Norah Vincent's "Self-Made Man"

In “Self-Made Man: One Woman’s Year Disguised as a Man,” Norah Vincent becomes Ned, a “regular” man who, in chapters 2 and 3, joins a bowling league and frequents strip clubs. Vincent examines gender identity in one of the most extreme ways possible, with the help of several physical transformations. The first chapter consists of Vincent’s rationale for the research and how she went about transforming herself to pass society’s expectations of how a man should physically look and sound. I was surprised with Vincent’s thoroughness, from the makeup to the weight lifting. It was interesting the extent to which her outward appearances affected her interactions with others. I especially enjoyed the section in which Vincent notes how when after a substantial amount of time of routine contact with certain people, she wouldn’t be as rigid in her physical appearance, such as not binding her breasts, or going for a few days without the makeup, and the people didn’t appear to notice any difference.

Chapter 2 describes Vincent’s experience on a men’s bowling team in a community league. I found her descriptions of how she interacted and the conversations she had with the men on her team fascinating. I was most impressed with this chapter of the three we read so far. Vincent’s descriptions of how nervous she was to even enter the league proved enlightening. She writes, “As a woman, you don’t belong. You’re not wanted. And every part of you knows it, and is just begging you to get up and leave” (21).

Chapter 3 details the experience of visiting strip clubs, both with friends and alone. I found her opinions on the women workers and the clubs’ patrons extremely blunt, and also narrow-minded. Even as Vincent described multiple strippers’ backgrounds and varied reasons for working at such a place, as the reader, I felt pressured to agree with her extremely negative views on the entire place. I felt Vincent believes there is absolutely no single good reason why a woman would choose to enter into the profession of a stripper, and there was no good reason why men should choose to enter such a place. However, as the reader, we weren’t supposed to separate experiences or reasons, just accept her gross overgeneralizations.

Throughout all three chapters, Vincent had me hooked, for better or worse. I am excited to keep reading and look forward to our class discussion. I am wondering whether Vincent’s personal experiences in these situations reflects our own understanding of male sexuality? Does it reinforce what people already believe? Or does it present a different argument? In what way does Vincent’s background and education alter her opinions on the situations she experiences?

Part 2 of Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble"

Butler begins section 2 “Prohibition, Psychoanalysis, and the Production of the Heterosexual Matrix” by illustrating the complexity surrounding the issue of patriarchy as a historical culture and modern universalizing concept. She comments on how a repressive law gains its origins and how the corresponding narrative may, in the end, provide justification for the law it actually opposes. Butler notes, “This ideal [patriarchy] tends not only to serve culturally conservative aims, but to constitute an exclusionary practice within feminism, precipitating precisely the kind of fragmentation that the ideal purports to overcome” (49).

I. Structuralism’s Critical Exchange

Butler begins by analyzing Levi-Strauss’ structuralist discourse in which a kinship structure is based on women, seen as gifts given from one clan to another through marriage (52). Described as a “phallogocentric economy,” Levi-Strauss’ masculine cultural identity is established through an “overt act of differentiation between patrilineal clans” (54). Butler argues, “In effect, the relations among patrilineal clans are based in homosocial desire, a repressed and, hence, disparaged sexuality, a relationship between men which is, finally, about the bonds of men, but which takes place through the heterosexual exchange and distribution of women” (55). Levi-Strauss’ argues that incest is not a reality, but a “cultural fantasy.” (57).

II. Lacan, Riviere, and the Strategies of Masquerade

In this section, Butler begins by illustrating issues of gender in Lacan’s theory of language. She contrasts the differences in “being” the Phallus and “having” the Phallus. To “be” the Phallus is to be the object and also reflects that desire. Lacan argues, “For women to ‘be’ the Phallus means, then, to reflect the power of the Phallus, to signify that power, to ‘embody’ the Phallus, to supply the site to which it penetrates, and to signify the Phallus through ‘being’ its Other…confirmation of its identity” (59). In addition, Butler also takes note of the “Symbolic order (which) creates cultural intelligibility” by comparing the position of men, “having” the Phallus, and the position of women, “being” the Phallus” (60).

Butler also describes Riviere’s psychoanalytic description of “womanliness as a masquerade,” based on one’s attempt to hide masculine characteristics. I was interested in this theory, and the question posed by Butler, “Does masquerade, as Riviere suggests, transform aggression and the fear of reprisal into seduction and flirtation?” (65). Riviere’s comments on the parallels of homosexual men and “masked” women are also interesting.

III. Freud and the Melancholia of Gender

Butler describes Freud’s psychoanalytic explanation of mourning and melancholia in section 3. Freud believes that when dealing with a loss, one’s ego integrates aspects of the other’s personal characteristics. Butler writes, “This process of internalizing lost loves becomes pertinent to gender formation when we realize that the incest taboo, among other functions, initiates a loss of a love-object for the ego and that this ego recuperates from this loss through the internalization of the tabooed object of desire” (79). Butler also introduces Freud’s idea of the Oedipal complex in this section, which Freud believes can be either positive (same-sex) or negative (opposite-sex). (81).

IV. Gender Complexity and the Limits of Identification

In this section, Butler acknowledges the complexity of the previously outlined gender identification theories. In summary, Butler writes, “In the Lacanian framework, identification is understood to be fixed within the binary disjunction of ‘having’ or ‘being’ the Phallus” (89). Referring to Lacan’s Law of the Symbolic, Butler argues, “The possibility of multiple identifications suggests that the Law is not deterministic and that ‘the’ law may not even be singular” (91).

V. Reformulating Prohibition as Power

In the concluding section of part 2, Butler writes, “An even more precise understanding is needed of how the juridical law of psychoanalysis, repression, produces and proliferates the genders it seeks to control” (97). It was her intention to use psychoanalytic theory to critique the issue of incest taboo and used Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Riviere, and Freud to understand this complicated issue.

Although Part 2 of Butler’s Gender Trouble was as complicated as Part 1, I look forward to tomorrow’s class to unpack her work.

Allen's "Girls Want Sex, Boys Want Love"

As the discussion leader for today, I have outlined my notes to the article and possible topics for discussion based on people's blog posts and responses.

Louisa Allen - University of Auckland
Research: aged 17-19 males and females

“I propose that some young people speak about their sexuality in ways that both conform and deviate to varying degrees from traditional constructions of female and male heterosexualities.”

Power of discourse: discourses are strongly implicated in the exercise of power; as they legitimate existing power relations and structures by defining what is “normal” alternative or “oppositional” subject positions are not usually perceived as desirable or even possible alternatives”

Foucault: “where there is power, there is resistance”

“This article explores Foucault’s notion of the possibility of resistance in relation to the discursive construction of young people’s sexual subjectivities.”

Traditional female discourse: young women are positioned as sexually vulnerable and less easily pleasured, victim to male sexual gratification and more interested in the emotional aspects of physical intimacy; appeared as the subordinate partner who was “acted upon” rather than “acting”

Mixed-gender:
-young woman spoke about female sexuality in terms of traditional notions of vulnerability where women’s romantic ideas of love made them susceptible to exploitation by their male partner (219)
-she saw women as less easily sexually aroused and more likely to be stimulated by foreplay than sexual intercourse

decision to have intercourse for first time: 4 of 6 women constructed notions of traditional female sexual passivity, seen through their anxiety (seen as reluctance to engage) and it was their partners that asked first
-women are constituted as the objects of sexual attention who must be reassured/convinced that intercourse will not have negative repercussions for them

Women who resisted traditional discourse:
-women don’t always want commitment
-sexual double standard (slut/stud)
-openly expressed desire and need to act on it
-talk occurred in environments where young women felt they would not be negatively stigmatized (exclusively female or mixed gender)
-may be argued that there is a juncture between the feeling of control over contraception in a relationship and actually having access to material power in this situation
-disconnect between women/their sexuality/their realtionship
Young Men:
-traditional discourse: perpetually ready for sex
-most examples of men taking up this position were in focus groups, not in front of their female partners
-emotional detachment; preoccupation with sexual attractiveness
-positioning themselves as traditionally masculine through the constitution of their bodies as “pleasure machines”
-constructing their sexual selves in this way served to establish themselves publicly as “appropriately” masculine within/through the realm of heterosexuality
-to achieve full masculine status young men must separate themselves from homosexual and feminine identities
-“hegemonic masculinity” : a form of power that sustains gendered inequality because of the way it achieves the consent of a majority of men who support it

Resistance:
-denying sexual intercourse as primary motive for entering into or remaining in relationships
-“what I want in a heterosexual relationship”:
-love, trust, honesty, respect, commitment
-importance of friendship, communication, equality within a relationship
-worrying about sexual performance: resists dominant meanings about men as sexually knowledgeable, confident, and always ready for intercourse

Conclusion:

-more young men than young women reported wanting sexual activity and sexual attraction in a heterosexual relationship
-significantly more women than men reported desiring caring, support, understanding, and trust, honesty, respect from their relationships
-notion that young women want only love from relationships and young men prefer sex is outdated
-many drew on dominant discourses, some resisted, this was complex however, as it often involved both an accommodation and rejection of subject positions offered by dominant discourses

-particular social locations may have facilitated young people’s access to or opened space for, other ways of constituting themselves as sexual
-young people’s constitution of sexual subjectivity is context bound

-sex education issues
--------------------------------------
What did you think of her research techniques? How important was how they were interviewed? Mixed genders/couples/individuals; age range

Always returning to new language/discourse. What would be an example of inclusive sexuality discourse for young people today? Ex- Getting rid of labels: “slut”
-extending discourse into private sphere: potentially destructive (Matt)

Does her statistical data support her conclusion? (Traditional discourse is outdated)

Distinction between theory and practice: Heidi’s blog post

Holloway’s conclusion: egalitarian heterosexual relationships
-contextualize in 3^rd wave discourse

Pg 220: Cam and Chris “2 hours later”

Pg222: Anna, slut, cheating

Feminist Porn: Successes and Disappointments

I have just finished viewing the two documentaries on feminist women in porn and find myself still having conflicted feelings on the industry. While it was great to see such strong, intelligent, and independent women speaking about their experiences both in front of and behind the cameras over the course of their careers, I am still disheartened by the high level of misogyny and violence against females in porn, like the women featured in the films. However, I believe that what they consider the “extreme” in porn isn’t actually the extreme at all, but instead is the vast majority of pornography. The women featured acknowledged it was only after their careers as adult film stars concluded that they ventured into producer or director roles. I think it’s unfortunate that it is only at this point that they participate in feminist porn, though many argue they were feminists in every film, whether the film itself would be considered feminist or not.

The statistic that 1 in 3 viewers of pornography are female is a fact thrown around in many of the posts and films we’ve read and viewed. I’m curious, then, why feminist porn isn’t as successful as it has the potential to be. I wonder what percentage of those women consciously seek out feminist porn. I’m guessing it’s not over 50%.Why would women viewers be interested in promoting non-feminist porn? Do they not realize it’s out there for consumption? Do they not care? Are they not interested? The women profiled in both documentaries insisted that it is up to the female viewers to make feminist porn more prosperous, since the bottom line of the pornography industry is money.

Throughout the blogs, the complexities and controversies of the pornography issue are shown. I was surprised by how long the “porn wars” have lasted, even within this 3^rd wave of feminism. Unfortunately, after reading Levy, CAKE, and now bloggers like Ms. Naughty, I will not be surprised if the “war” continues for many years to come. Will feminists from both sides ever reach a consensus?