The Problems of Controlling Love

Last Week's Discussion on Leftover Chinese Women

I thought it was really interesting when we discussed the idea of the "leftover woman" in China referring to those who never marry and instead live independently in their working roles. I was surprised when I learned that in China they sometimes exaggerate the amount of women who are single, stating that up to 89.9% of women are not married. It makes sense that they could use such high percentages in order to almost make these women afraid to be in the category. I also thought it was interesting that "leftover women" were described as high-achieving because it seemed very odd to me that such a positive description of a person could still be given the negative connotation of someone who is leftover. Also, it made me upset to hear how this culture creates a notion of normal women being married and abnormal women not being good enough to find a husband.

This reminded me of the extra credit lecture titled "What is love?" in which we learned about women from the Philippines who travel to Japan just to meet and marry a man in order to have the security of a husband. The speaker argued that monetary love and erotic love can be connected. However, I felt that any love that is not true is not real love. Love should not be something with an advantage. It should be something we feel in order to be happy. So in the case of the Chinese women, marrying a man should not be about following an expectation of society. Marriage should be about real love and meeting someone who brings joy to our lives.

I was thinking about these concepts and realized that they are not as foreign as we may think. I believe that the pressure to be married or to experience long term love occurs in the US as well. Women who never marry seem to still be considered like something is wrong with them, and people seem to give reasons to explain why they never found someone to spend their life with. Even in film there is always the expectation for the couple to end up together at the end of the movie. Why can't more films show the happy ending as the women realizing she is more in love with her independence than being tied down to a partner? I hope that one day people can realize that love and desire is something very individualistic and can not fit inside a social construct or expectation because it is not something that can or should be controlled.

The Fluidity of Desire

Caity Croft

SWMS 215

Monday, October 31^st , 2011

Imitation and Gender Insubordination/Uncle

I loved reading the short story, Uncle. The first person narration from the perspective of a six-year-old boy was believable, while conveying the curiosity, excitement and wonder of personally formative childhood experiences. In particular, Jake’s recollections of his Uncle Paul are simple yet profound, for example, ““Just then I think that no one’s ever called me “big man” before, or said any of that other stuff” (6), and “ I never feel the things I feel with Uncle Paul with [Auntie Delia] though, either. I think it’s because she’s not as tall as he is.” (10) It was interesting to read the short story in the context of Butler’s essay. When Butler writes, “identity categories tend to be instruments of regulatory regimes, whether as the normalizing categories of oppressive structures or as rallying points for a liberatory contestation of that very oppression” (803), it made me think of how Jake was subject to the regulatory regimes of his father and mother, who have, from the moment of his conception, tried to shape his identity and how his Uncle Paul allows for and is the subject of Jake's curiosity and genderless desires.

Uncle

While reading “Uncle”, I was thinking about the question of whether or not children are really listened to. I thought it was particularly interesting that when Jake’s mother asked him if Uncle Paul touched him, he could not answer, although the reader heard his voice throughout the rest of the story. I thought it was even more interesting that he felt that even if he said anything it wouldn’t help, and that he couldn’t really tell his mom what he was thinking. Even though he didn’t say anything, his mom still assumed that his uncle had touched him. In this situation, it really didn’t matter what Jake said, and so I think that adults tend to hear what they want to hear from children. In relation to sexual abuse from children, I think that parents often think that children cannot define it, and so they define it for them as Jake’s mother did.

Uncle

In Winston’s essay, I found quite compelling the innocent, yet curious nature of Jake. I was intrigued by his compulsive affection towards his uncle Paul. He admired him so much that my first thought was that perhaps Jake was gay. However, as I deepened my understanding of the story I was drawn to the idea of Jake having simple sexual identity behaviors. He reminded me of some of the stuff I have read from Freud, such as the Oedipal complex, but with a twist. Psychoanalytic theory states that the Oedipal complex emerges during the phallic stage when the child is ages 3-6 years old. Jake being of that age is showing such signs. However, Jake does not wish to have his mother and kill his father. He does not desire his mother, if anything, he does not like being around her. Instead, Jake seems to desire his uncle Paul and wants to get “kill” or get rid of his mother because she is not fun. Jake’s fascination with Vince’s “magic penis” and how he seems to enjoy playing barber shop with him is also a sign of Jakes identification with his sexuality. Further in psychoanalytic theory, Freud said that a child must resolve their complex via castration anxiety. Jake is sort of resolving his anxiety by placing devotion on his uncle’s penis and Vince’s. Because both of these people have penis’s, Jake does not fear a loss of his penis or competition, the only threat he may be feeling is losing his uncle’s penis if his mom gets in the way. 

I hope this makes sense, this is what I was thinking while reading the essay...

American, Chinese and Japanese cultural depictions of love and relationship purpose

In Xiaoxin Zeng’s lecture the ‘second wife’ was described as a person who sells their bodies, for material. So in Chinese culture it represents the destruction of love and the influences the idea that money is omnipotent. Now the cultural equivalent in the United States would be the term ‘golddigger’ for the person who marries for financial reasons. Even though Chinese and western culture are recognized as different, the terms second wife and golddigger are almost identical, and are both looked down on society by as the destruction of love in marriage. Yet in the extra credit lecture ‘Love and Money,’ the actual idea of marriage for financial/material reasons is a form of love between spouses recognized in Japanese culture. The various three cultures make statements about the significance of ‘love’ in a relationship, and except love as separate ideas, yet the acceptance of appropriate love is a social construction infused by gender regulations.

This social construction brings up questions regarding how love is perceived based on gender. Both men and women are expected to find ‘love’ as in a romantic and structured partnering depicted in popular culture and society. Now money becomes apart of love even though it is discouraged by society. Yet for men the use of money to buy a woman’s attention is recognized as a benefit of abusing financial power, while the woman in this construct is treated with absolutely no respect for selling herself for money because she is recognized as the one who trades love for money and ruins the essence of love. The gender roles place the blame always on the woman as recognized in Chinese culture and American culture, perhaps because financial power has limitless opportunities or men are systematically allowed to find other ways to find partnership. While the ‘second wife’ or ‘golddigger’ is subjected to social criticism of their actions, because the role of women always deals with upholding traditional views of love and marriage in general.

Therefore in the United States and China love is generally more defined by gender and in Japan the definition of love is more freely accepted. Yet although theses ideas are traditional they limit the conceptual ideas of joint love in regard to a relationship.

Wednesday Lecture by Xiaoxin Zeng

            Wednesday’s lecture on women in Chinese culture brought up a few interesting points on tolerance in other parts of the world. It was interesting to see how some elements of sexism and racism still occur in mainstream China. I believe it is America’s diversity that has allowed us to move past a lot of this same hatred that permeated our culture years ago. America has become one of the most, if not the most, diverse countries in the world. Americans who previously were not as tolerant have learned to live with these cultures. In China meanwhile, the culture is not nearly as diverse, therefore when someone does not fit their normal mold people see them as different and discriminate towards them.

            This same theory can be applied to tolerance towards homosexuals in America. It has not been too long that homosexuals have begun to step into the public light and become a part of mainstream culture. As more members of the LGBT community step forward and learn to live in society, Americans will learn to be more tolerant of them. Change does not come quickly or easily, it will take time and patience to end discrimination towards the LGBT community. As Americans see more of homosexuals they will adjust to living with them and discrimination will slowly but surely decline.

Butler and James

Butler’s piece on “Imitation and Gender Insubordination” addresses some interesting points about the assumptions that our society makes concerning certain terms. Butler considers identity categories to be “stumbling blocks” and “necessary trouble” because a category, by definition, carries connotations that the majority of society will be familiar with. For example, the author wrote she wants the meaning behind the term lesbian to be unclear. If that were the case, then when she was combined with the term lesbian people would not make assumptions about her and her personality.

Another interesting point that Butler makes is about how drag challenges the assumption that all that is masculine belongs to males and all that is feminine belongs to females. Even though this point may seem quite obvious, I still found it interesting to read because it emphasizes the idea that our society has very strict opinions on gender.

One note I want to make about the second reading, James’ “Uncle,” is how sad it was that the boy was not able to talk about anything he was going through. He could not talk about what he was curious about, what was going through his mind, or what questions he wanted to ask. As a child, he was unable to use his voice effectively. He did not have an environment in which he could speak freely. It is interesting to think about whether using his voice would have even mattered. After his mother finds him in the bathroom with his uncle, she makes an assumption about what had happened. When she asks him what happened, it does not make a difference that he doesn’t respond. The mother had already formed an opinion and they boy’s words probably would not have changed it.

Secrets of carnal desires

As an incredibly emotionally charged read, G. Winston James’ “Uncle” prompts us to confront the complexities of desire in a world in which established norms are superimposed upon our already scrupulous internal police. By inviting readers into the intimate thoughts of a young boy, James allows us to feel the isolation of Jake, as he wrestles with his growing attraction toward Uncle Paul that he describes as “weird stuff” -- the thoughts and “secrets” that make him feel “scared” to harbor. His unfiltered thoughts expressed freely and candidly constantly urge us to consider the formation of a sexual identity in which the volatile nature of desire is often suppressed by expectations to fulfill established norms. James evokes pity toward the six-year-old boy as Jake is burdened by his fear that his “mom or the boogey man, or something, will get [him]” if he does not grow up “right”. The struggle Jake faces in his effort to grow up as a masculine “tough kid” while masking his innate desires points to the “performativity” of gender that Judith Butler establishes in her essay “Imitation and Gender Subordination”. It is his struggle, or performance, that prompts us to believe that Butler’s proposition to rethink gender, even if it means relinquishing those personal, ontological certainties about our identities, is not so troubling after all. We consider her compelling claim to view identity more as a type of doing” rather than “failing” by trying to imitate and “approximate phantasmatic idealizations,” that Jake is misguided to achieve. Butler calls for a "decentralization of sex" by arguing the falsehood of the conventional equation, in which sex (being male or female) determines gender (masculinity and femininity) and ultimately results in the denial of desire. So as James arouses empathy for a young boy, left perplexed and ashamed by his “secrets”, maybe what we truly need is to consider Butler’s rendition of a shared sexual identity that “ is interested in where the masculine/feminine break down, where they cohabit and interest, where they lose their discreteness”.

Butler & James

Butler's piece seems very academic in its manner, but discusses the idea of gender in a very matter-of-fact manner. I completely agree with him that there should not be distinct categories of what gender is that the distinctions between them should not be set by society. Masculinity and feminity should not necessarily be attached to male and female genders. There is no area in between for people to categorize themselves into, which makes it all the more harder for gays and transgenders to come out of the closet. The fact that there has not been a category already set apart for them makes them feel more different, and has also made society view them more differently.
James' piece was very different from Butler's in the way that it took a completely different tone in addressing the same topic. This piece is a rather intriguing point of view of a 6-year old, which at times is very disturbing (like the "shaving" part), but I ended up feeling very sad for the child. He was in the dilemma he was in because of the fact that he had been raised knowing that the only categories he could identify himself with were "male" or "female", and it frightened him to know that he didn't fit all the set and sociably accepted characteristics of a male. His obsession with penises is something he cannot completely ignore, however, and it confuses him. I imagine that this is how many other "queers" feel as well, because of the lack of a specific category for them to identify themselves with.

Aretha

In the essay, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” Judith Butler notes the supposed “continuity” of desire, gender, and sex within heteronormativity. As a memorable explanation, Butler provides the reader with the example of Aretha Franklin’s words: “you make me feel like a natural woman.” By using the word “like,” heteronormativity comes as metaphorical, almost unachievable. Also, Butler notes that by being confirmed as a “natural woman” through objectivity, the woman’s “sex” would be expressed in her “gender.” However, because gender is not necessarily biological, gender is a “performance that produces the illusion of an inner sex.” This made me think of Winston James’ “Uncle” in which the six-year-old boy has trouble reconciling his own sex, desire and gender. To what extent Jake’s gender a performance, something that he must maintain, in order to be a “normal” child? According to the story, he feels innate shame as show by the secrecy for his curiosity and attraction to males, as well as feeling shame from other people’s reactions to his own sexuality.

Please, Please...Satan

To me, the most interesting part of "Uncle," by Winston James, is the ending. Why does he call out to Satan to save him? Perhaps it's because he dosn't want to be like his mother who "doesn't believe in fun stuff anymore." She always calls out to Jehovah and throughout the story, James mentions his slight annoyance toward her. Also, it's interesting that he is holding his penis while praying. His fascination with the penis was magnified by his brother's perverted game, no doubt. I felt like James is a victim throughout his story. He has certain desires that may or may not have been catalyzed by his brother. He knows, somehow, that these desires are bad, because they are uncommon. And yet he is completely immersed in these forbidden desires toward the male body. He's infatuated with the "uncommon" and so perhaps that is why the "un-god" is his god. I'm not sure if this is right, I'm just trying to make sense of why he said what he said at the end of the story.

"Uncle" through the Lens of Butler's "Imitation and Gender Insubordination"

“Uncle” is the story of six-year-old Jake’s dawning of sexual understanding, facilitated by his curiosity and his sexual experiences with his older brother Vince, as well as the confidence and masculinity exuded by his favorite person, Uncle Paul. The moment per se of sexual understanding occurs just before Jake’s mom finds him and Paul in a compromising situation in the bathroom. She then assumes the worst—that Paul is sexually abusing Jake—and drags her son out, letting the door close behind them.

After leaving the bathroom, Jake believes Paul can no longer be in there—or, rather, that he can no longer be in there “like he was before.” In her essay “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” Judith Butler states that “identifications are always made in response to loss of some kind,” which explains Paul’s disappearance: After Jake has an epiphanic moment of identification with Vince’s “magical” penis and Paul’s male sexuality, leading him to understand his own status as a man whose penis can also “do magic,” he cannot see Paul as he did before his revelation. Because he recognizes himself as also possessing masculinity, he cannot return to thinking of Paul as this awesome, untouchable masculine entity.

But he does not want the Paul he knew from before his realization to disappear; after all, he loves him. This may be one reason for why he becomes so terrified of his mom reopening the bathroom door: As if Paul were a kind of Schrodinger’s cat (sorry, I couldn’t resist), Jake will not know whether he has really disappeared until the door is opened, and that is a truth that Jake does not want to face.

Another interpretation of his fear of his mom reopening the bathroom door is that he is afraid she will discover his magic—that is, his sexuality. This means we can view the bathroom as Butler’s closet. Just as, according to her, “outness” in sexual orientation is contingent upon there being a closet in which one may be “in,” so too is Jake’s mom’s (lack of) knowledge of his sexuality contingent upon the bathroom door staying closed. She would not actually perceive a shift in his sexual awareness, but he thinks she will. He wants to keep it secret from her because “she doesn’t believe in fun stuff anymore” and he is afraid of her doubtlessly oppressive reaction, therefore he cannot let her go back. And so, he simultaneously evades the moment of truth and distracts his mom by running away and willing his own penis to perform magic.

Butler and James

An interesting concept from James Butler's Imitation and Gender Insubordination is that "outness can only produce a new opacity; and the closet produces the promise of a disclosure that can, by definition, never come". The idea that we are always coming out into an enclosure expecting "fresh air and a light of illumination" but never getting it is also seen in Uncle, by G. Winston James. The idea of "coming out" is originally having a secret, or being closed off, but being open and letting known that "secret". This can be seen in Jake and his secrets of what he and Vince do and how he feels inside about his uncle. And even though he wants to tell his uncle about everything when he feels like his uncle knows about what he and Vince have been doing, he still feels scared, not being able to take the breath of relief. The idea that he had been doingU something bad, something that he didn't want others to find out about, is the closet Jake is hiding in, and when he even has the thought of coming out of that particular closet, he still does not feel the relief that he expects.

Another interesting concept from Imitation and Gender Insubordination that can be seen in Uncle, is the idea that "identification and desire can coexist" and Freud's theory on psychic miming as a response to loss. Jake identifies himself with his uncle based off of his desires for his uncle. Jake realizes his desires for and who he is from his uncle. When his uncle stood above him and Jake felt like his uncle was ridiculing him, Jake felt small and thinks back to the times Vince bullied him. But when his uncle called him a big man, Jake feels big, and identifies himself as being better than his brother. And also, Jake finds his identification in his uncle in the last scene, when he realizes that he might have lost his connection with Uncle Paul. He tries to find Uncle Paul in himself and he does this at the very end, saying "'Please, please...Satan'", in a way, asking Satan to allow his dick to do "the magic trick", thinking that through that, he can get the connection he had with Uncle Paul back.

Uncle

In the short story Uncle, Jake, a six year old boy, tells the story of his birthday. In his story Jake discusses his admiration for his uncle, a man who easily fits in to society's standards as being a "real man" and also talks about how he and his brother play barber, a game where his brother Vince uses his "magic growing penis" as a razor and shaves Jake's face. When reading this article, it is easy for some to think that Jake is gay due to the fact that he tries to touch his brother's penis and tries to look up his uncles shorts to see his dick. However, the child's actions are not sheer homosexuality as one might be compelled to label them. Instead, i believe that the boy, being subjected to the actions of his brother is simply trying to discover himself as well as understand his body through examination of other men he views as role models. The sheer fact that Jake thinks that the penis is magical because it can grow is a testimony to the fact that jake is simply young and naive and has yet to understand his body.
The fact that jake does not tell his mother or father about the games his brother plays with him although he was never expressly never told not to tell shows that Jake, although not consciously aware of it, has been socialized to believe that such actions are "queer." While he himself does not find them wrong and goes along with the game, not telling an adult about the situations shows his inner fear of the situation.
However, i still do not understand the part about the Jehovah's witness and Satan and why the mother would assume that the uncle was touching the boy in the bathroom. Can someone please help me with this. It went completely over my head.

Butler’s "Imitation and Gender Insubordination" and G. Winston James’ "Uncle"

An intriguing quote from Judith Butler’s Imitation and Gender Insubordination, is “Conventionally, one comes out of the closet (and yet, how often is it the case that we are “outted” when we are young and without resources?)” This ties to G. Winston James’ Uncle in that Jake fears that everyone will see or realize his secret and will be angry at him for it. This is exemplified when Jake says, “I can tell he [Uncle Paul] knows something. He can feel it…I know I’m gonna cry if he looks at me not saying anything for even one second longer. If he looks down at my shorts. I’ve got my hands trying to cover them. I think he’s gonna yell at me.” In this case, Jake seems to feel as if he’s been caught defenseless doing something that is not allowed and thus he is in a way suspended in fear of being “outted” while he is “young and without resources.”

Butler also notes, “For being “out” always depends to some extent on being “in”; it gains its meaning only within that polarity.” The highlights the prejudiced stereotype that being heterosexual is seen as the norm whereas being homosexual is not. This is touched upon in James’ Uncle as Jake is told to keep the “barber” games a secret and when he is afraid that Uncle Paul knows what is happening and will get angry at the instance of the homosexual tendency. Here homosexuality is seen as outside the norm, as he tries to hide it. Analyzing Butler’s quote, she seems to say that being gay is determined by group consensus. The structure that we’re all in determines how we think. The differentiation of gay from straight is only in existence in a heteronormative environment, because society (those who are “in”) sees being gay as different and thus determining that one is gay is considered coming “out”.

Another one of Butler’s quotes that resonates within James’s story is “For if the “I” is a site of repetition, that is, if the “I” only achieves the semblance of identity through a certain repetition of itself, then the “I” is always displaced by the very repetition that sustains it.” This suggests that ones view and identity is shaped my repetition of certain aspects of their environment. For example, in G. Winston James’ Uncle, Jake’s brother always makes him play “barber” with him and this repetition of homosexual tendencies, according to Butler, would initially shape Jake’s identity and eventually displace it.

Butler and James

In her essay “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” Judith Butler questions the creation of the binary system of gender as a result of imitation. Butler examines the popular idea of heterosexuality as the true and authentic and lesbianism as a king of miming, and then claims that this may not necessarily be an accurate claim as drag is not an imitation; it is not putting on a gender that belongs properly to some other group. As Butler explains, there is no proper gender, “feminine” does not belong to “female” and “masculine” does not belong to “male,” which constitutes the problems associated with categorizing gender. This notion that categories are indeed incredibly problematic falls in line with the Queer Theory idea that gender is a fluid entity that cannot be constrained in any way; gender is constantly shifting and exceeding any linguistic attempt to categorize it.

Winston James’ short story “Uncle” entails a young boy narrator who grapples with desires for fellow male characters. The narrator struggles with how to act upon his sexual desires for his uncle and the secret relations his has with his brother, not knowing how to handle the situation. He does not want his mother to find out the truth about his homosexual feelings, as he does not want to upset her more than she already is by living a “deviant” lifestyle. In this way, Butler’s idea of gender fluidity comes into play as the parents of the young boy should not expect him to have masculine desires because he is biologically determined a male—“masculine” does not belong to “male” and there is no proper gender. The child lives in fear of the socially constructed categories dividing gender that Butler describes, as he is wary of straying from the heterosexual norms and exploring alternate paths. Even though the narrator may not be aware of his struggle with social constructions and categories, as he comments on how he is unsure why he feels guilty for staring at his uncle or engaging in shaving games with his brothers, he is nonetheless grappling with his homosexual desires in a society full of heterosexual expectations.

Jake's "Lovers"

Judith Butler's essay "Imitation and Gender Insubordination" reflects on the idea of "being" a homosexual, as well as explanations surrounding different theories on homosexuality. One quote that stuck out to me in relation to G. Winston James' short story "Uncle" explains Freud's idea of incorporation. "If incorporation in Freud's sense in 1914 is an an effort to preserve a lost and loved object and to refuse of postpone the recognition of loss and, hence, of grief, then to become like one's mother or father or sibling of other early "lovers" may be an act of love and/or a hateful effort to replace of displace" (317, Butler). The main character in the story, Jake, is confused about his sexual organs and his sexuality in general, not really understanding what is 'normal' both physically and emotionally. In a way, when he discovers his "magic dick," he loses the innocent and childlike object, his pre-pubescent penis, that he once had. This loss, as well as his fascination, causes him to want to be like his brother, as he is sexually exposed to him at an early age.

Although Jake knows that having his brother "shave him with his penis" is not something to be shared, he still doesn't really question it, and actually enjoys this time spent with his brother. He is in awe of his brother's "magic dick" and is baffled when he discovers that he has one too. The fact that he has never learned about an erection makes him feel special, however, also frightened. He doesn't really know what to make of his strange attraction to his uncle, as well as his fascination with his brother, and as Freud predicts, he falls in 'love' with these men he admires. Jake is obviously a conflicted young homosexual who finds comfort in these loving men in his life. He steers away from his father because he is too hard on him, and wants him to grow big and tough, something young Jake isn't really sure he wants to do.

When I found out that one of the pieces this week was through the eyes of a 6 year-old boy, I was really excited to read it because I love strong narrative voices like that, so I decided to tackle it first.

"As giant as he is, he's making me feel even smaller than I usually do, and I don't think I really like it." I've read through the blog posts before mine, and so the importance of size to boys has already been introduced into my chains of thought, but I think size in general is important to a small little kid. Everyone is so much more intimidating as a little kid not only because of their age, but because of their size! Anyone can easily hurt you just because of that advantage. I've always desired to be taller, and I'm sure many can empathize with me, no matter your height. I know people who are practically a foot taller than I am that still want to be taller. It's important to look like you can defend yourself, in a dog-eat-dog world that we are in.
I think it's really interesting that Jake then desires to see other men's penises after having such close contact with his brother's, but I don't think you can label it as homosexual tendencies. I think since it's such a regularity with his brother, he finds it normal and a mark of manhood, which makes sense why he would then want to compare his uncle's to his brother's. After all, he and his peers can't do the same thing his brother can. It gets to the point where he even wants to see his uncle shower, that he imagines it. It's a point of respect for him.

By the end of the read though, I connect the core question of "Can a child really speak? And if so, are we really listening?" Jake never answers his mom, but she automatically assumes his answer. Even if he had said something, she probably would've interpreted it on her own. Like Manan has pointed out, how should we take a child's testimony in a court of law? They may not even understand what is right or what is wrong. They may not be saying what exactly they want to convey. I've personally never thought about it in this sense. I've always thought that what children say should always be taken to heart because they're so honest, many seem to, or to me at least, lack a sense of filter. However, now I do think that there is a certain level of caution we should approach with when concerning a child's words.

As for Judith Butler's piece, I was immediately intrigued because she brought up the idea of writing as a lesbian. I thought it's kind of offensive to think of a lesbian as a different type of person, or an unattached part of oneself. It should be one whole person, should it not? Not a lesbian, and then, a woman! So it's funny to me that she's okay as "appearing as a lesbian" under political occasions, like it's a job or hers, a role she plays. I was also intrigued by this: "As a young person, i suffered for along time... that what I "am" is a copy, an imitation, a derivative example, a shadow of the real," because it reminds me of those short definitions we had to look up a couple of weeks back, particularly mine with the mirror stage, as we humans apparently take a lifetime trying to connect ourselves with what we see in the mirror, and the Imaginary that Lacan theorizes.
I was also really excited to see the author's thoughts on drag, and I'm a little disappointed that my group already went up to make our presentation because some of the thing she said about it surely would've been useful! It took me a couple of re-reads to really understand what she was saying though, I'm not going to lie, and I can't say that I really know what she's saying in the end, but I like this quote, "It seems there is no original or primary gender that drag imitates but gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original." It just got me thinking that indeed, where is the original for gender norms? Where in the chain of time were certain stereotypes set by society? Where was the blueprint that said guys can't cry? She also says "gender is drag" which is true in a sense. Drag is a sort of persona, a personality type, a state of mind. Gender, because of what society demands of a man and a woman, is a state of mind as well, if we want to stay within the boundaries and norms. Gender is something we put on when guys decide to stay away from a dress and put on pants instead, when girls put on their make-up.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who Has the Biggest Penis of Them All?

Not that I don't always, but I really happened to enjoy the blog assignment this week because I feel as though both pieces of writing had a lot purpose and meaning within each other that some of our other assignments miss out on. I think that in James's telling of "Uncle" the reader is given a chance to see the principles of Butler's writing in all its shocking truth and validity. Imitation is an extremely powerful tool for one's development in a world where we as organisms can seemingly only survive and flourish if we are accepted by our peers. Gender may be one of the touchiest within in this realm in that the validity of one's gender and sexuality are under constant scrutiny by our peers and in only have two classifications, male and female, there isn't a lot of room for gray. Jake as a child understands this concept and thereby holds his brother in high regard for the abilities which his penis has, learning from his environment that the size of your penis is directly relative to the breadth of your masculinity which within his environment is the only scale that matters. Butler takes hold of and criticizes this concept in her examination of the way in which classifying gender and sexuality only work to betray the significance of these two ideas and feelings for those having them. In Jake so early on trying to prove himself to people that probably shouldn't be role models he will ultimately be hindered in appreciating and realizing his own unique sexual drive.

These readings also brought to mind for me the Cooley concept of "looking-glass self" which I think can be distinctly seen in Jake. Within James's story, Jake hardly holds any sense of himself and becomes an object in the reflection of the values of his family. He evaluates his own worth and ability not by how well he can colour, something I was pretty proud of when I was a youngster, but in his penis's capacity to becoming bigger "magically." In taking on the value system of his brother, Jake loses a piece of himself but gains the acceptance of his environment thereby having his sexuality and desires be not a derivative of him but rather what he has been told to be. I think that although Jake's story may not be identical to all of ours, we are not so unlike him in that we are all in some ways reflections of our environments... just maybe not so considered with the size of our penis.

--Jheanelle G.

Kids saying no to gender roles for Halloween

[Source: Online blog. Caption from website: "this kid is my hero. she couldn’t decide between being a princess and being darth vader for halloween. this is the result."]

Have a happy and safe Halloween, everyone!

James and Butler

While reading "Uncle" by Winston James, although initially shocked, I kept thinking about everything that someone could learn by examining the subconious of a 6 year old. Everything within the reading seemed to point to our society's definition of a man, who he should be, and what he should look like. In Jake's mind, height, muscles, hair, and penis size were the defining chacteristics of how he thought he was suppossed to look, how he thought a man was suppossed to look. The intense influence that his bother (and their 'games') had on him as well as his feelings about his uncle, suggest the influence of the environment on the child's behavior. Jake is learning from everything around him and realizing how inadaquate he is compared to both his brother and his uncle; yet what he doesn't realize is that he is only a child and therefore suppossed to be less developed. This examinatin of the psyche of a child shows easily they can beinfluenced, how they can be misunderstood, and even how much they can be confused by their own thoughts. Judith Butler comments on this idea as she says that "As a young person, I suffered for a long time, and I suspect many people have, from being told, explicitly or implicitly, that what I "am" is a copy, an imitation, a derivative example, a shadow of the real." Throughout the story, Jake compared himself and older brother and his uncle imitating what they did and what they looked like in an attempt to try and be who he thought he was suppossed to be-them. He thought that because he was smaller and shorter he was doing something wrong. Jake constantly wonders if what he thinks about and the things that happen to him are the same things that happen to his uncle; Jake is constantly looking for the approval of those around him to justify his thoughts and the actions of his body.

While thinking about the psyche of a child, I also began to wonder about the validity of their claims of the truth. I had, for a long time, thought that the innocence of a child made their claims believeable and validated their thoughts. But I never really stopped to consider the idea that maybe a child isn't as innocent as everyone thinks. Although they may be too naive to realize what they are thinking about/doing, children are always learning from those around them and immitating their environment. One of the first things I ever learned about children was that they would always copy what they are shown; whether it be good or bad. "Uncle" opened my eyes to the idea that children try to please those around them by copying others actions and putting their feelings of fear and guilt aside in hopes that they will not be punished for things they think are bad. One interesting thing I thought about while reading "Uncle" was Jake's constant attempts to hide his actions and feeling from those around him and to keep his brothers secrets because of an innate sense of guilt that he seemed to have inside him.