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.  

The mechanics of the pleasure principle

PLEASURE directed by Ninja Thyberg (Sweden, 2021)

When Bella Cherry (not her real name) arrives in America from Sweden, the customs officer asks if her visit is for business or pleasure. Bella replies “Pleasure” with a wry smile. After watching this movie, I’d say she gave the wrong answer.  Having lots of sex would normally count as a pleasurable activity but when this is done for money in a mechanical, ritualistic manner then, just as in prostitution,  it falls squarely into the category of business.

It is soon clear that Thyberg’s objective is not to make a feminist movie or to criticise pornography.  We see a male dominated world in which the women consent to be exploited and abused knowing full well the implications and content of the encounters beforehand.  

The autoeroticism of Titane

TITANE directed by Julia Ducournau (France, 2021)

“An auto-crash can be more sexually stimulating than a pornographic picture” – William Burroughs (From the preface to The Atrocity Exhibition by J.G. Ballard)

While conventional cinema barely scratches the surface of the psychopathology of sexual relationships. ‘Titane’ dares to go deeper and the results are a heady mix of disturbing realism and rampant absurdism. The violence is stylised yet gruesome; the tenderness is awkward yet credible.

The singular fate of Alexia (Agathe Rousselle) is to be more turned on by the gleaming metal of cars than the flesh of humans. As a steamy, sensual dancer she dry humps Cadillacs and when the showtime is over she climaxes in the back seat of one of these vehicles to bring a new meaning to the term auto-eroticism. Later, she literally bleeds motor engine oil.

She has a prominent tattoo on her chest denoting the title of Charles Bukowski’s book of poetry : “Love is a dog from hell.” This gives fair warning that she is not of a romantic disposition. Things end badly for those who enter her intimate space. You can look but don’t touch.  

Bukowski also wrote “there is a loneliness in this world so great that you can see it in the slow movement of the hands of a clock” and the pain of Alexia’s isolation is evident. Self-harm is for her a way of life.  To say that she is damaged goods would be an understatement. After a childhood car crash, she wears a titanium plate in her head as a badge of honor.

After a brutal killing spree, Alexia finds unlikely solace in the equally troubled Vincent (Vincent Lindon) who becomes a surrogate father figure. Both crave closeness yet their driven natures mean they are forever destined to be loners.

The fetishism towards automobiles is so obviously Ballardian that Ducournau’s vision has inevitably been linked with David Cronenberg’s  ‘ Crash’ , a movie which won the Special Jury Prize at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival “for originality, for daring, and for audacity”.

 In 2021,  Titane won the Palme d’Or at Cannes for the similarly provocative and deliberately polarizing treatment of sex and violence. Aside from obvious affinities with  ‘Crash’, it is probable that Cronenberg’s remake of  the body horror classic ‘The Fly’ was also an inspiration to Julia Ducournau.

Its plot holes are plain to see but this is filmmaking that is prepared to take risks rather than making do with conventional feel good confections that pass for entertainment. The flaws are evident but the uncompromisingly full-blooded performances of Rousselle and Lindon make this an unmissable treat for lovers of mindfuck movies and an instant cult classic.

Of dæmons and dust

The Book of Dust Volume 1 – ‘La Belle Sauvage’, was a prequel to Philip Pullman’s  ‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy.  It told how, as a baby, Lyra Belacqua/Silvertongue was saved from the deadly agents of the Magisterium, an authoritarian church that has striking similarities to the Catholic Church.

‘The Secret Commonwealth’ not only follows on from the events of that novel but, since it jumps forward 20 years, it is also a sequel to the original trilogy.

Lyra is now a young adult, which may not necessarily be the case with the readers. Indeed, the website of Waterstones in the UK warns that, despite appearances to the contrary, this book is “Not suitable for younger readers”.

Philip Pullman has noticed that in recent public events his audience has consisted almost entirely of adults.  This is hardly surprising when you consider the whole saga began in 1995. If you first entered this fantasy world as a teenager, you would be in your 40s now.