Thanks,
I was in one of my more rhetorical modes, but the questions were intended to
raise the issues you covered. Moreover, I wanted to make clear that even in
a relatively simple qoute that seemed fairly straightforward, issues were
still unresolved.
>When Butler talks about 'sex', I beleive she's refering to what you call
>"the biologicality of certains forms of being", i.e. peoples' bodies. She
>does not mean *fucking*.
I knew this of course, having read Butler and the various debates regarding
the sex/gender distinction. The problem is of course is whether Butler's
project can sustain the notion of the biologicality of certains forms of
being, or whether on her reading even this set of categories is a human
construct, and I mean the biologicality, not the name we give it.
>
>On the need for the sex/gender distinction:
>
>* you* may not need this distinction. But many Anglo-American feminists need
>it precisely because such a distinction allows us to distinguish between
>stuff that might be "naturally female" vs. something that is a product of
>socially-constructed "femininity". The sex /gender distinction is useful
>because it allows women like my aquaintence Jill to say things like "sex is
>the tits and gender is the bra". Feminists find this useful because it
>allows us to drive a wedge between what we are told women *should* be, and
>what we actually *are* (or, more to the point, what we might be able to
>become). In other words, the sex/gender distinction can help feminists make
>arguments about the nature of "woman" in such a way that feminist causes
>are advanced.
I absolutely agree, but am unsure on what Butler's position is. Also, you
raise the issue of the 'nature' of woman. isn't this precisely what
poststructuralist feminists (this I know is contestable, Butler in 'Feminist
Contentions denies that she is one) like Butler deny?
>
> (Depending on your political point of view, you may or may not find this
>necessary, useful, or even interesting. However, that's got little to do
>with the fact other people may find it to be all of those things).
Again I agree.
>
> _Gender Trouble_ tries to re-evaluate this strategy, and comes to the
>conclusion that the sex/gender distinction doesn't actually solve the
>problem it attempts to solve-- Butler argues that what were questions of
>sex are simply deferred onto gender : basically, using this way out of the
>problem amounts to sweeping the dirt off the rug into the hall, and from the
>hall to underneath the same rug. Or as Butler puts it: " the distinction
>between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all" (p. 7).
Given this what is your position vis-a-vis Butler in the light of your
suggestion that the distinction is useful to some?
>I hope that my attempt to answer your questions has been satisfying. Again,
>my apologies if I've misunderstood your intentions-- it's hard enought to
>recognize certain rhtorical devices when you're sitting in the same room as
>someone; I'm afraid without such non-verbal clues, I'm rather
>conversationally inept.
>
>OH, BTW, Somer Brodribbs book you mention _Nothing Matters_ . . . do you
>have a full citation for it? It sounds interesting.
It is a book I would recomend to everyone. A must read. Somer Brodribb,
'Nothing Ma(t)ters: A Feminist Critique of Postmodernism, (Spinifex, 1992, I
think)
>
>not fighting any power at all, just e-mailing people,
Ah, that's just it, now I probably find myself in agreement with Malcolm,
its all a fight against power, its how to do it that matters. Just kill em
or try to convince em?
Thanks,
Colin
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
I was in one of my more rhetorical modes, but the questions were intended to
raise the issues you covered. Moreover, I wanted to make clear that even in
a relatively simple qoute that seemed fairly straightforward, issues were
still unresolved.
>When Butler talks about 'sex', I beleive she's refering to what you call
>"the biologicality of certains forms of being", i.e. peoples' bodies. She
>does not mean *fucking*.
I knew this of course, having read Butler and the various debates regarding
the sex/gender distinction. The problem is of course is whether Butler's
project can sustain the notion of the biologicality of certains forms of
being, or whether on her reading even this set of categories is a human
construct, and I mean the biologicality, not the name we give it.
>
>On the need for the sex/gender distinction:
>
>* you* may not need this distinction. But many Anglo-American feminists need
>it precisely because such a distinction allows us to distinguish between
>stuff that might be "naturally female" vs. something that is a product of
>socially-constructed "femininity". The sex /gender distinction is useful
>because it allows women like my aquaintence Jill to say things like "sex is
>the tits and gender is the bra". Feminists find this useful because it
>allows us to drive a wedge between what we are told women *should* be, and
>what we actually *are* (or, more to the point, what we might be able to
>become). In other words, the sex/gender distinction can help feminists make
>arguments about the nature of "woman" in such a way that feminist causes
>are advanced.
I absolutely agree, but am unsure on what Butler's position is. Also, you
raise the issue of the 'nature' of woman. isn't this precisely what
poststructuralist feminists (this I know is contestable, Butler in 'Feminist
Contentions denies that she is one) like Butler deny?
>
> (Depending on your political point of view, you may or may not find this
>necessary, useful, or even interesting. However, that's got little to do
>with the fact other people may find it to be all of those things).
Again I agree.
>
> _Gender Trouble_ tries to re-evaluate this strategy, and comes to the
>conclusion that the sex/gender distinction doesn't actually solve the
>problem it attempts to solve-- Butler argues that what were questions of
>sex are simply deferred onto gender : basically, using this way out of the
>problem amounts to sweeping the dirt off the rug into the hall, and from the
>hall to underneath the same rug. Or as Butler puts it: " the distinction
>between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all" (p. 7).
Given this what is your position vis-a-vis Butler in the light of your
suggestion that the distinction is useful to some?
>I hope that my attempt to answer your questions has been satisfying. Again,
>my apologies if I've misunderstood your intentions-- it's hard enought to
>recognize certain rhtorical devices when you're sitting in the same room as
>someone; I'm afraid without such non-verbal clues, I'm rather
>conversationally inept.
>
>OH, BTW, Somer Brodribbs book you mention _Nothing Matters_ . . . do you
>have a full citation for it? It sounds interesting.
It is a book I would recomend to everyone. A must read. Somer Brodribb,
'Nothing Ma(t)ters: A Feminist Critique of Postmodernism, (Spinifex, 1992, I
think)
>
>not fighting any power at all, just e-mailing people,
Ah, that's just it, now I probably find myself in agreement with Malcolm,
its all a fight against power, its how to do it that matters. Just kill em
or try to convince em?
Thanks,
Colin
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------