Would Judith Butler say there's no difference between breast

>>7407630

>Judith Butler doesn't think penis and vagina exist outside of language.

I'm not familiar with her, and I'm currently lost in the territory of Poe's law.

Is that for real?

>misreading butler this hard

woah

>>7407630
Language must arrive from something. It can not perform itself only through itself.
I'm not sure what she would say to this though.

>>7407630
I have no doubt you're hilariously misunderstanding/misrepresenting her, but even on its own terms your question makes no sense. If she thinks that things don't exist outside of language, how could she believe that 'breast milk' and 'infant formula' are the same thing? Those are different words.

File: e.jpg (29KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x640px

>>7407630
I've hated Feminism for a long time and I don't particularly like women either. Lately I've been opening up to the idea that society turns girls into retards by overaccommodating them. Meanwhile men are expected to build their own success. Anyway, I'm at a point where I'd like to give a serious and honest read of some academic feminists.

Would Butler be a suitable author for me? If so, please recommend me some works. If not, who else?

>>7407743
By your logic the wealthy are retarded and the poor are smart.

>>7407743
That's very weird of you. Are all your female friends, family members and other acquaintances stupid or something?

>>7407765
The socially adequate are mostly retarded. Intellectuals are usually socially inept. Women get a free pass on social skills and personality. They don't "need" to be interesting or knowledgeable, so most of them aren't.

This has nothing to do with money. Wealth affords better education and implies more likely a smarter and more stable family.

>>7407787
Not at all. My mother worked hard and became very successful in business. I've known several girls studying Masters and PhDs.

That said, they are by far the exception to the rule. Most women I've met are entitled, petty and unthinking egotists.

Pretty much every man over 25 in my family is incredibly intellectual and accomplished.

I think women are capable but 99% don't even try.

File: 1443203098089.jpg (49KB, 612x578px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 612x578px

>>7407743
Can I get an answer to this please? I'm serious.

>>7407679
Yes, she's quite radical in her combination of Foucault and Derrida. It's difficult for people to accept.

>>7407690
>>7407730
If I was, you'd surely have an argument to prove so, but you do not.

>>7407630
Oh goody another Judith "the slutler" Butler thread.

AYYY JUDE DON'T MAKE YOU CRY.

>>7407743
Buter is too post-structural for most. I reckon most of her tumblr admirers haven't read her because she's extremely dense. I can't imagine 10% of women's studies students having the philosophical foundations to understand really what she's doing.

Most just have a crude understanding of Butler as a really edgy Beauvoir but she's much different.

Tumblr Feminists will call you an idiot if you point out that Butler deliberately argues against the sex/gender distinction, which 90% of pop-Feminism is made out of.

If you want to read academic feminism read Beauvoir or maybe the Ethics of Care. I genuinely think Luce Irigaray is a brilliant heteronormative Feminist that will improve your understanding of women. But she's crazy.

>>7407743
> Lately I've been opening up to the idea that society turns girls into retards by overaccommodating them. Meanwhile men are expected to build their own success.

If that's your viewpoint, read this:
http://www.bartleby.com/144/
because she agrees

Also this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex
because she agrees

Butler is the one thing we have that can blow out tumblr feminists.

As in >>7407935

Identitarian thinking is a double edged sword. I don't think she thinks penis and vagina are purely symbolic though.

File: 11215706_894862530621171_5752949485394740969_n.jpg (37KB, 647x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 647x500px

>>7407935
Thank you. I really like Sartre, so I'm looking forward to checking out Beauvoir (Not that I expect them to be at all similar). I disagree with almost everything modern feminists do but the academics have some persuasive ideas. I'll look into your other recommendations too. Thanks.

>>7407963
Really? It has taken me many swings in perspective to reach this point. It's really a shame what third wave has done not only to society and a generation of men but in tainting the perception of any potential merits in feminist ideas.

Nice "/LIT/" thread, faggot.

File: QTeiaeagveas.png (730KB, 995x724px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 995x724px

>>7407630
Most kids grow out of their "Butler phase" by the time they hit 26.

File: lyk de climet.jpg (11KB, 282x350px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 282x350px

>mfw pro-Israel Jews accuse her of anti-semitism.

>>7408018
>literally mad because people are discussing /lit/ rather than taking his bait in other threads

lelelelelelel

>>7408025
I know you're trolling but is there any truth to that?

In college you meet a shit ton of people who take all that gender-as-performance, snowflake sexual identity shit pretty seriously, but I really can't imagine grow adults with office jobs and shit actually talking like that - it would be like seeing offices of people with metal band tshirts and nose rings or something. It reeks of an adolescent desire to confront conventional social identity far more than it comes off as a mature desire for acceptance.

Isn't feminism just the narrowminded approach to proving egalitarianism? Every one of Butler's concepts proves that things aren't different for such and such reason between gender, namely for her through our linguistic construction. But doesn't this apply to everything? I am curious as to how the Butler supporter has an answer for what IS, if anything could be substantive, if everything is equal between everyone. Even past gender. In my opinion, we're left with nothing, and from that dead end we have to establish that the dialectic that makes us different is what makes us substantive.

>>7408073
>it would be like seeing offices of people with metal band tshirts and nose rings or something.
They do that shit outside of work. Even long hair is fine in offices (for men) so long as it is tied up somehow.

>>7408073
But those people in university don't act substantially different from the others.

All these SJW-little-undergrads-that-could have all their tuition and macbooks paid for them by their parents. They only work cozy part time jobs that are cute to post photos of on instagram. "omgah work xD"

>>7408101
>Even long hair is fine in offices (for men) so long as it is tied up somehow
I've worked in offices for 10 years (I'm a software developer) and I have hair long enough to reach my waist. I almost never tie it up and I've never had any problems getting a job. Pay is great too.

>>7408113
Fair enough family. I had to tie mine up when I worked in an office.

>>7407630
How do you into Judith Butler? What are her ideas?

File: h.jpg (54KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 630x420px

>>7408117
It's receding quite badly now, so I'll probably be cutting it off soon. :(

>>7408123
Foucault and Derrida, essentially.

No form of 'girl' or 'boy' just a constant re-performance that can be altered when we understand that this is purely a performance.

A lot of Tumblr feminists will yammer about Gender Performativity, and this is Butler's idea. But get this, if there is no fundamental distinction between biology and culture and both are performance...well Transpeople are wasting their time.

They can alter their performance as much as they want but don't expect to "find yourself" once you've had your surgery. You're still doing performance. So to say "I have a female brain, give me tits." You have no female brain and there's no such thing as tits.

I'm not sure how many Tumblr feminists will deny the subject exists.

>>7407833
i think 99% of PEOPLE are entitled, petty and unthinking egotists

>>7408128
Remember that receding can take a long time, but it would be a good idea to shave every so often, to get used to the idea.

>>7407915
What is her justification for genitals existing only in language?

I mean, they seem to be as empirically justified as say rocks, and trees.

>>7408189
Basically we can't get beyond language. Language is just something we use to try to control nature. What Nietzsche argued for and Heidegger and Derrida took up.

One way of thinking of it is to say every penis/vagina is slightly different enough for them to not be the exact thing therefore when we use language we're ultimately describing reality at 128kpps instead of .FLAC.

I think this is where Zizek is really quite strong. He criticizes Derrida and Butler for saying all they can do is describe the current power structure but never change it.

>>7408189
Not this guy but I'd also like to know how Butler confronts the pretty undeniable facts that man and women have very different brains and hormones that do affect cognition, behavior, etc (obviously there's a spectrum but the differences are really noticable on average). It seems silly to insist it's all performance when we're still animals. Ffs we're made of genes and shit, not language.

>>7408227
Which is my point about the breast milk vs formula.

Following her argumentation we can't make a distinction between breast milk and infant formula because we can't say this milk came from breasts/woman, as that is merely socio-linguistic performance.

So now her radical stance has her agreeing with the sellers of infant formula.

>>7408206
That doesn't make sense. Almost every penis/vagina bar those that are deformed look relatively similar and perform the same function. Isn't language (in this case at least) simply informed by an actual reality?

>>7408283
That goes against everything poststructuralism stands for. Language constructs reality.

>>7408314
You could definitely argue that science is just a language and that all languages are ultimately uncertain, cohering more as a result of sticking together than by some sense of objective truth. But even if you take that degree of relativism as given, you still need to contend with biology; you can't just lop off a whole branch of the tree (rhizome?) of knowledge because you want to ignore it.

>>7407630
I'm pretty sure her position is obviously untenable and probably wrapped up in several layers of post-foucaultian obscurantism, and therefore this breastmilk question is of tertiary importance.

>>7408025
NO! Stop it Foucault is actually interesting and provides an interesting means of analyzing society so stop conflating him with stupid internet people.

>>7408283
I'm not saying I agree with it. Just presenting the arguments.

My point actually was that we're going to realize linguistic relativism is wrong when we're cash strapped.

>>7408189
She doesn't actually say this and OP is confusing gender with biological sex.

Why would you ask this on /lit/ OP?

How many people do you ACTUALLY THINK have read Butler on this board? Likely less than 4. You'd have better luck just researching it on your own.

>>7408398
>confusing gender with biological sex
People say this as tho they were actually disjointed sets of facts. Biological sex affects those facts that people would usually consider parts of gender. Ffs just look at the effects of testosterone levels on behaviors like dominance, which is taken by most cultures to be part of masculinity. Obv sex and gender aren't the same thing and the border between the sets is really fuzzy, but people like Butler draw absurdly exaggerated ideas from that fact.

>>7407630
>gender is mostly linguistic
can you say
>untestable hypothesis

>>7408428
*seem to draw a...
I've never read Butler but for interviews. Plz prove my impression wrong if it is wrong cause I actually want to know.

I predicted this post
>>7408398
right here
>>7407935

And no, she explicitly thinks there is no biology.

Do you even read?

>>7408429
But she'd just say the testing of a hypothesis is still linguistic.

>>7408453
then how is that hypothesis any better than saying gender is mostly made out of 17 dimensional dinosaur vibrations from the aether?

>>7408477
...it's kinda not tho, other than how that definition wouldn't connect up with too many other facts and wouldn't be able to be used in any way.

wittgenstein.png

Judy pls.

>>7407963
>>7407935
>>7407987
Simone was actually intelligent. She actually offered reasons for why feminism failed so hard and will continue to do so in the future. But then again, logic was a strong feature of earlier feminists like herself and (perhaps just as importantly) Emma Goldman.

File: 3s2heAQs_400x400.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>7408227
>undeniable facts that man and women have very different brains and hormones that do affect cognition, behavior, etc

Good point m'scholar.

>>7407915
>If I was, you'd surely have an argument to prove so, but you do not.
Just guessing, anon, I haven't read her. But you haven't addressed my point about the inconsistency of your post. If she believes that things don't exist outside of language, how could she also believe that there is 'no difference between breast milk and infant formula'? Those are literally different words.

This is why I feel reasonably safe in assuming you're misreading her somehow.

>>7408189
well an argument I heard once is that gender "binaries" don't real because it's a spectum that ends with dicks on one end and pussies on another...

it's undeniable that nobody is 100% feminine or 100% masculine. I guess from there you can argue whatever..

(i'm an essentialist btw)

>>7409645
>i'm an essentialist btw
How do you explain that different cultures have different amounts of genders?

>>7408128
I'm continually amazed by how shit Houllebecq looks. This man cannot be bothered.

About the hormone thing: Maybe I am naive here, but couldn't it be argued that this is a "chicken before egg" situation? As in: We can't tell if the hormonal situation of a person is the cause of their behaviour or a function to facilitate it. Meaning you play a certain gender role from an early age, thus causing the necessary hormones to be produced. I remember I read a rather silly article a way back that pointed out that you could theoretically influence beard growth by masturbating more often, since that causes testosterone to be produced.

Judith Butler isn't the type of feminist who thinks that there's no biological basis for gender, she thinks that how we express those inherent qualities is performed. Many men feel masculine and identify with masculinity, so they act masculine. That initial feeling is inherent, but the action it produces isn't.

File: the-blank-slate.jpg (218KB, 1510x2199px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1510x2199px

>he hasn't read this and thinks that he can contribute to this conversation

>>7409648
>How do you explain that different cultures have different amounts of genders?
They're rare and dumb. Some African tribes think that fucking the ground causes plants to grow. This doesn't disprove the concept of arable land.

>>7409717
/thread

>>7409717
ass

>>7409605
>Those are literally different words.

So? Language is constant flux. You feel I'm misreading because you do not know deconstruction. Idiot.

Back to Gawker.

>>7409492
>But then again, logic was a strong feature of earlier feminists like herself

Yes, basing your whole philosophy on a hack misreading of a Nazi phenomenologist is really great logic.

I cringed when I read Beauvoir's defense of Sartre after Heidegger torn him apart.

She was so loyal to her master Sartre.

>>7410014
>She was so loyal to her master Sartre.
How womanish

>>7410005
Eh, I'm intrigued by how you get from
>Language is total flux
to
>there's no difference between breast milk and infant formula
Are you saying she thinks that nothing has any meaning and everything is the same? I thought the whole point was that words have no stable/real referent (so, yes, in flux), but are different from each other.

I don't know, your post seems to come from a very weird place. I mean...

>Judith Butler doesn't think penis and vagina exist outside of language. So how could breast milk exist outside of language?

It seems like... let's imagine a philosopher who explicitly says horses and goats exist. And you come in saying 'But does he really think that -cows- don't exist?' It's odd that you find it surprising.

>>7411164
>who explicitly says horses and goats don't exist

>>7407630

thank u based Paglia

"Judith Butler, she pretends to be a philosopher out there [University of California, Berkeley], but she’s not recognized in philosophy, her knowledge of anything. She was a student when I was at my first job at Bennington in the 70s, and I saw her up close. And I know what she knows. I mean, she transferred from there, to Yale, and her background in anything is absolutely minimal. She started a career in philosophy, abandoned that, and has been taken as this sort of major philosophical thinker by people in literary criticism. But has she ever made any exploration of science? For her to be dismissing biology, and to say gender is totally socially constructed -- where are her readings, her studies? It’s all gameplay, wordplay, and her work is utterly pernicious, a total dead-end."

>>7407630
You seem to understanding nothing of Judith Butler's work. I've studied with her. Please be less retarded.