I havent heard something in a long time that has made me go WOW. Last week was a very stimulating for me as in traditions of moral philosophy we studied MacIntyre and Utilitarianism which really made me think deeply about a lot of things and more over we had the lecture on Judith Butler which was fascinating as her thoughts displayed in the passage are so simple and obvious but it is strange how these simple thoughts get looked over when we search for deeper meanings. The common arguements for gender troubles are homosexuals and campness or as Baudrillard would put it 'frigid' or 'uptight' if a women does not accept a the sexual dress norm of femininity. Obviously as i am not a women and maybe lack of knowledge I did not know that if women do not have children that they are regarded as 'less' of a woman. In certain if not most of Indian society in India hold this view but i did not think it would be the same in the west (my prejudice I suppose). I clearly agree with Judith Butler on this account, "to what extent does a body get defined by its capacity for pregnancy?" (p.14). As i mentioned in class that as I cook and clean for a 'normal' asian male that is not a very masculine thing (which doesnt explain why the top televised chefs are male) but shows how a majorities way of uncritical thinking has its implications on the few that are 'different'. Some of these so called masculine men have very feminine voices but you dont see me complaining...sorry went off on a tangent there hahaha. Further more what was interesting was how Judith Butler explains that men only want/desire women due to the fact that men cant be women. I do agree (strangely) but on the contrary on the basis of social streotyping does that mean that homosexual men want or desire MEN because they are not men (in a masculine way), Like I said however that is on the basis of the stereotype the truth of the matter is that nowadays you cant tell who is gay and who isn't especially to the rise of the metrosexual. Who knows when the old conservative generation have died off babies bedrooms may not be painted blue or pink the norm might be yellow. Funny that.. how we went from early civilisations of everyone being free and diverse esp in ancient India and Rome (especially rome) where people were gay or bisexual or cross dressers to the middle era's up until late victorian england and just after the cultural revolution where these aspects were fround upon and sooner or later we will be back in to the roman way of thinking where it doesnt matter. Its like this universe is one indecisive child in a candy shop. Here is a series of Judith Butler on youtube talking to the European Graduate school in 2006:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFZHfTJRUM
Saturday, 22 November 2008
Gender Trouble
I havent heard something in a long time that has made me go WOW. Last week was a very stimulating for me as in traditions of moral philosophy we studied MacIntyre and Utilitarianism which really made me think deeply about a lot of things and more over we had the lecture on Judith Butler which was fascinating as her thoughts displayed in the passage are so simple and obvious but it is strange how these simple thoughts get looked over when we search for deeper meanings. The common arguements for gender troubles are homosexuals and campness or as Baudrillard would put it 'frigid' or 'uptight' if a women does not accept a the sexual dress norm of femininity. Obviously as i am not a women and maybe lack of knowledge I did not know that if women do not have children that they are regarded as 'less' of a woman. In certain if not most of Indian society in India hold this view but i did not think it would be the same in the west (my prejudice I suppose). I clearly agree with Judith Butler on this account, "to what extent does a body get defined by its capacity for pregnancy?" (p.14). As i mentioned in class that as I cook and clean for a 'normal' asian male that is not a very masculine thing (which doesnt explain why the top televised chefs are male) but shows how a majorities way of uncritical thinking has its implications on the few that are 'different'. Some of these so called masculine men have very feminine voices but you dont see me complaining...sorry went off on a tangent there hahaha. Further more what was interesting was how Judith Butler explains that men only want/desire women due to the fact that men cant be women. I do agree (strangely) but on the contrary on the basis of social streotyping does that mean that homosexual men want or desire MEN because they are not men (in a masculine way), Like I said however that is on the basis of the stereotype the truth of the matter is that nowadays you cant tell who is gay and who isn't especially to the rise of the metrosexual. Who knows when the old conservative generation have died off babies bedrooms may not be painted blue or pink the norm might be yellow. Funny that.. how we went from early civilisations of everyone being free and diverse esp in ancient India and Rome (especially rome) where people were gay or bisexual or cross dressers to the middle era's up until late victorian england and just after the cultural revolution where these aspects were fround upon and sooner or later we will be back in to the roman way of thinking where it doesnt matter. Its like this universe is one indecisive child in a candy shop. Here is a series of Judith Butler on youtube talking to the European Graduate school in 2006:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFZHfTJRUM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment