Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelafemme
hmmm...she kind of devalues the femme presentation if that femme presentation has been construed in conformity with social norms that weren't questioned the way Butler questions them and then derived through self (rather than though social norms). I also think that to the extent that a femme presentation is made in opposition to something more masculine, that one is then playing into a social polarity that Butler was trying to make us more aware of. does that make sense?
I prefer to think of her as an AWESOME proto-punky badass philosopher and feminist, but not perfect, and not a huge supporter of the femme persona. And certainly she was writing at an historical moment when the notion of an informed, powerful, revolutionized femme was, perhaps, still not quite an acceptable notion amongst feminists. I believe it took later queer theory to open that door.
|
You do realize that the beginning sentence of each paragraph is a bit contradictory....
you prefer to ignore her devaluing femme and femininity.....okie dokie
her book was
Female Masculinity not
Female Femininity....just saying....
once again..........post modern blah blah blah.....
you have not convinced me........the devaluing of the feminine and the valuing of the masculine right down to the book title....