A list of puns related to "Judith Butler"
I was listening to back episodes and a quick comment caught my attention. It was hinting at a less than glowing opinion of Judith Butler.
Lots if times I've been around people or reading authors who consider themselves to be leftists, even revolutionaries, who are huge fans of hers. Reasons for this admiration have eluded me. I have not managed to pay extremely close attention to her directly as I always get the immediate overwhelming impression that my time is being wasted, or worse. But I have heard and read lots of others explaining why they find her ideas interesting or useful. Not compelling.
Been a while since I looked into her but at one point I was annoyed enough at constantly hearing about her to try to figure out what the story with her was. Its not really something I usually do so I wasn't very good at it. all I found was vague and boring. And pretty recent compared to the chronology of publication history. no alarms but also nothing that explained the situation. So I have remained, maybe baselessly, suspicious.
Most of the criticisms I found were from people who's interest was primarily as it aligned with their agendas of misogyny, anti Semitism, so called homo/transphobia, etc. So not of interest either.
So am curious if anyone knows whats the score w Butler as it regards to context, ideas, action or whatever. Is there weird stuff about her?
And if you think I've grossly misunderstood or mischaracterised anything then that too. I have not minded this stuff in a few years so my ideas aren't fresh.
There are a handful of times I’ve felt dumber than this in my life. Regardless, both interpretations do sound pretty cool.
https://illwill.com/rethink-the-category-of-woman
This is the interview redacted from the guardian last year I think..
The opening quote is slightly misleading. Her point seems to be more than that gender categories are constantly changing and adapting, and being performed in culturally contingent ways. Makes a hell of a lot more sense as a take on trans gender than I've seen in many places. Both positive and accepting but critical of the theory. Curious what you tards would think
I thought you guys might find this interesting.
Warning it's 2 and half hours
Thoughtful conversation. West impresses with his deep knowledge of history. Greenwald is more enjoyable in this format and makes pretty interesting points.
https://eoinhiggins.substack.com/p/guardian-pulls-judith-butlers-comments
Surprised this wasn't mentioned given how popular she is on here.
>Responding to a question from writer Jules Gleeson about protests around Los Angeles’s Wi Spa this summer that turned violent after an allegation of exhibitionism in the women’s locker room drew far right anti-trans demonstrators, Butler termed trans-exclusionary ideology as “one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times.”
>“So the Terfs will not be part of the contemporary struggle against fascism, one that requires a coalition guided by struggles against racism, nationalism, xenophobia and carceral violence, one that is mindful of the high rates of femicide throughout the world, which include high rates of attacks on trans and genderqueer people,” Butler said.
>That section was removed. The paper said in an update that it made the redaction “to reflect developments which occurred after the interview took place” but did not detail them.
https://www.them.us/story/the-guardian-accused-censoring-judith-butler-comparing-terfs-to-fascists
>The evolving details in the Wi Spa case to which The Guardian is likely referring is the recent arrest of Darren Agee Merager for charges of indecent exposure related to the incident. Merager is reportedly a registered sex offender from similar cases dating back to 2002 and 2003, and the Los Angeles Police Department alleges that she “claims to identify as female so he can access women’s locker rooms and showers,”
>Interviewer Jules Gleeson clarified in a Patreon post that she had not endorsed the section’s removal and said she had offered The Guardian a revised version of her question, which preserved the context of Butler’s answer while omitting any references to the Wi Spa incident. She claimed the editors had opted to remove the exchange in its entirety, against her wishes.
>“My hope was simply to give Butler a chance to outline their core views on performativity and identity (terms which are not only widely misunderstood by a broader audience, but often put back to front),” Gleeson wrote. “And to explore their relevance in today's context, where 'gender' has become a flashpoint for both left and right political movements. Now it seems like the controversy will get more attention than the points made by Butler themselves.”
Edit: It seems the last sentence above proved prophetic. Has anyone read the [interview](https://www.theguardian.com/lifean
... keep reading on reddit ➡I have to analyse, to dissect sentence by sentence, word by word, this extract from Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, and I can't understand anything.
It's in chapter 1, "Subject of Sex/Gender/Desire", the first title "Women as subjects of feminism", the fourth and fifth paragraphs.
From "The question of "the subject" is crucial in politics, and for feminist politics in particular..." to "... and thereby, constitute the legitimacy of the social contract."
I mean, I get some general ideas.
- The law (what law ?) acts (what does "acting" mean concretely ?) as if it were its indispensable and necessary duty to control gender norms, while there weren't even any gender norms in the first place, it's the law which created these by pretending to regulate them.
What's this "first place" even is? I thought that the state of nature never existed.
- Somehow, by merely saying one's a woman, we play along with patriarchy. Why ??
What's those exclusion and legitimation practices that do not show? Why is the "do not show" is between quotation marks? Why all these quotation marks everywhere?
What's the juridical structure of politics?
What's the juridical power?
What are the juridical structures?
What are those certain exclusionary and legitimating aims? Those certain exclusionary and legitimating practices?
To exclude who ? By what invisible way that "does not show" ?
A performative nonhistorical before that doesn't exist?
The ontological integrity of the subject?
How is the myth of the social contract a foundation of our juridical structures of classical liberalism? What is a juridical structure? What is classical liberalism ?
By "before the law" does she mean "people who were there before the law was invented" or "people judged according to law" ?
What does "questioning women as subject of feminism raises the possibility that there may not be a subject who stands "before" the law, awaiting representation in or by the law" mean ?
I don't understand anything!
Archive Link to Original Interview
So the Guardian US hired Jules Joanne Gleeson, co-editor of Trangender Marxism to interview Judith Butler. As one would expect with an interview between two radicals like this, they touched on the links between TERF-ism and the far right.
Clearly at some-point after the US office published the interview to the site, someone (probably at the UK branch) took issue with it. And the part about the links between TERFs and far right has mysteriously vanished. (Another archive link)
Edit: Jules Joanne Gleeson confirmed on twitter that they were not involved in these changes, as well as offering to rewrite the question.
Edit 2: Motherboard have covered the story. Well worth reading because they go into more detail about the "recent developments" the Granuiad is using to justify this
The Guardian US hired Jules Joanne Gleeson, co-editor of Trangender Marxism to interview Judith Butler. They spoke of the links between TERF-ism and the far right.
After the US office published the interview to the site, Editors at the UK branch removed the section about the links between TERFs and far right.
Link to archive of original article. https://archive.is/jds9K
Unfortunatly It gets worse, apparently this interview was supposed to launch a new series called "Gender Now" but UK Guardian editors have pulled the entire project. I wonder if the US Guardian will respond to this.
If you would like to make a complaint (as I do) this link will give you contact details. Please be respectful if you do, even though they aren't. https://www.theguardian.com/help/contact-us
Det er et stjernepanel som skal diskutere identitetspolitikk og kulturkrig under Holbergdebatten 4. desember i år. Normalt finner debatten sted i Universitetsaulaen i Bergen, men i år ledes den fra et studio i New York, pga. innreiserestriksjonene. Arrangementet direktestrømmes og er gratis/åpent for alle. Man kan stille spørsmål til panelet, før eller under debatten.
https://holbergprisen.no/nb/holbergdebatten-2021-identity-politics-and-culture-wars
https://preview.redd.it/my9zxc345ku71.jpg?width=2019&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07c7b0ef5ec9b5b28e27f56a07250bf947a6a218
Hey! Long time listener first time writer: Just finished JB’s force of non-violence. Has anyone else here read it? Would love to discuss! I found it at times incredibly frustrating, especially the whole chapter dedicated to Freud followed by what felt like a throw away chapter to conclude? Also found it troubling that she hardly referred to many scholars of colour, particularly as so many of her examples of violence were so ‘spectacular’ in nature towards racialised groups. Much of what she was referring to has already been covered by Mbembe, Ahmed and Puar but without or minimal reference to? Felt like a white-washed version of their works??? However, I did really enjoy the chapter on Legal violence but I think maybe I would get more out of reading zizek/Foucault on violence / maintaining social order. Thoughts? :) (ps I’m a newbie to crit theory so keen for any feedback!!!)
(Untimely) Critiques For A Red Feminism by Teresa Ebert
This is a bit long and jargon-filled, but it is a good analysis of Butler's persistent downplaying of material forces, and argues why this ultimately undercuts Butler's analysis of social oppression.
Thoughts?
So I would like to ask, does it make any sense (or do I need to) establish identity as a criterion for participation in academic research that is supported by a post-structuralist and queer perspective?
It seems to me that it is necessary to find aspects other than just the category of identity as a methodological criterion. What do you think about this? Any help (book/article) is welcome.
I mean sure we deleted all the parts of her interview where she criticizes TERFs, but that's just because the question involved the infamous wispa; maybe it was an example whose details were tangential to the thrust of the question (and irrelevant to the answer), but there was literally nothing we could do but delete everything bad she said about us TERFs.
Anyways, this was a nice chat, but I really have to get back and finish my opinion piece on how GC feminists are being censored; if we don't hurry another major newspaper will publish their own before we can get it out, I'm sure you understand.
/uj
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kv3m4/why-the-guardian-censored-judith-butler-on-terfs
Can some one explain what Judith Butler says about trans? I get really confused when I read their writing. Is it just me? ❤️
Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.