Gender & Sexual "Residue"

The authors are trying to convey a definition to an ambiguous and ever-shifting subject matter that is sexual differences found in men and women. The question being asked, seems to be more on the lines of whether one can place themselves in another’s perspective, can a man ever fully understand or think like a women, the same I feel must be asked of by women concerning men. Both authors describe how female identity must be reframed to fit into a new system of thought concerning women of the now from the past. As seen with Luce Irigaray’s quote, “For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in thought and ethics is needed. We must re-interpret the whole relationship between the subject and discourse, the subject and the world, the subject and the cosmic” (Irigaray 236).

In order to configure women in both the sexual as well as social state, a “revolution in thought” is needed, the ‘subject’ I took as women in general. Butler hints onto the connotation gender has on women, “The sign, understood as a gender imperative –‘girl- reads less as an assignment than as a command and, as such, produces its own insubordinations” (Butler 247). By creating a context in which gender is seen as an ordered role to play, can only create a resistance in people as seen with the insubordinates.

The point one is trying to make is that by creating a system of thoughts based on the continual high-low, majority-minority, viewpoint on helps to solidify an immovable giant. Such can be thought of in terms of sexuality and gender, by establishing set roles and ideas in which those roles are then asked of its party to affirm, leaves no “revolution’ rather earthly or cosmic, to happen.