I have to take a mandatory class on gender representation in literature in order to fulfil my course requirements...

Boy you're an undergrad what the heck do you have pride for?

Also it response to your OP, the reference texts are gonna keep going back till you reach the Greeks, that's why they say "Start with the Greeks."

in order to critique Butler, supplement with some critical views towards Austin and performativity

Read Evola and let the inevitable happen

>expresses radical opinions on subjects and theories he by self-admission has no working understanding of
>in research looks for confirmation of his irrationally preconceived conclusions

Sex is grounded in biology and is synonymous with gender, end of story.

Why shouldn't he rejected the contemporary equivalent to alchemy.

What are your preferred pronouns?

my preferred pronouns are nigger, niggers, niggerself

>OP here. Watching this now and I just realized how handsome~ JBP is.
Slit your wrists.

Just take the class, parrot back your professors arguments, and walk away with an easy A. It isn't hard.

>Sex is synonymous with gender
Any dictionary will disprove that, as will the fact that you feel the need to state it.

>a e s t h e t i c

...Which is why you use a thesaurus to find synonyms. How stupid can you be?

Rekt

college republican here. this is what I did to pass any class with an SJW instructor. I always kiss everyones ass when I meet them in office hours asking what they did their dissertation on

Yes Goyim, believe the dictionaries we give you, surrender your freedom

I know OP asked in an annoying way, but it's kind of telling that nobody on Veeky Forums apparently has the knowledge required to answer the question.

The only thing it tells of is that the rest of us didn’t go to cuck schools or that we were able to wriggle out of bullshit like this

Butler is an ideologue and quite honestly a thir rate thinker. I have not read Gender Trouble and I don't care to. I have however read her book on free speech and it is probably the most thinly veiled commie shit that I have ever heard. The fact that she disguises her beliefs under the pretenses of "linguistic production and reproduction of self" is laughable. She's nothing more than a Derrida cock sucker.

just save your time. if you speak up in class you arent gonna make half as much of an impact as you think you will, and you'll probably just end up sounding like pseud judging from your post. maybe though your argument can be strengthened if you come to class wearing a guy fawkes mask?

this, but unironically and with a fedora

>SJW instructor
Anyone who uses the phrase "SJW" unironically is a pseud of the highest order.

>kiss everyones ass when I meet them in office hours
You're not impressing anyone. You're being an annoyance. Nobody, whether they're a student instructor or a professor, wants anyone showing up to office hours. They're obligated to invite you and be polite, but they secretly hate you for taking them up on the offer.

Your strategy also reeks of "thou dost protest too much" — it's obvious from how hard you're trying that you feel the need to cover something up. And I'm willing to bet, based on the fact that you call people SJWs, that you're not clever enough to hide your republican-ness in the first place.

If you actually care about "hiding your powerlevel" or whatever else, just do your work and turn it in. You'll be indistinguishable from any other student.

Also,
>animeposting

Don't listen to this fag he wants you to fail. Obviously it will depend on your professor but many like students to come to office hours, and almost all like to be kissed up to. Don't ham it up but at least act amenable and respectful.
>be indistinguishable from any other student
not in a class of twelve people you community college reject.

Even tough you have no footing in ideas of modern feminism? You should really try to engage with the world around you bit more and not just post smugly about the sjw-cucks.

desu my tuition pays their nigger ass to sit in office and talk to me when I need help.

>That image you posted
>animeposting
Just where the hell do you think you are? Did you just migrate from r/books? Completely serious here.

I feel no shame for abusing office hours unless if it would impact a fellow student. It's their job/position to assist.

yeah I don't go in there to just bullshit when i see people asking questions after a midterm or something but at the same time I dont feel guilty interrupting their emailing when I need help with shit

all sex theory is blatant pity party bullshit so just read nietzsche and call women fags who deserve to be oppressed if they're going to whine about it

>Anyone who uses the phrase "SJW" unironically is a pseud of the highest order.
>unironically

>thou dost

I hate "lel, SJW," but...

maybe to a 90s kid

good luck op. you seem to be doing a lot more work than other undergrads i've known. like, you actually want to learn and engage ideas. anons, if he simply wanted to argue with the instructor (bad idea) he should have stopped at the reliance on Foucault and called it a game.

>if gender's just performativity is it really so bad to just ask you to act less gay

Where did you come from?

>Veeky Forums is my safe space
Fuck off, coward.

>ThE WaGE gaP ISn'T ReAL
In the sense that companies are not hiring exclusively women who apparently make do with lower salary for the same amount of work, no it isn't.

This. Some ideas are stupid enough to be dismissed out of hand.

Take the fucking class and stop being a baby.

...

Are you really learning solely out of some political spite?

Please explain me how high heels which are gendered are grounded in biology.

>I am proceeding under the assumption that I will not eventually accept the ideas

kys

>mfw metapseud poster

You don't know what a pseud is, do you?

All you had to do was raise your hand and ask.

This post brought to you by pseud

I had a class like this once user, it was hilarious the people in there who were so into it. One time I asked the proffesor if people could be racist to white people, and she said idk, and some girl in the class verbally attacked me for 2 minutes. The teacher actually liked the fact I participated even though she was a SJW.

She was right.

Stop being a whiny bitchboy and suffer through it.

You're like those women who moan whenever a misogynistic passage comes up in Shakespeare. Tough tits

That's why your type is so intolerable. You're never going to achieve anything of value intellectually if you only converse amongst yourselves and scream hysterically at everyone who disagrees with you.

well I personally have read all of these people but I will rather tell you to read it instead of trying to explain and reason with you because I am a depressed alcoholic mostly yes

>Derrida
>commie

I don’t only converse with people I agree with.
The problem is ppl like you who are college freshman and get triggered when you get called for your juvenile beliefs.

>feel so old you need to deride other people for daring being born after you

It's okay gramps, death comes to us all.

Try teaching an undergrad class where the smuggest guy who keeps asking idiotic rhetorical questions is regularly the one who has not read a single book on the syllabus and then you tell me if you wouldn’t be as aggravated.

This book looks great, I've heard good things.

Men are biologically attracted to feet so women find ways to highlight them.

You will never see men highlighting their feet because women aren't attracted to them.

Nobody who spends time on this board is really taking enough time out of their lives to actually be well read.

Veeky Forums is the ultimate pseud board. Everyones just LARPing as well read sophisticates, but just look at this thread. It's pretty clear that it's like 50% /pol/tard runoff and 50% people who take them seriously and they're both trying to out-smart each other by looking up book synopses on wikipedia

all of Veeky Forums btfo

Dumbass high heels were originally worn by aristocratic men. Gendered objects regularly get regendered over time.

Not the same thing.

Gender is performative numbnuts. There is a relationship between sex, gender, and sexuality but none of them are equivalent terms. That's why there are different gender norms across different cultures, because gender specific behaviors are socially constructed. Transgender folk have existed for all of human history, so you can literally eat shit if that is too complex a reality for you to deal with.

Men spend huge amounts on sneakers. So your theory is incorrect.

>gender specific behaviors are socially constructed
For sake of argument, if there is performativity to gender then those gender specific behaviors are entirely trivial. For example, wearing stilettos.

99% of what men do is biological, as is 99% of what women do.

Manchildren, yes.

My thinking, that I wasn't clear on, are that contemporary high heels highlight and reveal the foot, which is sexually attractive to males. High heels in current year are for footslutting, not to give the appearance of height or being useful for riding horses in or showing off wealth - they are purely designed to make dicks hard. As far as I know men don't show off their feet, because women don't care about them.

Woman detected.

Do you want to know how I know you're a woman

Because I disagree with you and you need a way to dismiss my ideas using identity politics rather than thought?

They are not all open toes. Boots have heels, platform shoes exist (and they are gendered for women only). This is absolutely a bad analysis.

Heels exist because women want to look taller since taller people look better for both sexes.

But for men it is considered vain to try to compensate for their height in this way. The reason is the suspicion of fashion and aesthetic that bourgeois and puritan societies have since they were a reaction to aristocrats.

That's why European Aristocrats wear heels and modern man don't. The explanation is cultural not genetic.

You literally just admitted that people wear footwear for biological reasons of sexual attractiveness.

Do you deny that women footslut and men don't?

Good post

>Gendered objects regularly get regendered over time.
Can you give other examples here? Curious to know if it really is true in general

Are you or are you not a woman

I am not. The fact that you think you could tell, or that it even matters in the context of ONE post I made insinuating that Veeky Forums is not a place for everyone to agree says more about you than me.

i like that you have no clue about the irony of
>ideologically charged lie and dismissed without consideration
when you literally have no idea what she is saying because you aren't conversant in the most obvious social and critical theory of the 20th century. your professor is going to give you a couple lectures to explain what's going on, it's going to be an intro course of some kind where you won't actually have a serious engagement with Gender Trouble because performativity is a hopelessly misused and abused concept, and your peers will be similarly lost in a sea of reconciling academic work with their Internet received wisdom of a different political stripe

Is that Korean DFW?

I can't tell if this is dedicated baiting or a lost redditor

but critical views towards Austin that are articulated from a place besides reaction are going to take OP further into linguistic theory, and he's already demonstrated he has a half-empty soup can for a brain. if you can't grasp Foucault's core points and understand Butler when she provides a genealogy of her ideas, how are you going to begin to wade into the arguments about Austin that genuinely require you start at the very latest with Saussure and work your way up through some very difficult works? people spend entire graduate school careers coming to terms with how linguistic thought develops (any semiotic social scientist). when motherfucker reaches Silverstein, he'll be sunk as fuck

Does babby need a safe space?

>muh alchemy
i love how scientists are seriously too stupid to understand that alchemy, scholasticism, etc. all contributed towards the development of Baconian scientific method. like this is literally Wikipedia-level understanding of the history of the natural sciences, and it takes going to senior faculty anymore to find anyone who understands this well because science in the age of Dawkins and Tyson has become this insufferably stupid tin-eared world of automaton applied morons.

>criticizes formalism and prescriptivism in production of knowledge in the form of dictionaries
>can't understand how that same mode of criticism can be applied to other aspects of society
god, why are you even paying to go to college when you're refusing to learn anything?

graduate student here who just spent a week maybe a month ago working through Gender Trouble and its genealogy. i understand the work as well as i could, but the point of the text is partially reading the text itself. the form of Butler's argument is essential to really understanding the concept. if you explain performativity in an abbreviated way, it becomes something of a caricature, and it opens up more questions than it answers. there's also the difficulty of identifying OP's real question. is OP asking for

>historical context of why Butler has her position when she does and how it's influential?
this requires us to unpack the history of sex and gender being separated as categories and Butler's radical move to recombine them as both being subject to anti-normative critique

>basic explanation of core concepts?
assuming what's meant here is what people most often extract from and apply from Gender Trouble, that would require we explain what performativity is, which requires a basic understanding of sociology (at the very least the state of the discipline after Bourdieu, which requires its own history) and some of the theoretical assumptions there. these won't be accepted by an intentionally combative person who wants to refuse these arguments out of hand

at the end of the day, OP's epistemological commitments and convictions are disallowing him from understanding the text in any serious way, and any attempt to simplify it, besides doing violence to the text and obscuring more than it would reveal, will also be met with callous dismissal because OP isn't actually interested in non-functionalist non-reductionist explanations as a default

>implying Nietzsche isn't a primary influence on the French postmodernists whose work is pushed forward by Butler

you're just bad at reading Nietzsche friend

b-b-b-b-but...peer review! *puffs on pipe*

Do you honestly think that Veeky Forums is a place where everyone has the same opinions? Fuck off newfag. This place is not what YOU PERSONALLY want it to be.

i would love for scientists to have to demonstrate mastery of the philosophy and history of science to graduate their phd programs and just watch them get savaged by the phil/hist of science faculties. like, all talk of muh logic and muh reason would go out the door when trained analytic philosophers were like "uh no honey that's not how that works"

>leftists trying to meme

The decline of Veeky Forums

not even that user. I think you're the one (likely a samefag) who is in need of a safe space . . . irony

>these won't be accepted by an intentionally combative person who wants to refuse these arguments out of hand
are you saying that a combative person can take down the argument or that is useless to try to explain nothing to an intentionally combative person?.

that is a pretty defensive tactic for your part.

have you considered engaging with the material &the actual arguments, plus the intellectual tradition before deciding you dislike it

>Butler is an ideologue and quite honestly a thir rate thinker.

> I have not read Gender Trouble

i'm saying that if your epistemological frame is formalist, functionalist, and reductionist, and you are saying from the beginning that you're not open to new ideas and intend to disagree with them, you're not going to go through a useful intellectual process by being spoonfed the history of sociology you need to get Butler's core ideas.

there are plenty of formalist, functionalist, reductionist scholars who wear one or more of those labels with pride but have done the work to engage with alternatives in good faith. that's ultimately what it comes down to. OP is operating in bad faith, and so it's not worth my time to explain shit. meanwhile, i spend plenty of time in grad seminars carefully unpacking my critiques of these positions to people who don't agree with me but who want to understand what my position is (just like i try hard to occupy the mindsets of people that i disagree with to see how my own thinking is affected by those engagements)

BuT thAt's Too hArd bTw i Am thE mIghTy scHolAR of LOgic and rEASon bc I wATch NovA

just to get something out of the class. If you really think its all a big pile of wank you can say so in you essays, just not in Veeky Forums tone obviously

he's saying unless you interact with the arguments in good faith you'll never understand them, which is how all debate works