Bookmark(s): 1:56:00 3:52:00 4:00:00 4:27:13 4:47:00

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

Foucault may speak for the European prison system, but the American prison system is an entirely different story.

I have bad adhd. I havent been able to sit though a text since i was in middle school. Audio books are a savior for my brain. I can comprehend the text better in half the time while gettinng ready or sitting on the train. i love writing but reading i cant seem to focus on.

What I think is telling and important to note before going deepercinto this book is that Judith Butler assumes that everyine is constantly judging eachothers gender. This is such a lie. With gender I mean biological gender(the only definition of gender that is narrowly defined). All appearances of are expressions of the persons personality at hand, which may want to express by his or her choice what biological gender he or she is. A man with a dress may appear as a woman as long as you associate a dress with being a woman. But that is absolutely not fixed. The fact that a dress(this is an example by the way, I could have akso spoken about makeup shoes or hairstyle, or find some other things) is a marker for being a woman is because historically people from whom it was known from them to be women(for example because they had breast or had been seen naked, or had been told to be women by their parents, or because of other fenotypical bodily expressions of gender) wore dresses. It is a marker for female gender, but ut does not itself contitute a criteria of the female gender. I am talking by the way about only certain cultures where this is such, like in europe, as in other cultures dresses were not specifically tied to femaleness. When we start defining gender only on cultural norms the term of gender becomes meaningless. It is replacing detailistic and analytic worldviews with holistic ones, and this is absolutely useless, because if we would rrason hollistically then even the whole idea of human non human, alive or dead fall away. Holistucism is nott helping to solve our problems or chase our desires. What use does it have to see a tree and the earth as one and thebsame if one is trying to grow more apples? We musnt forget that science is not only theoretical masturbation, science is the endepthning of our knowledgebbase about the world on which we can build a betterband stronger future. When our theories start ceasing to at leastbtry to give sollutions to this problem, we are doomed

I was afraid, I thought Zizek himself would be narrating.

🏵️👋👍🤑☎️📷🪦

incredible effort!

When it comes to the idea of a subject, through which we believe, I am reminded of a quote from Watchmen: “Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says, "But doctor...I am Pagliacci.”

The amount of ads are the real torture

did there have to be ads every 5 minutes tho like...

This book is so damn unreadable. I love it.

Couldn't even get past the preface - not really fond of audiobooks though.

THANK YOU FOR THIS!!! ❤

it’s difficult to find this book in my country and i found it to be very expensive to buy and ship to here. so thank you so much for this video!

Is it a human reader

1- How marx invent the symptom - 2-from sy,ptom to sinthome 3- che vuoi thinking-+ wish subject is the real-

@54:00

People that say that Foucault's writings lack substance are only listening his books without asking questions themselves that his analysis can lead to. "Postmodern" thinker's in general aren't going to hand you answer.

Thank you❤

35:24

1:23:07

55:39 page 22 first word

bookmark: 1:18:52

Damn was hoping it'd be in the author's voice...

Now just imagine this book voiced by AI Ziziek...

Amazing work ! So great to have an audio version of this. Much appreciated ❤ Just a small note to all non-French speakers: “Che vuoi?” Is not French but Italian … and means: “what do you want ?” (It is also connected to the famous Italian hand gesture 🤌) In French it would be: “qu'est-ce que tu veux?”… The unfortunate consequence is that most English speakers end up pronouncing the words as if they are French thereby uttering two French words that have nothing to do with what’s at stake being “chez” (at the house/place of) and “voix” (voice)… Is you wanna do it correctly here’s how it’s done: “Che” is pronounced with a ‘k’ sound at the beginning. “Vuoi” has a ‘v’ sound followed by a ‘w’ followed by “oy” (as in boy).

8:27:07

Thanks ❤

kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5Cym3ltd62HiK8

Interesting how the evolution of punishment occurred mere decades after American Independence. Seems like losing european hegemony led them to seek a new type of superiority; socially. Funny how the need to feel superior to others evolved into the modern liberalism