Carnival Three (Per) Forming Sexuality

 This post brought to you by the Blood, Sweat and Tears of Michael, Keva, Cara G, Joei L, and Liz D.

Foucault Style

Michel Foucault was born on October 15, 1926 in Poitiers, France. Foucault’s work is said to be a source for Post Culturalism, New Historicism, Post Structuralism, Post Modernism and the queer theory. Throughout all of his work, the argument for the existence of a unique identity has been at the root. Humanism, above any just classification, would describe the base of all Foucaudian theory. He died of AIDS on June 25, 1984 at the age of 57.

Foucault was the son of a surgeon and was encouraged to join the family practice. He decided to attend a university in France; École Normale Supérieure where he graduated with a degree in the philosophy of psychology. He later went on to critique the practices of modern medicine. Foucault held positions at The University of Lille, The University of Uppsala, The University of Hamburg, The University of Clermont-Ferrand, The University of Tunis, and The University at Vincennes. He gave lectures at the University at Buffalo and UC Berkley.

Under the guidance of Louis Althusser, Foucault joined the Communist Party for about three years. In 1961 he published Folie et devaison (Maddness and Civilization) which gave him his first stint of popularity. His other works include The Archaeology of Knowledge 1969, The Order of Things 1966, and The Birth of the Clinic 1963.

In 1969 Foucault’s study was already shifting from the center of an intellectual’s thoughts on history to that of political activist’s. He often stood in protest with students outside government facilities during the education strike of the late 1960’s. In 1975 Foucault wrote Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison in attempts to spark reform within the prison system.

Randy?

To understand Foucault a bit better, one might draw from such theories as:

Postmodernism- Theorists believe that following a modern regime there exists society lacking in one consistent, fortifying principle that causes diversity and complexity. Society lacks a particular movement. It uses Jameson’s idea of parody and pastiche to reflect certain attitudes (Check out Brett’s page for the inside at Bay Side High). It is the idea that the sum total of anything new is the mass of everything old. It is the idea that knowledge has no center, but is interconnected with every other knowledge because of the dominating power of media. Postmodernism pushes the idea that we exist today in a global society; one that lacks any political or economic philosophy; one that has no center.

Post-Structuralism- To understand post-structuralism it is first necessary to understand structuralism. Structuralism is the belief that everything that is created is done so in accordance to a structure. For instance, language would be a structure underlying the development of education systems. Post-structuralism is the belief that the theory structuralism was created out of an underlying structure itself. It was meant to satisfy knowledge already in place. Post-structuralism argues that there is no mean to discover anything new without the basis to compare its newness against. There is a necessity to compare.

The History of Sexuality

At age 57, Foucault had sexuality all figured out. The main focus of his argument stems from the 17^th century during the Counter Reformation and the development of the middle class society. Foucault was largely concerned with the creation of the many discourses of sexuality in the West (as opposed to the rest of the studied world being Europe). Through his argument, Foucault highlighted what made the development of such discourses so different from what was happening in the rest of the world. He outlined the development of sexual discourses through discussing the eradication of desire and the codification of the body, tracing the development of multiple discourses concerning sexuality, illustrating the forms of these discourses and the identities they created, and by showing how these discourses upheld and reinforced each other through a system of power and pleasure.

Foucault states that discourses concerning sex have always been present in society, but were never made into rules until about three centuries ago. By means of confession every detail, down to its simplest form concerning sex, was made to be told. Describing sex acts so thoroughly as to talk about positioning or perverse consciousness was made into discourse. Here, Foucault not only is using the term discourse to say that language was merely applied to the body in every mappable form, but that discourse was used to create a mindset for (hu)men. The obligation to tell and the necessity to inquire were seen as determinants of one’s character. Confessions were demanded, but discretion was advised. Hence came the development of censorship, another discourse of sexuality. Christianity became an apparatus for the growing number of discourses as well as pure public interest. Foucault says that the concept of flesh became the root of all evil, and it was man’s purpose to overcome it. It was man’s purpose to overcome the hesitancy of looking at sex and analyzing it.

This necessity to talk about sex all the time developed certain power mechanisms. Political. economic, and social powers needed to uncover all aspects concerning the practices of sex to ensure the persistence of society and the labor power that population provided. It had been well known that in order to attain power as a nation population was necessary. Population and the availability of labor force were known to be direct determinants wealth and power. To wield this power it became evident that to study the sex of a group of people one had to do so by examining them as a population, and not as individuals. Such statistics as birth rates, death rates, and fertility were all used to calculate insurance. The rule became that the heterosexual man and the monogamous relationship would reproduce the labor necessary to sustain power. This became the ideal family. Through the examination of sex, in this case of marriage practices, more and more discourses proliferated. Desire was sidelined only to be supplanted by how it categorized the individual. Desire took on connotations in and out of the monogamous relationship and gave further meaning to terms such as divorcee and adulterer. Value was ascribed to populations. Sherri’s post further delves into the connotations of sexual language.

Silence. Among the many catalysts attributed to the growth of the multiple discourses of sex Foucault says that silence is an underlying agent. Discretion morphed into a discourse to uncover its discretion. The idea of silence producing anything, but silence is orchestrated well in Aliya’s blog post. The overall awareness of the flesh as a danger fixated attention to it. Applying this to practical examples such as relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and teachers and pupils helps to clarify the use of silence as discourse. For example, the criminal justice system, in terms of cases that deal with the abuse of children or spouses has developed discourse to uncover evidence through the discovery of signs, developments of reports and psychoanalysis. The obligation was to uncover these secret signs or to evade them (creating another discourse). Never was the objective completed to deter the behavior. As Foucault describes it’s purpose was destined to fail, to only be reborn into another discourse. The belief that there was something further to be discovered or described gave life to new discourses.

More than just the numerous amounts of discourses of sex, Foucault focused on the forms of these discourses and the relationship between identity and power. Researching what was considered ‘unnatural’ became discourse to ascribing identity (to find out if you are a foot-licker click on Kim C’s post. The characteristics, signs, and biology (both visible and anatomical) paved the existence of new sexual life forms. The search for a symptom of what was condemned gave reason to every action of an individual. Foucault describes the birth of the homosexual as the answer to all his actions. He describes homosexuality as “the secret that always gave itself away” (1663). Never did this power to probe lead to its suppression, but to the incorporation of one’s sexuality into the development of an identity. Where does the homo-gene come from? This reinforced the idea of the heterosexual man. Everything unnatural is unnatural in opposition to that of the heterosexual man.

This is the best part. The system is not closed. It builds or feeds off of each element to create new discourse. In continuation of the development of the homosexual Foucault describes a system of power and pleasure. His theory is not so much about the oppressor and oppressed, but the system of reinforcement they create for each other. The “questioner” displays power and receives pleasure in doing so. The “questioned” displays power through assertion of identity and pleasure in identifying the control. Foucault states, “Power operated as a mechanism of attraction; it drew out those peculiarities over which it kept watch.  Pleasure spread to the power that harried it; power anchored the pleasure it uncovered” (1664).   For example, in the case of the homosexual, the psychiatrist has the power to probe and finds pleasure in discovery. He/she can report to some higher power, pleasing whomever that higher power may be (one could use religion at this point). The higher power can then find pleasure in knowing that it is trying to uncover something problematic/ unnatural trying to ensure the greater good while at the same time exercising its power to do so. The questioned receives attention and is drawn to creating an identity which pleases him or her. He/she can exercise the power to misconstrue or cause scandal, and show resistance. The scandal can then become a larger discourse (drag) using its power to mock and finding pleasure in doing so. In another example the relationship between parents and children can be examined. Sex education in the school system is a system of power and pleasure on multiple levels. Teachers’ curriculum is devised to deter the problems associated with teen sexuality. The teacher pleases the administrator (the power) by teaching the curriculum who in turn is pleases the parent by alleviating them of the responsibility to educate their children. The parent is pleased (and silence as a discourse is created once again). The teenagers find out all about their sexualities, talk about them with their friends which brings pleasure and then they exercise the power; fooling teachers, principles and parents that they are remaining abstinent. They are aware of the dangers and aren’t stupid enough to partake in such irresponsible behaviors. Ha. For yet another example of Foucaudian logic check out Cara W’s examination of the parental advisory system.

So what about Bob? He’s doing fine. He’s got an extra step of confidence these days. It must be because he’s getting laid right? This entire commercial is a discourse on sex. Never once does it come out and say so, but rallies all our attention towards thinking so. If you have low self esteem, perform poorly at work and your neighbors don’t respect you, try Enzyte today!

The Fetish

Foucault seems very critical of the western hemisphere. Don’t Europeans talk about sex? Is desire the only means of discourse concerning sex there? Why does Foucault’s theory only pertain to the happenings of western culture? Our prudishness is the main reason for the multiplicity of discourses concerning sex. So, does that mean that Europeans are promiscuous? It is true that the censorship of sex is less prevalent in European nations, but why? There was never a need to silence sexual discourse? Lust must never have been a big deal in France. If we don’t pay attention to the problem does it go away? Europeans set the fashion trends for the world, but it doesn’t seem as though their nations are as totally consumed with sex as we are (or at least in Foucault’s eyes). They have a great influence over the control of this market which has much to do with sex.

The fact is that the more you talk about Foucault and the more you try and escape his theory the more you back him up. The hard part is trying to imagine a place where sexual discourse does not exist. One would have to go back in time, start a new isolated nation, leave the planet, find a giant squid or convince seven billion people that there is something better to talk about.

Butler Style

Judith Butler was born February 24,1956 in Cleveland, Ohio. Her Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity in 1990, is one of the most influential pieces of literature in queer theory (2485). Butler received her B.A. in Philosophy in 1984 from Yale University after completing her undergraduate work at Bennington College. You can find Judith Butler at the University of California at Berkeley. A lot of her works include queer theory, feminism, political philosophy and ethics. Butler is the Maxine Elliot expert at Berkeley in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature Department. The main goal of Butler in her work is to, “uncover the assumptions that ‘restrict the meaning of gender to received notions of masculinity and femininity’” (2485). In her pursuit of feminism, Butler tries to avoid the “exclusionary gender norms” that can inhibit gender identities.

Butler focuses a lot of her writing on Third-Wave feminism, Critical Theory, Queer theory, Postmodernism, and Post-structuralism.

Other works by Judith Butler:

Bodies That Matter : On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex Excitable Speech : A Politics of the Performative Feminists Theorize the Political Gender Trouble : Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Thinking Gender Series) The Psychic Life of Power : Theories in Subjection Subjects of Desire : Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century
France

Excitable Speech : A Politics of the Performative

What is Queer Theory?

Queer Theory is a theory that came about during a work conference by Teresa de Lauretis in the mid to late 1970’s at the University Of California. Over the past 15 years, queer theory has begun to take on a new shape and continues to branch out in various directions. This theories main focus deals with exploring the different contestations that revolve around sexuality and gender.

Feminism: Feminism is an idea that focuses around the liberation of women. Feminists believe “that biological sex should not be the pre-determinant factor shaping a person’s social identity or socio-political or economic rights.” (Wikipedia). This theory deals with the social, political and moral inequalities between the sexes and helps us better understand why men are sometimes favored at the women’s expense. Modern feminist campaigns are very common in today’s societies. These groups help fight for women’s rights and try to break the barrier of inequality between the two sexes.

In her Gender Trouble, Butler talks about the performativity of gender vs. its expression.

 

“Hence, as a strategy of survival within compulsory systems, gender is a performance with clearly punitive consequences. Discrete genders are part of what “humanizes” individuals within contemporary culture; indeed we regularly punish those who fail to do their gender right. Because there is neither an “essence” that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires, and because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all” (Norton Anthology 2500). Our society is OBSESSED with sexuality. . .

Anderson Cooper= STRAIGHT

Butler views gender as a performance one puts on in order to survive in a society in which gender is one of the predominant categorizations for the individual. Having the separation between genders is what humanizes individuals in our contemporary culture and those who do make their gender proud, or are not easily placed within a categorization, face scrutiny from society. Butler believes that gender is not a fact and therefore has no essence. Although she does not use the exact words, it would be safe to assume that Butler sees gender as learned while sex is biological. Maybe there should be two sets of checkboxes on a birth certificate: one for sex (the biological makeup of the child) and one for gender (the performance the child will showcase to society). But even that would have severe consequences, since children learn gender as they grow up. If the parents are left to select the gender, they would be doing the child a disservice. If no one performed, there would be no gender. If women did not squeeze into high stilettos, lather all sorts of facial moisturizers, foundation to take away 30 years, and wear Wonder bras, there would be no female gender. Gender is learned, sex is expressive.

“That gender reality is created through sustained social performances means that the very notions of an essential sex and a true or abiding masculinity or femininity are also constituted as part of the strategy that conceals gender’s performative character and the performative possibilities for proliferating gender configurations outside the restricting frames of masculinist domination and compulsory heterosexuality” (Norton Anthology 2501).

In this case Butler is reiterating her thoughts about gender performance. Gender is created by “sustained social performances,” in other words; gender in society is a constant show. Sustained social performances are created or displayed strategically to conceal the infinite possibilities of gender. That’s right; gender could go to the moon if there were not social constraints. The patriarchy has had its fun, it has done a fine job of dominating not only the female but the male as well. Sexuality has been oppressed by masculinist domination, which has imposed “compulsory heterosexuality.” Is Butler stating that we would all be gay, if not for the patriarchal society? *Raises hand in opposition* No Butler, we would not all be gay if we were not run by men. Those who are gay, would not have their homosexuality oppressed and we would live in a society in which everyone would run amuck in fields of dandelions, and yodel from mountain tops.

Butler on Drag Shows:

“As much as drag creates a unified picture of ‘woman’ (what its critics oppose), it also reveals the distinctness of those aspects of gendered experience which are falsely naturalized as unity through the regulatory fiction of heterosexual coherence. In imitating gender, drag implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself—as well as its contingency” (2498).

 

Drag shows expose the performative aspect of gender. Drag shows reveal the falsely naturalized unity of women. Not all women wear dresses and makeup everyday, yet when drag queens appear onstage, they are dolled up in MAC cosmetics, wearing Jimmy Choo’s and fancy dresses. The belief being that all women wear dresses, which is so not the case. Drag shows not only open up the door of gender possibilities, it shows that gender is nothing more than imitation. Men or women imitating what he/she believes are socially normal for the other. This is why Butler is a huge fan of drag shows, it distinctly reveals that gender is nothing more than performance, which lets face it, Butler finds a million different ways to say. So in order to fully grasp what Butler is all about just chant it in your head to a conga line: “Gen-der is per-for MANCE. Gen-der is per-for MANCE. Gen-der is per-for MANCE. Gen-der is per-for MANCE.” Conga line!

Blind Spot: How do you live in a society that doesn’t have a gender? Kellie brings up a good point, questioning the difference between gender identity and gender performance. She goes on to say that gender performance is more like putting on an act for society as opposed to your real gender identity which determines whether you’re male or female.

A lot of Rubin’s theory is based on the notion that the society we live in is really concerned about gender and racism. Rubin says that “the organization of sex and gender once had functions other than itself-it organized society. Now, it only organizes and reproduces itself. The kinds or relationship of sexuality established in the dim human past still dominate our sexual lives, our ideas about men and women, and the ways we raise our children” (1678). Rubin is basically saying that sex and gender now only organize and reproduce it. It has that power to control our thoughts which dominate our ideas, as well as our lives. This is why there is a blind spot in
Butler’s piece. It is impossible to have a society that has no gender, since it is taught that gender does exist from the moment we are born.

Butler’s gender performativity idea can be related to drag shows. This relates to Esther’s blog when she talks about a male performing women aspects and a women performing men aspects. Although they are performing these roles, their biological body parts say otherwise. When one goes to a drag show, they are going to see men dressed up as women, wearing skirts or dresses and most likely high heels. Meaghan’s blog points out a few of these key points, mainly how she states that people who perform in drag shows are looked down upon by society. People who attend drag shows see these women all dressed up, but in reality that is not what many women wear on a day to day basis. Most women wear jeans or slacks, so relating dresses and heels to a woman is stereotyping. Wikipedia says that stereotypes are “ideas held about members of particular groups, based solely on membership in that group. They are often considered to be negative or prejudicial and may be used to justify certain discriminatory behaviors. According to Sander Gilman, stereotypes, by definition, are never accurate representations, but a projection of an individual’s fears onto others, regardless of the reality of others” (Wikipedia.org). Now for the big question: If you’re born a woman/man, are you truly a woman/man? Butler says that sex and gender is a social normality, but can never be internalized. This leads to the question of is it biological? Butler says that “because there is neither an “essence” that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires, and because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all” (2500). In Keva’s blog she discusses how when a baby is born, it is born with a certain body part, but regardless it all comes down to who they are in their minds, not by their bodies. This also relates to Elizabeth’s blog where she discusses the fact that individuals are immediately designated with a specific sex. Let’s talk about Butler’s “nature of the body vs. the idea of the body.” Since the moment a girl is born, there are many gender expectations of her. For example, Kim brought up an excellent example in class stating that ever since she was a little girl, she was conditioned on how to act like a girl. Growing up, she was a tom-boy, but when she was forced to wear a dress in order to represent what a women/girl should look like, she only got it dirty and strayed away from the norm. Kim was straying away from her parent’s idea of what a girl should look like and acting on what she felt, which was to act like a tom-boy and get the dress dirty. This can also relate to Nick’s blog where he agrees with Butler’s statement saying “…nothing is natural, not even sexual identity”. Nothing is natural because we are conditioned from a very young age that when you see someone, for example a female, we are trained to think that because she is a woman, she will be attracted to guys. It is a lot more complicated than that, hence the statement “…nothing is natural…”

Peter Barry agrees with Butler on this. He says “the anti-essentialism in relation to sexual identity is taken further by other critics. Judith Butler, a prominent contributor to Inside/Outside, points out in her essay that ‘identity categories’, like ‘gay’ and ‘straight’, tend to be instruments of regulatory regimes, whether as the normalizing categories of oppressive structures or as the rallying points for liberatory contestations of that very oppression” (144). Barry goes on to say that “it might be argues that the concept of homosexuality is itself part of homophobic (anti-gay) discourse….in this sense, heterosexuality only comes into being as a consequence of the crystallization of the notion of homosexuality. Thus lesbianism, say, is not a stable, essential identity, so that, in her words, ‘identity can become a site of contest and revision” (144).

Something that stuck out in a few of the blog posts was Simon Watney’s bold statement regarding gays and lesbians. In Joei’s and Marina’s blogs, they talk about the fact that someone would be considered “polluted” if they were diagnosed with AIDS. Referencing someone as being “polluted” based upon their gender preferences is obviously a statement that will cause controversy.

Margaret Cho

Margaret Cho was born December 5, 1968 in San Francisco, California. Her website describes her as saying, “It was different than any other place on Earth.” “I grew up and went to grammar school on Haight Street during the ’70s. There were old hippies, ex-druggies, burnouts from the ’60s, drag queens, and Chinese people. To say it was a melting pot - that’s the least of it. It was a really confusing, enlightening, wonderful time.” At the age of 16, Cho began performing stand-up at The Rose& Thistle, a comedy club above her parents’ bookstore. After winning first prize of a comedy contest, she opened for Jerry Seinfeld. Cho has written four standup productions: “I’m the One that I Want” (2000), “Notorious C.H.O.” (2002), “CHO Revolution” (2004), and Margaret Cho: Assassin” (2005). Cho has acted in 35 television and film productions including “All American Girl” (1994), which featured the first Asian American family on television.

Margaret Cho on Sexuality from “Margaret Cho Is a One- Woman Tornado” by Donald Boisvert
» Gay and Lesbian Review: Your gay-friendly attitude is often at the forefront of people’s consciousness when they talk about you. Some are shocked a non-gay could be such a gay advocate.

Margaret Cho :“It’s weird to consider myself a non-gay because I am so within the gay community. I would never think of myself as heterosexual. I would never think of myself as a straight person. So it doesn’t make sense to define myself as that in the first place. Even though I am married [to Reverend Al Ridenour] and I have this kind of conventional life, there is a big part of me that is very queer in my politics and very queer in my sensibilities.”

In her response to this question, past theorist Rubin would bow at Cho’s feet, for not submitting to the gender/based system our society holds so dear, because Cho refuses to categorize her sexual orientation . In her set, Cho discusses her experience having sex with a woman. Cho states, “So I had sex with a woman on the ship. And I went through this whole thing: Am I gay? Am I straight? And I realized: I’m just slutty. Where’s my parade? What about slut pride?” Foucault would read this scene as Cho describing the experience as a process; desire is put on the back burner. In order to make her stand-up hilarious, Cho translates her desire into a skit for her stand-up routine. Upon doing so, the desire that she felt is omitted to make the act (of having sex with a woman) funny.

» G&LR: What do you think about the categorizations of straight, bisexual, and gay.

Margaret Cho: “I think it is needed to an extent because people need to define themselves. Yet there are certain individuals that go beyond gender, that are living their lives beyond labels and beyond all these ideas we have about sexuality, and I consider myself one of those people.

Relating Cho to Butler, Butler talks about gender being performative. Butler states: “The distinction between expression and performativeness is crucial. If gender attributes and acts, the various ways in which a body shows or produces its cultural signification, are performative, then there is no pre-existing identity by which an act or attribute might be measured; there would be no true or false, real or distorted acts of gender, and the postulation of a true gender identity would be revealed as a regulatory fiction” (2501). Butler states that gender is performative, because the body acts or showcases a gender to the world. There is no true gender identity, gender is determined by the performance of an individual who learns it from there society. Cho’s sexual act with a woman can be related to Butler’s thoughts about the perfomative aspect of gender. Cho states, “I didn’t know what to do, so I just copied the movies. You know, I just went down there. . .” The audience is lead to believe that Cho copied sexual moves from a love scene between a man and a woman. In this case, Cho is performing sex on a woman as learned from a man. Cho may have believed that pleasuring a woman could only be learned from a man, since she had not before considered sex with a woman.

Blind spots for Cho in Butler’s Vein

While discussing Margaret Cho in relation to Judith Butler, John and Annie’s blog acknowledge a blind spot in Butler’s “Gender Trouble.” John who is a unicorn states that the performance of the body is not a gender problem but a human problem, while Annie discusses the implication that race too can be performed by relating poet Patti Smith’s critique of stereotypes to Cho’s stand up about the gay community. Butler discusses the body as a performance ground for gender, yet fails to acknowledge that race is also performed. How does the audience know when Margaret Cho is talking about someone from a different race? The answer is her body mannerisms and her voice. When talking about her gay friend, Margaret Cho speaks in a voice that can best be described as an African American homosexual. This inference can be made because her voice is not overly flamboyant, (which is what most comedians go for when imitating a gay man). Cho’s voice becomes lower and she uses slang that can be interpreted to exist in the African American community, such as, “Girl, you could take a bus, you could take a subway, you a big girl! You GO girl.” The inflection in her voice does not scream flamboyant gay man, the tonality and word choices depict a male African American homosexual.

Race performance can also be seen in everyone’s favorite Redneck comedian Larry the Cable Guy. Larry the Cable Guy real name Daniel Whitney, is most known for his “Git-R-Done” slogan, and has become a beloved figure on the “Blue Collar Comedy Tour.” While Whitney was born in Nebraska, and could perhaps have qualities associated with rednecks, “Larry the Cable Guy,” is nothing more than a character. I know you want proof; I wanted proof, so here it is. . .

 

Whitney is making money off of the very people he is mocking. He plays up his “simple-ness,” dons flannel shirt, and a confederate flag adorned guitar, adds up some more “git er’dones,” and southern twang to his voice, and people are eating out of the palm of his hand. Daniel Whitney performing as “Larry the Cable Guy”. . .

So what does Larry the Fraudulent Cable Guy say about the performative aspect of race? His evolution from Daniel Whitney to Larry the Cable Guy shows that race too is about performance. Race is not simply biological. One can “perform” their race as well as their gender. Skin color can be lightened or darkened, and mastering the art of performing race depends on getting the voice and the persona down. Just ask Larry, he’s banking off of impersonating a stereotype, and the people he mimics are his most loyal fans. . . Git R Done Larry.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. “Gender Trouble” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed.Vincent B. Leitch, New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2001. 2485-2501.

Cho, Margaret. “I’m the One That I Want.” DVD (2000).

Cho, Margaret. http://www.margaretcho.com.

Esther, John. “Margaret Cho is a One Woman Tornado.” Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide; Mar/Apr2006, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p44-45.

Foucault, Michel. “The History of Sexuality.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch, New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2001. 1648-1666.