http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/06/does-it-matter-if-the-heroine-of-brave-is-gay/258979/
Has anyone heard about this? Thoughts?

5 points that I have learned so far

At the onset of this semester, I fought the urge to overly intellectualize queer theory. I thought that by setting a frame atop the few semesters of queer theory that I have studied, that I would be defining the main concepts of queer theory and thus making it somehow less queer. The process of stripping away the cultural and societal conventions husks that envelope the most basic of things such as gender, sex, and sexuality, has been quite enlightening.

There are so many ideas that I have learned in our short time together so far, but the concepts that kept me awake at night thinking about them were as follows:

1.     Timelines: Foucault’s text The History of Sexuality has changed the timeline that I formerly believed to have simply existed since time began. I had always had the understanding that there have always been persons who had “abnormal” behaviors such as same-sex desires, gender incongruence and what society had fed me since birth which is what I should see as normal versus abnormal. What I discovered however, was that although there have been documented behaviors that mirror those same behaviors of today they are still different. In Foucault’s text, he traced the speciation of homosexual back to the 19^th century (p, 43). Homosexuality as we know of it, didn’t exist until Westphal wrote his article in 1870 (p. 43).

2.     “Queer Theory is what you make of it: Reading Jagose’s text Queer Theory just made so many things click into place for me. In my mind map of queer theory’s history such as what happened and where did our culture get so sucked into gender norms, and titles; there was a huge void that has now been at least lined with information. On page 59, Seidman writes “Liberation politics aimed at freeing individuals from the constraints of a sex/gender system that locked them into mutually exclusive homo/hetero and feminine/masculine roles”. This is exactly the piece that I needed to figure out why it is that today in black lgb culture (that I am aware of) there is an absolute unwritten rule that feminine “femmes” can date either, femmes or studs (“masculine” role). The role is however, reversed for what are considered masculine women “studs”, who can date femmes but are looked down upon by their peers if they date another “stud” because that is then being “double-gay”. So it now clicks for me that when (p.59) the liberationist collectives began to form a more community-based culture, that it washed upstream to the black lgb community just as many “honest-American” values have done over time, and they stuck for reasons to deep to continue writing about with the expectation of completing my blog. So back to the community that was then created, within communities or societies, there exist certain rules and expectations that accompany belonging. If someone behaves against this ideal, they are then “othered” and have accomplished queering of themselves.

3.     “Queer anything is more frightening than the most terrifying non-queer” : We have discussed in class how queering things is and can be considered a threat to heteronormative (and to an extent homonormative) groups. The queer identity along with the fact that it just bounces around all willy-nilly without a definition, threatens people. I have been in Butler heaven all week and wanted to share a snip from her Undoing Gender text. On page 34, Butler writes about queer bodies and those whose sexual desires do not fit neatly into a heteronormative world. Butler talks about the violence that queerness breeds in some people when they cannot determine upon visual inspection what another person’s gender is, or if that person’s gender happens to be different than what they expected. Butler states that “the negation, through violence, of that body is a vain and violent effort to restore order, to renew the social world on the basis of intelligible gender, and to refuse the challenge to rethink that world as something other than natural or necessary”. Watching her on youtube really helped me to appreciate and understand Butler so much more.

4.     Gender and performance: Gender and sexuality seem to constantly be lumped together. Butler spoke about gender as constructed and performed, as something that it done. Although originally, Butler was very difficult to read, it began to make more sense when you just look at it differently. I took an adapted approach to understanding Bulter, I just took my night meds and voila, I started following along. The notion that we are all in drag seems weird initially, and then it makes more sense if you look at it from a comfort level. I would feel completely out of my element in make-up, heels and what-not, but I have always loved clothes that I could get dirty, would last forever, and that are generally comfy to wear. Perhaps that is how we all feel about our drag. I don’t know.

5.      Gender and sexuality: These two terms for me have always stood on their own respective platforms. It is not until I began hearing the views of others that I understood that it takes some people a long time to “get it”. Gender is fluid, as Butler would say, Sexuality is…well, it just is, says Foucault. It isn’t until I thought about both of these things together, that I began to understand that no matter how close to the subject I am, that even I have lots to learn. What I have learned so far is that gender and sexuality are as queer as they can get, regardless of how you perform either; they are both as fluid as the Niagara Falls and constantly evolve.

Some ideas I have gathered from this course so far-
First the fluidity of the terms queer and queer theory, especially as Jagose puts it that the more queer theory becomes an academic discipline, the less queer "queer theory" can be. I hadn't really understood that queer operates in the realm of possibilities and that it goes far beyond lesbian and gay.
Secondly that identity and gender are social constructs and that language does not help us to express our 'authentic' selves, but that it helps to regulate and control. I suppose I had understood this in the abstract before this class, but now I see traditional gender roles being placed on people everywhere. I also thought it was interesting that performative repetition of gender roles reinforce heterosexuality and heteronormativity.
Which brings me to my next thought....Homonormativity. I had heard of heteronormativity, but hadn't considered homonormativity before this class. Someone brought up how the tv/movies have established what we think of when we think gay (Will and Grace, Queer Eye, etc), however, these are the socially conservative (white, middle class, male) and they establish a 'normalcy' for homosexuality.
Next would be the gender vs. sex, especially in the Fausto-Sterling reading on the history of the hermaphrodite or intersex. Sex is biological and gender is societal. I found the history of the hermaprodite to be very interesting reading, especially the part about Emma and Margaret/Big James.
Lastly Foucault's evolution of sexual repression, especially seeking forgiveness for our 'sins' and other religious penance as an extension of that.
See y'all tonight

Things I learned Part 2:)

I feel that I've shortchanged Butler on all she has taught me. The problem is that her writing lures me into a place that I'm timid to try and translate in my own words. Her deconstructive work is fascinating, and a little bit infuriating. Like I have said before, I don't like some of her suggestions about language, since I feel that language has provided her with an excellent array of subversive weapons thus far. She has truly utilized her words in a most perplexing and informative way. Here writing forces the reader to bracket information in the mind until it is called upon once again to bundle with another idea.

Foucault's ideas about the confessional also are revolutionary. The idea is that the Church tried to enforce a lockdown on people's libido's, minds, words and actions, but they did not anticipate these repressed thoughts to simply burst out like a hole in a sinking ship via the confessionals. I was watching Jurassic Park recently, and the line "life finds a way" always sticks with me. These things are not going anywhere. Even if they lay dormant, they are about to be bursting at the seams. As long as the power structure is imbalanced, there will be a flushing of the old, and an unstoppable progress of the new. Our job is to facilitate that progress and to flush the constraints that are doing us harm.

I feel I've written a great deal in my blogs on what it means to be queer, and Jagose's explanation of it, but I feel I could write volumes more. Queerness is the breath of fresh air that you breath into your body after exhaling the old. It keeps things vital and healthy. It prevents stifling and choking. I think Butler's idea of a "domain of Abjection" was quite illuminating for me, because of the ideas I'd already learned from reading a bit of Lacan. For queerness, I think this abjection is the fossilized crap that forms when you are not exercising your right to go against the obedient tide, or to resist tradition just because that is the way that it has always been done. Changing things is Queer. Hissing the hissers is queer. Pulling the rug out from under the oppressive dominant structure is queer. As for sexuality, we have a long way to go as far as "queering things up." Isn't it a little bit shocking, when you take a step back and think of how much work is to be done? Imagine the progress that courses of study, like this one, will accomplish in the decades to come. I suppose that is the unknowable future that Queerness has reserved for us.

One last thing I'd like to talk about is the usage of the word "Given." This is used in Jagose and Butler quite often. When a gender's "givenness" is concerned, you can rest assured that there is something rotten in Denmark. There is nothing that is a given. If analytical theory, including all of the readings from this course, has taught me anything, it is that as soon as something is assumed as a given, then you must look at it again. Turn it over, and re-examine it as many times as it takes for the seams to show. Through time, our collective cultural experience births us into a state of affairs that we didn't ask for, and convinces us that it is normal. We unquestioningly accept what surrounds us. What investigating the "given" does for this is open up a whole new realm of possibility for our lives. There are other ways of doing things, saying things, and understanding things out there that we have yet to learn. It is our duty to keep learning, and acquiring new tools to do so. This is key to understanding what Queer means. 

In a way, theory reminds me of the summer I spent with my friend’s French grandparents. I was taking my third semester of undergraduate French and I was so sure that I would be able to speak to them clearly and understand most of what they were saying. I quickly realized that learning a language requires an immense amount of dedication outside of class presentations and quizzes. After 3 months of constant exposure, I was able to understand native speakers! That being said, I truly believe that immersion is the best way to learn a new language and believe me, theory is a language of its own. In learning this language, I find that I get the most pleasure when I find myself thinking or “speaking” theoretically. I may not always get it but I’m enjoying flexing my intellectual muscles.  I actually read Bodies that Matter again….for fun!

1.       Sexual Behavior vs. Sexual Identity

This idea is basic enough; yet, it is undeniably profound and important in my understanding of everything else that we’ve read and discussed thus far. Why is this important? Many people, not unlike us, would incorrectly assume that there is no difference between the behavior and the identity. It is important to note that there is ambiguity in identity. Take for example, a young child who murders a parent who has molested them for their entire life. This child murdered someone-that much is undeniable; however, is this child a murderer? The latter part of the question is less clear. The more important question then, is are we in control of our identity, do we choose it OR is our identity determined by the language and labels that society imposes on us? Were people identified by their behavior before we had the language to box them in? I mean, did the first guy (see how gendered I am without even meaning it! We all know it would be unseemly for a “gal” to get drunk) who had too much to drink get called a drunk? If he was not called a drunk, due to the absence of the term, then he was just that guy who drank too much-not the drunk guy in town.  I think that this idea is extremely important to understanding queerness and queer theory because it brings to the forefront the idea the nature of identity and the effects that language has on identity. Even Jagose states that “queer is unaligned with any specific identity category.  Jagose does an amazing job of highlighting the enigma of identity by positing the question of homosexuality. What determines who is homosexual? Does one have to have a same sex (sexual) partner to be considered homosexual? She asks “is it possible to be homosexual without ever having had or intending to have sex” (Jagose 8). The questions and ambiguity surrounding identity parallel the ambiguity of queerness as a whole.  I’ll discuss this more shortly.

2.       Queerness as Resistance

I’m going back to Jagose for this one as well. I promise I’ll throw some Butler in my next points! We have discussed extensively the idea that queer resists definition. We have also discussed what happens if (BIG IF) we are able to nail down an exact definition of queer. In the introduction, Jagose states that “queer’s semantic clout, part of its political efficacy depends on its resistance to definition, and the way in which it refuses to stake its claim” (Jagose 1). That being said, the most important thing to understand about the “queer phenomenon” is that it is resistance. That which resists the hetero-imperative mode of thinking and being and believing and living is queer.

3.       Gender as a social construct?

I literally just popped my knuckles and stretched….here goes nothing!

I ended my thought with a question mark because of this I am unsure. I mean, I believe that gender is a social construct but (BIG BUT) I am sure that it is so much more than that. Butler’s readings teach me to question the answers and answer the questions, wash-rinse-repeat. This question is difficult for me. When we first began discussing it via Butler, I found myself questioning the idea of creation. I’m not pushing my beliefs on anyone; yet, I find it important to explain my thought process when trying to dissect this question of gender. I wondered what God had in mind when he created Adam and then said, “Welp, you need a helper so, here’s this cute little thing…she’s awesome as I made her from you.” Of course, we could argue the whole Adam and Eve as a metaphor for humanity but that is another class all together J. After much thought, I decided that creation (it doesn’t matter if we’re talking Darwinism or God) we have a difference in sex, not gender. I do believe that gender, much like race, was created. The biological difference of each sex is apparent; yet, the idea of GENDER is much more fluid.  Unlike race, I am unable to pin who stands to gain from the creation of gender. The obvious answer is the hetero-imperative, but I am still trying to understand what exactly this means.  Butler suggests that “gender is the social significance that sex assumes” (5). If this is the case, and I’m on the side of Butler here, then we need to understand what happens to sex after gender assumption. It seems to me that sex (in the biological sense) takes on limited importance in our society. We (and by we I mean the collective normative) are more focused on the presentation of the individual because it is visible. Conversely, the sex cannot always be determined by simply looking at someone.

4.       Essentialism vs. Constructionism

This point lacks the pizazz of the others but is important nonetheless. Jagose presents these opposing views in her text and I find myself thinking that sometimes they are two sides of the same coin; however, their differences are important to Queer Theory. Butler takes it a step further by introducing a variety of questions and then answering her own questions from both an essentialist and constructionist view.

5.       Language as a Conduit

I also got this idea from Butler’s Bodies that Matter and I find it absolutely fascinating. Language is the tool through which the normative agenda is perpetuated. Butler posits that there is no “I” who has not been subjected to gender. This idea, for me, is life changing. I won’t bore you with the entire quote (it’s on page 7) but this has literally changed the way that I think and more importantly the way that I speak and analyze the speech of others. If the I is “subjected to gender” AND “subjectivated by gender” then the I cannot (and this is important) stand apart from gender but is rather only present WITHIN gender. To that idea my grandmother would say, “close the piano and wipe down the bar” it’s a wrap folks!

Butler’s presentation of language and its significance is my favorite aha moment but I’m looking forward to many more in the coming weeks!

After three weeks in this class, I am starting, once again, to wrap my brain around queer theory and to immerse myself in the ideas and terminology used by the theorists we are reading. Some of the most interesting points that I have absorbed so far, are:

1. The very idea of queer as an elusive, transitory term that changes over time and is, by nature, undefinable. I think the very best reintroduction I could have received to queer theory was at the end of Jagose's first chapter: "In deferring any final assessment of queer as a critical term, this book acknowledges that if queer lives up to its radical potential - and does not solidify as merely another acceptable (though oppositional) category - its ongoing evolutions cannot be anticipated: its future is - after all - the future" (Jagose, 6). To put queer into the context of the dominant heteronormative society almost seems to reaffirm that heteronormativity, but the important point is that queer, then, accounts always for the marginalized sexualities or genders.

2. The second idea to rattle me was the idea that sex, as we know it, has a component of medicalization that shapes society's discourse on sexuality. "Throughout the nineteenth century, sex seems to have been incorporated into two very distinct orders of knowledge: a biology of reproduction, and which developed continuously according to a general scientific normativity, and a medicine of sex conforming to quite different rules of formation" (Foucault, 54). Throughout the History of Sexuality, Foucault shows how the discourse around sex began to focus on the reproductive (married) couple and how, at the same time, the discussion of their sex was medicalized. In my mind, this is how the modern idea of heternormativity/queerness really take shape (since, in a sense, there cannot be one without the other): through the discourse put forth by the politics of power.

3. Another point that stood out to me under the larger umbrella of gender is the finer point of gender identity and how is different yet inextricably linked to sexuality. In her accessible article "How to Bring Your Kids up Gay," Sedgwick says of society's view of gender and sexuality as "continuous and collapsible categories" that, traditionally, "anyone, male or female, who desires a man must by definition be feminine; and that anyone, male or female, who desires a woman must by the same token be masculine. That one woman, as a woman, might desire another; that one man, as a man, might desire another: the indispensable need to make these powerful, subversive assertions has seemed, perhaps, to require a relative deemphasis of the links between gay adults and gender-nonconforming children" (Sedgwick, 72). The queering of my own preconceived notions about gender and sexuality have forced me to view the two as related but separate entities, all theories about construction aside.

4. Related to that, Butler's discussion of gender has really blown my mind. "If gender is the cultural meanings that the sexed body assumes," she writes in "Gender Trouble," "then a gender cannot be said to follow from a sex in any one way. Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders" (Butler, 10). This is different from point 3 in that, once you train your mind to view gender and physical sex as separate but related components to the triangle, you then, in a sense, have to turn that knowledge on its head and look at both sex and gender as two types of the same construct, as sex itself is a gendered category.

5. Finally, the touch/tactility discussion from our recent reading - though difficult for me to follow, I must admit - made me think about the ways in which we assume sensation and pleasure should be felt, and the assumptions queer theory makes about a sensuous future. "The conflation of touch and tactility is what enables a queer critique of [intersex] surgery. This is because surgical desensitization impairs touching only if touching is assumed to entail tactility. After all, desensitized genitals can still touch and be touched; it is their tactility that surgery damages" (Morland). Queer theorists should be mindful not to confuse the two, nor to assume that one begets the other. The example of the stone butch is offered - though functional in the sense of genitalia according to sex, the preference for no penetration destroys our assumptions about the "normal" function of female genitalia. Likewise, surgery to correct intersex genitalia to appear "normal" renders them such only in appearance but makes no progress on their function in the context of the individual's tactility.

What I Learned Over Summer Vacation: Blog 3

Maybe the most important thing I have learned is that homosexuality, as an identity rather than an act, is an invention. Between Jagoes and Foucault, this point became very clear to me. I like how Foucault points out that 1870, sodomy was simply an act that could have legal consequences, but it was not a sickness, a diagnosis, or an identity that anyone took on to themselves. Foucault has an awesome sentence on page forty three that sums this point up nicely: “Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul.” I read this to mean that sodomy went from being an act, one that may or may not be punished, to an identity that meant something... it meant that you were mixed up inside, your feelings were androgynous, and your “soul” was “deformed.”

This leads me to my second point: identity and who it serves. Throughout my research for my class project, I see many trans (and gay/lesbian) people privilege other cultures, specifically native Americans, for having a place in their society for people of “Queered” genders or sexualities. Two-Spirit is mentioned the most. People tend to like the idea that a trans or gender nonconforming person in these cultures often held a special place or role, often as priest or caretaker to children. While I think it is interesting that these older cultures were able to make a place for folks of nonstandard gender and we in our modern/progressive times have not been able to, I also find it sad that by being gender nonconforming you had to fulfill a role – your path was already chosen for you. I'm bringing this up because the notion of “having” or “being” an identity is problematic. This is what we learn from Butler. Gender is something that we do, but also something that is done to us. In the case of the Two-Spirit folks mentioned above, they may elect (note that “elect” and “choose” do not have the same meaning) to express nonstandard feelings they have, but by doing so the society/culture puts them in a box. Butler talks about how gender is a failure – always. How we can never really “be” a gender. In the documentary Butler says, “There are many people who argue that we should all have a place. That we should feel at home in our bodies or at one with ourselves. I don't think this is a possibility. I am always slightly misidentified with any position. I don't belong well.” The same people that argue that we should all have a place are likely the same people that feel that we should all have a label, because they really are the same thing. By claiming a place, by adopting a label, we, in Butler's words, “are made by the norms of gender, but also prevented by the norms of gender to make ourselves.” I feel like I went a long way out of my way simply to say: identity is limiting for anyone who claims to have one.

Important to note here, is something Jagose points to in giving here background history on gay and lesbian movements: adopting an identity is one of the only ways to make progress. When we look back on the homophile and other movements we can feel like they were not radical enough, that they did not push hard enough for rights, or the things that “we” want today. But that isn't fair. Because some brave folks were able to claim homosexuality they were able to include it in the DSM which at the time allowed for better treatment (and I don't mean medical treatment); then because some more brave folks were willing to fight homosexuality got taken out of the DSM allowing for the formation of homosexuality as an identity without the medical connotation. Little by little, people who were willing to claim an identity have allowed for progress. However, currently, and in light of my previous paragraph, I wonder if now is the time that progress should/could be made by not claiming an identity at all.

Another thing I found interesting is the way Foucault tied the notion of “population as power” to the urge to control people's sexuality and to create the family unit. I was really surprised by how much sense this made. A family is a self replicating unit that does work (labor) and makes soldiers to fight and protect the governments land – of course population equals power! When I think about this idea applied to the world in terms of sexuality it explains a lot. Take the Down Low phenomenon for example; in some circles it has become acceptable to be on the down low as long as you still get married and make babies. As long as you go forth and multiply, keep the factories and the armies stocked, it doesn't matter what you do in your downtime. And this isn't isolated only to the DL in American culture; similar things occur around the world. I have seen several Bollywood films that focus on this theme. All that being said, I wonder why we haven't backed off from this idea. In a dystopian novel by Anthony Burgess, The Wanting Seed, the world has become over populated and the government not encourages homosexuality, discourages marriage, and over taxes people with children. I wonder what the tipping point is; when does population no longer equal power, but trouble?

While this is something I found in my own research for the PK project, before this class I did not know about the notion of “GenderQueer” people. I like the idea of this. From what I understand, GenderQueer folks do not claim either gender... they think that either neither gender fits, or that they are somewhere between the two along the spectrum.

In short, five things I have learned from my work in this class are:

1. Homosexuality as an identity is constructed.
2. Identities can serve the culture and not the person.
3. Claiming an identity has been necessary for progress in the past.
4. Legal control over sexuality is tied to the idea that population equals power.
5. There is an identity that claims neither gender identity: GenderQueer.

Five Favorite Finds (say that five times fast!)

I apologize for not posting until today. We waged a battle against enemy combatants at our house this weekend. Despite not having a pet, we were invaded by fleas. So we took the scorched earth policy and flea bombed the house to kill the usurpers which meant EVERYTHING had to be covered and then cleaned. Looking on the bright side, our house is sparkling clean (and the irritating pests are all dead J)!

So anyway, back to business. Here are five concepts/ideas that I have learned so far.

1.       First and foremost, I would have to say that at this point in the class I feel like I have a better understanding of the history of the queer movement. Jagose helped quite a bit with this. I can see why this book is still used today. I appreciated the breakdown of the queer, gay, and lesbian movements. What surprised me was the level of difference with these three movements. Jagose writes “Yet a close attention to the homophile movement enables a more historically nuanced understanding not only of the gay liberation movements but also of the political positions they advanced in common (D’Emilio, 1983) and their increasingly different priorities, necessitating their independent development.” I like the way Jagose split up the book so that the reader, me, was able to appreciate each movement and what it brought to the overall movement towards equality. 

2.       Secondly came my realization that queer encompasses everything that does not fit into the heteronormative society in which we live. Jagose includes a David Halperin quote I love (pg. 96): “There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers”.  The media feeds the public the heteronormative acceptable gay man but when a person, say like Isis who I mentioned in another blog post, who does not fit that image bursts onto the television fearful people recoil. It is a sad picture of our society that they fail to see a person as a person not just based on who they are attracted to. Or if that person is recognized as "different" those differences have to fit into a box society dictates.

3.       Next, I am choosing a Butler point from Gender Troubles because I got so much from that excerpt. The idea that gender could in fact be where society derives sex instead of the other way around was an idea that made me say “I never thought of it that way!” which is always a good thing. Butler writes “If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.” What a controversial way to look at gender and sex!

4.       Fourthly, also from Gender Troubles (can you tell I liked the Butler piece? J) was the idea of constructionism. You can clearly see that what society determines is feminine and masculine is everywhere. But what intrigued me was de Beauvoir’s question of what if the attributes that are seen as feminine are really attributes that males have deemed less masculine and have tossed off? Better yet, what if what is considered masculine are really those attributes women, who have because of societal pressure, have deemed unfeminine and shed the practice of? I thought these concepts were both incredible and head-ache worthy.  

5.    Lastly, I feel that as a history lover, what I have taken so far is more a view of where politically the queer movement has progressed. I enjoyed reading Jagose in that her analysis of where the movement has been and then why it is still where it is was so informative. It was like a flow chart in a book…and who doesn’t like charts! J Jagose writes “Those lesbians and gays who are committed to achieving social change by means of democratically sanctioned structures allege that the queer position is too politically naïve and idealistic to be effective. Ignorant of the real machineries of power, queers will not be able to achieve anything from the marginalized position they champion.” It is this searing analysis that is my favorite quote so far in queer theory. She is not afraid to say this is what is limiting the movement in the hopes that it will educate the next generation.

Five of the many new things that have struck me

I haven't done a lot of academic reading on queer theory - more anecdotal, political, etc.  The philosophical points are where I have learned the most.

Foucault’s linking the confessional with the later psychiatric and medicalization model of confession was absolutely stunning to me.  It makes sense, and its timing with the hygienic movement causing the splitting of discourse between the act of reproduction and the confessional nature required of all other sexual acts/thoughts/feelings is quite interesting.

Further, Foucalt’s concept of repression and acts against repression being a cycle that feeds itself is not one to which I had previously introduced.  I like it – whenever we “do” we are either part of the normative structure or acting against it.  Both positions have energy.

‘Sex in 69’ was primarily the usual hippie free love/ feminist radical/ Hugh Hefner stuff we’ve come to know and love about the year, but I enjoyed the part about the utopian guilt-free polyamorous community.  I knew utopian communities were happening at the time, but that one had a really interesting agenda, and I think that such an experiment opened a lot of doors that are still a little unwelcome in the normative world, but practiced more freely now. 

(As an aside, I was talking with my future in-laws today about repression in the context of x-rated films in theaters in the 1970’s vs the brown paper package of the 1980’s and 1990’s, and now, the download.  We hide pornography, rather than going to public places to watch it, and while now pornography is everywhere and easily accessible, it is, at the same time, not publically consumed.)

Judith Butler.  Wow.  “If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.”  It’s not everyone who would go so far as to suggest that sex is culturally constructed, like gender, and that what we think of as sex is the same as gender.

But Anne Fausto-Sterling does, and from a biologist’s perspective, at that.  Her mandate that intersex children should not be altered (or any children for any reason other than death/ true quality of life), is the sort of scientifically derived philosophy that will help many an intersex child to remain unharmed.  She sees with clarity what gender issues have stirred: “More generally, the debate over our cultural conceptions of gender has escalated, and the boundaries separating masculine and feminine seem harder than ever to define. Some find the changes under way deeply disturbing; others find them liberating.” 

Having done a fair amount of academic work in theory involving queer studies in some form or fashion, I am aware of many of the concepts we've been reading about. Here, I will discuss some of the things that furthered my understanding of certain concepts or aspects of queer studies.

1.) The Jagose book helped me a great deal on the Queer attitudes towards sexual labeling. Labeling is a fraught idea because of the reductive, definitive nature of its action. When this is done to human beings, it can become so problematic that it causes psychological distress or even harm. Labeling is designed to keep things within certain bounds. The motivations for this are usually caused by anxiety from the different.

2.) The concept of normalizing discourses helped me a great deal in my reading. This shows the way norms are brought about through the neglecting of ruptures, progress or movement. To me, this was the equal of atrophy. The image of a withered, unused body seemed to connect me to "normalizing discourses." That which we do not exercise, move around, and help grow will end up dying. In this case, it will also hold back others. I think of this whenever I hear people on Fox News talk about "Traditional American Values." How did tradition get such a great reputation? This of course doesn't mean that we should fix something that isn't broken, but to consistently apply wd40 and work the kinks out.

3.) Jagose has given me a whole arsenal of ideas to use when describing the notion of Queerness. Before, I just did not have to words to explain that it wishes to be "unfixed" and that it is "holding open a space whose potential can never be known in the present." Before this book, I could only say that it was a very abstract idea about sexuality. Now, I can speak to other people about it somewhat intelligently and eloquently.

4.)  Something that I had never read much about, at any real length, was Judith Butler's ideas on gender trouble. This was fascinating to me, and I had a bit of a time wrapping my mind around the split between sex and gender, and the pre-discursive/discursive debate. The distance between one's body and sexuality has never seemed further than when reading Butler. Her ideas are revolutionary and insightful. Especially on the givenness, or lack therof, of sex by physical traits alone.

5.)  Foucault's number one mindblower for me was his, almost linear, tracing of our current state of sexuality from the 17th century. This was such a focused and interesting read that I was shocked some of it hadn't really hit me before now. The sections involving the church are some of the most interesting. I feel that religious practices are so concerned with their own reputations that they are not willing to improve their institutions once shortcoming have been brought into the spotlight. I have to say that Foucault's book has been the best read for me so far.

These are the main points of interest and education for me thus far. I cannot wait for the second half of the semester to get started this Tuesday. I am really enjoying all of the readings, and especially the discussions of the readings, this semester. See everybody soon!

5 New Things Learned So Far

While I have learned way more than expected in such a short amount of time, there have been a few points that have simply blown me away.

1. I want to say the first and foremost thing I have learned in this class is the definition of the term queer, but I would be lying. I have learned that queer is the other, neither heteronormative, nor homonormative, but if there is or could be a solid definition of queer, I have not put it together so far. More importantly I learned what exactly heteronormative and homonormative meant, and how present and obvious they are in society. It is not at all surprising how heteronorative everything is, and how binary we are trained to think from childhood. The concept of homonormative was a bit more surprising to me, having never considered how segregated the homosexual community can be. Although having watched shows like The L Word and Will and Grace for years, I had never seriously considered the gross exaggeration of the stereotypes these shows perpetuate on society.

2. The medicalization of gender roles and homosexuality was rather provocative and eye-opening. In this new light, it seems referring to someone or oneself as homosexual would be insinuating that that person is ill, or has something wrong with them in a medical manner. This is just invention of society to place the unknown in a box. The film The Christine Jorgenson Story really drilled this idea home for me. In the film, Christine's transgendered feelings are heavily medicalized by both the doctors and the public. Christine was obviously born female in a man's body, and did not have a medical condition, but rather simply a natural feeling that she was able to make official.

3. The Ann Fausto-Sterling piece has been my favorite reading, so far. This piece greatly cleared up some of the gender questions I have developed from reading Butler, such as why its so important to distinguish. It was very interesting seeing the different, yet so similar reactions from the European cultures to the study of hermaphrodites. The story of the Italian soldier giving birth really helped pick up the spirits, but it is still startling to read how society has and continues to treat intersex individuals. I feel the intersex category has been greatly overlooked in the binary gay/straight debate. Our scientific need to label things really repulses me in the way it disregards humans for the sake of knowledge. THIS is why we need the social sciences.

4. Judith Butler is not a read-for-fun kind of piece, but in all seriousness, she has some great points about gender and sex. I had never thought so deeply into the idea of gender and sex, previously assuming that sex was more concrete, while gender could fluctuate. Butler's Gender Trouble and Bodies that Matter pieces certainly proved to make me question all of my ideas of gender and sex. After reading that sex itself is culturally created, I've started to rethink everything, because literally every norm has been a creation of society. After growing up with the norms of society drilled into your head, it is difficult to put your mind in that questioning state in which Butler seems to live. I have to say, I did not fully understand what I read in Butler until our class discussion, which was very helpful. Butler left me with more questions than answers, but I feel that is her mission in attempting to challenge and explain such tough topics.

5. Michel Foucault's evolution of repression was also news to me. It makes complete sense in retrospect, because statues and artwork we see from Roman and Greek empires are full of nudity and are still revered as beautiful artwork. Today, when an artist works with nudes, they can just as easily be labeled as pornographic as art. Why we have put ourselves in the sexuality box, I do not know. It seems life would be so much easier and more peaceful with the freedom of expression and sexuality. Maybe in those times of freedom there was less of a need for labels in society, and therefore less fear of the unknown. The increase of the need for religious penance seems to be a central point of repression for Foucault. Society finds comfort in religion, and being able to repent for "sins" is an outlet for the guilt that we as a society have propelled on ourselves by taking something as natural as sexual urges and turning them into something to feel bad about. We truly have become confessing animals, as Foucault puts it.

I look forward to learning so much more in the next couple weeks. Although this is a short class, I feel we are making the most of it.

My apologies for not getting this posted earlier. I thought it had...
Anyway I mentioned this in class last week and wanted to share it. I thought it was thought-provoking the way he answered questions. Especially in regards to how he defined homosexuality for him. I also thought that the way he described his relationship with his wife was absolutely beautiful- we should all be so lucky.
http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

Blog 2-Sean

This past week I have found myself with so many things to blog about. I was watching a commercial the other day and the target audience only became clear at the end. How is this you ask? Well, it was an advertisement for Hilton Head Island’s only full spa hotel. It was beautiful, inexpensive at a total cost of $99 for one couple. Then at the end they blew it (for me anyway) by saying “this location is for MARRIED or ENGAGED couples only”. I sat there for a moment pondering if I was thinking too far into what I had just heard. I decided that no, they explicitly wrote a commercial script that had to be approved by lots of people who paid for said advertisement and they chose to say those very definite, firm words “married or engaged”. Why did this bother me? Because I know that marriage and its sibling named engagement are cultural symbols reserved for those who can legally partake in a marriage= heterosexuals in the state of S.C.). I am still very bothered by this, the thought that my wife and I can go on a nice trip to a beach spa hotel but we can’t vacation together with my best friend and her wife. However, one could look at it and also read that this is against single persons as well. Boo on all of that I say, boo. 

I previously posted a video of a little girl who was in the toy area of a chain store with her parent or guardian. This child was so on top of it, she read clear through the gender role and stereotypes that our culture has become fixated on. If she is any indication of a new generation of queer thinking young people and children, then there is hope after all that one-day we can live as we wish.

I also received a link to a wall post of one of my colleague’s children. They are potty training him and were so extremely proud that he got the hang of it. The one thing I noticed in the picture other than the adorable-factor was the fact that they had “installed” a tiny urinal for him to learn to urinate with. Hmmmm… I thought, it seems to me that they are instilling in their son that he is a boy and that as such, he must stand instead of sitting down when he voids his bladder. That is a bit of a scary thought I must admit because, all this child will ever know is that “that is how a man pees” which is what he said to his mommy, thus prompting picture and following adorable moment.

I drew him some little pants and blurred out his face. 

Does any one else have any thoughts on these topics at all?

Blog Part II

I know I already posted this week, but I encountered a conversation this weekend I wanted to blog about. I was talking to my co-workers and telling them about my class (an abridged version J) and told them about our blog topic this week involving Queer representation in our culture. I thought it was interesting the first movie that most of them mentioned was To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar. I can see that for a lot of Americans—I am not going to lie and say I don’t like the movie for the amusement of seeing Patrick Swayze, John Leguizamo and Wesley Snipes in drag…especially Wesley Snipes with the idea his previous roles—would like this movie for its comedic style. Yet this movie doesn’t really make the viewer sit up and have an emotional response. The scenes are carefully controlled to include humorous situations so as to not make the viewer uncomfortable with the content. Even more telling is the MPAA rating of PG-13 “for subject matter involving men in drag, a brief scene of spousal abuse and some language.” Rather than a person who dresses in drag being seen as just a person, there has to be a warning for viewers to beware something that will upset their delicate sensibilities. Even in terms of choosing actors to play these parts, the production company chose famous yes but masculine men so as to make it obvious they were men and they used this to enhance the comedy of the situations encountered in the film. I don’t know if anyone watches America’s Next Top Model, but I adore Tyra and am proud of it so I do watch it. J There was a contestant, Isis, on a few seasons back. Now she, as she has had the gender reassignment surgery, was allowed to compete on the show before her surgery. I thought this was done for two reasons: obviously for ratings but also now that I have been reading in this class I see it as recognition of the fact that despite being born with male genitals, Isis was being recognized as her chosen gender of female in the competition. She was allowed to compete as herself, whereas as I feel with Too Wong Foo, the production company cared more about the comedic aspect of the idea of these famous actors parading around as drag queens—not that they were representing a community within America.  

Knox Blog #2 - Signs of Queer?

Last night, my girlfriend and I rented the movie Albert Nobbs. Played by Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs is a 19^th-century Irish woman posing as a man in order to work in the service industry and save money in hopes of a better life, and even decides to take a wife to complete the cover. Close’s performance was fantastic, and though the movie was so-so, I think it’s an interesting look at a character (albeit not a present-day character) that would not and does not consider herself “queer” in the sense that we know it. This individual’s goal is to “pass,” but not because she wishes to live life as a man on its own merits, but because her society has forced her to “pass” to enjoy all of the same benefits that men in her society enjoy. In this sense, it is kind of a pseudo-feminism that drives Nobbs’s motives, and not a desire to “queer” society. Is this behavior, then, queer? Our class discussions point to an answer of “no,” and yet, the presence of this film in our modern society points to a representation of queer that relies on gender performativity.

Though (and perhaps because) Albert Nobbs does not identify as queer, I think Judith Butler would consider her (Nobbs’s) situation as the result of a gendered society that relies on discourse to display an exclusionary gender binary: “[…] the construction of gender operates through exclusionary means, such as the human is not only produced over and against the inhuman, but through a set of foreclosures, radical erasures, that are, strictly speaking, refused the possibility of cultural articulation. […] These excluded sites come to bound the “human” as its constructive outside, and to haunt those boundaries as the persistent possibility of their disruption and rearticulation” (Bodies that Matter, 8). Thus, the very existence of Nobbs as a gendered subject illuminates the boundaries to which she has been forced to outside of, marginalized and therefore “erased” as a woman.

Jumping back in time a little (or forward, depending on how you’re looking at it) I also want to point out a 1961 movie starring Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine called “The Children’s Hour;” not because this movie deconstructs gender (it doesn’t) but because it was rather courageous (if not melodramatic) in its presentation of lesbianism, though in a context of heteronormative institutions, as the two starring actors are portrayed as sympathetic and pitiable, wronged because of their presumptive sexualities. Also, it’s a really fantastic movie and I think everyone should watch it.

Carmen Carrera on Cake Boss

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-carmen-carrera-cake-boss-tlc-transgender-20120613,0,4449579.story

I'm a huge Carmen Carrera fan, she is simply one of the most beautiful women in the world. Earlier this week she had a guest role on the TLC show Cake Boss. She had been tweeting and facebooking about the show the whole week before, and was very excited to get positive exposure on a family-friendly show for the trans community. When the show aired, Carmen found out that they were actually just mocking her and making a joke of the whole scene, and they even referred to her as a man. I didn't see the episode, but it I can only imagine how hurt she must have felt. The network has issued an apology, but its still ridiculous that someone thought this was okay.

Week 2 CMoney - Queer Film

After our first class, I have been watching movies in the Gay and Lesbian category on Netflix constantly, and each one has taught me so much. There really is a large representation of queer in the film industry. While there is of course TV shows such as The L Word and Will and Grace that cast a very homonormative picture of the community, many full-length films are making up for it with branching into the realm of the other, or queer. Don't get me wrong, I love Will and Grace, but Will and Jack are not representative of any gay men I know.

I started with more well known movie Boys Don't Cry, the Brandon Teena story. While I knew of Brandon Teena, I didn't know nearly as much as I thought I did. After watching the film I researched the story, and while there are a few inaccuracies in the film, I feel it gets quite a compelling message across. Hilary Swank makes quite the good looking boy if you ask me, and having such a high profile cast really gave this story the attention it needed. Boys Don't Cry Trailer

The Christine Jorgensen Story was particularly interesting. I feel this was quite the topic to be filming in 1970, and I wondered all the way through it how exactly those actors felt about the topic of transsexuality. The film is the story of the first transsexual to receive sexual reassignment surgery. I won't ruin the film for any who have not seen it, but it is quite enlightening. An interesting connection between this film and our reading from Foucault, the surgeon goes on a bit of a rant about Americans being so childish when it comes to the topic of sex. Americans are okay with other types of invasive topics, but through in testicles and no one has anything else to say. I thought this spoke precisely to the opening chapter of the Foucault piece we are reading. I find it such a strange phenomenon that sex was once so casual, but managed to be bastardized into the scary and sinful thing we have today. The Christine Jorgensen Story Trailer

Venus Boyz is a documentary about female masculinity and New York drag king culture. This is a topic I would love to explore further, but geographically Atlanta. Being interested in the drag scene myself, this topic is fascinating. I know I have referenced it a few times, but the quotes from Butler in the Queer Theory text on performing gender are so right. The women featured in this film are not men, and know they are not men, but they often dress as if they are men. A woman is definitely not what she wears, and the drag king culture speaks directly to this. Venus Boyz Trailer

Red Without Blue was a very touching film that I believe you guys watched in class this past week. I couldn't help but think of the Sedgwick piece we read the entire time I was watching this film. It really is a struggle between nature and nurture when it comes to studying gender and sexuality. Their mother had no idea how to respond to Claire, and instead made selfish comments throughout the film that it was somehow a blow at her. This resentment from the parent can be a big cause in the increased rates of youth suicides. Finding oneself, and sometimes changing to fit oneself, is a tough step and anyone's life. Parents should love their children under any circumstances.

The Sex Monster was very different from any of the other films, it was simply art for arts sake. I'll try not to ruin the plot, but essentially the husband wants to switch things up, but in the process creates a "sex monster." I found it completely hilarious at times, but so applicable to American culture. What this film considered the acts of a monster, was really just an expression of suppressed sexuality. I found this movie particularly queer simply through the means in which the monster was created, and the condemnation the monster received. A civilized society could never accept such acts, was the message I received. The Sex Monster Trailer

Party Monster is another more mainstream movie starring Macaulay Culkin and Seth Green. While the acting is terrible, it gets the story across. Based on a true story, Culkin's character is the epitome of queer. His sexuality, or identity even, is never clearly defined, and he would not have had it any other way. His character lives as Foucault describes the times in which sex was not taboo and sinful, but rather casual, playful, and art. He uses sex to acquire anything and everything he desires, neglecting the norms of society. This movie is certainly worth watching. Party Monster Trailer

Paris is Burning is a classic drag documentary, I won't say much because I believe we are watching it later in the class, but it is fabulous. Although I studied African American culture some in my undergraduate studies of Africa and African Diaspora, I had never even heard of the balls of New York. I can only imagine how the film participants must feel when they are performing in a community all their own. Queer, being the other, forces new communities to emerge, such as the many found in this film. Such a classic.

There are many others, but these are just the ones I happened to watch this week. Cinema is big part of our culture, and having these films with what can be seen as queer topics available, I think makes the idea of queer a little more accessible to the general public. While movies can be grand and grossing exaggerative, they are much more widely and publicly experienced than books, and therefore have a better chance of  exposing of topics such as queer.

Another Interesting Article from Huff Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/man-crisis-makes-womens-perfectionism-worse_n_1600049.html?utm_hp_ref=women&ir=Women&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008#es_share_ended

How The 'Man Crisis' Makes Women's Perfectionism Worse

I found this on twitter this morning. It is on a 5th grade boy who was forbidden to present his speech on marriage equality.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/15/500258/fifth-grader-marriage-equality/?mobile=nc

This website should be very interesting to use in our course. Have a great weekend.

Queerland - blog post 2

Remember Rocky Horror?  The movie theaters that would show it all night Saturday?  The audience play-alongs, like the toast and rice? (After 15 years of work in the janitorial sciences, I am amazed that any theater in its right mind would allow this)  Friends who reenacted the whole movie on a stage in front of the screen?  That was probably my favorite introduction to queer in pop culture, but it was by no means the only place queer was springing up.  In hippie university towns and UU churches where I did my growing up, there wasn't much off limits in terms of expression.

I was a child of the gender-neutral seventies, when our feminist mothers dressed us, no matter our genitalia, in red and blue t-shirts and overalls.  In fact, I found it sort of sweetly nostalgic to see the twins from Red Without Blue were color-coded the same way my sister and I were.  Things have changed a lot in everything from clothing to the marketing of Lego toys (which only came in primary colors for everyone) in the time since then - I'd wager the Reagan era spurred it on.

So now my children, particularly the pink boy, are queer in the kid world, because the gender lines became ever so distinct and uncrossable.  My boys wear pink when they want to, and for one of my stepsons, that's daily.  Three of the four boys have long hair, and the one who particularly loves pink carries a pink purse.  The youngest two boys are Girl Scouts. In Georgia, boys aren't technically allowed, but my boys are welcomed into the troop with their sister, nonetheless.

So how is it that if my sweet pink-wearing, kitty-loving, long-haired, "feminine" little stepson should actually express his feelings to someone outside of his family who happened to have a psych--- title, he'd be disordered?  How my well-adjusted stepson could be considered disordered is beyond me, but as Butler cites, "a marked preoccupation with traditionally feminine activities" is considered by the DSM to be a diagnostic criterion.  Checkmark number one.

Undoing Gender gives me little hope for the current diagnostic model, not that I ever had any.  From a personal standpoint, I think the whole thing is bunk.  I suspect my shrink does, too, but I won't speak for him.

A little person who has a penis and likes wearing pink skirts shouldn't have to be queer.  We all like what we like.  But the fact that he does, that he is willing to disrupt the norm (and we live in Cumming, so he's stepping out on a limb), is absolutely queering up childhood.

You'll have to pardon me, its been a rough day and I don't have the readings right in front of me, but i find myself wanting to discuss Judith Butler's ideas. Now, she has some great ideas. Some of which, including how the "fixed" notion of male and female tend to box people into pre-concieved ways of thinking which restrict freedom of behavior and expression, we have covered quite a bit in just the two classes we have attended.

I find her notion of a "domain of abjection" to be quite suitable for queerness. An abjection, or casting off, process perfectly describes the nomadic and unfixed nature of being queer. One must she his/her skin  periodically to stay fresh and on top of the situation. I've always thought that this is a pretty good way to live your life to an extent. The risk a queer individual runs is being labeled the party pooper, or the one who always has to rock the boat. This is fine. If you're not upsetting someone then you're probably not getting anything done, and you're certainly not challenging the norms.

Where I find Butler's ideas a bit strange  is where we run into "discourse." She basically asserts that discourse is tainted with the dominate male perspective and does not provide adequate means of expression for women. Now, as far as I can tell, no matter who created discourse, it seems to be one of the most queer tools at our disposal. Language has a way of taking on a life of its own and morphing, fluidly, into unforseen dimensions. The meanings words have been assigned frequently change simply because of society's shifts. Conotations form without the slightest bit of approval from the white male dominate population. Also, I fear that the alternative to discourse is the most oppressive notion I can think of. Language should not be feared, it should be made a friend of and tailored to fit one's needs and self-expression.

Hannah-Blog #2

The juxtaposition of gender and sex in Butler’s Bodies that Matter opened my mind to an entirely new way of thinking about queerness. In class we have addressed the “definition” of queer and in the Jagose text we learned the significance and importance of queer academically, historically, and socially; however, Butler’s text takes the concept of sex and gender, places it delicately in a Yahtzee jar, and forcibly tosses it out! I won’t pretend to understand the whole of what Butler is suggesting; however, the one concept that sticks in my mind and requires further discussion is the idea that sex is biologically determined, while gender is a social construct. I am of the school of thought that anything which is socially constructed can be socially deconstructed. The hetero-imperative functions now as the white power structure functioned then. How, as an aspiring queer, am I to help the world to understand and accept that sex should not be inexplicitly tied to identity and that gender should not be static? Butler’s text is a call to action. If we are all aspiring to characteristics of queerness (which I hope that we are) how can we affect change and persist “disidentification?”

Another aspect of Butler’s text that ties in well with the manifestation of queerness in pop culture is the idea of fear. In detailing the formation of the subject, Butler states the following:

The forming of a subject requires identification with the normative phantasm of “sex” and     this identification takes place through a repudiation which produces a domain of abjection, a repudiation without which the subject cannot emerge (3).

It is due to this repudiation that we are only recently beginning to see the signs of a Queer Planet. The manifestation of queer in pop culture is relatively new in the grand scheme of things. My first experience with “queerness” on television was the Pilot episode of Golden Girls. Golden Girls was unique for its time because it consistently affronted what was considered popular and social acceptable. There were episodes centered on interracial marriage, gay family members, cross dressing heterosexual men, and of course sex. I’m not sure how familiar many of you are with this show; however, I honestly believe that each main character carried, both on the show and in their personal lives, an essence of queerness. If we are to define queerness as action and a deviation from, or rather, a rejection of hetero-normative or hetero-imperative values, then we must admit that Golden Girls is a quintessential reflection queerness. My favorite example of queerness in Golden Girls is Dorothy’s brother and Sophia’s son, Phil. The audience never gets an opportunity to meet Phil; however, we know that he was married to a woman, had at least 5 children, and consistently wore women’s clothing. When Phil died, his wife chose to bury him in a black lace teddy. Phil’s identity was not revealed in his physical presentation.

The signs of a Queer Planet are becoming more visible; yet, there are still things to be done. I am completely on fire after reading this text. Academic discussions and theory are necessary but I feel that if I am to ever reach “queerness” I must get to work!

Deliberate Transgression, Live and Televised

Let me begin by saying that I'm not going to claim to understand Foucault, but in regard to a Queer Planet, my interpretation of one of his points seems important here. Foucault talks about the myth of repression, and this was something I had a hard time wrapping my head around – sexual repression is not a myth! Right? Well, when I look to the world around me, I think it say fairly and honestly, that our culture is consumed with sex. It's everywhere. Not only that, but all of the sex we see is ripe for Queer, Feminist, or Gender studies interpretations.

How can we say we are repressed when shows like “Bones” and “Saturday Night Live” have characters which are gender ambiguous? While the skits like “It's Pat” make the gender ambiguous character the center of the conflict, the joke seems to be on the people who care whether Pat is male or female. While everyone else is wracking their brains trying to figure out “what” Pat “is,” Pat is busy living hir life and falling in love with the also gender ambiguous Chris (see the movie for more). And that example is from the 90's... When I look around today, I don't see a truly repressed society. But I do see a society that has tied the ideas of sexuality to repression.

There are many “reality” television shows that focus on issues that may be considered Queer, or at least nonstandard sexualities. Both “Big Love” and “Sisterwives” come to mind instantly; however, I'm sure there are some who would argue against the “queerness” of these shows – in fact, the family from “Sisterwives” would likely reject the idea they are partly Queer. But beyond that, shows like “Strange Sex” on the learning channel, “Trans Generation” on Sundance, and many things on Logo (not to say that Logo isn't FULL of assimilationist propaganda as well) like “Gender Rebel” prove that sexuality isn't simpley being repressed – that is “condemned to prohibition, non-existance, and silence” because as Foucault says, “the mere fact that one is speaking about [sex] has the appearance of deliberate transgression” (6).

While I feel like we have talked a lot about defining Queer, I think it is important to add in here two of Foucault's words: Deliberate Transgression. Because Queer is a verb, a response, something that is done, and as we said in class “Queer is both deliberate and political,” the notion of repression is important. You cannot transgress without something to transgress against. This makes me think that both sides (and by both sides I mean those who think sexuality should be repressed, and those who feel the need to transgress that repression) are both responsible for what actual repression exists. I'm afraid I'm going to be misunderstood along these lines... I by no means think that discrimination, sexism, genderism, homophobia, or any of the rest don't exist, and again, I by no means blame the victim (as I myself have often been one) – living a nonstandard life is hard – but I tend to connect to one of S. Bear Bergman's ideas: people who live nonstandard lives need to talk about the good parts too, not just repression, not just the homophobia, and not just the sexism. BUT back to my point: the notion of repression is double edged. Queer prides itself on being elusive and possibly undefinable, this is because, like I said, Queer is a response, and without repression of some sort there is no way for Queer to be on the cutting edge... this is why mainstream gays (of the assimilationst stripe) are not Queer.

I haven't read very far into the Foucault text, but I have a feeling that he isn't going to make a judgment on this issue, but rather report it. I hope this is the direction he goes in, because I don't feel like this needs to be judged. To me Queer is synonymous (or at least should be) with progress. The way Foucault describes the repression myth in “We 'Other Victorians'” suggest to me something interesting: “What sustains out eagerness to speak of sex in terms of repression is doubtless this opportunity to speak out against the powers that be, to utter truths and promise bliss, to link together enlightenment, liberation, and manifold pleasures; to pronounce a discourse that combines the fervor of knowledge, the determination to change the laws, and the longing for the garden of earthly delights” (7). These lines make me think that this planet is very Queer, and that because Queerness is progress we may never actually have a finished product. Queerness allows us to “appeal to the future, whose day will be hastened by the contribution we believe we are making” (6-7).

So what? Well, we live on a Queer planet and there is no stopping that. All that can happen is that the word Queer loses cultural reverence and is replaced by something else. Either way, viva la revolution... and if you don't believe me, see how many hits you find on YouTube with transgendered folks on talk shows...

June 14 Blog Post

Now that I have finally battled Google into submission regarding my log-in, I can finally post on here! I have to say, I felt like I was in kindergarten again reading Butler. My husband looks over and I have the article held up in front of me (as if getting it closer to my face will aid in osmosis J) reading so slowly it looks like I am reading a different language! Thankfully my husband and I love to debate topics so I was able to use him as a sounding board for what I was reading. When we disagreed I just told him he was being a phallocentric male and what did he know. J So I think I had a better time reading Butler than I had anticipated. Despite her (and I say her as for these articles she writes as “Judith”) writing style, I found what she had to say intriguing. As Gender Trouble was my favorite article, I would like to talk about it the most here. She starts with the argument that gender is socially constructed while sex is seen as biological. (pg. 9) She goes on to say that what if, because the idea of biological sex determination might be incorrect and as socially constructed as gender, that gender is what makes a person male or female? What an interesting and thought provoking idea! Butler spends a great deal of Gender Trouble writing on Simone de Beauvoir. Butler writes that de Beauvoir considers gender socially constructed but also fixed and that a “cogito” or agent “appropriates that gender”. However, de Beauvoir also thinks that an agent can transition between genders but that the attributes they pick up are already fixed and culturally set so there is no fluidity within the gender.

I tend to concur with certain points within the article. I think that society puts an inordinate amount of pressure to appear very male or very male, and if you do come out as queer you can only be the Will & Grace type queer (we’re talking Will not Jack). Even being queer you are culturally expected to fit into a box. So yes, I can certainly see de Beauvoir’s point about the stricture of cultural determination regarding gender. Butler continues on discussing gender but moves on from gender in relation to sex to gender in relation to ideas about body. Butler writes that just like sex is considered biologically set, the body is seen as one or the other based on what culture has determined makes up a male or female body. Just like with gender, what if what makes a person identify as male or female body happen because they possess certain attributes that culture decides makes that person one or the other? And even more intriguing is the idea that our entire culture is phallocentric and that the female body and gender only exist because it possesses the cast off attributes that males don’t see as masculine enough. What an incredible idea! And, writes Butler, society has a hard time talking about this because discourse itself is masculine so it lends itself to be predisposed to anti-female superiority ideas. Following the idea of discarded male attributes embodying what is culturally seen to make up “females”, Butler writes that on top of everything else this application of these attributes fixes females and does not allow them fluidity within their gender/sex.

I know I wrote a lot, but I thought Gender Trouble was a fascinating article and dang if you don’t feel smarter after figuring out what you THINK she is saying!