Ok here's another stab at it:
>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?
I don't think the "nature of woman" is anything other than a fairy tale told
to frighten little (and big) girls into doing what they're told. I suspect
Butler feels the same way.
>Given this what is your position vis-a-vis Butler in the light of your
>suggestion that the distinction is useful to some?
Since Butler sees the s/g distinction as something to interrogate and
replace, and I see it as something I want to use from time to time when I
think it will do me some good, ( as well as deploying Butlerian notions of
gender performativity at other times), I conclude that Butler and I move in
different circles. As she teaches at UCLA-Berkely in the Rhetoric Department
(or did, last I heard), I think it's safe to assume that most of the people
she talks to have at least nodding acquaintenceship with postmodernism and
anti-essentialism. I, on the other hand, seem to spend a lot of time with
people who take books like _Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus_ very
very seriously. My feeling is that I may as well start with the s/g
distinction, if only as a starting point.
>>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?
What's the difference? :-)
Oh, I notice from you sig. that you're in the UK-- you may not know the
popular book I mention above. _Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars_ has
ben a best seller here in North America for well over a year. It's a tedious
popular psychology book that tries to explain why straight peoples'
relationship go wonky (apparently it's because of *essential*, in-born
differences that are enhanced by environenmental factors). I'm not buying a
word of it.
Thanx,
chloe
***************************************************************
"The women who hate me cut me
as men can't Men don't count.
I can handle men. Never expected better
of any man anyway.
But the women,
shallow-cheeked young girls the world was made for
safe little girls who think nothing of bravado
who never got over by playing it tough" Dorothy Allison
***************************************************************
>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?
I don't think the "nature of woman" is anything other than a fairy tale told
to frighten little (and big) girls into doing what they're told. I suspect
Butler feels the same way.
>Given this what is your position vis-a-vis Butler in the light of your
>suggestion that the distinction is useful to some?
Since Butler sees the s/g distinction as something to interrogate and
replace, and I see it as something I want to use from time to time when I
think it will do me some good, ( as well as deploying Butlerian notions of
gender performativity at other times), I conclude that Butler and I move in
different circles. As she teaches at UCLA-Berkely in the Rhetoric Department
(or did, last I heard), I think it's safe to assume that most of the people
she talks to have at least nodding acquaintenceship with postmodernism and
anti-essentialism. I, on the other hand, seem to spend a lot of time with
people who take books like _Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus_ very
very seriously. My feeling is that I may as well start with the s/g
distinction, if only as a starting point.
>>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?
What's the difference? :-)
Oh, I notice from you sig. that you're in the UK-- you may not know the
popular book I mention above. _Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars_ has
ben a best seller here in North America for well over a year. It's a tedious
popular psychology book that tries to explain why straight peoples'
relationship go wonky (apparently it's because of *essential*, in-born
differences that are enhanced by environenmental factors). I'm not buying a
word of it.
Thanx,
chloe
***************************************************************
"The women who hate me cut me
as men can't Men don't count.
I can handle men. Never expected better
of any man anyway.
But the women,
shallow-cheeked young girls the world was made for
safe little girls who think nothing of bravado
who never got over by playing it tough" Dorothy Allison
***************************************************************