‘From Preface’, a chapter from Judith Butler’s ‘From Gender Trouble’ dabbles with the question ‘why is it hard to stay out of trouble; especially for women?’ ‘I noted that trouble sometimes euphemized some fundamentally serious problem usually related to the alleged mystery of all things feminine’ (2450). This sentence allows the reader to understand that trouble is inevitable, particularly for the woman because of how they are portrayed in society. Butler challenges these views of sexuality and gender in her chapter Subversive Bodily Acts.

The human body is ‘made up’ of two parts, the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ self. Both of these differences are socially constructed however, the hidden portion of the inner self is something that is forced upon us. Butler uses the argument of the soul. The soul is portrayed as an internal force, something that separates the inner from the outer self. Butler however, does not agree with this idea. She believes that the body imprisons the soul. She believes that the inner self is strictly made up from social constructs, nothing forced. Her argument of the inner and outer self being constructed by society is how it relates back to her idea of gender and sexuality. The term ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ is ‘the idea that heterosexuality is assumed and enforced by a patriarchal society’. Butler uses this term to explain to the reader how we are taught the idea of sexuality from the very beginning of human life. Coining the idea of the soul being imprisoned by the body helps her support the idea that gender and sexuality are something that is learned and constructed, not a natural connection to one’s body. Judith Butler uses drag queens to help support her idea of gender being a construct.

‘Drag is a double inversion that says, ‘appearance is an illusion’’ (2549). This quote helps the reader understand that although someone might look feminine on the outside, but be masculine on the inside or, or masculine on the outside and feminine in the inside, it is all just socially constructed anyway. Drag queens being able to portray themselves in the way that they are helps Butler prove her point that gender and sexuality is just a performance, something where you can be what/who you want to be although society might not approve. Children learn from such a young age the gender they are ‘supposed’ to be. The use of drag queens helps the reader understand that you are not ‘supposed’ to be a specific gender because society tells you that; gender is a social construct.

Female masculinity has shown up more recently in present day culture, and one example in particular is rife with the energy and power that Halberstam discusses in “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly: Men, Women, and Masculinity”. Brooklyn rapper Young M.A.’s summer 2016 hit “OOOUUU” embodies so much of what Halberstam (and what Halberstam cites of Judith Butler) means when they discuss the subversive power of expressions of female masculinity. “It refuses the authentication of masculinity through maleness and maleness alone” and confirms alternative forms of masculinity that rely less on having a white, heterosexual ‘male’ body, although reliance on misogyny or misogynistic expressions are to be debated (Halberstam 2639).

The most referenced and contested lyric of “OOOUUU” is the line “Damn, she make me weak when she deep throat“. Young M.A. identifies as a lesbian and she has been subject to a barrage of questioning, scrutiny and curiosity over the line’s meaning in interviews and over social media. Regardless of conversation about M.A.’s sex life and whether or not a ‘deepthroat’ is technically possible, a specific type of sex act that cannot technically be performed on people with vaginas, M.A. has expressed that the lyric isn’t for other people, especially men, to fully understand. While it is her right to speak about her sex life as privately or publicly as she wishes, she has vaguely stated in interviews that other lesbians understand the sentiment that she’s getting at and that she does not feel a need to explain herself. The lyric evokes the sense of masculine power by referencing a would-be phallus, or as Judith Butler refers to it “the lesbian phallus” that is capable of wielding and possessing masculine power while being wholly separate from the male sex organ itself. In Halberstam’s article, they cite Butler’s discussion of Lacan and the mirror stage and how the body often misrecognizes itself in the mirror stage. However, Lacan does not acknowledge that men misrecognize their sex organs as proof of their own power and superiority, and channel this back out in the world to affirm their unstable sense of masculinity. Butler radically suggests that the possession of a penis is removed from the power of the phallus. M.A. expresses the power and dominance she feels that is so often entangled with masculine sex acts. As a homosexual woman , she references a sex act that is thought to require a penis, but in fact all it requires is the symbolic phallus and the feeling of masculine power, even when it is coming from a female body.

Young M.A.’s song is also frank and unabashed in its expression of queerness and teases at the fears of heterosexual men and the “threat” that masculine women pose to them. If the threat of the masculine woman is embedded in her ability to provide the female object of desire with more sexual pleasure, Young M.A. confidently (even cockily) revels in this in her lyrics. This expression of female masculinity is without a doubt an “assault on compulsory heterosexuality” (2639).

“If that’s your chick, then why she textin’ me?
Why she keep calling my phone speaking sexually?
Every time I’m out, why she stressin’ me?
You call her Stephanie? I call her Headphanie (OOOUUU)”

“When you tired of your man, give me a call” 

Young M.A.’s lyrics are not perfect or unproblematic, it is to be debated whether the song is fully removed from misogyny. , Especially considering the way sex acts like oral sex are referenced within it and when M.A says right after the aforementioned verse, “I don’t open doors for a whore, I just want the neck, nothin’ more“. One of the more common criticisms directed at rappers is that their lyrics can invoke and become tethered to misogyny in order to highlight masculine power. It is a complex debate that is constantly happening within the genre, but, this does not negate the fact that the rest of Young M.A.’s track is a subversive and confident expression of female masculinity. It’s hard not to echo the title’s sentiments upon first listen and as a listener exclaim “ooouuuu!”

Young M.A “OOOUUU” Official Lyrics & Meaning | Verified

No Description

Young M.A “OOOUUU” (Official Video)

No Description

In Gender trouble by Judith Butler, she argues that we shouldn’t see bodies as the base of our identity. Gender from a traditional standpoint is looked at from when a child first enters this world. Is it a boy or is it a girl? We make the distinction by looking at if the penis is there or if it is absent.  So, why does Butler call gender trouble in the first place? Female trouble can include pregnancy and menstruation. Menstruation being seen as trouble is pretty messed up because women have no control over that. Pregnancy is a bit more complicated because it is a lifelong and life altering decision. So women, have to be careful who they pregnant by. Women are continuously seen as the “other” in a patriarchal society.  Women being seen as the “other” can also mean that women can also be seen as subjects. Althusser should come to mind when thinking of humans being related to subjects. Remember at the end of Althusser’s essay when he talks about interpellation and the he example of the police officer saying “Hey You!”

According to Butler, Foucault argues that there is no ingrained “sex” and not being able to recognize the sex binary reinforces the subjugation of all people. Foucault uses Herculine as an example. Herculine is described as a hermaphrodite that was declared a girl but showed eventual male sex physical features and characteristics. Herculine chose a male identity later on in life. Foucault focuses on the time of Herculine’s life in which Herculine was not yet labeled as a male. Foucalt claims that this part of Herculine’s life was classified as non-gendered because Herculine was not forced to obey the traditional male or female norms. Herculine experiences happiness in this gender confusion. However, Butler disagrees with the happiness point that was made by Foucalt by claiming that Herculine battled emotionally during the non-gendered period because Herculine was unsuitable to fit into a category of the gender binary. Herculine becomes an ultimate example of ‘gender trouble’ because Herculine upset the gender/sex binary and challenges the difference between lesbianism and heterosexuality.

Butler agrees with Foucalt but, thinks that he doesn’t go far enough. Body gets transformed by mental culture and tendencies. She says most of the time we look at our bodies discreetly. You have a body and I have a body. They are all separated from each other. The body is thought of as being its own thing. This can relate to nationalism/Americanism by looking at our POTUS Donald Trump. Trump and his famous racist rhetoric “build a wall” is a great example. The body is the U.S.A. and nationalists look at the body as pure and foreigners are intruding the body.

Matthew G Kirschenbaum’s Track Changes is an extremely enlightening piece of work in terms of reference to late night show interviews as well as his explanation of the writing process and how in this day and age we see many differences. A fact that Kirschenbaum begins with is George R.R Martin, the author of the Game of Thrones series, use of an old school computer with no connection to the internet. Over this discourse the main theme is the connection between the writer and the writing instrument. As unimportant as your form of writing seems, as it does to me, in this aspect Martin represents this “blend of novelty and nostalgia” (2) and this then becomes one of the most important aspects of the piece. With the modern, more digital age we see a steep incline in the use of electronics in everyday life as well as a form of support for the user. It creates this ease of indulgence and therefore becomes a sort of crutch for the everyday person. Martin’s use of a specific word processor is a fact that many people held opinions on, both negative and positive but what needs to be understood is how the art of writing becomes something with a basis in how it is produced the best for each individual. A person might find that writing, with pen and paper, allows for a more clear form of productivity and inspiration but that has nothing to do with quality. Writing, as an art, is as subjective as any other form of art and therefore allows, or rather is enhanced by uniqueness.

Kirschenbaum does not seem to agree with the idea that with the technological age we have lost anything. Keyed to in the text as “emancipatory logic” by certain modernist authors, the electronic or word processing age is viewed as detrimental to the art and relationship of inscription and inscriber. This is the most important aspect of the text because of the way that these ideologies are portrayed and how Kirschenbaum’s ideologies come through. Holding to the idea that the word processor does not allow writers to have a certain relationship with their work is something that needs to be and should be viewed as personal opinion and preference. George R.R Martin found Wordstar and it “fit”, he was able to use this word processor to create a series that has been read and sold all around the world. Composition is different for everybody and this idea of “emancipatory logic” holds very opinionated views. It is not proven in any sense that one cannot create and be productive while using these forms of technology. Even George R.R Martin’s computer is seen as old school because it does not connect to the internet, that again however is personal preference. Not connecting to the internet allows for seclusion and the ability to dive into one’s own mind and create what he has created.

We can’t help but digest the horrific martial potential of a nuclear war against, for the imminent now, Jung Un’s North Korea. There’s an unnerving inference, whenever I read a NYT’s article—about U.S. defense, NK’s arm’s program, Trump’s reassuring words—that post-WWII America had when they discovered Soviet Union now have nuclear capabilities. It makes me think about T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, published post-WWI in shade of all the evil that man is capable of, whether ideology had firm infrastructure, a thought that the U.S. modernist sought to pick at. Eliot’s famous line, “I will show you fear in a handful of dust”, a line I’ve thought of during Kittler’s line, “The dream of a real visible or audible world arising from words has come to end.” (p.14)

He goes on to argue that the monopoly over human archives has ended since the mechanical invention of cinema, phonography, and typewriter, for they have parsed out the optical, acoustic, and written data flow that originated in the poetics of pre- & post- printing press. He makes special consideration for the typewriter; saying since it’s invention and popularity, the author’s intrinsic identity is anonymously disguised behind the uniformly calligraphic perfection, thus that “strangely unavoidable traces” (p.8) of a writer, is gone. Regarding effects of phonograph and cinema, the spirituality, or primal sensuality (as I’ll define later), which was manifested from hearer/audience’s active engagement, that’s rewarded as emotional memory thru “hallucination”(p.10) or reverie, is gone as well, from the “distracted person” (Benjamin, p.1069), at least when s/he’s not disinterested in the music or film.

But going back to Eliot’s ephemeral line, that reminds the inferring reader, that this world, cynically sourced by the Nietzschian ideology’s of man, is impermanent, and certainly vulnerable to a hydrogen bomb, prompts me to challenge the notion of that “the entertainment industry with it’s new sensuality” (p.14), and mechanical ability to capture the world, that literature writes of, is necessary. I’d argue, on the contrary to this notion, it compromises primal sensualities, or simple sensualities (that is superior over complex sensualities) subsequently compromises at-present emotional memory, which is more important than prudent memory, that mechanization promotes among other things, because the world, as war has proven, is impermanent. I’ll begin with two super brief historical antedotes that highlights the moral risk of complex sensualities, brought by exotic stimuli.

Mid-17^TH century, prior to the Dutch arriving tip of what’s considered Battery Park, the Lenape Indians who seasonally settled in the woodlands of the island, unaware of any European sensualities like distilled alcohol, vegetation, and fabrics; the Lenapes were content with the untouched flora and faun, and because they would migrate to the warmer south during winter, they never needed foreign clothes or blankets. So when the foreign Dutch introduction of such exotic materials, providing a vast array of unnecessary options, overtime became a livelihood crutch per se, thus fulfilling. in a psychological sense, a greater way to fulfill Maslow’s bottom hierarchy of needs, the resulting superfluous indulgences, especially alcohol, caused the southern Manhattan demise of the tribe. In confluence with the U.S. economic boom post-WWII many hundreds year later, where consumer consumption—driven by commercial ads on TV, billboard, radio, about appliances, cars, and clothes—was at it’s highest, psychologically, the private dwellings of white America had a gaping hole the size of a meteor, that an array of materials could only fill. Consumption, positively reinforced by the country, was, and still is, therefore the interminate culture.

It is this manufactured narcissism, that historically, on a mass scale, this American dream had numbed the primal sensual self, that, again, is more important during a nuclear age, than human mechanical archiving. The solution is not to become a luddite, because technological advancements, in general, helps further distance society from the prehistoric wilderness. And I’m not proposing any transcendentalist retirement from urban America either. But to first be aware such exotic and mechanized stimuli as an inevitable sensual crutch, and two, to engage in sensual primal simplicity, because of three reasons: (1) leisurely, it’s the greatest way to interact with yourself and others casually or intimately, (2) morally, it’s the greatest way to keep a society from developing crutches, as witness from the Lenapes, and (3) psychologically, it possibly ends this anxious rat race of becoming “independently successful”, through greater emphasis on community, through the primal sensuality that bornes empathy, as the Lenapes had prior to trading with the Dutch. Knowing that such, if our nuclear-era consumer culture could, to put it simply, do more with less, we can return to what matters more than the mechanization of the human footprint, as Shelly’s Ozymandias writes, “The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

The introduction of Track Changes by Matthew G. Kirschenbaum starts by telling of an interview between the Game of Thrones author George R. R. Martin and Conan O’Brien. Through this encounter, the world seemed shocked to find out that Martin uses WordStar to write his books, mainly to avoid any distractions that come along with having a computer that is connected to the number one mode of procrastination: the internet. Though I have never used WordStar, this alone almost sells me on using this outdated DOS-era computer. I remember using websites to block any social media usage on my computer when writing papers in high school, solely for this reason.

Kirschenbaum goes onto describe how on top of that, Martin prefers WordStar for other reasons too. Martin spoke about how WordStar does exactly what he wants it to do, and nothing more, which is very important for writers: everything they write is important and purposeful, so of course they do not want a word processing program to correct something that was not a mistake to begin with. This brought Kirschenbaum to writing about the bigger idea of the way people get accustomed to ways of writing. He writes:

“ Martin’s intimate knowledge of WordStar’s functions and keyboard patterns might be best characterized as tacit  knowledge, the extraordinary combination of muscle memory and unarticulated experience that enables is to perform very complex tasks without conscious effort or consciously knowing how to do them. Tacit knowledge is necessary for the flow states many writers cite as characteristics of their most productive sessions, and they deeply resent anything that jolts them out of that zones.” (10)

A deep connection to and necessity of modes of writing seems a little dramatic, but without a doubt does exist. It is interesting to notice the way in which writing with a pen as opposed to writing on a computer changes the way that people write, along with the way they feel when writing. To connect it back to Martin, imagine if he was for some reason forced to switch from WordStar to Microsoft Word. Who knows how his writing would change. Of course the words may not be dramatically different, but the act of writing and the feeling of the writer to the writing would very much be different.

It is very interesting to think about the significance of the modes of writing. Of course it has been something I have noticed on a small-scale, like, for example, I have a pen that is made by one of my favorite musical artists, Mod Sun, and on the pen he has written “Write when it’s Right,” and even though it is not a great pen, very cheap quality, if I am going to write in a journal or write a poem, that is THE pen I use. It just has some personal significance that makes me feel totally different about what I am writing. But, even though that noticeable difference of meaning connected to that pen is something I have thought about, I never really thought about how far that extends. I never thought about Google Docs versus Microsoft Word as an area of change in what people write. Kirschenbaum does a great job exploring a seemingly basic thing, and making people think more about how much meaning exists in the different modes of writing.

In the excerpt from Gramophone, Film, Typewriter by Friedrich Kittler the reader takes a look into the evolution of new media technologies in todays society that alter the way we look at how the message flows between the addresser and the addressee. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, we see the hegemony of the printed word change to new technologies that offers new ways to communicate and store data. Before digital technology came into the mainstream, physically writing operated as a symbolic meditation in a way. All data passes through the pencil which is the signifier. For instance, photography stores the actual physical effects of the real in the shape of the actual image. From there, the typewriter changed the perception of writing from that of a unique expression of a literate individual than that of seeing the image as a material signifier.

The typewriter symbolizes a momentous shift in the history of technological advancement. Using the work of Foucault, Lacan, and McLuhan there is an analysis of the technological shift that the Typewriter caused. There is a combination of discourse analysis, structuralist psychoanalysis, and media theory that adds a vital historical dimension to the current debates over the relationship between electronic literacy and poststructuralism, and the extent to which us humans are controlled by our technologies.

There is a further comparison between Mechanical Media and Digital Media, with Mechanical Media being the break of the 1900’s , and Digital Media arising at the break of the 2000’s. During the 1900’s there was almost a monopoly of culture that was wielded by the book, if it is not in the book then it did not happen in a sense. The most famous book, the bible, can be seen in this manner. Some people believe that the only thing that can be known for certain in the bible is the written commandments on the tablets. There is almost an aura around the commandments because it is written. With written material there is a scarcity amongst them because it is the only existing form of that representation. As Benjamin theorized, the rise of mechanically reproduced art strips the aura of the original object. This is the same with media. With the introduction of digital media, media is ubiquitous and it is everywhere. The aura is stripped and it is no longer a scarce form of information. The evolution of these media outlets allows different interpretations of the message between the addresser and the addressee.

In Matthew G Kirschenbaum’s Track Changes, the author explores the relationship between the human art of writing and the form of the writing instrument. Like Kittler, again we see a theorist who thinks in terms of McLuhan’s famous aphorism: “The medium is the message”. Kirschenbaum begins his introduction by considering the recently revealed writing process of George R. R. Martin. Martin’s use of an outdated word processor gains the attention of his fans, and for good reason, says Kirschenbaum. The word processor may hold some insights about the authors work. At the very least, Martin’s adherence to it goes to show that “we can become habituated to something like a piece of software just as we do a favorite pen or a particular weight of paper” (2).

As Kirschenbaum begins, he first clarifies that the works of art that he intends to examine “are not reducible to a single explanatory agent or element” (6). This is an important principle to remember going forward, so that we do not confuse the authors focus on technology for a belief in its primacy. However, Kirschenbaum does not wish that we undervalue the effect of technology either. He quotes literary scholar Evija Trofimova, who analyses the ways in which the environment that Paul Aster wrote in affected his work, and comments, “all of this … can only become visible is one dares to turn away, for a moment, from the centered intent of the human author and to look more closely at the work of ‘things'” (9). If we are to compose a more complete understanding of an author, we should consider all of the influences on his or her writing.

In the age of digital technology, such as word processing, this observance of the “work of things” becomes less obvious. Many theorists follow what Kirschenbaum calls as “emancipatory logic” (5), which views electronic media as a dematerialization of many technological apparatus. From this perspective, word processing somehow transcends the physical limitations of writing. This reminds me of the novel You Are Not a Gadget, by Jaron Lanier. Lanier, once a programmer in the upstart Silicon Valley of the 1980’s, discusses the philosophy with which the “world wide web” was created. They all believed that they were created a technology that would make the world immune to tyranny, for there would always and forever be a free flow of information, unrestricted by the material constraints of past technologies. Lanier has since split from this philosophy, and uses his novel to explore the ways in which Web 2.0 (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) creates very narrow channels through which people communicate digitally. The idealistic freedom that they envisioned did not survive the materiality of the technology.

Kirschenbaum, Like Lanier, does not buy into the “emancipatory logic” that considers electronic media as dematerialized communication. He argues that word processing does have materiality. One way this materiality is evidenced is through the development of “tacit knowledge,” or, “the extraordinary combination of muscle memory and unarticulated experience that enables us to perform very complex tasks without conscious effort or consciously knowing how to do them” (10). At the very least, the technology is effecting the writer in particular ways. This begs the question: Can the effects of this technology can be found in the literary work itself? For Kirschenbaum, the search for this technological materiality is an important aspect of literary criticism.

In Judith Halberstam’s “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Men, Women, and Masculinity,” Judith tries to deconstruct masculinity. Masculinity is usually applied to men and feminism is generally applied to females. Masculinity is similar to a hegemony, it shows leadership and dominance. Halberstam describes masculinity and feminism in such a way that it connotes a negative feelings towards femininity. The way she constructs her argument about masculinity, she empowers masculinity and states there are different forms of masculinity even within females and homosexual men. The question is, why is there such a negative connotation with femininity, why do we need to identify female masculinity as masculine to be empowered?

Halberstam describes masculinity in a way which masculinity dominates and while doing so, takes power from femininity. She describes, “As masculinity is ever more naturalized in hererosexual, homosexual and transexual male bodies, femininity becomes ever more degraded as a subject position and female masculinity becomes simply unimaginable” (2643). Here, Halberstam is stating how all forms of masculinity are recognized yet the female masculinity is not only seemingly shameful, it is also impossible to be understood in this (white) male dominated culture.

Halberstam describes throughout her writing that white males are the dominant group in society. She goes onto explain that having a penis is equivalent to having social power. According to Freud, we can generate social power in other body parts that become phallic and can access the social power reserved for white males. She mentions that lesbians can attain power as well, through Lacan’s framework of the “Lesbian Phallus.” Lesbianism has always been associated with female masculinity which is ultimately, undesirable and linked to female ugliness. Lesbians do however threaten heterosexual men because of the attractive lesbian who rejects them and the butch lesbian who rivals their masculinities (2652).

While deconstructing Halberstam’s words and thoughts, I can say that she identifies as a masculine female but I feel that she is using the non-masculine females, the feminine females as a stepping stone to have herself and those that identify as a masculine female get ahead in the patriarchal society. She complains that the dominant systems must be updated in order to remain relevant to the social and political systems, which I agree is true but identifying as a masculine–anything to get ahead in society is just reinforcing the patriarchal dominated culture. Females, transexuals, and homosexuals should not have to identify as anything to have their voices heard and to be taken seriously. Heterosexual white men should be stripped of the “masculine” title. Identifying as anything masculine creates the divide of social groups and creates this disparity among us. Women should strive to empower through other means, instead of ultimately backing the patriarchal system.

Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner’s Sex in Public summarizes a few key ideas about the problems with heteronormativity. Heteronormativity refers to the world view that heterosexuality is the preferred and correct form of sexual orientation. Sex in Public is not about sexual acts in public, it is about the analysis of sexuality within our society. Society is structured according to heterosexuality, and this is followed by the rules that are made by polite and picture perfect families residing within the community. This structure creates a set of accepted social norms and behaviors that is supposed to help us recognize a “good” couple from a “not so good’ couple. These social codes determine who and what is proper and beneficial to society.

In a proper society, a home is for a family, a good family has good credit, and a good family has savings and go on vacations. Anything that promotes good family values is encouraged. If you don’t have a family, then society will say that you are lonely, need help for depression, or pushed to find a proper life partner for companionship. Heteronormativity is far ore concerned with how you behave in public. A heterosexual couple may not be having intercourse at all, but they can still be considered heteronormative if they behave in the way that a “good” couple should.

What most of normative society do not realize is that heteronormativity has privilege. Heterosexual standards try to dominate the queers in every way possible. Normative society believes that heterosexuality is the only way to link intimacy to a proper personal life. If a gay couple attempts to be a part of the society then they can only be accepted if they marry and raise kids “just like everyone else.” Gays and queers must be swept under the rug of normative society, and this is the privilege that heteronormativity possesses. Anything that falls outside of the normative structure is a choice and can/should be changed to fit the “correct” social order.