers repudiation that any alternative system that exists outside the current hegemonic culture can be reached is emancipation possible? Could it be argued in trying to free feminist politics (whatever that even means in a post-"I" context?) to new possibilities Butler has ironically trapped it in a fatalistic struggle? In which hetro-normativitve patriarchy can only ever be subverted not surpassed? I'm not entirely sure about all these points. I definitely come off as "anti-drag" which is not my intention, I merely wish to suggest it may have it's limits as a mode of praxis (is that the correct usage in this context?). I don't even wish to disavow the text which is clearly a monumental achievement in academic deconstruction. But eventually you must reconstruct what you have taken apart, no? I don't know, Gender Trouble is incredibly specific with it's language and densely packed so I could be grossly misrepresenting Butlers ideas, please let me know if I am as I'm still pretty new to philosophy :p. If I may practise what I preach however I would like to provide one more "insight". Butler disagrees with Lacan and Kristeva on their ability to provide a critique of patriarchy that doesn't eventually fold into it/"phallocentrism"; She doesn't, however, appear to FULLY dispute the logic these theories/analysis run on. Is there a possibility for a post-Butler Lacanian and/or Kristevain school of thought? One that fixes the perceived problems I've listed above. Perhaps this has already happened. I am aware Zizek has spoken on the subject (though I haven't dipped into it personally!). And I'm sure there's a hella lot written about this book so I should probably just dip into that. (P.S. I hate double commenting but in this rare case i see at as appropriate. Sorry. <3)

6:38:20 Throughout this chapter Butler refers to Herculine/Alexina as "S/he". The audio-recording appears to resort to "she" as there doesn't appear to be an effective way of pronouncing it out loud, at least without awkwardly spelling it out. Anybody encountering the text for the first time should keep in mind that Butler is not using female pronouns to refer to Herculine/Alexina. (-:

И что теперь будет? Страшно. 😱

218 “The spectacle as a whole is [the spectator’s) mirror sign, presenting illusory escapes from a universal autism.”

Doomerism as “outraged goodwill”

As if anticipating the neoliberal transformation about to come: “The goal remains the same: to restructure society without community.”

The second half really pays off if you can stick with it

172 on urban space as representing the the “pseudo-community” of isolated individuals

Good work, consumer capitalism

How many of y’all like sex?

This book is savage; I love it.

Judith Butler has put the world in trouble with her theory

cocky want boing boing

What a pile of crap

10:43:43

5:33:20

59:55

So much has changed in 3 years since this was released with AI making commodities out of life, music and even live acting.. can’t imagine what Guy Deborr would think about the world now, let alone what’s ahead of us.

9:37:31

16:57 17:15 17:59 9:36:36