[lbo-talk] Butler on feminist theory/queer theory

[Seth Ackerman]

shag wrote:
> At 03:59 PM 6/10/2008, Seth Ackerman wrote:
>   
>> Dennis Claxton wrote:
>>     
>>> I have some problems here, because I think there's some anti-feminism
>>> in queer theory.
>>>       
>> Dennis, could you fill in what she's talking about? (Or anyone else.)
>> What's the anti-feminism in queer theory?
>>
>> Seth
>>     
>
> 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)  
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>   

Interesting. And helpful. So it seems like the queer theorist has to 
answer the charge that once you take away the category "f" you have 
nothing to fight sexism with. How does he/she/other do this? And what 
about the charge that by refusing any regulation of desire you're 
allowing/encouraging people to perpetuate oppressive, socially enforced 
sex norms? (I take it that queer theorists also reject the notion of an 
autonomous subject.) How do the queer theorists answer? You sympathize 
with them in this quarrel, no?

Seth