Gender as a free-floating artifice

GENDER TROUBLE by Judith Butler

“One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one.” —Simone de Beauvoir

“Does the body rule the mind, or does the mind rule the body? I dunno – The Smiths (‘Still Ill’)

I have written this post – my first of 2024 – to help me to clarify some the mind (and body) blowing ideas contained in Judith Butler’s influential but still controversial book ‘Gender Trouble’ which was first published by Routledge in 1990.

At the heart of Butler’s treatise are two fundamental questions: What is a woman?  What is a man?

In her 1999 preface to the 3^rd edition, Judith Butler clarifies her intentions stating that one of her primary motivations was to challenge the restrictive definition of gender in feminist theory. She affirms that  woman does not only exhibit her womanness through heterosexual coitus “in which her subordination becomes her pleasure.”

We are conditioned to accept the principle that  power, reason and rationality should always be associated with masculinity while  femininity is confined to a passive role of being in thrall to these qualities. Under the rigid terms of paternal law “the female body [is] characterized primarily in terms of its reproductive function.”

One of the main criticisms of ‘Gender Trouble’ is that it is written in a heightened academic style which many have found both incomprehensible and pretentious. Butler insists “I am not trying to be difficult” yet  acknowledges that the book is not written in a populist style. Her defence is that complex subjects do not lend themselves to simplification : “If I treat that grammar as pellucid, then I fail to call attention precisely to that sphere of language that establishes and disestablishes intelligibility.” 

Different can, same Brand

Russell Brand’s probable comeuppance is long overdue and, if successful, would represent another high profile scalp for the #metoo movement.

The accused will doubtless claim, with some justification, that by throwing him to the wolves in what amounts to trial by television, the media is biting a hand that has fed it for many years. 

Brand has never claimed to be a saint. On the contrary, in his popular stage shows he has flaunted his insatiable sexual appetites, taunting audiences to denounce him as a sinner. Until now, few have been prepared to cast the first stone and this begs the question as to why it has taken so long.

Channel 4’s ‘Despatches’ documentary suggests the reason why is that there is relatively flimsy evidence against him. The programme purports to expose of many misdeeds of a sexual predator hiding in plain sight but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know or have long suspected.

The biggest smoking gun comes with a ‘prank’ phone call with Jimmy Saville who was posthumously exposed as a paedophile. Like a cheap pimp,  Brand jokingly offers to provide the services of naked woman to Saville.

None of the unnamed women in the documentary deny that they willingly entered into sexual relations with the openly promiscuous Brand. The fact that accusations of rape, coercion and abuse derive from subsequent encounters make the case against him harder to prove and it can hardly be claimed that he acted out of character.

Brand has never hidden his sexual appetites and has admitted his cynical seduction techniques. Far from being repulsed by his bragging stage act containing such salacious details, he has been widely admired and applauded for ‘saying the unsayable’.

He has survived numerous controversies in the past and indeed has positively thrived on his public misdemeanours through a succession of lucrative radio, television and film contracts. His current podcast has a huge following and provides a vehicle for him to voice increasingly unhinged conspiracy theories. 

If nothing else, this latest ‘exposé’  is further proof that the excesses of brazen narcissists know no bounds. Boris Johnson and Donald Trump have proven that this also works effectively in the political arena. Their mantra is ‘If you’ve got it, flaunt it’  and they feel above the legal restrictions and moral standards that ‘ordinary’ citizens live by.  

Women Talking – should we stay or should we go?

Women “yatter and chatter” while “men talk“, wrote Scottish poet Liz Lochhead, making gender distinctions in communication long before the invention of the term ‘mansplaining’.

In  Sarah Polley‘s movie, set in 2010, the women talkers are members of a closed religious community whose place and name is never specified. What we do know is that they have been kept as chattels, denied education and subjected to nightly rapes after being drugged. The traumatized victims are of all ages and they are left bloodied, bruised and, in many cases, pregnant.

Fleeing would seem to be the obvious choice but ,as a menacing sister superior Scarface Janz (Frances McDormand) reminds them, to leave would also mean renouncing their faith. In other words, they are damned to hell if they go, damned to a life of violent subjugation if they stay. Talk about a rock and a hard place!

The men are all the more scary for being an unseen prescence. The only adult male character is one of the good guys .School teacher August (Ben Whishaw) is tasked with taking the minutes at an emergency meeting. In a race against time,the women have a 24-hour window to decide their own fate while their attackers are away defending their actions to the authorities.

The women may be illiterate but they are highly articulate. Those who advocate taking an axe to their abusers sum up the level of anger but others suggest a less violent alternative. At no point do we get the impression that any help will come from beyond their isolated community.

August appears to represent what men might become if educated and sensitised to the needs and rights of women. When accused of forcing the debate or speaking out of turn, he apologizes profusely and tearfully. His feminised masculinity is a stark contrast to the animalistic behavior of his peers.

A caption at the start of the movie identifies it as “a work of female imagination.” It is based on a 2018 novel of the same name by Miriam Toews which is described as a “fictional reaction” to real-life events that occurred in a Mennonite community in Bolivia.

Any cinematic ‘realism’ stems from the fact that the plight of these women has parallels with the rise in abusive relationships in western society. Their isolation and suffering is also commonplace in societies where female opression is sanctioned by the church and/or state.

The film is a parable designed to stimulate debate about what kind of world might be possible if men listened more and women were able to gather and talk freely without fear for their lives. Fiction doesn’t get any more speculative than this.

Shaking the tree – my year in movies

“You don’t have to do what your mother has done / This is your life, this new life has begun/It’s your day, Woman’s Day” – Lyrics to ‘Shaking The Tree’ by Youssou N’Dour & Peter Gabriel from Youssou N’Dour’s album ‘The Lion’ (1989)

The greatest movie ever made?

My viewing habits continue to be influenced by Mark Cousins’ exhaustive (and exhausting) Women Make Film which illustrates how ignored, or underrated, women directors have been in recent years.

Among those belatedly recognizing the need for a gender rethink are the Sight and Sound film critics who went full woke and voted Chantal Akerman’s epic ‘Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles’ as the greatest film of all time.. This was a controversial and, frankly, contrary choice but at least makes the case that the late Belgian director is worthy of being regarded alongside auteurs like Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock.

That said, the list itself has many notable omissions. No place for any of the Godfather movies plus nothing by Luis Bunuel or The Coen Brothers while ‘Daisies’, a silly, surreal and horribly dated Czech movie from the 1960s merits inclusion as a bogus ‘Feminist’ classic.

The female gaze in ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’

The most recent film in the Sight & Sound list is 2019’s seductive ”Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ directed by Céline Sciamma. I saw this after being hugely impressed by Sciamma’s earlier movies ‘Girlhood’ (2014) and ‘Tomboy’ (2011). Her latest movie ‘Petite Maman’ (2021) is also excellent. If you want to understand the difference between the male and female gaze, any of these movies are essential viewing.

One of my better decisions of the year was to take out a subscription to MUBI, the online streaming site that takes global and independent movies seriously.

I signed up initially to see Andrea Arnold’s ‘Cow’ which, despite all the praise, proved to be a bit of a let down. Perhaps, as a Vegan, I didn’t need to be persuaded that farm animals have feelings too! In compensation Mubi currently hosts three excellent shorts by the English director of which her Oscar winning ‘Wasp’ (2003) is the most powerful (and depressing!)

Grayson Perry on the pantomime of masculinity

The Descent of Man by Grayson Perry (Allen Lane, 2016)

Part autobiography, part philosophy, this book is a personal account on a complex topic. While not intended as a nuanced study of gender politics, artist Grayson Perry makes plenty of valuable points about masculinity and patriarchy with charm and humor.

He writes that “the male role in developed countries is nearly all performance; a pantomime of masculinity.” In the pantomime tradition,  ‘He’s behind you!’ would be an appropriate all-purpose warning cry since we all know male villains like this. They are everywhere, men behaving badly who are unapologetically boastful or else surreptitiously hiding in plain sight. 

For performing men, swaggering sexism has long been considered the norm. Challenges by feminists have shown them in their true colors, helping to show how patriarchy operates in practice.  For instance, the recent #Metoo campaign has exposed the insidious sexual harassment that has been ignored or tolerated in many workplaces and institutions.