Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InterminableAnalysis t1_j7udw0a wrote

Reply to comment by WesternIron in Judith Butler: their philosophy of gender explained by Necessary_Tadpole692

>Her logic is like walking in a tight rope, it has to be perfectly balanced otherwise you fall off and miss the point

I think you're right about that, and I think that's a general point about following philosophical arguments. But what's wild to me is that we literally have an interview linked and people are still here saying that Butler claims X when that position is either not at all present, or is clarified in the interview -- the one linked!!

I tend to hold to this general rule: r/badphilosophy brings us the gems, but the worst philosophy takes are overwhelmingly in the comments section of this sub.

27

WesternIron t1_j7ufcuh wrote

Yesss exactly, because many people point to butler as the godmother of wokeism.

And if I remember correctly, her philosophy often was more descriptive and and deconstructionist. Just point out how gender is perceived and who it works in Western society.

I think the only recommendations she gives is more exploratory. About how we can look individuals that don’t act in the binary and try understand their gender role

8

InterminableAnalysis t1_j7ug43k wrote

>her philosophy often was more descriptive and and deconstructionist

Yeah that's roughly my understanding as well. I don't really remember Butler saying anything along the lines of "you should all act your gender like this!", though there is a kind of prescriptivism at the heart of any descriptive enterprise (i.e., what I'm describing is true and should be seen as such, or something like this).

>About how we can look individuals that don’t act in the binary and try understand their gender role

Not only that, but also about how to understand oneself when one is unable to identify with some such classification. It really is a work that moves in the direction of some limited kind of liberation.

1