come along fool

it seems that i am incapable of sleeping before 2AM lately. i find it fabulously annoying because i always sleep slightly later than i ever want to. i don't understand it.

time progresses in my busy little life. i am never finished with homework at the end of the day--either out of sheer boredom&tiredness or the fact that i have to move on to other reading that is more important for another class. i do believe that i am busier now than last year when i was working two jobs and had other matters to attend to besides school. strange.

my birthday is coming soon--the only thoughts running through my head when i allow myself to think about it are the good life lyrics to the song twenty-two::::

"well, it’s come up again...and i wonder if
the same mistakes i used to make
could be remade.
cause "i've been through this before"
well i've said that too.
there's just so much that we can fake
before we break ourselves into-two.

twenty two. the years can hardly catch up
with the years of playing catch up.
must there always be a catch?"

so, i choose not to think of it.

i'm going home in 2 weeks && i am not sure if i'm supposed to be sad that it's the only thought keeping me looking forward. at least i'm finally feeling sort of content with being back at school. in due time.

i'll leave you with my second paper for my feminist theory course. i got an A on it and the professor found it, "excellent, insightful, articulate, well-written." i am delighted about it. truly.

The articles for this week focused on the manner in which women are encapsulated and tied up in a world clearly defined by and through men. Each theorist struggles with the relationships between sex, gender, and desire (sexuality). Both Wittig and Butler associate normative heterosexuality as a political system in which sex, gender, and sexuality are maintained. They all acknowledge the fact that the term woman is not separated from man. The definitions of women are embedded in men's history, economics, politics, and definitions of freedom.
In her chapter, Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire, Butler argues that gender is not a form of being, but instead is given meaning through performance. She believes sex and gender are not necessarily related and there is a gap between them. She posits that gender is given validity through perfromance of the qualities that are considered to be normal or natural. She argues that if sex is not connected to gender then we must rethink desire.
When a man desires a woman, is the desire to her biology or to her femininity? In raising this question, Butler contends that heterosexuality is a political system that requires us to conform to a particular set of entailments that link sex, gender, and sexuality (desire). In other words, if one is a particular sex, then their gender is thus defined as masculine or feminine through that biology and thus, one is meant to desire a person of the opposite sex/gender. However, Butler shows that is not the case for everyone which gives validity to her claim of heterosexuality as a political system. She takes into account homosexuals and transgendered and transsexual individuals.
The fact that not everyone subscribes to heterosexuality clearly brings normative heterosexuality into question. Heterosexuality as a normal assumes that it preceded our behavior or notions of what sort of behavior constitutes femininity or masculinity. This is simply not the case. The fact that people perform gender differently than what is considered normal disrupts this idea that heterosexuality is, in fact normal. This destabilizes the foundation of heterosexuality and strengthens the claim that sex does not equate to gender.
Irigaray believes that the idea of femininity has not yet been recognized simply because there is not a language that is not tied up in masculinity. Women live in a phallogocentric world and are thus defined through such. Irigaray believes women need a language that gives concrete meaning—separate from a man—in order to clearly define themselves. She suggests that there is a feminine difference. She believes that men and woman are different from the moment they are chromosomally defined. She suggests that we use and live in our bodies differently. Because of this, she believes that to give women a civil status and a seat of representation, would be to give her the potential to create her own language.
Simone de Beauvoir believes that “woman” is a symbol of unfreedom that men use to define their own sense of freedom. She believes that women are what they become. There is no definite essence or generic self that one is, rather it is a process of development. She contends that freedom is transcendence of the concrete circumstances and obstacles. In our society, the “woman” is not able to do so. “Woman” is trapped in the body and cannot transcend while man is able to look ahead and see the future after said obstacles.
Wittig, like Butler believes that heterosexuality is a political system. However, Wittig believes that society is composed of two classes. The exploiters (men) and the exploited (women). Wittig uses the term lesbian to describe one who opts out of the system of exploiter/exploited. The lesbian transcends these categories and avoids exploitation by refusing participation within the heterosexual system that feeds these two categories. Wittig also questions why a few body parts (sexual organs) are given privilege over all the numerous parts of the body. It reminds me of the article regarding beards as a determination of beauty. It is arbitrary and silly. Why are these parts given such a position of significance when they clearly are not determinants of the gender one performs?
I am not completely convinced by Irigaray's claims that bringing women into the political sphere will solve the issue of what it means to be feminine. She says that, “women have taken on an economic, cultural, and political conditioning that belongs to masculine identity and history.” I believe this is true, but I do not believe that giving women political positions will necessarily give them the ability to recreate their identity separately from what has already been tied up in masculinity. I guess I think it is necessary to combat the social, political, and economic inequalities between men and women. I do not believe that focusing on only one aspect is going to promote the interests of women properly. I would probably agree more with de Beauvoir's argument that women have no history, past, or religion of their own. I believe the way to freeing women is to recreate a history that may not be entirely separate from men, but acknowledges what is problematic with being so clearly entwined in these definitions. The problem with this is getting women to think outside of the language, values, and norms that have already been established so definitively in relation to men. The task seems daunting and almost impossible.
However, I really do agree with Butler's point that people performing gender differently than the supposed norm disrupts the idea that normalcy precedes our behaviors. In this way, she clearly demonstrates how heterosexuality is a political system that maintains this unnatural relation between sex-gender-desire. Our sex does not determine our gender and, therefore the manner in which our desire is directed. I also agree that gender is performative. We give meaning to the terms masculine and feminine by the ways in which we embody them.

sweeter dreams.
k