Butler’s Gender Trouble: The Beginning of Part 3 Subversive Bodily Acts

I will attempt two give a brief summary of the two sections in Part 3: Subversive Bodily Acts. However, we have all come to realize the depth of complexity in Butler’s analysis of other experts in the field of Gender Studies. To decode every one of her sentences would take me a lifetime, so I will focus on the points that I found to be most pivotal to her arguments.

I: The Body Politics of Julia Kristeva

Before stating a summary of this section, I will define two important terms used in Kristeva’s theories on genderized language. The ‘Symbolic’ is defined as the paternal law that structures all language signification, the idea that our language inherently is confined by language that is male centered. The second term is ‘semiotic’, which is the construction of reality through symbolic meaning. Butler critiques Kristeva’s ‘theory of the semiotic dimension of language’, drawing on insights that Kristeva makes with her theory but also posing the limitations of the theory.

Kristeva uses Lactanian’s narrative, which assumes that cultural meaning “requires the repression of the primary relationship to the maternal body” (108). Poetic language is defined as an attempt to reclaim the maternal body within the framework of language. It is a linguistic device that fractures and multiplies meaning. Kristeva adds on to this Lacatian idea of the suppression of the maternal body by claiming this phenomena transcends cultural construction. She claims that the maternal body as “bearing a set of meanings that is prior to culture itself” (109). Butler is most critical of Kristeva’s attention to subversion of the dilemma of the ‘maternal body’ and questions Kristeva’s argument of removing the maternal body from the construction of society.

Kristeva uses drive theory in her discussion of the maternal body being confined by language. She claims these drives to emerge before they are placed into linguistic terms that ultimately repress and eliminate these drives. The maternal “signifies both libidinal dependency and the heterogeneity of drives” and the maternal body “signifies the loss of coherent and discrete identity” (113). The drives of maternity ultimately set-up a system of the dependency on the mother, which is defined though the Symbolic. Kristeva believes the semiotic to be repressed by the Symbolic and the Symbolic to be the hegemonic system that is briefly ‘troubled’ by the semiotic. Her purpose becomes to differentiate between the semiotic and the Symbolic.

Butler’s criticism is seen when she discusses Kristeva’s subversion of the maternal body’s connection to heterogeneity, rather than deconstructing the construction of the maternal body’s dependency on heterogeneity discourse. Bultler uses Kristeva’s work to illuminate new claims that Kristeva overlooks, such as the mandate of maternity “as a compulsory defense against libidinal chaos” (117). She discusses this aspect through a discussion of homosexuality and how it deviates from the maternal symbol in lesbianism. A lesbian must go through a series of displacements in order to avoid the maternal drives. An internalized ‘heteronormalcy’ is constructed through biological justification and the lesbian woman is the divergent, the psychotic.

The ultimate error of Kristeva’s theory according to Butler is subversion of the connection between culture and this maternal being. She states:

The law that is said to repress the semeiotic may well be the governing principle of the semiotic itself, with the result that what passes as “maternal instinct” may well be a culturally constructed desire which is interpreted through naturalistic vocabulary. And if that desire is constructed according to a law of kinship which requires the heterosexual production and reproduction of desire, then the vocabulary of naturalistic affect effectively render that “paternal law” invisible. (123)

II: Foucault, Herculine, and the Politics of Sexual Discontinuity

This section discusses Foucault’s ‘genealogical critique’ of the gender binary that does not support divergence from maleness or femaleness. According to Butler, Foucault argues that there is no inherent “sex” and a failure to recognize the sex binary reinforces the subjugation of all people. He believes in the necessity of deconstructing the ‘sexed body’ and understanding the power dynamics of the binary. Foucault uses the case study of Herculine, a hermaphrodite that was biologically said to be a girl but showed secondary male sex characteristics and physical features, ultimately choosing a male identity later in life. Foucault focuses on the period of h/er life in which s/he is has not yet became classified as a male by law. He claims this part of Herculine’s life to be ‘non-gendered’, meaning s/he is not forced to comply to the conventions male or female norms, and thus, experiences happiness in this gender confusion. However, Butler refutes this point claiming that Herculine struggled a lot during h/er period of being non-gendered because s/he did not fit into a category of the gender binary. Herculine’s case becomes an ultimate example of ‘gender trouble’ because s/he upset that gender/sex binary and challenges the distinction between heterosexuality and lesbianism.

In the “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”, a discussion of the construction of sexed biological language is seen through Dr. David Page’s research, where the lab tried to discover the biological factor that differentiated the sexes. The way in which the Y chromosome was discussed feeds into the male dominant heterosexual discourse, in that the Y chromosome is inherently responsible of maleness and the absence of this, is femaleness. The language went as far as to reinforce the active and passive roles of the chromosomal make-up of men and women respectively! Again, the case of hermaphrodites upsets this research because their chromosomes do not always correspond to the physical characteristics we associate with being a man or a woman, such as the penis and the vagina. However, Butler still expresses problems with the binary because hermaphrodites and people that upset this biological binary are seen as divergent and lacking of the proper assets the understood as being inherently man or women biological features.

Perhaps discussing sex is not as gender neutral or exclusive as we are taught to believe? Biology has even been genderized. And Butler believes troubling the assumptions of nature are imperative to deconstructing the oppressive factors of the gender binary.

Response to Braun, Gavy and McPhillips’ article, “The ‘Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex”

This article examines a new-age heterosex discourse termed “reciprocity”. The authors attempt to unpack the issues surrounding male and female expectations during sex. The premise is that both partners are entitled to give and receive pleasure, with the ultimate goal being orgasm for both partners. While this discourse ensures that female pleasure is accounted for, there are many constraints for both men and women. For example, women feel the pressure to always have an orgasm, while men feel inadequate if they can not sexually please their partner to the point of orgasm. These underlying pressures force heterosexual couples into rigid roles that have specific actions and outcomes expected of them. While we have began to surpass the myths of the female vaginal orgasm and sex solely dependent on penetration, the authors remind us that this framework of reciprocity or “egalitarian” sex can cause significant tension and unfair power distribution in a theoretically equal discourse. In theory, the idea of reciprocity seems flawless but in practice, the way this reciprocity is carried-out, equal sharing of power to actively give and passively receive pleasure is not a reality.

The discussion of “patterns of sex to orgasm” was very interesting. Several couples were interviewed and a pattern of orgasms seemed to develop. The dominant discourse was that women orgasm first, usually through oral stimulation and once the male had completed this task, his orgasms through intercourse. The authors suggest that this sequence of events establishes the idea that women are the passive role, seeing the orgasm as “something that she had as a result of what he did or gave her” (243). This places the male in the active position and instead of this position switching to the female, they both engage in intercourse in order to bring the male to orgasm. Intercourse is not viewed as a gift that the woman gives to her partner, instead it is an act they perform together and thus, the woman is not releases from the passive role.

The next interesting point this article illuminated was the need for a highly sexually educated male to bring his partner to orgasm every time. To me this seems to be an unrealistic ideal that can ultimately cause more harm to both partners. While I believe that both partners are entitled to orgasms, receiving pleasure should not always be defined with the orgasm being the definitive goal. Sexual pleasure is experienced in many different ways and can be fulfilling even it is does not result in an orgasm. A female orgasm not only puts pressure on the woman to always receive “ultimate pleasure” from her partner (which is far from a reality in my opinion), but it also creates a role for men to fulfill this duty or be considered incompetent, or worse yet, feel their partner is incapable of feeling “real” pleasure. I think anxieties of male competence are an issue that many young men I know face. Because there has been so much emphasis on pleasing women in the recent discourse of positive heterosex, if they are unable to bring a woman to orgasm, this threatens their masculine identity. A man responds in an interview that if an orgasm “didn’t happen, then I would be using her” (245), the idea that if the reciprocity is not fulfilled through orgasm then if he orgasms, he will have wrongfully treated his partner. Later, it is also discussed how women feel pressured to have an orgasm in order to boost their partner’s ego. The point is that both partners suffer from this heavy emphasis on reciprocity through orgasm.

The authors discuss positive aspects of reciprocity in heterosex discourse, however, they emphasis the importance of carefully examining every level of this discourse. These levels include the idea of “pure” gifts, the active and passive roles, and male control over the female orgasm. It is important to point these subtitles of experience out because even a more egalitarian discourse can reinforce destructive gender roles that plague our society. I have talked to a lot of girl friends about the pressure we feel to orgasm every time, even when we feel immense amounts of pleasure with the absence of an orgasm, the orgasm seems to be what defines if it was a successful “sex session” or not. I think this article tackles many important issues that I have seen in heterosexual couples that seek to have egalitarian sex.

A Discussion of Gallagher and Kramer's, The Hot Woman's Handbook (Part III)

I was trying to understand why I have issues with Cake’s book. While I see the validity in creating a handbook completely dedicated to women’s pleasure, I discovered that it is the language that bothers me. In class, we have been discussing the need for a new language in which women can express their sexual desires and understand their multifaceted sexuality. However, I do not think Cake accomplishes this in the book. It is still confined by heterosexual language and active sexual descriptions that we have found problematic. I love how accessible the language is because of its raw quality but I have trouble with the violent language used, such as “gripping so hard that one leaves thumbprints” (197) or your partner telling you that you are “a little whore who deserves to be punished” (238). I am not naive to the fact that role-play and power play are fundamental factors of many women’s sex lives, but should this be the norm? What if I am not comfortable having my partner call me “Daddy’s little whore”?

In chapter eleven, The Porn Myth, Gallagher and Kramer deconstruct the notion that women are not visually stimulated. Many women sexually respond to porn and Cake wants to emphasize the need for porn focused on women’s pleasure. Mainstream porn has been marketed to men, and thus, the content focuses on the male fantasy, with the end being expressed through man ejaculating. Gallagher and Kramer express the need for porn that focuses on female pleasure not defined through this endpoint of male ejaculation. “We want to see ourselves on-screen and identify with the subject” (180). First, Cake assures women that porn can enhance their sexual lives and stimulate them along with men, and second, Cake demands that the porn industry start making porn that caters to women.

In chapter twelve, “Straight” as a Ruler, Gallagher and Kramer deconstruct the strict sexual orientation binary of being either hetero or homosexual. I think this has been a concern for many of us in the class because Cake tends to use language that reinforces heterosexual intimacy. But in this chapter an exploration of hetero and homosexual desires and acts are embraced. Cake expresses that many women who define themselves as “straight” have fantasies and sexual desires of being with women. This section appears to be geared toward women who have had heterosexual relationships but have either experimented women or fantasize about women sexually. Again, this is not tailored to women who are openly lesbians. It focuses on experimentation with both sexes. I loved their discussion of labeling and the brief history they gave (pages 208 to 209) on the societal construct of sexual orientation labels. I agree that these rigid labels need to be deconstructed to allow more freedom to experience all sexual desires with partners of both sexes.

In chapter thirteen, Power Play, Gallagher and Kramer discuss the issue of power dynamics within sexual interaction. Again, the main focus is power roles between heterosexual partners, so the discussion of lesbian sex is not addressed in full. Gallagher and Kramer understand the complication of discussing power dynamics in heterosexual relationships because for so long feminists have been fighting against the image of the submissive woman being a vessel of pleasure for the dominant male. But they stress the point that “letting someone else take control does not mean you are weak, and wanting control does not mean you are the bully” (226). I was interested in the idea that those who experience power in their everyday lives tend to want to be dominated in the bedroom. The feeling of “letting go” and being “dominated” is attractive to several women. However, this was the chapter that I had a lot of personal issues with the language. Cake seems to make being completely dominated, verbally abused, and sexually “taken” without consent to be glorified and sexy. While I understand that Cake is trying to say that if this is how you get off it is okay, not enough attention was given to women who do not like to be in the extreme submissive or dominant role. Is there a way to experience sexual pleasure without this extreme power dichotomy? Can power distribution be more fluid, a little of both, not so extreme as being taken or violently dominating your partner? Can this power be expressed using less violent language?

In chapter fourteen, Birth of the Cake Sam’ich, the idea of threesomes is addressed. The beginning of the chapter is dedicated to WMW (two women and one man) encounters and the second part discusses the “cake sam-ich” or MWM (two men and one woman) encounters. This chapter seemed very fantastical to me. Maybe it is because I associate threesomes with the porn industry and the construction of the male fantasy, rather than an actualized experience by everyday couples. I was interested in the discussion of gender again. I think I was more open to the idea of two women together with a man but could not imagine asking my partner to have a threesome with another man. I became very aware of our homophobic culture, especially regarding men’s sexuality. I found myself getting angry that I was more open to engaging in this act with another woman rather than another man!

I would like to reiterate the fact that Cake’s book was very enlightening in many ways but also limiting. The title says, “the hot woman’s handbook”, but even in their disclaimer Gallagher and Kramer express the fact that the women they are writing to and about are predominately “straight”. I feel as if there main purpose was to deconstruct taboos that have hindered women’s sexual exploration in the past and they do this by using extreme examples of women engaging in these taboo activities. However, I found it hard to identify with many of the definitions of a sexualized woman that Cake offered. I consider myself to be a sexually charged individual that is very open about my sexual desires and needs. Am I truly enlightened if I do not agree or wish to engage in many of the acts this book describes? Where do I fit as a sexual woman?

A Discussion of Ariel Levy's, "Female Chauvinist Pigs" (Chapters 3 and 4)

One of Levy’s underlying themes in both her chapters focused on gender identity and women within raunch culture denying the traditional stereotypes of being a “girly-girl” by adopting a “masculine persona”. I was fascinated by this phenomenon because I have always been taught that women need to celebrate their femininity and that masculinity has been equated with power for far to long. What Levy describes in these chapters is women embracing a hyper-masculine identity and becoming empowered through participating in what has socially been conceived as men’s activities, such as stripping, porn, and enjoying looking at the idealized female body.

In Levy’s third chapter, she defines the title of her book, “female chauvinist pigs” (FCPs) through interviews and observation of women who discarded the “girly-girl” role and as Levy explains, are “creating a new sort of loophole of women who are ‘not like other women’, who are instead ‘like a man’” (96). These FCPs have distain for any women that are overly focused on their feminine appearance and yet, they believe that these women represent “sexiness”. Similar to men, FCPs must enjoy looking at these overtly sexualized women and beneath their cool exterior claim to posses this vibrant sexualized energy that drives raunch culture. In earlier chapters, the materialized definition of “sexy” was a skinny, large-breasted, woman, who was not afraid to take-off her clothes and show her body to the world. It is this narrow definition of “sexy” that has victimized both men and women within raunch culture. In my opinion FCPs struggle with gender socialization, expressing the belief that a man exudes power in society, especially in the sexualized arena. It is not trendy to identify with “feminine qualities” anymore; it is the masculine identity in which these women entertain sexual power. Levy believes that as long as people view womanhood as something to escape from, womanhood will be subordinate to that of manhood. It is difficult for me to identify with FCPs because I have always celebrated my difference from men, celebrated my femininity. I do not wish to let go of these differences and assimilate with this hyper-masculine identity in which I objectify and exploit women’s bodies… my body.

In Levy’s fourth chapter, she continues her gender discussion on a group of lesbian women that are called “bois”. Bois are described as women that take on the physical appearance and mentality of boys. The argument is that boys in society experience the most sexual freedom without consequences, even more so then men, who have family and career responsibilities. The idea that young men are noncommittal and enjoy many sexual partners is extremely appealing for these women. While butch women identify with the stereotypical masculine physical appearance, bois go beyond this, by also adopting the mentality of being a man. It is manhood that represents sexual liberation for these women. Again, I return to the concern with associating masculinity with power and sexual fulfillment in life. If this becomes the standard for a sexually liberated woman, all the fundamental aspects of women’s sexuality become obsolete, perpetuating a system of male sexual dominance. While, I enjoyed reading about these women who are beginning to play with gender roles and perhaps start blurring the binary of being either female of male, the fact that masculinity becomes the desired identity can have harsh consequences on the greater population of women.

I have very mixed feelings about this book so far. The idea that I can experience power through being more “manly” is upsetting to me because I am not a man… there are fundamental differences in being a women that I refuse to deny. I do not have a place within this new age, raunch culture, and yet, I do not see myself as a girly-girl or a woman not in tune with my sexuality and sexual desires. Where do I fit?

Expectations for the Seminar

I am excited to learn about the Third Wave because so much of my previous women studies have focused on the positive and negative repercussions of the Second Wave, or as we call it in our house “ Mama’s days”. While the Second Wave was responsible for bringing political and public awareness to the issues that plagued American women, many gender issues today were either overlooked or introduced in the “feminist agenda” later. I am interested to learn how this new wave of feminism (or gender rights) tackles the issues prevalent in today’s society that were not the focus during the 1970s and 1980s. I am fascinated by this idea of “feminisms”, pluralizing the term because the group “women” consists of multifaceted identities and experiences. I also hope to learn about activism within the realm of gender studies. As stated in our first class, gender studies is not simply theory but also has the ability to be practiced and shared with the larger community.

I have dedicated the last two years of my St. Olaf career to learning about women; it is finally time for me to start sharing my opinions with a group of people equally dedicated to the study of gender inequality. While I am still formulating my thoughts on certain issues, my time abroad on Global has helped me solidify many convictions I have surrounding issues of women’s sexual and reproductive health. I hope to bring these experiences to the table, especially the issue of cultural sensitivity versus potential health risks, in regards to women’s sexuality. Many of the cultures I witnessed were entrenched in patriarchal values, thus, hindering the flourishing and creativity of both genders. I heavily focused on the oppression of women within these cultures, and now hope to explore how the socialization of men in a hyper-masculine environment affects the way women and men communicate and experience relationships together.

I cannot wait to discuss all these issues revolving around genderized roles and sexuality with you all!