Judith Butler's Gender Performativity Theory Explained! Media Studies Theory Revision
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2019
- SUPPORT ME ON PATREON!
To support this channel and access content early, visit:
/ themediainsider
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this video, we look at Judith Butler's feminist theory about Gender Trouble and her ideas about gender performativity - looking at how masculinity and femininity are represented and performed. Therefore, the gender identities we associate with gender are actually prefaces that we do rather than something that is born in us along with our sex.
This video is intended for people studying media studies a level, GCSE, or communication or culture studies, or even film studies. It is a very easy theory to apply to texts because all gender roles are either performed or subverted from.
I would also suggest the majority of people do not feel that they are 'performing' a gender role; for most people they just are what they are. The sense of 'performing' (of inauthenticity ) is only felt by those very few who are confused as to how their gender is to be manifest.
he doesn't mean performing as in acting, or "acting a certain way consciously," he means performing as "unconsciously acting in ways that align with society's definition as masculine or feminine in order to assert your identity" Everyone "performs" gender just by being alive in this world
I agree, it is not illogical that people that are the most represented in their culture, are the most represented in the media. In the west, there are more white people, so, it is just logical that they are more represented. All this pushing to show small minority groups as prominent is ok, but is really idiotic nowadays in my view. Why should we in the west, put minorities on a pedestal of representation, because they are the minority? It will not create acceptance, but more wedge between these 'special' groups, and the majority. Intersecting society in these 'special' groups, is driving people apart imo. Because they are not special at all. And if they say their special, you know they are saying that they deserve it. It is just pure self centrism now in my view...
I don't really like the way the video confuses "gender typical behavior" with fashion. Just one example. Wearing make-up was thought to be typical for professional prostitutes, therefore was not allowed to "decent girls" just 70 or so years ago. In the glam rock era wearing make-up was essential to male rockers. Metal hair bands dyed their hair - something that was unimaginable in the 1950s or 60s, just 20 years before hair-bands became fashionable. Also in the 18th century wearing make-up and wig was just as typical to men as women. In certain cultures it was men, who wore make-up, representing which tribe they belonged to. High heels were 1st created as men's wear, not for women. Trousers was a male wardrobe piece - however scots would like to politely disagree, that skirts were for only women. And now trousers and suits are unisex. And I could continue with the colors (pink vs blue), wardrobe assets, the video mentions, etc. This over-simplification of "stereotypical behavior" which doesn't take into account how FASHION changes (and fashion changes for various reasons and sometimes rapidly), is based on how we, in western/christian cultures express ourselves TODAY . To say, that people, who don't follow today's fashion are "gender non-conforms" is a wild strech. No, they are just not "fashion sensitive". And that has nothing to do with gender roles.
I imagine expanding our society to become open to a non-binary view of gender could be problematic. Capitalism is built on creating values for us that can then be exploited for profit. It will be interesting to see how the creative minds running the advertising schemes incorporate a different view of gender into their campaigns.
Twice as much to exploit. Just in terms of fashion alone. The environmentalist movement would seem to hinge on less-is-more mindset, yet our gender-neutral advertising as best of both worlds exploits marketing of say, makeup to both genders which includes an environmental impact you never hear discussed.
Femaleness requires so many products. And there are more male products all the time. So much to consume. It's true. All bad for the climate. What to be done?
Really great video! I hope more people find your channel!
So easily explained! Thanks for this video!
Great video. Just read the essay and this summed it all in a nutshell.
I would like to know what is wrong in society, which has male and female genders and roles... There will be always differences between people and no one will erase them...
Ok, but does that mean that biology plays no role in this? Is there no behaviour (and therefore created culture) that is influenced by the body? As subjects we learn to handle our world in a given frame of what we are told, ok. But if everything, perception included, happens biochemical in the body: Is there no difference between sex here? A tendency or something?
If sexes have different bodies with different features and we know of different processes in the body that a function in this, I find it hard to believe that nothing of that plays on in behaviour as well. What is the science on that?
There's tons of science on that, you can find it at Wikipedia for example. But many social scientists or gender ideologues tend to turn a blind eye to scientific research that doesn't support their viewpoints/agendas. Well that's my understanding of it. Here's one such Wikipedia summary of a lot of research: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology
I really love your videos!!!❤️ So easily explained!
You love her videos? She's a loony bird. She's a woman who couldn't accept herself so she is trying to change the world
You choose the sentences sooo accurately. WOW. Thank you for this great explanation!
Idk how to feel about this idea/notion... As much as I agree I believe the suggestion proposed by Butler sort of shames people? If you know what I mean? Like I think if girls want to be "girly" it should be okay and not perceived as something like repeating the expected gender performance or whatever just as much as how some girls don't want to be girly as argued by Butler. I can understand her point of view but it just seems somewhat counterintuitive to me. I think in the end the most important aspect to take into consideration is just... you do you, you know?
I also think that in most cases people still have the choice to repeat or avert from the so-called repeated hetero normative performance and i think it should be okay either way.
I wonder what takes more energy; being masculine or feminine? I'm a guy, but when I see extra masculine presenting men I think it looks hard to maintain and limiting in behavior choice. Conversely, I know performing feminity through make up and dress is time consuming and sometimes physically uncomfortable. These are just the most conspicuous aspects and I'm tired already.
If you would have to walk eight miles every day just to have clean drinking water, you'd be a lot saner and you would be tired for a reason having done something much more productive.
It shouldn't need to be stated, but these days... It's only relevant as a starting point for consideration, and further, more detailed investigation, as humans are very complex, and Orangutans exhibit the most drastic manifestation of this characteristic, which is not isolated to apes or even primates, but I'm unaware of any other species that does it so blatantly:
Male orangutans are like avacados, in that they don't "ripen on the tree," they only reach sexually dimorphic physical maturity if there is both a sufficient caloric glut in their diet and a space left not dominated by the hormones of a fully developed "flanged," male. They can spend a decade or more waiting for luck to deliver the chemical requirements for their developmental process to take over, but they are fertile as soon as they hit puberty. No matter what age they are when they develop into a dominant flanged male, they will die in just a few years, because of the insane intensity of physicality, aggression, possessiveness, jealousy and territorialism that comes with it. They grow too fast, to large, and burn the candle at both ends until they keel over.
Well it's a very exagerated and simplistic statement, but it's getting at the heart of something very real. We live in strange times that are very isolated from violence, which is super great, but not really the context we were made to operate in. For many humans, and many other mammals, but definitely not all, performing maleness is a very dangerous, costly and energetic process. Men die younger, work more dangerous jobs, create more risk, engage in more acts of violence and suffer from more acts of violence. Not all men do this, not all Orangutans flange, but the ones that engage in that flavor of masculinity are literally doing it at the cost of their lives because of a possibility of a high risk high reward engagement with the world.
I'm not sure you mean energy in the same way I'm describing here, which is more of a caloric sense and a relative cost benefit analysis to the individual, the group and the species. If you're more interested in mental energy, the stress of performing gender rolls in a contemporary western context, I'm not really sure how to even BEGIN to answer that in a satisfying manner.
@Dream Dream Serene Is that femininity though? Or is it just the default but it has been relegated to mean 'feminine' as 'masculine' became built around something else
but aren't trans and LGBT a minority in society too? I think the questions is should it represent the percentage of society as the percentage of footage in film.. or should it all be equal?
Being a media student ur videos do help me a lot 👍👍
The subversion part is exactly why I, as a woman in a western, predominantly white country, don't shave my legs or wax my moustache. It's strange how gender expression varies from culture to culture - showing that gender really is malleable. There have been (and still are) cultures with more than two genders, which allows for more acceptance of deviations from 'gender norms'. Thanks for the video!
@Corno di Bassetto What's your question? What part is common sense?
There are men who especially like womeb who look 'natural', so to speak. I'm one of them. No make up, not overly feminine and squeaky and helplessly crying when the light bulb dies or something, you know, I select for that in women, but just be careful that you don't overdo it. What I mean is, you can do what you want, but most men know what they like and most men sort of like the same (more feminine than masculine, more slim and youthful than big and old, more sweet and caring than bossy or demanding). Sure, discard all femininity if you want, but you're mainly gonna get attention from a lot of housecats.
Gender isn't as malleable as you suppose. While there is variation, there's also a clear and distinct level of sameness (I'm Dutch, forgive my bad England). In many ancient cultures all around the globe young boys had to become men through a specific set of rituals of physical and mental toughness and similarly women were almost always and everywhere connected to nature, divinity, virtue and love. Variations, yes, but do not ignore the clear similarities also.
There is men and women, nothing else in between. Stop giving deluded fantasies space in the real world.
it should be on an individual circumstance, someone shouldn't just decide changing their sex to be subverssive. If a person feels, when they are at least 18 that they don't feel comfortable in their body and if they want to I don't have an issue
That's not what he meant aha. He meant gender expression can be subversive for cisgender people - men wearing makeup is not the same as a trans woman. Women having leg hair is not the same as them being a trans man.
Amazing way to explain the theory 👏🏼
Solid video mate 👍
Great video! Thanks
it all dwindles into pure performative sophistry
A big problem is that sex and gender are the same thing, it's only recently the primary meaning of the words is being changed. Your gender identity is like every other part of your personality and your 'self'; a creation of the mind that doesn't really exist. And it's horrifying how someone can come up with a theory and it become widely accepted and applied without any scientific testing whatsoever, the evidence in her book is clearly cherry picked to back up her theory. And Jaden Smith? That beloved actor? Progressive? Everyone hates him because he's a self-entitled narcissist. After Will Smith slapped Chris Rock at the oscars everyone now looks at Jaden and says "Ok, now we get it!"
Very interesting ♥️
I like Butler for the most part, and think she is often treated too simply by critics. But one are where critics have a point is that Butler doesn't seem to take seriously the idea that media and cultural representations of 'masculine' and 'feminine,' reflect to at least some degree the biological predispositions of their creators. That is, culture creates norms, but phenotypes with biologies create culture. So, does heteronormative norms create heteronormative people or do heteronormative people (who are to some extent that way because of their biologies) create heteronormative norms. And if we upended those heteronormative norms, is it possible that because biology is as it is, we'd still continue to be mostly heterosexual in behavior?
I"m not sure Butler would deny any of this. Because - and this is my problem - she basically sidesteps the question time and time again.
Can you do some videos on the 2020 GCSE set texts
Congratulations on 10k! - From Axel :)
Thanks Axel! Hope things Are all good at PCA, and you’re happy with the new version of sonic!
What does "doing gender" mean please? Is it synonumous to "performing gender"?
To say that cultural gender norms are not gender is to admit that gender is not cultural. There exist a number of norms for many categories age, sexuality, profession, race, religion etc. but if a person doesn’t “act like an X” that doesn’t mean that the category isn’t real, it just mean that norms don’t cover the full reality of the situation.
Paul Rosenfels' polarity theory (from the 1970s) is roughly like Judith Butler's (much better known) performativity concept. But Paul intended this as a personal growth tool for adults (usually gay men) who already had assimilated and had their own personal agency. He didn't intend it as a political label for equity or equality (or to encourage transition).
Not heard of him before, I’ll check it out thanks
So, according to Butler, is “gender” a combination of both nature and nurture? Is there room, according to Butler, for the effects of natural inclinations, or is gender totally derived from the societal surrounding us?
Hi, I am a journalism student currently working on a podcast about the rise of UA-cam in the mainstream media and was wondering if you wouldn’t mind answering a few questions for me. Thank you
In order for a direction to exist, it has to have two points. We orient ourselves in reference to two points, be it high-low, left-right, or whatever. There is no third point, ever. We associated good mood with high, bad mood with low; we laid out the political spectrum from far left to the far right. Of course, you can be anywhere between those two points, in any part of cognition, but there are always two points; you can't go in more directions simultaneously. Otherwise we would be disoriented. But what we imagine to be masculine and feminine, what we perceive, think, or experience it to be is a conglomerate of many factors. Our sexual fantasies can tell us most what we want, and that single glance when walking through town that wakes your lust determines what you're seeking. All in all, stop caring about how someone defines themselves and learn to appreciate them, or if you're friends, grow together. And that's it.
👏👏👏
Well put. From a social point of view rather than media, I think it comes down to boundaries - people should be far more concerned with their own identity and sexuality than other people's.
@@TheMediaInsider exactly
Culture may have an effect on how gender is manifest, but that doesn't mean that gender is culturally determined. In the womb, a male fetus is exposed to different hormones to a female fetus, resulting in different brain structures, and after birth a significantly different psychology. That's not to say you can't have men with a feminine psychology or women with a masculine psychology, but these are outliers, unusual. You can't choose your gender, nor can social influences override your gender. Biology has a far bigger say than this video suggests.
What do you make of the not so rare people who are born intersex and assigned one of two genders (sexes really) at birth? Doesn't their existence matter in itself before they get chucked into one group or another - at least enough to question the validity of gender binary as a scientific fact? Sounds more like an oversimplification to me, because we couldn't be bothered or were to uncomfortable to question the idea of gender - sure there's a lot at stake because the basic functioning of our whole society is based on gender stereotypes :)
This is a good regurgitation of de Beauvoir, the sex/gender distinction, and gender studies in general, though it doesn’t really address what Butler thinks.
This is a great explanation but, from what I have seen, there doesn't appear to be much appetite for traditional gender being turned on its head in TV or film
Gender is the behavioral manifestation of sex, essentially represented by masculine and feminine traits. Males and females have distinct characteristics but also many overlapping characteristics. The neuroscience literature suggests the ratio of masculinity:femininity an individual will manifest temperamentally is primarily dictated by hormone exposure in utero.
So-called gender stereotypes such as toy preferences have been shown to be present in young children before they are cognitively capable of being socialized. Neuroscience has also shown that males who have had less testosterone exposure in utero and females who have had more tend to have temperamental preferences associated with the opposite sex; this is particularly noticeable in females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The same gender stereotypes have been shown in many of our primate cousins, such as chimpanzees, as well. The binaries of sex, and of masculinity and femininity are ancient; biological sex and our endocrine systems are at least 500 million years old. Their influence on gender expression is far greater than 1-2 centuries of culture.
Sources?
@@malachi_k0nstant668 Yes, those are very big claims indeed.
on one one side people say nothing is fem or masc rather universal, on the other hand theories like this exist.
Çok ciddi bir tavırla videoyu izlerken 0:53. saniyedeki sahneyle işin tüm büyüsü bozuldu hssjshshsjs
neden?
@@Viv8ldi Çünkü çok tanınmadığını düşündüğüm bir dizinin sahnesi çok başka ülkeden birinin videosunda çıkınca insan ister istemez şaşırıyor🤷♀️
She said sex is also constructed.
Sex is constructed as are all concepts. In order to have a definition of sex, it needs to first be defined. Somebody has to define it. And people don’t always agree on the definition and propose alternative definitions instead. This happens in science all the time. How we classify, define and think about sex change over time. This is the basis for construction. Ideas are being constructed. Boundaries are being constructed. Behaviors are being constructed. The main point here is that you shouldn’t be a passive participant in this process and constantly appeal to nature just because sex also refers to natural entities. You should critically evaluate the constructed definitions of sex and other concepts, so at the very least, you are aware of how you are being affected by certain views.
I found this video while looking any critique of her views on some incest is good? Can you explain this please because no ones talking about that, or any explanation on why Foucault campaigned for pedophilia in France in the 80’s Cheers!
Very easy for me to agree with most of this theory, I believe very much in freedom of the individual and I think everybody should be free to live their life how they intend, as long as they don't impede on anyone's freedom as well.
However, I don't understand why it is said that gender is purely a societal concept, as it is known that hormones are a very strong influence on human and animal behaviour.
I'm surely missing something here, but I think it's totally normal that for now most movies and entertainment shows heterosexual relationships and binary characters as they are the reflection of the society we live in and "the norm", and non binary and LGBT+ people are only a small fraction of the world's population (+ most studios want to make big bucks in china so that's an F for representation right there).
That said we no doubt are going to see an inevitable increase in this kind of representation in the coming years until we reach a balance more or less.
@@anamariatudorache114 Yes people often express gender in relation to their sexual orientation to attract a mate. That doesn't mean 'gender' isn't a social construct though. The idea of gender in relation to sexuality is more about being attractive for the people they want to attract. Some cultures have 2 to 6 genders. Bugis society has five genders. This is obvious evidence that 'gender' can be constructed by societies
Think of gender variation as being similar to language variation (or even dialects). It's societal in that what makes up that community's concept of gender will vary considerably, just like the linguistic signs they attach to concepts.
I think it's far too easy to get caught up in discussions of subverting Western gender norms to illustrate 'doing gender', when we can examine historical/regional performances of gender. What it 'means' to be male/female are always in flux. It's all semiotics at the end of the day!
A great book that goes into more depth on gender from a global perspective is Gender: In World Perspective by Raewyn W. Connell and Rebecca Pearse. Highly recommended.
It's a nature/nurture thing. But what she's saying is that gender itself is the problem. Not negative and 'self-limiting' social constructions of gender. The problem is the mould of gender goes against nature.
Subverting the roles by reinforcing the limited moulds of gender is not actually subversive, but reinforces the extreme moulds. And we're seeing that play out today.
Thanks for the video it's great! Oh gawd some comments are just straight awful..... *a masculine woman rolls her eyes
Great points but you said the heterosexual norm do you mean societal norm?
He means 'heteronormativty' which is an ideological concept from 'Queer theory'. This teacher is brain washing you.the idea he is peddling are fully refuted by science and evolutionary psychology. ua-cam.com/video/P7Q9GvR1Mnk/v-deo.html v ua-cam.com/video/tiJVJ5QRRUE/v-deo.html&has_verified=1
So there are homosexual and trans characters in movies, but they are in the minority; well, isn't that because they are in the minority in society?
No, they are not, because Kinsey report.
They’re hoping to increase
Forget the feminist perspective and viewing from a normal human being's perspective, a man looks more hot when he's masculine and a woman looks more hot when she's feminine. Fact or not ?
I'd say that's subjective
@@TheMediaInsider Right, but I've never seen straight women drooling at feminine men or straight men drooling at masculine women
@@_K73595 I’m sure there are plenty who do
@@_K73595 well I'm bi with a very strong preference to men and I find more feminine men to miles more enticing than masculine men. And there are plenty of straight/bi/pan men I've met who absolutely love the tomboy look so to me it just sounds like you need to widen your social circles
@@autumnivez8238 Lust is the commander of all. Hail, Lilith!
She also questioned the distinction between sex and gender, though. "Natural sexes" are culturally constructed as well. You're not prediscursively "born male" according to her... unless I misread.
This theory is contradicting basic science of biology. And, this channel is kind of promoting it. A big lol😊
It seems odd to start with a non-scientific approach to human behavior as Butler's postmodern philosophy does. Sexual activity in animals is a multi-million year project based upon male/female coitus. It would seem odd indeed if male/female behavior were constructed by cultures over thousands of years with no basis in nature but instead came solely out of human imagination. Most postmodernists eschew science. Scientific methodology is a difficult and laborious enterprise. There is nothing easy about gathering sociological evidence in the study of males and females. On the other hand, obfuscated philosophical writings based upon shallow observation of stereotyped human behavior is something easily done from the comfort of a cozy office. There is no such thing as a bio-gender spectrum. However, Butler is correct that for thousands of years cultures around the world have created rather constrained rules and regulations on how males and females should behave and interact. These bio-gender roles and constraints have been deleterious to women in many respects and definitely to homosexuals (like myself, who is a very effeminate gay male). Having been deep in the gay underground many decades ago, I'm fully aware of masculine lesbian women and feminine gay men. None of whom had any dysphoria about their genitalia. They knew which sex they wanted! I also knew (and know) both women and men who experienced a deep dysphoria about their bio-gender that they did all they could do to present as the opposite sex. Those who could afford it had operations. However, even if money was no obstacle, the fear of extensive surgeries and lifetime of hormone medication prevents many truly transgendered people from going the medical route. Rather than wasting our time following the unscientific and rather nihilistic paths of postmodern ideology, we should be looking for the wisest ways of incorporating new ideas of human expression into our culture and expanding our understanding of human rights, even as some of those rights conflict.
Was with you until the statement of these roles "enforced on them by society" bit. By that premise, it is just as valid to say that the media encouraging gender roles differently than the 'norm', is just a subversive effort to make those _new_ roles _the norm_ and that would necessarily follow that those new normal distinctions were created/ENFORCED by the media intervention.
I think what's so damaging about gender activism is its unwillingness to face the deeper implications of performative social roles as they relate to social cohesion, identity as a stabilizing effect of operational choice delineation (expectation of reality to both self and others) and the negative impacts of statements like you make here where those who "follow" gender normative roles are made out as allies to a fascistic systemic operation that pits a US vs Them narrative as a positive struggle.
The power play of being different and so wanting all others to fit your narrative (as different =good, normal=bad) seems at least as facsistic of a message and perspective.
All life comes from binary.
Doesn't mean gender is rigid though
That’s not even slightly true.
If you believe in god, then you believe that god created life. Not binary.
If you believe in evolution, then you believe that all life originated from single cell organisms. Not binary.
its very telling when taking about trans characters both images shown men playing trans women, which further feeds into the bad bad narrative that trans women are really men.
also, no christine and the queens?
I think the premise is good but the video ultimately fails to give a solution or suggest an alternative. From a feminist point of view the solution would be abolish gender roles so what I mean by failing is that you ultimately reduce gender to appearance (men wearing makeup and women wearing suits) when the real subversion should be applied to every aspect of one's life. Dressing as the other gender, performing a role you weren't educated into doesn't change anything. No gender education and redistribution of power, regardless of your s3x, would do something.
The truth is, I don’t think there is a solution yet, and society will naturally adapt as attitudes change, but as for what that looks like, who knows!
What is wrong with being a boy with feminine traits and a girl with male traits? I never understood this. They call it gender? i think it is more a trait of people's personalities, especially if you see the trend among young people to put everything on gender. ofc there are people with identity issues, and gender dysmorphia, or other underlying mental issues. But claiming that a boy, that is a bit more feminine in their personality, that they have a gender problem, is complete nonsense. Some do, and i am in no way saying that transgenderism is not a real problem. But nowadays? I just feel like it is being an agenda to 'solve' these identity issues by skipping to conclusions, and sometimes invasive medical treatments, that are not even remotely sensible, like with children. Look, i do not have a leg in this game, but the pure denial of nature seems silly to me at least...
Interesting idea that of gender being performative.
If society didn't put so much "hetero-pressure" and so on, what would be the actual % of hetero people?
@Prem Varun truly innate and inherent. It's a consequence of the sole existence of society
98% with or without social conditioning it biology OMG!
I agree! I am a dog & I am attracted to turtles but society doesn’t accept me... yet. Dogs don’t have to have sex w dogs, and yes I was born “human” but it’s a completely constructed performance. Mentally I feel a dog, we’re just used to “real” human women performing these rituals. I will not conform. Join me #loveislove #transisbeautiful #limitlessgenders #limitlesspossibilities #wearethefuture #legalizepedophilia #mybodymychoice
I think butler's theory makes sense because in hunter gather societies of the past your way of being/expression would be based on necessity and survival that being where the man and woman come from. In modern times the fact that we can construct an identity regardless of sex is a by product of consumerism. When tyrants were oppressing others to assume the identity of unworthy and beneath them, and this is just my theory, there would be a reason why someone would say hey wait a minute me being oppressed isn't the norm, and by doing so the not normal is oppressed. And Judith realised we can make whatever we want ourselves and stop waiting on society to create out the norms because it would be faster at drawing attention since its no longer tyrannical times and we can do whatever. More than likely she didn't get paid for realising what's not normative could be consumed and commercialised.
Why didn't you wear a dress or makeup in this video? You espoused the virtues of the content Butler suggests (which is different from other content I've seen from you and is quite disappointing TBH). I would think authenticity would be the opposite of an activist mindset, no? Must I commit murder to really have an opinion on why I consider that act immoral or wrong? What is the difference in message then to say that I have to act in a performative way of a generalization of gender to 'really know' who I am as a gender or a person?
Is the attention gained by exploiting an uncanny valley of gender any different than a boob-job and stripping contributes to the attention economy? Is Butler at least possibly Capitalizing on that same economy by subverting the norm for her personal gain instead of a social justice warrior for 'the opressed'?
Hey buddy, there is a Canadian lecturer called Jordan Peterson. He has a few videos on UA-cam too about this sort of thing. He can correct a few factual errors in your video. Maybe you should check out his videos on biological sex and gender because they are correlated and not a “social construct”. But good effort!
SIR! SIR! HE IS ON HIS PHONE!
blah,blah,blah.
Men painting their nails or women wearing suits is neither subversive nor progressive, Butler's theory doesn't even come close to fixing the problem of gender roles and sex-based inequality and violence in the world.
Imagine you go for the first time at a university to open your mind, learn new things and get a degree. There you meet the most famous teacher of the university and it's J.B. You start going at her classes and soon you understand that she haves no scientific base at what she teach, you are not allowed to disagree with her , you practically can't even ask questions and in the case you do openly disagree with her a group of students will beat you up and the will throw your ass out of the university ,they will keep your money and sent letters to any office near by that you could ask for a job that if they employ you they will set your business on fire . That is J.B' s teaching's right now
It'd be nice if you acknowledged that sex isn't as straight forward as male and female either; intersex people exist as well, and it's especially relevant and necessary to acknowledge this when discussing how people conform to societal expectations of sex and gender.
It is crap!
Your gender is innate. It is not role that you play based on society interest. Your masculine or feminine qualities attract the opposite, no matter what sex your were born in. So masculine and feminine clearly innate...
Oh wow this is nonsense
You are talking nonsence
What a load of crap.
I have a problem with you saying “man-mad” because you ignore everyone else’s contribution who doesn’t identifies as a man. A better term is “human-made” as it is all inclusive. Ironically, for someone explaining Butler’s theory, you have a problematically ignorant language currently. I hope are more caution in the future and consciously unlearn the socially and culturally constructed biases.
What're your thoughts on steven crowder? Im genuinely interested
Wait why do you have the same name