Butler: Gender Trouble Part 3

1. The Body Politics of Julia Kristeva

Butler focuses this section on deconstructing Julia Kristeva’s theory of the “semiotic dimension of language” which is based off of Lacan’s “Symbolic” theory. The two main terms that Butler uses in this section is “symbolic” and “semiotic”.

“Symbolic” (according to Lacan) is “the paternal law structures all linguistic signification” which has become a “universal organizing principle of culture itself”. Butler further explains: “this (paternal) law creates the possibility of meaningful language and, hence, meaningful experience, through the repression of primary libidinal drives, including the radical dependency of the child on the maternal body” (107).

Kristeva’s purpose is not to refute Lacan’s primary premise but “serves as a perpetual source of subversion within the Symbolic” (108). She suggests using poetic language for her “semiotic” argument. “Poetic language is the recovery of the maternal body within the terms of language, one that has the potential to disrupt, subvert, and displace the paternal law”. Maybe I completely missed this, but what exactly does she mean by ‘poetic language’? I still don’t have a good grasp of this.

I think Butler makes a really good point when she states “Her (Kristeva) theory appears to depend upon the stability and reproduction of precisely the paternal law that she seeks to displace”. Also because Kristeva doesn’t admit that the semiotic is always subordinate to the Symbolic. But Kristeva’s strategic task is “neither to replace the Symbolic possibility, but rather to validate those experiences within the Symbolic that permit a manifestation of the borders which divide the Symbolic from the semiotic” (115).

Butler continues to discuss Kristeva’s second point which is the maternal body. She states that for Kristeva, “poetry and maternity represent privileged practices within paternally sanctioned culture which permit a nonpyschotic experience of that heterogeneity and dependency characteristic of the maternal terrain” (116). But Butler criticizes Kristeva for not challenging the structuralist assumption that the paternal law is foundation to culture itself and that change must com from within (117).

Butler than goes on to talk about Kristeva’s point on homosexuality and how “both maternity and poetry constitute melancholic experiences for women appropriately acculturated into heterosexuality” (117). I’m not quite sure where Butler and Kristeva were going with the argument of lesbianism

2. Foucault, Herculine, and the Politics of Sexual Discontinuity

In this section Butler discusses Foucault’s theory of sexuality offered in his book “The History of Sexuality, Volume 1” and how his theory contradicts with what he wrote about Herculine Barbin, a nineteenth-century French hermaphrodite who was born a girl but showed male sex characteristics and physical features. Butler states “Foucault understands sexuality as saturated with power and offers a critical view of theories that lay claim to a sexuality before or after the law” (127).

"The 'Fair Deal'? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex"

This is an article about a study conducted by Virginia Braun, Nicola Gavey, and Kathryn McPhillips on the discourse of reciprocity in heterosexual sex relationships. This study was done in New Zealand with 15 women and 15 men and with an age range from 18-50 years. They were recruited to share their experiences and thoughts about heterosexual sex. The next paragraph states their purpose for this research:

"Reciprocity is a basic premise of egalitarian relationships, and is typically depicted as a 'good thing' within heterosexual sex and relationships...[but] we argue that notions of reciprocity are not necessarily as liberatory as they might seem, as they do not occur in a social or sexual vacuum. In conjunction with other dominant sexual meanings, a discourse of reciprocity produces entitlements and obligations that can render 'choice' in heterosex problematic, particularly for women" (237).

Braun et al. starts out by stating that sex is something that has been socially constructed (237). An example of this is how Wendy Hollway’s discourses of heterosexual sex relationships remain influential in constructing ideas about, and practices of, heterosex in the West. The first being a male sexual drive discourse, meaning men need orgasm. The second being a have/hold discourse where it is more of a traditional romance ideal. And the third being a permissive discourse meaning anything goes as long as no one gets hurt (238). Braun et al. also acknowledge that heterosexual practice is not only influenced by discourses of (hetero) sexuality but also by other cultural values and discourses.

Typically, as argued by Gilfoyle et al., there is an unequal ‘givings’ based on gender. For example, women tend to give more than men. Women are seen as objects that are both ‘given away’ and ‘given to’ as opposed to men who are positioned as agents by giving and taking pleasure (240).

As for discourses, there have been many starting from the 1920s and 1930s where it was allowed to promote sexual reciprocity. This desire for reciprocity in sexual relationship is also evident in (radical) feminist critiques of heterosex (239). In this discourse, heterosexual relationships are identified as the oppression of women in which “‘heterosexual desire is eroticized power difference’” (240). By looking at these cultural values and discourses, we can begin to understand how reciprocity plays out in heterosexual sex relationships.

The most interesting part about this article is when Braun et al. discuss about “patterns of sex to orgasm” and their findings. They state that “heterosexual activity have typically reported sex to be highly patterned” (242). It’s the sequence of events such as: kissing, tongue kissing, manual and oral caressing of the body, particularly the female breasts, manual and oral contacts with both the female and male genitalia, followed by intercourse in a number of positions. It’s usually the female who orgasm first followed by the male orgasm. Her orgasms are generally represented by what he did or gave her as opposed to his orgasm as something “we” did or where his orgasm took place. This means that “the man is represented as more active in the production of orgasm—both hers and his own—than is the woman” (243). Braun et al. concludes that this is a subtle account of the traditional expectations of women in heterosex.

It was also interesting to read how some of the men and women felt from their interviews. One man in particular expressed that if he got an orgasm and his partner didn’t, than he felt he was “using” her (245). But if his partner receives some orgasms then he deserved one too. I really like it when Braun et al. acknowledge that “female orgasm can be important for men not simply for reciprocity and the importance of the woman’s pleasure, but also as an indicator of performance and his skills as a lover” (248).

As Braun et al. continues on to talk about how although a woman’s entitle to have an orgasm, her orgasm can be seen as an obligation to establish sexual normality to reinforce her partner’s “sexpertise” (252). I think this article brings to light a lot of the important issues that couples struggle with when striving for an egalitarian relationship. Sometimes, it doesn’t occur to us how reciprocity really works until a study like this is done.

“What is different about our manifestation of reciprocity is that it reduces it to a purely sexual, even orgasmic, level” (254).

finally..."a vision of new porn"

I'm not a big fan of porn because the few that I've seen left me angry, disgusted, and sick. Angry because the woman always look like she's in so much pain. Disgusted by seeing the same angle for twenty minutes. And sick of constantly seeing the man spray his cum into her mouth, forcing her to swallow. But after reading this article, I'm thrilled to see how pornography can be portrayed in such a way that is not only sexually arousing to its viewers but also look sexually satisfying to its performers.

In the article "A Vision of New Porn", Professor Anne G. Sabo shows how feminist porn directors--Candida Royalle, Anna Span, and Erika Lust-- strive to move away from patriarchal porn to producing this overdue vision of egalitarian porn. The structure of this article is lay out on how porn is re-visioned by women in the United States and in Europe.

In the United States, Candida Royalle is a a renowned producer of porn from "a woman's point of view" (224). She was part of the feminist movement but later became a porn actress. This is when she became ambivalent about the porn industry and believed that better porn could be made for both women and men so she co-founded the Femme Productions in 1984. "Royalle's films stand out in terms of quality filmmaking, use of realism, and depth of plot and character development" (225). Her films speak to most Americans who are not encouraged by society to pursue their sexual desires. "Royalle's way of dealing with the hegemonic heterosexual erotic discourse, with its "symbolic subordination of women" was to engage it reflectively and ironically, a critical appropriation" (226).

Professor Sabo brings in a viewpoint I've never really thought about. Most Americans (myself included), get turn off by a lot of the 'hardcore' porn because we find them degrading to women, but other people in other parts of the world who are more comfortable with their sexuality don't seem to have any problems viewing this type of porn. Anna Span who is a British producer of porn states, "'to sexually objectify, that is to fleetingly view a person's sexual attractiveness separately from their personality/person, is a natural human experience, NOT just a male one, as traditionally depicted'" (230). Professor Sabo goes on to state that Span's porn speaks to countries such as Scandinavia and Norway who have had "the benefits of a much more thorough human sexuality education and the accomplishments of the women's movement ..." to encourage these European women to take "ownership over their sexuality" (230). It has never occurred to me to make the connection with our abstinence-only education and our perceptions of porn.

I really like the way Professor Sabo tied up all the different themes we have been discussing so far from Levy to the CAKE book. I'm excited to see this new vision.

Response to Gallagher and Kramer, Part 1

In The Hot Woman’s Handbook: The Cake Guide to Female Sexual Pleasure, Gallagher and Kramer deconstruct age-old myths and misconceptions about women and sex by highlighting ways in which women seek and find sexual pleasure (i.e. sexual fantasies, “the hand job”, vibrators, etc). Their agenda is to give alternatives to women, not to claim that these alternatives are the only ways for women to explore their sexuality.

In chapter 1: From Birth to Babe, Gallagher and Kramer reminds us of our first “fantasies” as kids and how we began to explore our bodies. They also mention about how sex-ed classes never focus on the pleasure side of sex such as: masturbation, how sex is fun, or of orgasm but show frightening pictures of how one might get STD. I found it a little odd when they mention Melissa's story and how her mother gave her a vibrator at the age of thirteen (10). As of right now, I honestly do not find myself doing that in the future. I will teach my daughter about her body but I don't think I would give her a vibrator. Maybe I'm just more conservative when it comes to sexuality but I can't see myself doing that.

In chapter 2: Rock Your Body and Reap the Rewards, they brought attention to how obsessed our culture has become with the female body and how the media have contributed to that. Their section on “objectify yourself” was quite interesting. They said “why are we supposed to constantly observe ourselves in the mirror to get great abs or a great butt, but never supposed to observe our vaginas to get great orgasms?” (26). Overall, I like how this chapter provides some suggestions on how to go about taking charge of our own body image by giving examples such as writing to unsubscribe to our magazines. It also brought attention to how important it is for women to be aware of their menstrual cycle and their sexual health.

The last three chapters are devoted specifically to sexual fantasies and masturbation. Some of the fantasies mentioned here are very graphic and while reading, for some obvious reasons, I felt like I was watching porn. They go into details about the G-spot and even show pictures of how to perform it correctly. Their “tips, tricks, and techniques” to self-stimulation was extremely graphic. But regardless, I appreciate their acknowledgment of different women. “We all have the same basic equipment, but in the end we all come to an understanding of our own individual bodies. You are the expert.” (57).

While reading this first part of the book, I appreciate how right away, Gallagher and Kramer made sure their readers understood their objectives. This book so far reminds me of my Biology of Women textbook with pictures of the vagina and information on ovulation but just more explicit details on fantasies and masturbations. I honestly get the vibe that they care about the “real” woman and about how the media has come to objectify women. Just from this first part, I honestly don’t feel like they are trying to objectify women but offer alternative ways to explore and experience sexual stimulations.

I wonder though, if all these advices are new to most students. And if they are, how did other students feel reading chapters 3-5. Regardless, I still don’t feel like this is all that liberating and empowering to women because it seems to fall into that “raunch” culture Levy was talking about. I'm not saying that women should not embrace their sexuality, but I feel there are still too much focus on that and in a way, it takes away our attention to feel liberated and empowered through other aspects of our lives. I just wonder how long it’s going to take for us to move away from talking about objectifying our bodies and start having conversations about ways in which we can be role models and leaders in other parts of our lives.

about me:

Similar to everyone else in the class, I have taken many of the same courses offered here at St. Olaf but unlike most, my upbringing has been very different. I was born in Loei, Thailand and came to the United States when I was six years old. By the time I was eleven, I had helped raised seven of my siblings. Life was rough for everyone but it was harder for my parents. My mom was juggling with motherhood and high school while my dad was trying to get his Associates and working full time. In order for the family to function, everyone had to make sure their specific gender roles were fulfilled. Meaning there was no time to question or challenge the patriarchal structure; everything happens because “it’s the way it’s supposed to”.

Up until my sophomore year here at St. Olaf, I was busy trying to pave the way for my siblings and to be an obedient daughter to my parents that there was little room left to focus on anything else, such as feminism. I grew up in a very patriarchal family and learned to accept my dad as the decision maker. I suffered along with the women in my life due to their oppression from men. But at the same time, I have always admired strong and independent American women, not knowing a world of feminism exist nor considering that there is so much history behind it. But it was not until I took Feminist Theology that I became enlightened. It felt like I had somehow deviated from my Shamanistic beliefs and found a new “religion”, a religion comprised of women’s rights.

My decision to major in Women Studies has really helped me to understand and connect with not just the women in my life but the men as well. I do agree with what Professor Sabo said that feminism is personal and that it leads to activism. Because of this, I have decided to create a Hmong Women Dialogue group on campus. I am still in the process of putting the group together this semester but I am hoping to bring together the experiences of college Hmong women and other women who are interested to come together and develop trusting friendships. To echo everyone else, I look forward to our discussions and to learn more about feminism. As we all dive into these heated topics, remember to keep an open mind that everyone is shaped by their own unique upbringing.