I have Chinese relatives who still hold very conservative views about homosexuality, and highly disagree with gay men and women, especially those who are Chinese. To what extent does race still play a factor in accepting or disproving of homosexuality? Where do we see a disconnect between how gay white couples are treated versus mixed or minority gay couples? Is this a reflection of minority cultures, or racial discrimination by majority races?
In Sedgwick's article, the passage on Luke, Tim, and Bob stood out to me. They might all be homosexuals, but in the end their outward appearance mimics the appearance of a normal heterosexual man. What I found rather disturbing was how revisionist analysts viewed "healthy" homosexuals as ones who conform to society's hetero-normative state, and the ones who do not conform are afflicted with a psychological disease that targets an individual's character. There really isn't any scientific data to support this correlation, so it seems that it's more of a rationalization of something unknown - and by extension frightening or threatening. Because Friedman refers to it as a "global character pathology" and homosexuality as psychopathological, there seems to be a fear of homosexuality becoming a widespread issue - almost like an infectious disease. But that's probably a giant leap. So what exactly causes people to have this innate fear of homosexuality? Is it just a natural response against a member of a group (a male who is a part of the male population) who fails to conform to group norms (masculinity) and in the process of deviation, somehow threatens the "image" of the group?
In Judith Butler's article, Imitation and Gender Isolation, she talks about the anxiety of "being" anything, specially lesbian or gay. She talks about that being a part of these groups doesn't settle the anxiety of who she is, the whole act of "being" something. She writes "to be gay, to be lesbian seems to be more than a simple injunction to become who or what I already am". (307) While I understand what she is saying, I don't fully agree. Isn't it true that every group one associated themselves with is a part of who they are as a person? And so if one is lesbian, or oppositely if one is straight, isn't that a part of who they are? Doesn't it in some way define them as a being? And I don't just think this is true regarding sexuality. I feel it is true for everything in life. Whether one is jewish, or muslim, or an athlete, or an artist: any group one belongs to helps create who they are and their perspective on the world. It shapes them in some sort of way. Is Butler saying being lesbian/gay doesn't impact who they are whatsoever? Because I don't think that is possible. It doesn't solely define a person, but it absolutely impacts their life and how they develop and who they are.
In the 'uncle' article I thought it was very interesting that a story like that, clearly about a form of abuse was told through a first person perspective. It seemed almost as though it was a cautionary tale, due to the call for help from Satan. Though this is a work of fiction I wonder what the intention is with its message? Is this a cautionary tale or does the author have a greater message or intention with this last line of the story?
In “The Joy of the Castrated Boy,” the writer discusses “Medusa’s Head,” in which Freud mentions “the terror of castration” (Lee 35) in the boy’s mind when he sees a female nude. I was puzzled by Freud’s theory of this terror of castration and how Freud saw a connection between castration and the myth of Medusa’s head. How does castration relate to the myth of Medusa? I feel like Freud’s theories suggest that females are somehow inferior to males because they lack male genitalia, which is a bit ridiculous, not to mention offensive. Are males afraid of being perceived as feminine as women because of women’s supposed inferiority?
Original question from the text: “What is likely to be the fate of children brought under the influence of psychoanalyses and psychiatry today, post DSM III, on account of anxieties about their sexuality?
If any child is brought up under some kind of influence of psychoanalysis or psychiatry, wouldn’t that child, gay or not, have anxieties if the emphasis is placed on certain ‘abnormalities’ or ‘differences’ from other children. I don’t want to call them abnormalities, because they are not, but I am using the term to mock the social norms, and place emphasis on the issue.
Wouldn’t even a so called ‘norm conforming’ adult, who has already developed personality, gender, and sexual orientation, feel anxious, concerned, or even self conscious, if placed under observation or critique of his/her behavior, sexual or other? How do we expect children to feel if adults place too much importance on sexuality to determine one’s gender?
How do we explain or view homosexuality being called “Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood”? How much our understanding has progressed on this subject since 80’s and 90’s when these texts/researches were written? In what ways has psychoanalysis progressed since that time, or fundamentals are still pretty much the same?
It is known that external factors influence an individual's opinion and beliefs about ideas and situations. Some of those factors may include one's background and the household in which they were brought up in. To what degree does race, religion, and class influence an individual's beliefs about homosexuality and deviations from the expected social norms of gender and sexuality?
In Judith Butler's article, she discusses how homosexuality shouldn't be given a definition because if it has a definition, homosexuals can be attacked as whole. While her argument that the stereotypes and definition of homosexual are needed to be able to attack homosexuals, I don't think that her goal of eliminating these definitions is possible. I think that society automatically applies definitions to any category that we can. So wouldn't this be unfeasible?
Judith Butler asks, "When and where does my being a lesbian come into play...?" (311) As I read this I compare it to the people who believe that being gay changes everything and how you act. These people are surprised when a person who is gay/lesbian acts "straight". What does this even mean? Is there are rule book that gays and lesbians must follow so that they do not act "straight" and act gay/lesbian all the time?So my question is: Why are the expectations for gays/lesbians different than those people who are straight?
In Judith Butler's article "Imitation and Gender Insubordination," I found it extremely interesting how Butler claims that "to install [her]self within the terms of an identity category would be to turn against the sexuality that the category purports to describe (308)..." Throughout the article, Butler argues that the idea of "being" anything has always seemed to cause her panic due to the very oppression that "normalizing categories" produce. Although I partially understand her point-of-view, I cannot completely agree with her. Butler questions the validity of the word "I" and its very definition. Implying that even the word "I" originated as a product of social constructs, she, thus, believes that there is no need for her to belong into one single gender group. In other words, she chooses not to be classified as either lesbian or gay. Yet, doesn't an individual deem it necessary to belong to a group in order to find emotional and personal support, particularly for homosexuals? I concur with Butler in that structural blockages defined by society impede on certain issues, such as gender norms. However, why is it that she discredits the idea of a "being" when it is, in fact, the very idea of being a "being" that contributes to our own self-identity in the long run?
In the article by Sedgewick titled, "How to Bring your kids up Gay" the author goes into detail about how a boy only becomes masculine through/with the help of other men. In this sense, does that mean that a single female parent taking care of a boy is more likely to raise a gay because there is not a steady male presence in his life? Could the increasing divorce trend attribute to the increased amounts of gays around the world, or is this a false association? Is the increased amounts of gays due to the fact society is more accepting than traditional days? In the second half of the article, the author discusses treatments for gays and how parents are reacting in a way that promotes treatment or trying to change homosexuals into heterosexual people. Although I agree with the article, I wonder what point of view gays would have on their kids. Would they always be unconsciously parenting their kids to become homosexual instead of heterosexual? In essence, are they bringing them into the gay "culture" in order to advocate for homosexual orientation? Finally, both this article and "The Joy of the Castrated Boy" mention the idea of pschyoanalysis within individuals, or the mental aspect to the lesbian/gay issue. In that the mental image or ideal of a masculine person or a feminine one influences an individual's desire to be a certain way. So how does society's expectations or definitions of what we define as male or female deter or attract individuals to certain identifications? Grace Huang.
In Butler's "Imitation and Gender Insubordination", under the section titled "Psychic Mimesis" - second paragraph, pg 316- there is a theory that I find hard to follow. What does it mean by "the other in the self"?
One of the lines in the Judith Butler article that I found really striking was, "heterosexuality [is] an incessant and panicked imitation of its own naturalized idealization." I was really intrigued by this. In what ways does heterosexuality seek to protect itself? To what extent are things like homophobia and institutional discrimination examples of the heterosexual status quo attempting to maintain itself? Furthermore, what other categories (like race or class) could this statement be applied to?
One quote from "Joy of the Castrated Boy" stuck out to me when I was reading: "I was not a girl, not yet a man, I thought. What I did not realize was that I was a male, not yet a woman." This line stuck out to me because of the use of gender terms in the two sentences. It seems to me that the speaker (the author) of the article is between male and female, and he explicitly describes gender confusion by placing himself between "girl" and "man", and "male" and "woman". The use of gender terms here is significant because it indicates that the author accepts the gender binary commonly used in society "male" and "female". Isn't it, then, paradoxical for the speaker to adopt the gender binary yet say that he is between the binary? What does this say about the dominance of the gender binary and those with gender confusion? Is the gender binary absolute?
When reading "Joy of the Castrated Boy", I was most touched by the last bit where the author talks about an experience with his mother where she does not know to refer to him as a son or a daughter. For him(for lack of a better pronoun), this act is comforting because he does not define himself as either a man or woman and shares the unknowing with his mother. Is it possible for society to go beyond the gender dichotomy? We are so stuck in it that it is hard to grasp the fact that people belong to a spectrum rather than specific categories.
I have Chinese relatives who still hold very conservative views about homosexuality, and highly disagree with gay men and women, especially those who are Chinese. To what extent does race still play a factor in accepting or disproving of homosexuality? Where do we see a disconnect between how gay white couples are treated versus mixed or minority gay couples? Is this a reflection of minority cultures, or racial discrimination by majority races?
ReplyDeleteIn Sedgwick's article, the passage on Luke, Tim, and Bob stood out to me. They might all be homosexuals, but in the end their outward appearance mimics the appearance of a normal heterosexual man. What I found rather disturbing was how revisionist analysts viewed "healthy" homosexuals as ones who conform to society's hetero-normative state, and the ones who do not conform are afflicted with a psychological disease that targets an individual's character. There really isn't any scientific data to support this correlation, so it seems that it's more of a rationalization of something unknown - and by extension frightening or threatening. Because Friedman refers to it as a "global character pathology" and homosexuality as psychopathological, there seems to be a fear of homosexuality becoming a widespread issue - almost like an infectious disease. But that's probably a giant leap. So what exactly causes people to have this innate fear of homosexuality? Is it just a natural response against a member of a group (a male who is a part of the male population) who fails to conform to group norms (masculinity) and in the process of deviation, somehow threatens the "image" of the group?
ReplyDeleteIn Judith Butler's article, Imitation and Gender Isolation, she talks about the anxiety of "being" anything, specially lesbian or gay. She talks about that being a part of these groups doesn't settle the anxiety of who she is, the whole act of "being" something. She writes "to be gay, to be lesbian seems to be more than a simple injunction to become who or what I already am". (307) While I understand what she is saying, I don't fully agree. Isn't it true that every group one associated themselves with is a part of who they are as a person? And so if one is lesbian, or oppositely if one is straight, isn't that a part of who they are? Doesn't it in some way define them as a being? And I don't just think this is true regarding sexuality. I feel it is true for everything in life. Whether one is jewish, or muslim, or an athlete, or an artist: any group one belongs to helps create who they are and their perspective on the world. It shapes them in some sort of way. Is Butler saying being lesbian/gay doesn't impact who they are whatsoever? Because I don't think that is possible. It doesn't solely define a person, but it absolutely impacts their life and how they develop and who they are.
ReplyDeleteIn the 'uncle' article I thought it was very interesting that a story like that, clearly about a form of abuse was told through a first person perspective. It seemed almost as though it was a cautionary tale, due to the call for help from Satan. Though this is a work of fiction I wonder what the intention is with its message? Is this a cautionary tale or does the author have a greater message or intention with this last line of the story?
ReplyDeleteIn “The Joy of the Castrated Boy,” the writer discusses “Medusa’s Head,” in which Freud mentions “the terror of castration” (Lee 35) in the boy’s mind when he sees a female nude. I was puzzled by Freud’s theory of this terror of castration and how Freud saw a connection between castration and the myth of Medusa’s head. How does castration relate to the myth of Medusa? I feel like Freud’s theories suggest that females are somehow inferior to males because they lack male genitalia, which is a bit ridiculous, not to mention offensive. Are males afraid of being perceived as feminine as women because of women’s supposed inferiority?
ReplyDelete“How To Bring Your Kinds Up Gay” questions:
ReplyDeleteOriginal question from the text: “What is likely to be the fate of children brought under the influence of psychoanalyses and psychiatry today, post DSM III, on account of anxieties about their sexuality?
If any child is brought up under some kind of influence of psychoanalysis or psychiatry, wouldn’t that child, gay or not, have anxieties if the emphasis is placed on certain ‘abnormalities’ or ‘differences’ from other children. I don’t want to call them abnormalities, because they are not, but I am using the term to mock the social norms, and place emphasis on the issue.
Wouldn’t even a so called ‘norm conforming’ adult, who has already developed personality, gender, and sexual orientation, feel anxious, concerned, or even self conscious, if placed under observation or critique of his/her behavior, sexual or other? How do we expect children to feel if adults place too much importance on sexuality to determine one’s gender?
How do we explain or view homosexuality being called “Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood”? How much our understanding has progressed on this subject since 80’s and 90’s when these texts/researches were written? In what ways has psychoanalysis progressed since that time, or fundamentals are still pretty much the same?
It is known that external factors influence an individual's opinion and beliefs about ideas and situations. Some of those factors may include one's background and the household in which they were brought up in. To what degree does race, religion, and class influence an individual's beliefs about homosexuality and deviations from the expected social norms of gender and sexuality?
ReplyDeleteIn Judith Butler's article, she discusses how homosexuality shouldn't be given a definition because if it has a definition, homosexuals can be attacked as whole. While her argument that the stereotypes and definition of homosexual are needed to be able to attack homosexuals, I don't think that her goal of eliminating these definitions is possible. I think that society automatically applies definitions to any category that we can. So wouldn't this be unfeasible?
ReplyDeleteJudith Butler asks, "When and where does my being a lesbian come into play...?" (311) As I read this I compare it to the people who believe that being gay changes everything and how you act. These people are surprised when a person who is gay/lesbian acts "straight". What does this even mean? Is there are rule book that gays and lesbians must follow so that they do not act "straight" and act gay/lesbian all the time?So my question is: Why are the expectations for gays/lesbians different than those people who are straight?
ReplyDeleteIn Judith Butler's article "Imitation and Gender Insubordination," I found it extremely interesting how Butler claims that "to install [her]self within the terms of an identity category would be to turn against the sexuality that the category purports to describe (308)..." Throughout the article, Butler argues that the idea of "being" anything has always seemed to cause her panic due to the very oppression that "normalizing categories" produce. Although I partially understand her point-of-view, I cannot completely agree with her. Butler questions the validity of the word "I" and its very definition. Implying that even the word "I" originated as a product of social constructs, she, thus, believes that there is no need for her to belong into one single gender group. In other words, she chooses not to be classified as either lesbian or gay. Yet, doesn't an individual deem it necessary to belong to a group in order to find emotional and personal support, particularly for homosexuals? I concur with Butler in that structural blockages defined by society impede on certain issues, such as gender norms. However, why is it that she discredits the idea of a "being" when it is, in fact, the very idea of being a "being" that contributes to our own self-identity in the long run?
ReplyDeleteIn the article by Sedgewick titled, "How to Bring your kids up Gay" the author goes into detail about how a boy only becomes masculine through/with the help of other men. In this sense, does that mean that a single female parent taking care of a boy is more likely to raise a gay because there is not a steady male presence in his life? Could the increasing divorce trend attribute to the increased amounts of gays around the world, or is this a false association? Is the increased amounts of gays due to the fact society is more accepting than traditional days?
ReplyDeleteIn the second half of the article, the author discusses treatments for gays and how parents are reacting in a way that promotes treatment or trying to change homosexuals into heterosexual people. Although I agree with the article, I wonder what point of view gays would have on their kids. Would they always be unconsciously parenting their kids to become homosexual instead of heterosexual? In essence, are they bringing them into the gay "culture" in order to advocate for homosexual orientation?
Finally, both this article and "The Joy of the Castrated Boy" mention the idea of pschyoanalysis within individuals, or the mental aspect to the lesbian/gay issue. In that the mental image or ideal of a masculine person or a feminine one influences an individual's desire to be a certain way. So how does society's expectations or definitions of what we define as male or female deter or attract individuals to certain identifications? Grace Huang.
In Butler's "Imitation and Gender Insubordination", under the section titled "Psychic Mimesis" - second paragraph, pg 316- there is a theory that I find hard to follow. What does it mean by "the other in the self"?
ReplyDeleteOne of the lines in the Judith Butler article that I found really striking was, "heterosexuality [is] an incessant and panicked imitation of its own naturalized idealization." I was really intrigued by this. In what ways does heterosexuality seek to protect itself? To what extent are things like homophobia and institutional discrimination examples of the heterosexual status quo attempting to maintain itself? Furthermore, what other categories (like race or class) could this statement be applied to?
ReplyDeleteOne quote from "Joy of the Castrated Boy" stuck out to me when I was reading: "I was not a girl, not yet a man, I thought. What I did not realize was that I was a male, not yet a woman." This line stuck out to me because of the use of gender terms in the two sentences. It seems to me that the speaker (the author) of the article is between male and female, and he explicitly describes gender confusion by placing himself between "girl" and "man", and "male" and "woman". The use of gender terms here is significant because it indicates that the author accepts the gender binary commonly used in society "male" and "female". Isn't it, then, paradoxical for the speaker to adopt the gender binary yet say that he is between the binary? What does this say about the dominance of the gender binary and those with gender confusion? Is the gender binary absolute?
ReplyDeleteWhen reading "Joy of the Castrated Boy", I was most touched by the last bit where the author talks about an experience with his mother where she does not know to refer to him as a son or a daughter. For him(for lack of a better pronoun), this act is comforting because he does not define himself as either a man or woman and shares the unknowing with his mother. Is it possible for society to go beyond the gender dichotomy? We are so stuck in it that it is hard to grasp the fact that people belong to a spectrum rather than specific categories.
ReplyDelete