I missed this comment. On the off chance you're still interested, here is an example. Chu is often cited as saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes." Even aside from the fact that Chu is (with deliberate provocation) defining "female" in a way that includes *all* human beings—which definitely c…
I missed this comment. On the off chance you're still interested, here is an example. Chu is often cited as saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes." Even aside from the fact that Chu is (with deliberate provocation) defining "female" in a way that includes *all* human beings—which definitely changes the context of anything she says about it—that sentence is simply out of context: Chu isn't saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes.". Rather, she is saying that *the message of sissy porn*—about which she is clearly ambivalent, not whole-heartedly supportive—is that that is what being female is. (More particularly, sissy porn in the gif format.)
As for the book's thesis, I would say that the thesis of the book is that we are all constructed, against our will, by desire, and that both our own desire and others' desires shape us without our say-so. I don't think that that is a sexist claim. As for calling it "femaleness"—well, I don't think it was right or a good rhetorical move, but to claim that she is saying that that was femaleness is (in the sense that most people, rather than she, uses the term) is simply incorrect.
I missed this comment. On the off chance you're still interested, here is an example. Chu is often cited as saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes." Even aside from the fact that Chu is (with deliberate provocation) defining "female" in a way that includes *all* human beings—which definitely changes the context of anything she says about it—that sentence is simply out of context: Chu isn't saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes.". Rather, she is saying that *the message of sissy porn*—about which she is clearly ambivalent, not whole-heartedly supportive—is that that is what being female is. (More particularly, sissy porn in the gif format.)
As for the book's thesis, I would say that the thesis of the book is that we are all constructed, against our will, by desire, and that both our own desire and others' desires shape us without our say-so. I don't think that that is a sexist claim. As for calling it "femaleness"—well, I don't think it was right or a good rhetorical move, but to claim that she is saying that that was femaleness is (in the sense that most people, rather than she, uses the term) is simply incorrect.