Understanding a little Judith Butler…

So let’s be honest here – postmodern philosophers write using such dense language that I am fairly certain you need a graduate degree to dissect what they’re saying.  Perhaps and undergrad in philosophy can handle the serious post-modernists, but this PhD student (that’s right, I just talked about myself in the third person) didn’t really get a handle on postmodernists until grad school. That said, I think that  no matter whether you choose to agree or disagree with her, grasping Judith Butler is key to contemporary feminist thought/queer theory. In particular, I think we all need to genuinely understand her concept of performativty.

Judith Butler’s book  Gender Trouble (1999) presents the idea of gender as “performative,” implying that gender is not an innate quality linked to sex but rather a series of “fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means” (2584). Butler uses “the performance of drag” to exemplify “those aspects of gendered experience which are falsely naturalized as a unity” (2549-50). She shows how the very nature of the drag performance – the idea that both physical and mental gender codes can be enacted by any/either/all sexes – unearths gender as “parody” rather than innate bodily function (2550). In other words gender is an enactment separate from our chromosomal sex, which is learned and practiced, quite like playing the piano. Butler’s details an understanding of gender as performance and parody, so that she can underscore the idea that these performances are “repeated…with the strategic aim of maintaining gender within its binary frame,” which in turn maintains the patriarchal and heteronormative dynamic of western cultural traditions. Butler purposes that escape from this binary lockdown could possibly be achieved through the “failure to repeat, a de-formity, or a parodic repetition that exposes the effect of abiding identity as a politically tenuous construction” (2552). More simply, she is saying in order to escape the boxes imposed by culturally constructed gender norms, we have perform and repeat other gender constructions so that they might expose the nature of gender as performance.

If you are interested in Judith Butler’s ideas there was wonderful documentary  about her thinking created by Arte, which you can watch on You tube. Take a look at the first installment:

Work Cited

Butler, Judith. “Gender Trouble.” 2001. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed.Leitch Vincent, et al. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2010. 2540-53. Print.

The Age Old Question: Is Gaga a Feminist?

A few weeks ago – okay, maybe it was a few  months ago - V - of The Porch fame brought up the Forbes list of The World’s Most Powerful Celebrities. The topic raised concerning this list was the fact that Lady Gaga had sprinted past the big O earning the #1 spot. At the time I was pretty flabbergasted and called for an explanation – I wanted details – I wanted to genuinely understand the credentials that made one eligible for this position and it turned out that in this case the argument was quite limited. The list only dealt with a year at a time, and it was Gaga’s domination of the social networking phenomena that earned her number one status.

To be honest – at first glance I found her sort of gimmicky and never really looked back until her “power” to shape and influence came to my attention and then I was suddenly interested.  What to we make of this intentional enigma? I studied. I watched her on Letterman:

I read about her on the Ms. Blog, QueerPlanet, Bitch, The New York Times, and the LA Times. I listened to her music and trolled her social media sites. Admittedly, she is more than meets the eye – and pretty catchy. And  I also noticed that there are a lot of people trying to decide if she represents anything feminist. Is she third wave feminism? Is she the end of feminism? And if she has all this influence that Forbes says she does will she influence a generation one way or another with regards to feminism?

The quote most often turned to regarding gaga and feminism is as follows:

I’m not a feminist – I, I hail men, I love men. I celebrate American male culture, and beer, and bars and muscle cars…

Clearly, Gaga is making the same mistake that so many have made before her – she is reading feminism as a political movement that hates men – and all things that have been associated with stereotypical masculinity. But despite this comment many have identified her as a third wave feminist because she sees herself as powerful – and perhaps some would argue that second wave feminists paved the road upon which she’s walking – in other words they helped create a world in which a woman could claim power of all kinds.

But either way – I am fairly certain that Gaga will play a role in how we define gender in the future – mostly because she is very post-modern. She doesn’t seem to define herself as belonging to anything in particular and she constantly seems to redefine the boundries of normal and gender performance – very Judith Butler, if I do say so myself. I apologize these thoughts on Gaga are just beginning. I have to think about this some more…

What do y’all think?  

- feed my brain, think about this with me.

Italian Vogue’s Curvy Cover…Is this continued objectification?

So the feminist blogosphere is talking about the “plus-size” models on the cover of Italian Vogue.  This year I am presenting a paper at NWSA that deal with issues I think this image is raising yet  again – My paper was concered with an image in Glamour Magazine in 2009 – Perhaps you remember it:

The Glamour article entitled “Oh. Wow. These  Bodies are Beautiful.”[1]  looked to prove plus-size[2] models equal in Beauty to their super thin counterparts. The article questioned the beauty/fashion industry’s obsession with thinness and announces Glamour magazine’s pledge to start a “body confidence…revolution” (Field 241). As you can see above, the visual focus of the article was a two page photograph of seven plus-size models, naked, their eyes wooing the camera, their lips poised to part, the bodies draped and cuddled together, like lovers, lovers being watched.  Like many models that have come before them, these plus-sized models are objectified, turned into the object of male-gaze.

In light of this objectification, I find myself wondering what exactly a ‘body confidence… revolution’ entails? True, it’s hard to deny the intrinsic joy in seeing somewhat bigger bodies, which could be considered Othered bodies, represented as both normal and sexual, and I enjoyed reading Glamour’s call for a ‘revolution,’ but on close inspection, these plus-sized models that Glamour was cheering about aren’t truly representative of the majority of bodies that have been Othered.

And beyond that I can’t help but note that this should not be the welcome these Othered bodies are looking for, an ushering into the realm of sexually subjugated objects? Is that what a ‘body confidence… revolution’ entails, a move from abjection to objectification?

Understanding women as objects isn’t something new or unfamiliar.  Ringing in the second wave of Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir, explains the nature of women’s cultural standing. She says, “humanity is male and man defines woman not as herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being” (116). In other words, masculinity is perceived as the norm or the superior state of humanity and femininity exists as “inessential” opposition to this norm, the object against which the subject defines himself (116).  Beauvoir advocates the rise of woman from object to subject by assuming the role of the masculine. In other words women would no longer be confined to the ‘feminine’ roles, such as that of wife, mother, teacher or domestic. Arguably, women have attained this status; we can be everything from astronauts to porn stars, but our position as Other remains.

Like the postmodern feminists, I link this continued objectification to the controlling influence of that which gets representation and the limitations of how we understand our socially constructed genders. Currently, women can choose any lifestyle they desire but they are predominately represented as Beauty objects, and so we perceive ourselves as such. Theorists like Bordo and Bartky provide us with the feminist understanding of Foucault’s docile bodies, bodies that inflict self-disciplinary action in response to the internalization of cultural norms, or rather the nature of human beings to respond to cultural representations or metanarratives by trying to assimilate/homogenize to the standards set by them. The female Beauty standard is such a metanarrative.  The ingestion of this narrative as the prescriptive norm and the self-inflicted oppression occurring under its weight are at the center of women’s continued objectification.

---

[1] The title of the Glamour article insinuates surprise, as if no one would have guessed that the bodies that often kept from representation could be equally beautiful to the bodies we repeatedly represent.

[2] It is worth noting that the title plus-size is inherently prejudicial. Plus implies more than the norm, referencing the continued representation of larger models as Othered bodies.

Soapbox, Inc. Winter Term!! Who wants to go??

Every year the Ladies at Soapbox, Inc. – Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner – host an intensive session on taking your Feminism from theory to activism. I have always wanted to attend, but it just hasn’t happened yet.  [I think it's possible that I'm getting a little old for it but phooey on that!] Here’s how describe the week on their website:

A transformative week of feminist immersion that can’t be found anywhere else. Your guides will be seasoned activists and Soapbox co-founders Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner, authors of Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future and Grassroots: A Field Guide for Feminist Activism.

Each day, you will meet with two to three organizations; meetings are interspersed with debriefing sessions. You can expect to participate in path-breaking progressive campaigns launched from NYC, tackle fundraising and other practical but necessary skills for your cause, and explore dynamic issues like sexual rights, the arts, media, philanthropy, and practical skills for getting a job or internship.

Each session is designed to match the unique interest of that group. See below for a complete interest of all groups.

Here’s a typical day at Soapbox Feminist Winter Term:

Morning Meeting: Meet with Third Wave Foundation and learn about their grant-making strategies.   Meet Third Wave grant partners and learn about young feminist philanthropy through their innovative Why Give? program.

Lunch: Brownbag Discussion with Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner

Afternoon Meeting: Breakout into small group sessions with several reproductive justice organizations, such as National Advocates for Pregnant Women, Sistas on the Rise, and Choices in Childbirth.

Evening Entertainment: Mix and mingle with young New York feminists at a reading at the radical bookstore/collective Bluestockings or a networking party with Paradigm Shift or Reproductive Rights Happy Hour.

Participants come to Feminist Winter Term wanting to put their feminist values to work in the professional world. This includes learning how to stand out, network with employers and other young professionals, and explore professional avenues of interest. Every session includes a Career Day that offers concrete advice from student alums and leading professionals about entering the professional world and a half-day internship with a leading feminist organization.

What do you say – Should I register? Who wants to go with me? You can register here.

15 Books Every Feminist Should Read

1. The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir2. Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly

3. Borderlands/La Fontera: The New Metiza by Gloria Anzaldua

4. The Great Cosmic Mother by Monica Sjoo and Barbara Mor

5. Goddesses and Monsters by Jane Caputi6. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature by Val Plumwood7. Black Feminist Thought by Patricia Hill Collins8. Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace by Sara Ruddick9. Venus in the Dark: Blackness and Beauty in Popular Culture by Janelle Hobson

10. The Unbearable Weight by Susan Bordo11. Pornland by Gail Dines 12. Guyland by Michael Kimmel13. Gender Trouble by Judith Butler14. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by Bell Hooks15. The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions
by Paula Gunn Allen

Popculture Smörgåsbord

So there are some posts that I’ve been meaning to write but I’ve been rushing to tie up loose ends regarding my submission to Hunger Games and Philosophy (edited by George Dunn and Nick Michaud) and now my thoughts on these bits and pieces are getting untimely so consider this particular post my way of saying got any thoughts on this nonsense:

1. Recently, yesterday in fact, I was reading Feministe and I became aware of a  30-year-old McCain staffer’s marriage to a girl who was 17 when they met. There are some semantics in this situation – she was of age when they married and they are very wealthy, blah, blah, blah… So the conversations about statutory rape and what not have gotten pretty overlooked, but what is the deal with women wanting to get married at 17? Ouch, say. Also, there is something so weird about how republicans can twist culture’s moral rules – think Bristol Palin pregnancy – and it’s okay but when liberals do this crap the world goes haywire.   Scarier is Doug Hutchison’s (51) nuptials to a sixteen year old.

2. I need to mention www.xojane.com. I’m not sure how many of your remember Sassy Magazine but as a teenager it was my bible and it’s existence started a life long love affair (from afar) between myself and Jane Pratt - who if you don’t know was also the editor of Jane Magazine for most of its lifetime, and I would argue that her retirement from the magazine caused its demise. That said, like other feminists, I am not feeling Pratt’s newest endeavor 100%. Perhaps I return to my not so third wave feminist outlook – but the website is  way more junk than edgy smart – a little more serious please! I want headings like politics and news – not just sex and beauty. What up, Jane?

3. It’s worth noting Anushay Hossain of ANUSHAY’S POINT. I first discovered her on Broadminded. She is Molly and Christine’s Feminist Broad, and her blog is always interesting and worth reading. Subscribe. Hey, while I’m at it subscribe to Feminist Cupcake, that blog is the bomb-diggity - you should subscribe to that blog too. In particular Anushay has written an informative ditty about Saudi Women’s Protest against the ban on women driving in their country.

4. Speaking of Broadminded - Yesterday morning I caught the last bit of a conversation concerning bullying and cyber bullying among teens. Unfortunately, I am not sure of their guest’s name but he said something about how our television shows and movies present adults making fun of people or embarrassing pranks as so funny and humorous – which in turn got me thinking about the movie Bridesmaids. I meant to review this film for you guys – but I’ve been busy, like I said.  There was feminist potential here but I think it sank. (More later). With regards to adult bullying, sort of, so many movies, including bridesmaids present other people’s embarrassment as something we should laugh at. Admittedly, there are moments when someone trips or slides on a piece of lettuce (circa 1996, June and Ho - Rye, NY) and you can’t help but laugh. But still – is food poisoning that causes you to poop your pants funny?  I say no. Maybe I’m too empathetic – but watching other people’s embarrassment – embarrasses me.

5.  Finally, I wanted to turn y’all on to Micheal Kimmel, who is a spectacular example of a male feminist. I am presenting at the NWSA conference this year and he’s speaking and I absolutely can’t wait. I also teach his article “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity” in my classrooms. Recently, on his Ms. Blog, that considers the whole Wiener incident, “Ah-nuld, DSK, Weiner–And Us.” A worthwhile read.

Do you Think They Practice in These Uniforms?

With a nod to the thesis of Ariel Levi’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, (quite an interesting read by the way) I present you with images of the players in the Lingerie Football League:

I am sorry but WTF? Really! Is this how women athletes expect to be taken seriously? It is images like these that prove I will never be a third-wave feminist. (I am talking about this a lot lately, aren’t I?) I might wear make-up and love it or occasionally feel sexy in some sassy/naughty/sexy attire (pick the term that most satisfies), but I will never see this show of skin as anything but a mockery of female empowerment. Not to mention the fact that I would be hard pressed to call fully dressed football empowering – I am thinking about ideas that are similar to my recent post regarding mothering – which included a little Simone de Beauvoir diatribe – football is a staged enactment of violence – much like the less staged Roman gladiators.  This staged ”football” violence is interested in dominance, not equality or peace. It is a game constructed in a violent framework, which teaches domination and destruction as the desired goal.  Literally the goal of a foot ball game is to “beat” the other team, to win, to prove your domination over them. Traditionally associated with hegemonic masculinity and patriarchical mastery, domination represents a false road to empowerment because it is about individual success rather than equality.I know this may seem a little heavy-handed – but I can’t help myself. There are even moments when I see football – much like basketball - as continued reinforcement of the horrifying sexist, racist and almost suicidal elements of hegemonic masculinity. No one seems to care that football has been linked to the early onset of dementia, sexual assault  (second article on this), and increased sex trafficking.  Despite its violent nature, football plays the role of  a masculine right of passage in many American communities.

My mother (and favorite feminist) sent me a link to an article by Natasha Thomas-Jackson last night. In the article entitled “Why I like my Feminism Gray,” Thomas-Jackson writes:

The ultimate goal is to create a world where women can be whatever they want to be, whenever they want to be it, without limitations imposed by gender and sexism. I think that any idea, institution, or person that tries to deny a woman this full range of expression is an enemy to feminism.

Looking at this quote the rest of the  article it is clear that Thomas-Jackson is a third wave feminist – and obviously women should “whatever they want to be, whenever they want to be it, without limitations imposed by gender and sexism,” but the question is do we live in a world where that is possible?  Or are we so contained and constructed by the social moray of our particular cultural groups that we have never genuinely ventured to know what would allow us to be  free of the “limitations imposed by gender and sexism.” I would guess but I can’t say for sure, that the women pictured above enjoy what they do and are appreciated for it  but why are they appreciated. Is it because they are great athletes? hot bodies? genuine intellects? individuals? Or are they just objects – jokes in comparison to their male counterparts?

But mostly, Really!@??? Gross.

Feminist Cupcake Revisited

On the first or second day of this blog’s existence I wrote a post entitled “The Beauty Myth, I’m not so Happy”, which detailed my reasons for writing this blog and for choosing the title feminist cupcake. Today I’d like to revisit that post so that I might clarify or refine some points which have changed for me over the past two years.

The thing is I think being a feminist is a process.

I have moments when I am certain that we have gained little ground in terms of sexism. For example, I recently spent an afternoon with Gail Dines and she discussed her new book and the anti-porn movement. I don’t know how many of you have read what Gail has to say, but it’s pretty horrifying. And she certainly makes it clear that porn is violent and has  nothing to do with passion, the erotic, or what is really sexy – powerful mid-blowing sexy – empowering sexy – the kind of sexy that makes you hum and glow. Rather, porn represents sex as a source of domination, a way to debase and demean women and others – gay men, black men , lesbians… I won’t post the link but if you want to understand what I mean look at the faces of the women on sites like MaxHardcore. Do they look happy to you?  Or what about this craziness regarding planned parenthood? Really, rich men are going to say who can get low-cost pap smears and birth control, not to mention abortions? Are you kidding me? Speaking of which, have you incorporated your uterus? Neither the media nor the government makes me feel good about alleviating the oppressions of gender, class, race or sexuality.

Other days, I meet scholars, friends and students who are clearly empowered by gender theory and feminism  - they talk the talk, walk the walk, speak the speak – they are who they are and they have found a space in the world free of oppression.

Living in our culture is complicated. When I started this blog I’m not sure that I really got that. I think in those days I was what some might call a 3rd wave feminist - running around thinking that it was about me – about my freedom to make choices – any choices I desired. Today, I think it’s about us – about our freedom to develop our thinking and understandings of ourselves free from the tyranny of social opinion and construction. It’s about enjoyment and laughter – about making fun of yourself and still taking yourself seriously. It’s about caring for others and making sure that your reach compromises that enable mutual empowerment.

I am still attached to the title of this blog: feminist cupcake. Only now I know more than I did when I named this blog and I see how easily the term cupcake could be read as infantalizing and sexualizing – in ways that I don’t enjoy or emulate. Instead I want to claim that this title to me is linked to the idea of Cunctipotence(<— worth reading).  My power to be sexy and strong – to be empowered. It is perhaps not the most ideal name for this intention – but I claim it none the less because I still like the way it sounds

If nothing else – I am still  certain that…

I am, wholeheartedly, a feminist who likes cupcakes.

And I also maintain:

In your face with that sugary bitch if you think you have a right to tell me  – OR anyone else – what to do.

Today I Love My Family of Feminist Bloggers!

Female Impersonator posted a heads up that Men’s Health Magazine has created a Men’s Health Feminist Blog! The very first posting uses the old feminism is the F-word concept – and I am proud to say that the intention seems genuine! [Despite a ridiculous shot of a girl in a bikini today, which supported a genuine conversation about why cutting your pubic hair into the shape of your partner initials objectifies women] You should totally check this out - 

Oh and by the way did you know that juicy bit of info – you can go to a salon and get your pubies clipped to reflect your lover’s initials? I didn’t and in some ways I wish I was still ignorant of this beauty ritual -

What do you think gang? Are you running out to the nearest salon so you can sport a T.R., T.J., J.G., A.P., P.M, V.L., D.L., or any other random combo of letters in you netherlands?