oiy. where to start. where to start. janet halley has a pretty good discussion of this. unfortunately, my life is in boxes and, while it's a book i'd uncovered (while packing) and put aside to have handy to read while taking breaks from painting, i uh have managed to misplace. halley basically shows how butler, as queer theory as she is, is still firmly attached to a feminist politics, whereas others (gale rubin, as an example) have pretty much said: it's impossible to be a feminist and queer -- and the line basically gets drawn with the sexuality / gender thing.
queer theory basically says that feminism is inadequate to the task of dealing with sexuality. it's committment to a feminist politics demands restrictions such that sexuality is going to be regulated in the name of political action and solidarity.
this was mainly because queer theory challenged the radical and liberal feminists' claims about proper and improper sexuality for women. when rubin made her break (nicely described by Halley) she wasn't just speaking to het women, whose sexuality is regulated by other women, and often other feminists, but to lesbian women who, influenced by radical feminism, were denouncing women who were into butch-femme, leather scene, s&m, b&d, dildos, porn, cruising, casual sex, and women who refused to become lesbians on behalf of the revo. i posted a lesbian separatist piece on the blog once that denounced the activity of going to bars and flirting with other women because such activity was seen as "acting like men."
1. there is the argument that it is mostly the domain of men and is hostile to feminism. but that's really not what butler is talking about. that's more a radical feminist argument. radical feminists (see _radically speaking_ despise queer theory. they tend to be opposed to transexuals and transgendered folks as well, though there are big splits among them.) yes, yes I know: i'm throwing around rad fem very loosely.
2. there is the concern that, by calling into question the category woman, then queer theory will render feminism powerless. the argument is that we need the category woman to rally round. this was what she was speaking to in that pdf i sent to the list. queer theory tends to put into questions all notions of the possibility that there is an essence to what a woman is. to use your own example, women have the potential to give birth. (I think that's how you put it). but that isn't the case. and what would it mean to rally 'round that as the essential character of women? this is an old argument, of course, but earlier social constructionist (as radical feminist so frequently demonstrate -- and they are, in part, who butler is arguing against in _gender trouble_ they ultimately cling to some essential "nature" of woman. blah blah.
to put it as halley does, a quote i stole from the old blog:
me: Oh, she made this crack at postmodernists, even though she is one herself. Early on she says, to paraphrase, "Look, in order to write about feminist theory, I have to define at the very minimum what feminist theory entails." Yep, this is true. She then goes on to define it in three ways:
Halley: 1. the world is divided into m's and f's (males and females or men and women or masculinity and femininity): m / f
2. in this world, it is descriptively accurate to say m > f
3. since m > f, feminists and feminism carry a brief for f.
Me: According to some who've objected to her claim objections she'll tackle in detail later they've argued that they do not always do this. Judith Butler, for instance, claims she wants to evade the m / f binary, to which Halley replies:
Halley: Postmodernizing feminists often claim that they do more than anyone to deconstruct, question, threaten, mobilize, and effervesce the m/f distinction. I think that they find my deduction of the feminist minima from their work to be an example of sheer ingratitude. (p. 19)
Butler is, I think admitting to halley's claim here. :)
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)