Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal

by J. Jack Halberstam

A roadmap to sex and gender for the twenty-first century, using Lady Gaga as a symbol for a new kind of feminism

Why are so many women single, so many men resisting marriage, and so many gays and lesbians having babies? 
 
In Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal, J. Jack Halberstam answers these questions while attempting to make sense of the tectonic cultural shifts that have transformed gender and sexual politics in the last few decades. This colorful landscape is populated by symbols and phenomena as varied as pregnant men, late-life lesbians, SpongeBob SquarePants, and queer families. So how do we understand the dissonance between these real lived experiences and the heteronormative narratives that dominate popular media? We can embrace the chaos! With equal parts edge and wit, Halberstam reveals how these symbolic ruptures open a critical space to embrace new ways of conceptualizing sex, love, and marriage.
 
Using Lady Gaga as a symbol for a new era, Halberstam deftly unpacks what the pop superstar symbolizes, to whom and why. The result is a provocative manifesto of creative mayhem, a roadmap to sex and gender for the twenty-first century, that holds Lady Gaga as an exemplar of a new kind of feminism that privileges gender and sexual fluidity.
 
Part handbook, part guidebook, and part sex manual, Gaga Feminism is the first book to take seriously the collapse of heterosexuality and find signposts in the wreckage to a new and different way of doing sex and gender.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Queer, Gender, Theory, LGBT, Gender Studies

157 pages, Hardcover

First published September 18, 2012

About the author

Jack Halberstam (born December 15, 1961), also known as Judith Halberstam, is Professor of American Studies and Ethnicity, Gender Studies, and Comparative Literature, as well as serving as the Director of The Center for Feminist Research at University of Southern California (USC). Halberstam was the Associate Professor in the Department of Literature at the University of California at San Diego before working at USC. He is a gender and queer theorist and author.

Halberstam, who accepts masculine and feminine pronouns, as well as the name "Judith," with regard to his gender identity, focuses on the topic of tomboys and female masculinity for his writings. His 1998 Female Masculinity book discusses a common by-product of gender binarism, termed "the bathroom problem" with outlining the dangerous and awkward dilemma of a perceived gender deviant's justification of presence in a gender-policed zone, such as a public bathroom, and the identity implications of "passing" therein.

Jack is a popular speaker and gives lectures in the United States and internationally on queer failure, sex and media, subcultures, visual culture, gender variance, popular film and animation. Halberstam is currently working on several projects including a book on fascism and (homo)sexuality.

Reviews

[Adrienne · Rating 2 out of 5]

In Gaga Feminism, Jack Halberstam tries to present himself as a public intellectual-- and, frankly, fails miserably. This book is at its best when Halberstam presents critiques of the status quo and its pop cultural manifestations, pointing out what's wrong with prevailing conventions around gender and sexuality and what, precisely, is at stake in upholding or challenging them. But his presentation of Gaga feminism as a solution to the problems he poses is anemic and unconvincing. Not only are the solutions incommensurate with the problems, but Halberstam's repeated assertion that Lady Gaga is, somehow, the icon for the end of normal-- even though she's clearly a capitalist in an era that Halberstam alternately describes as striving for or having already achieved a postcapitalist state; even though, by Halberstam's own admission, positioning Gaga as a political icon depends on ignoring all of her music and lyrics-- reads less as an actual political strategy and more as a desperate attempt to grab on to some sort of pop culture in order to make Halberstam's analysis seem hip and relevant. I cannot, on good conscience, recommend this book to anybody.

[Nancy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like to read books that let me look into the lives of people unlike myself. When browsing the Goodreads giveaway list I clicked on Gaga Feminism thinking I might get a peek into some lives very different from my own if I won a copy.

I'm pretty conventional, a 64 year old white woman who married at 19 and had her first child at 22. I've been divorced but spent almost all my adult life in a “traditional” marriage. I'm still not quite sure what a gaga feminist is but I don't think I am remotely in the ballpark..

I got some of what I was looking when I read this book but to get to that I had to read some academic feminist theory discussion that seemed to me to roughly equivalent to arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. (And just as uninteresting.) After that, Halberstam shares anecdotes about people she has met and analyzes a number of popular children's movies and romantic comedies (none of which I have seen) ultimately concluding that the whole structure of the world should be something different. Of course it should, but I can't see that there is any chance for significant positive change through the methods she proposes.

I'm pretty sure this quote near the end sums up the Halberstam's view: “organizations are an obstacle to organizing ourselves.” I suppose this sort of baloney makes for interesting sophomore discussion groups, but I can't imagine it being used to create an improved world.

One more gripe: This book really should have had an index. Maybe Halberstam's beef with organizations extends to having an index, but I sure could have used one to better tie together and understand her arguments.

[Megan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a good introduction to feminism and anti-capitalism, generally. Its accessible, which I like, and easily read. That said, its very chaotic and all over the place, and I can't agree with several points, such as if you're for gay marriage, you're not radical enough. If you're religious, you can't be gaga feminist. Halberstam has pretty narrow views on what radicalism or gaga can look like, its made quite clear that it can't be made in marriage or religion or anything tradtionial whatsoever, but these points are not well defended. For example, Halberstam says rich gays push for gay marriage and poor queers do not get any tax benefit, therefore gay marriage is classist. But later states health benefits should just be covered under universal health care, which is true, but still ignores that right there is still a benefit poor queers have to gain. Only tax benefits and health benefits are mentioned at all, there is little acknowledgement of how marriage benefits poor queers or poor people in general. The arguments are selective, is what I'm trying to say. In the acknowledgments Halberstam states that the book was written in a frenzy, and I believe it, and also in a response to Occupy and a perceived impending revolution...which never came. I wonder what this book would be like if written more carefully and more in hindsight of the Occupy Movement instead of riding the initial wave.

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

I should note that while I admire Lady Gaga for her stand on various issues, in particular the current stand she is making about body type, the only song of hers I really like is "Bad Romance".

So this book is suppose to be about Gaga Feminism which as far as I cann tell for the 3/4 of the book I read before putting it down is crazy feminist. So I am still not extactly sure what it is.

Personally, I think Hallberstam should come to my class where my minority students discuss why Beyonce is a success but Kelly Rowland, who according to them has more singing talent, isn't. I think her discussion of "Telephone" would carry more weight if she actually considered questions like that. I do agree, however, that Gaga's using her sexualality makes her un-feminist (and does anyone find her sexy? Talented, yes. Committed, yes. Sexy?).

This isn't so much about feminism, but about culture, which would be fine,but the book is rather unfocused and quite frankly needs a better defination. After all, according to some people, all feminism is crazy.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jack H seems to think we are post feminism and he's advocating a leap into a brave new world of deconstructed gender. It's not clear why he finds feminism so tedious, he mainly seems to find it dowdy. This book is totally entertaining but in his rush to made spongebob squarepants the new icon of feminism he leaves a few issues ignored, like, oh, sexism and misogyny.
The screed against marriage is entertaining but not new, and he's way over invested in romantic comedies as instructional of gender politics.

Also if I hear one more person say that rom coms are to women what porn is to men I will surely scream.

[Anne Holcomb · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm officially a fan of J. Jack Halberstam and gaga feminism after reading this book!! This book is not strictly an analysis of Lady Gaga's songs and performances - rather, Halberstam uses the idea of Gaga as a touchstone to discuss several other recent cultural trends that point to an increased diversity in the ways that we "do" gender.

For inspiration, Halberstam looks to children and their media and the diverse ways that kids can understand gender, and analyzes the plots of current romantic comedies and "bromantic" comedies to show how mainstream culture is having difficulty with the breakdown of traditional gender roles. "Gaga Feminism" takes a much different - and much more progressive! - approach to "the end of men" than most current writers on this topic. Also discussed is the phenomenon of middle-aged and older women engaging in same-sex dating, either after divorce or after not "finding a man." Halberstam presents evidence from several studies suggesting that women's sexual orientation is more fluid than that of men.

For this author, the future of gender lies in the construction and performance of countless gender identities that are outside of our traditional "male" and "female" boxes. Halberstam also presents a thought-provoking argument against same-sex marriage, and instead suggests that everyone, queer or not, should abandon the restrictive and exclusionary practice of marriage. Finally, there's a footnote that's a love note to the Occupy movement and the revolutions toward government that are happening around the world. For Halberstam, a gaga feminist is one who seeks out wild and creative ways to dissolve the status quo.

Unlike most academic books written by feminist theorists, this book is an easy, fast read that stays away from theoretical language, it's great for readers with no academic background as well as those who are familiar with feminist theory. You'll read it quickly, but will find yourself wanting to write down and save many quotes from this book...at least if you are anything like me!

[Katelyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been meaning to read this book for awhile, but never got around to it until this month. I am so glad that I finally found time. It is an easy (and fun!) read, but it covers complex and provocative topics. Halberstam points out the disconnect between academic and popular writings on issues of gender and revolution, and attempts to bridge this gap by presenting academic approaches to these issues in an accessible way. I thought that this was very successful, and I hope to reference this book in the future as a model for how this can be done. One of the goals of my scholarship is for it to be accessible without falling into "popular' territory, and this is a great example of how that can be accomplished!

For this reason, I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in an introduction to queer theory (as well as those who are already familiar, to whatever extent, with the body of work). Although the concept of "gaga feminism" is a new type of feminism as identified by Halberstam, it is based in a well-established grounding of queer theory and Marxism. The book also does a great job of incorporating intersections of race and disability in addition to gender and class. Ultimately, it tackles several cultural markers of the status quo and subverts them using a number of strategies, including dismantling certain themes in popular culture or pointing to other pop culture phenomena that are already "going gaga." In this way, gaga feminism is established as a new kind of chaotic movement that challenges the status quo and, therefore, capitalist structures. Halberstam, like others have done before, adds to Marxist ideology what has always been sorely lacking: gender, race, and all of the other categories of marginalization that Marxism fails to address in its strict focus on class difference.

This book does not focus on Lady Gaga. Rather, it uses her as a symbol of what gaga feminism can accomplish in the everyday. Halberstam points out that Gaga is not always gaga herself. By no means does gaga feminism, in its use of the pop star as a symbol, completely line up with her politics. The book references Lady Gaga's music, videos, and performance a number of times, with a special focus on the music video for "Telephone." As a musicologist, I am ecstatic by the significance placed on popular music in this context and the seriousness with which Halberstam examines it and its effects. That being said, the focus is almost entirely on Lady Gaga's image and performance, not the music or voice. I am conflicted on this; I have a problem with the large body of literature dealing with popular music, written by scholars who are not music scholars themselves, that completely neglect the music in this way. It's frustrating, but of course, these scholars (Halberstam included) probably aren't qualified to write authoritatively on music. In the case of this book, because Gaga is a reference point rather than a focus, this didn't bother me as much as it normally might.

Am I going to subscribe to gaga feminism? I want to. The final chapter, the manifesto, is compelling. I am completely in favor of going gaga and subverting the status quo. But is it realistic on an individual level? For those of us who have personal goals outside of revolution, how gaga can we realistically go before we end up subverting not only the status quo, but ourselves and our careers? This is the struggle! And that's the point: going gaga should not be easy! It is challenging both internally and externally. My question is whether or not there are ways of going gaga without going "all in." Can I operate within the status quo in order to achieve success in my career, and therefore some amount of power, and then from there use that status to "go gaga?" As an academic, Halberstam likely has thought about these questions as well. I would be curious to know how he would respond. Either way, I hope to incorporate and recognize the presence of chaos in the everyday and allow it to do its work in undermining the powers that be.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I finished this book awhile back, and kept forgetting to write a review. There are really interesting parts of it, but I thought it a bit too repetitive. I received the message, thank you, I don't need it hammered in! This reminds me of my college days, in which an activist group I was in sought to "change the terms of engagement" regarding acceptable forms of protest. This book is about changing all those terms of engagement on a wider social level. For instance, I really enjoyed the section on gay marriage. Instead of fighting for the right to marry, Halberstam argues that we should challenge the very idea of marriage itself. Why do we want to perpetuate this social norm, when it is so obviously a diseased institution? He suggests instead that we broaden our views. If marriage is the gateway to health insurance, then argue for health insurance reform that allows anyone, regardless of blood, to be added to your health plan. And so on. This book is a good reminder to think outside the box, and challenge the status quo. I'm not quite sure I really like the attempt to create a certain brand of feminism based on a pop star's behavior. It immediately alienated me, even though I agree with much of what is discussed within the chapters. I think it would have been a stronger book without framing it within a pop culture context.

[Kate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Academic J. Jack Halberstam writes about gender theory and queer theory in a way that is more accessible in this trade book. With changes shaking up the economic and political spheres of our world, changes should also be arising in our views of sexuality, gender, family structure, and marriage, but they seem to be lagging behind. Halberstam offers up great examples of a new feminism on the horizon by analyzing contemporary films and news articles from around the world. He/she also intersperses theory and criticism with personal anecdotes that I especially enjoyed. Great for readers lacking a strong background of gender theory or queer theory, it's a great introduction that doesn't dumb down the content. Plenty of references to the great theorists of the past couple of centuries come right alongside references to pop culture icons. [[Reviewed from page proofs; final book is on sale 9/18/12]]

[Catherine Read · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a GREAT book! A must read on so many levels because it is more than just about feminism. It's about gender politics and why we need to rethink some of the institutions and ideas that really aren't working for the vast majority of us. I heard about this book in a presentation at GMU by Dean Spade, author of Normal Life (who is quoted in this book.) Gender politics affect all of us and this is a good primer for reorienting our thinking by shifting our paradigm. It's hard to see what isn't there yet - especially when the view is blocked by what is familiar and accepted in our minds. It has opened my eyes to what our larger goals should be - especially when it comes to rights that are conferred simply because of an institutional construction called marriage. I highly recommend this!

[graceofgod · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm.... not really sure what to say? What *can* I say? It's absolutely horrible. The book tries to present itself as sexy and theatrical, but really it just comes off as incredibly tryhard. And that's not even the worst part of it. The introduction and the first chapter are basically an apologia for pedophilia, obviously not outright, but filtered through "Theory" language. Even more, the book is implicitly Islamophobic in its claim to be "against all forms of religion." Obviously, religion should be critiqued, but this is basically (specifically w/r/t Christianity) a regurgitation of the usual fare that one usually hears.

Also, the writing was horrendous. I'm still trying to figure out who or what this book is trying to appeal to. This book takes the worst of Tumblr "feminism" and Wet Diaper Deleuzianism and mashes it into one thing.

[Isabel Wittmann · Rating 3 out of 5]

É difícil avaliar um livro como esse. Jack Halberstam aborda principalmente questões relacionadas ao que chama de masculinidades femininas, especialmente homens transgêro e mulheres cisgênero que são butches. Mas o livro aborda muito mais do que isso: há diversas análises às repeito de gênero e sexualidade que partem de um ponto de vista da cultura pop, explorando principalmente os filmes lançados nos últimos anos. E ainda funciona como um manifesto do que chama de Gaga Feminism, termo que foi inspirado por Lady Gaga e que seria uma proposta de feminismo contemporâneo e diverso. Essa é parte problemática do livro para mim: a teorização é inconsistente. Por mais que o autor fale que sua proposta de Feminismo Gaga é isso ou aquilo, é difícil de entender sobre o que ele realmente está falando. O manifesto propriamente dito é confuso e um emaranhado de frases de efeito.
Fala de um mundo (que teoricamente seria o ocidente contemporâneo, mas não o reconheci nessa descrição) em que mulheres possuem maior sucesso profissional e salários do que os homens e onde esses tornam-se obsoletos, a não ser pelo desejo ainda persistente de uma relação amorosa. Cita filmes mumblecore e outros, como as comédias de Judd Apathow para exemplificar essa realidade. Por fim faz uma análise interessante sobre como esses filmes apresentam novas questões a respeito da sexualidade. Mas conclui explicando que o Feminismo Gaga é um feminismo mutante, alterando constantemente suas posturas políticas. "Esse feminismo não é sobre irmandade, maternidade, sororidade, ou mesmo mulheres". E aí vejo um problema.
O quarto capítulo foi, para mim, o mais interessante. Ele conta com os motivos pelos quais o autor não apoia a causa do casamento LGBT. Como uma instituição excludente, para ele deveríamos lutar para acabar com ela e abraçar novas formas de relacionamento, ao invés de querer expandi-la. Buscar a legitimação de um Estado que nega direitos seria nada mais nada menos do que validar o poder deste mesmo Estado. Utiliza comédias românticas recentes, como Missão Madrinhas de Casamento, Noivas em Guerra, A Proposta e Ele Não Está Tão a Fim de Você, por exemplo, que primeiro desconstroem a ideia e mesmo a necessidade de um casamento convencional, para depois "premiar" a protagonista com esse tipo de relação no final. Provocativamente escreve "o casamento é o cum shot da comédia romântica".
Mas da mesma forma que o autor critica o que entende como um feminismo branco e elitista, suas próprias proposições muitas vezes parecem ser o mesmo. O manifesto e a parte teórica são o menos interessante em seu livro. Os momentos em que consegue expressar melhor suas ideias são justamente aqueles em que fala de sua vida pessoal e também os trechos ensaísticos sobre filmes.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re unfamiliar with modern/western feminist theory, the first thing to know is that it is generally described as happening in waves. Each wave has been characterized by a different component of the same fight (gender equality): the suffragettes and voting rights in the first wave; the radical New Left and civil rights in the second wave; and the empowered Grrls and job rights in the third wave.

But what if gender equality is the wrong fight? Or, if nothing else, a misguided one that only serves to further limit and stifle us all?

In Gaga Feminism, J. Jack Halberstam posits a framework for a fourth wave of feminist movement not characterized by a new component of the same old gender equality fight, but by a complete dismantling and re-configuration of our aims. The fourth wave, then, may be about demolishing the fight itself. This means embracing a wild, mold-destructing disinhibition and a completely new, yet boldly flexible understanding of our world and how we inhabit it… Lady Gaga style.

This is, if you ask me, a particularly badass notion given the fact that we’ve been so desperately clinging to models of being and interacting that have outlived their usefulness in many ways (if they were ever truly useful at all…). In fact, endlessly fighting to expand the tired traditional (rigid gender binaries, monogamy, patriarchal marriage) in hopes that it will begin to feel inclusive and healthy– as opposed to creating an entirely new, imaginative, and fulfilling social framework– is arguably more destructive than it is empowering.

So yeah, this book is refreshing on a lot of levels. If you’ve ever felt trapped by feminism as we have thus far defined it (a little too rigid and traditionally-flavored in and of itself, am I right?), I’m betting you’ll find some reprieve in Halberstam’s Gaga Feminism. This is the permission so many of us have been craving; our long overdue green light to finally let go of the prickly conservative labels and institutions that are no longer serving us; to be whatever kind of boy-girl-straight-gay-polyamorous-monogomous-non-conforming-weirdo the Universe is begging us to be. It also calls us to contemplate and begin to construct a society in which we welcome and embrace all the flexibility, messiness, and complexity of the human condition.

Let’s all go gaga, shall we?

[Veleda · Rating 2 out of 5]

J. Jack Halberstam offers a radical, revolutionary, anti-capitalist vision of the future... based a round a highly commercialized pop star. What's more, any political opinion Lady Gaga has ever given is dismissed as not important, likely because Halberstam doesn't agree with her. Apparently, the fact that Gaga wears weird outfits is all that's required to make her a revolutionary icon. That, and her song "Telephone" is supposedly a masterpiece of musical genius, an opinion that's debatable.

Halberstam presents a very exclusionary radicalism, one that is completely off limits to any religious person, as well as as anyone who believes queer people should have the right to marry.

Halberstam occasionally presents good points, then veers off to some bizarre conclusions. His explanations on why the queer rights movement's focus on marriage above issues is destructive and prioritizes certain groups is valuable, but he uses it to "prove" that no one should be fighting for marriage at all, gay marriage is bad, and it's perfectly acceptable to be a jerk to people who believe otherwise.

In another section of the book Halberstam discusses the existence of child sexuality, which goes well, until he declares that we shouldn't stigmatize sex between and adult and a child, and just ask children if the sexual touching feels good. (And if they say yes, it's fine.) Behind my automatic moral outrage to this position, it's not at all logical. Surely, anyone as familiar with queer and gender studies as Halberstam would understands power differentials. The power imbalance between an adult is far too extreme to allow for informed consent. Children are taught to trust adults implicitly. This cannot lead to a fair relationship, even discounting the child's lack of maturity and decision making skills. And I have no idea why we would leave it at "the child says this feels good." We don't trust children's opinions on a whole host of issues, such as whether or not to go to the dentist, or eating vegetables. Sex is not less complicated than spinach.

Halberstam presents some interesting idea, but his conclusions frequently do not follow from his evidence, and his idea of a revolution appears to be limited to people like him.

[Ayanna Dozier · Rating 3 out of 5]

I understand that "Gaga Feminism" is separate from Lady Gaga, but I still find the premise of labeling a "new" branch of feminism after a pop star, who has publicly denounced feminism, to be problematic. Not only that, but a vigorous critique is in order for many of these pop stars who demonstrate "Gaga Feminism" for their troubling relationship to capitalism, a critique that Jack shies away from in the book. Aside from that, Jack manages to write an accessible book that demonstrates the issues with gender normativity in society from an academic, intellectual, and pop cultural enthusiast perspective, a feat that is not easy, but one that is greatly appreciated.

[Emily Cait · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. Inspired further reading. Will post full review shortly. :)

[Frida · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, I am biased. I love Jack Halberstam. Second, this book is from 2012. I'm not saying it's outdated, definitely not, I'd rather say that these ideas seem less peculiar and less radical today, than they may have almost 10 years ago. This generation started to take on gaga feminism and is trying their best to keep on pushing it forward.

On the surface, the book is very playful and fun with its analysis of children's cartoons and its use of shallow (and let's be honest kinda dumb) pop culture. It might seem irreverent at first but what lies within, is a radical, may it be idealistic, proposal for a different way of looking at gender/sexuality and engaging with this short life of ours and the fellow human beings we share it with. Halberstam is not taking himself too serious here, some of the anecdotes had me laughing out loud, this (simplicity) is what makes this book so loveable.

A critique I've read here multiple times, is the use of Lady Gaga as a symbol for this new feminism. So why would Halberstam choose someone so deeply ingrained in mainstream consumer culture as Lady Gaga, as the name giver for his manifesto? Halberstam tells us right from the beginning, it's not really about Lady Gaga (the person) per se, she's merely one outcome of a persistently growing cultural shift (he also mentions Simone de Beauvoir as an early gaga feminist). He further explains: "While Lady Gaga's words in political speeches are ordinary, her performances, her costumes, her gestures, the world's she creates and peoples are extraordinary. For this reason, I build gaga feminism on the bedrock of the outrageous performance archive that Lady Gaga has created and not in relation to her speeches on behalf of marriage equality or gays in the military, positions that offer no critique of marriage on the one hand or the military on the other." By analyzing the music video for "Telephone", he points out paradigm shifts in our culture as a whole by pinpointing moments in pop culture that show manifestations of these shifts.

I'd say this book is an idea for an anti-normative, subcultural, anti-capitalist feminism. An anarchist manifesto for all the weirdos, the odd ones out, the freaks, the losers and the failures. It's a plea for the queers to remain fiercely queer and not assimilate with a system that is based on racism, sexism and homophobia but instead get together, form groups, be loud, disruptive and rise up in solidarity.

[Stef Rozitis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting. Not very rigorous. I had some of the same issues with this as I did with Female Masculinity (glamourising the butch at the cost of further marginalising the femme) but also I relate to some of that. I feel like it needs to be discussed but more nuance would be welcome.

Elsewhere in the book she has an egotistical squabble with Susan Faludi (she's right but that doesn't make the squabble fun to watch) and she finishes on a manic revolutionary note that seems pie in the sky for someone privileged enough to have written this book.

I've been so severe because I stupidly expected too much from the book. It is strongly provocative throughout and that provocation in some parts is very needed. I found it clear and lucid on specifics of what is wrong with a lot of rom-coms and TV shows and also feel grateful that it confirmed my impression without me having to sit through all these tedious movies. The reading of Finding Nemo here (even more than in QAF) made me think. I hadn't loved the movie which I had felt pressured to watch because my kids were little but what she says about dory subverting family values is interesting.

I appreciated also the detailed exposition on why gay marriage is a nothing burger (many of those points I had thought of but certainly not all). In this I especially liked the intersectionality (race and class), the snark against liberal feminist goals like female CEOs and white picket fences in suburbs where kids won't see queerness, and the reminder that an authentic queerness is always centred in social-justice goals not just being upwardly mobile in the capitalist heteropatriarchy. I know not everyone would agree with this and perhaps this section was also more rant than evidence but it reminded me that being who I am is fine...it's a great counter-message to all the homonormative consumerism we have shoved down our throats usually (almost literally when you consider microplastics)

So many queer academics seem really in love with Halberstam. I dunno. I'd keep him on the "must read" list though.

READ THIS

[Elise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Comprehensive study of all that appears as gibberish nonsense (what a baby cannot pronounce) underneath which hides deep political critiques of society

Gaga feminism means there are no rules -> example with household chores: doesn’t need to be 50/50 (that’s traditional feminism) but the division (and potential inequality) needs to be acknowledged and chosen

In contrast to Freud who argued that our experiences in childhood constitute our sexuality which becomes fixed after a certain age, there is much much evidence to prove that sexuality especially in women is fluid (what How We Desire beautifully recounts) => Lisa Diamond: “one of the fundamental, defining features of female sexual orientation is its fluidity” although JH is cautious to add that this does not define ALL (female or not) people

A few quotes:

“While doctors and psychologists might have agreed upon definitions of “normal” and “perverse,” those definitions do not take on a sense of permanence and inevitability until someone actually identifies with the terms.” P98

“Why not value forged connection as much as blood in terms of ways we think about belonging?”

“If we are really committed to making life better for as many people as possible, then we should consider replacing marriage with wider units of connection and relation.” P110

“To go gaga is to be loud in a world of silent collaborators, to be crazy in a room full of nice and normal people, to be unpredictable in a world of highly structured systems of meaning.” P140

[musicologyduck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall a read that I enjoyed and found useful for my own thinking, but deeply uneven. Halberstam seems to want to speak to younger generations through “gaga feminism,” named for a Millennial figure, but what is at times approachable and fun writing occasionally veers a bit into the cringeworthy. I wanted something newer and fresher to help theorize generation gaps in feminism, which this book starts to do, but yet is so deeply tied to the period around 2008–2011 that it is a bit hard to work from in the Trump era. Some of the pop culture readings are brilliant, others reveal a somewhat shallow or problematic engagement with the source (as I am sure associated fan cultures would readily point out). Similarly, really cogent cultural analyses will slip into personal anecdotes that I don’t think carry the wider applicability intended. As someone who grew up with a queer parent and nontraditional family structure in a red state, I found Halberstam’s personal stories and points about family and gender roles interesting and relevant, but not always resonant enough with my own lived experiences to sell me all of the arguments. In its overall framing it is an optimistic book that looks forward to a collapse of heterosexuality, but while it calls for “creative anarchy,” how much (or which parts) of “gaga feminism” holds up past the cultural moment in which it was written remains unclear.

[Alex Zaky · Rating 3 out of 5]

certainly some interesting things to consider
i think the book would have had better impact and made stronger points if it dropped Lady Gaga altogether, gaga just felt like an attempt to be culturally relevant
it feels very introductory, but i think there are better things to show people

[Liam Arne · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was very fun and the pop culture references were engaging. Certainly less esoteric than most of Halberstam's writing which made it easier to read. I don't agree with all of his analyses but I always enjoyed reading it. Centering the book around Gaga and then decentering her specifically and its chaotic organization meant it was a bit all over the place- but isn't that Gaga feminism in its goals?

[Matt Sautman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Halberstam incorporates a lot more about their personal life in this book than in their other works I've read. [Given that Halberstam identifies as genderqueer in this book as opposed to a transman, I opt for the usage of "their" instead of "his" here.] Although this book may be "somewhat" dated in the past five years, Halberstam's investigation of their own subject position in relation to their girlfriend and her kids, marriage practices, Susan Feludi's lack of awareness about queer temporality scholarship, and Lady Gaga provides an outlining of a different kind of feminism Halberstam dubs Gaga Feminism. For anyone looking for an introduction to queer theory or feminism, this text is probably not for you- at least not presently. But for anyone wanting an analysis of one of the more prominent pop stars of recent and her relationship to a more emotive kind of feminism that is less concerned with "rational" expression, Gaga Feminism may be worthwhile.

[textual silence · Rating 3 out of 5]

Firstly, certain things about this book will 'do it' for readers and certain things won't. I do wonder how such blatant capitalism (of the Gaga ilk - for example, concert ticket prices, merchandising, and the rush to buy clothes and accessories to 'look' like Gaga, to name but a few of the things that serve to make Gaga and Gaga's management team and/or record company obscenely wealthy) is meant to spawn anything new or worthwhile. It seems to me to fit with the kind of 'fashion feminism' that threatens to say much but do little - and all the labels tend to have the same effect in the end, as groups splinter into ever smaller factions that spend as much time bickering and fighting each other as they do their primary 'cause' (go back a few decades to the row amongst 'feminist groups' concerning pornography for such an example). Secondly, the talk of Gaga's image and its potential to inspire change, provoke, and to queer 'norms', amongst other claims that Halberstam sees as groundbreaking and/or radical, would appear to be not so original after all following Halberstam's admittance that Gaga's 'politics' (the stuff Gaga is occasionally allowed to spout out) seem to be at odds with Gaga's image, and therefore its potentiality, and thus what we are really being asked to believe in is just another form of iconography - now what's new about that (if unsure here, go ask a priest, rabbi, mullah, monk, nun, etc.)? And finally, whilst enjoying the reading of the book, and Halberstam's wicked sense of humour and writing style that does not aim to exclude those outside of academia (as many academics seem wont to do), I feel there is a crucial point to be made about the purpose and/or intention of academic writing in the present. My somewhat romantic view of academia is being thoroughly and systematically dismantled as the ongoing need to 'justify', and to 'professionalize', and to 'produce', overwhelms and transforms intellectual thinking into just another means of production and consumption, where writing must be turned into something 'publishable' for it to be deemed 'worthwhile' and 'useful'. The rush to publish "Gaga Feminism", with its emphasis on fashion politics, as I'm claiming here, allows for and perhaps even promotes a certain looseness - what I mean by this can best be shown in Halberstam's aside regarding the French anarchists' manifesto, "The Coming Insurrection". Halberstam takes a radical piece of writing, that when read in its entirety leaves the reader in no doubt as to the pointlessness of notions such as Lady Gaga (the pop performer - standing in for all forms of 'entertainment' here) and "Gaga Feminism" (the book - standing in for all forms of 'churned out' academic writing done so with the sole aim of maintaining levels of funding for academic institutions, thereby making academics seem more like performing animals than intellectuals, arguably), in order to justify the position of Gaga Feminism (the 'concept'). I imagine the not-so-anonymous (if the French authorities are to be believed) authors of "The Coming Insurrection" to be spinning in their prison cells at the thought of their work being appropriated in such a frivolous manner. So, yes, read the book, for it's a fun read, but be wary of how embedded in ideas of authority and institution Halberstam's thinking actually is, when you actually stop to think about it, which you probably won't get to do before the next fashion fix comes along - or am I just too cynical?

[Brian Palmer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find some irony in contrasting this with another book I finished today which attacked feminism from a conservative, anti-feminist perspective. In this book, J. Jack Halberstam discusses a new form that will replace traditional feminism. This is made clear in the first pages, where the author describes the well known feminist Susan Faludi (at a conference they both attended) as being "out date"; in a final irony, while the book was written in 2011 when Lady Gaga seemed triumphant, at this date in 2015, Lady Gaga seems somewhat retro herself.

Of course, Halberstam does not tie "gaga feminism" strictly to Lady Gaga; instead, Halberstam is borrowing the phrase "gaga" to represent some amount of genderfluidity, of intentional transgressiveness, and new norms. Halberstam really, really likes the music video for "Telephone," and uses it as a key part; this, a discussion of Gaga's appearance as Jo Calderone (her fictional male alter-ego), and a few quotes from "Born this way" are the only real appearances by Lady Gaga in the text.

The best parts of the book, for me, are the pop cultural analysis of recent movies that occur spread throughout the text. The analyses aren't particularly deep, but they're accessible (even for the movies I hadn't seen), and they do a great job of demonstrating the narratives that Halberstam finds in pop cultural narrative (as an example: 'butch' lesbians being a weak substitute for heterosexual males, and lesbianism often being shown as a phase, in _The Kids are All Right_).

The organization felt a bit scattershot at times, though; sections such as those on how non-American cultures label gender roles felt underdeveloped. Parts of it read more like Halberstam "humble-bragging" about their travels and academic talks. A section on the show _Big Love_ (which focused on a polygamous family living closeted in a town) dismisses the show's creator's belief that feminism has 'matured' to embrace marriage as "problematic;" in the wake of how Halberstam dismissed Faludi as outdated and immature, I thought that odd.

But, near the end, Halberstam did address marriage, harshly criticizing the focus on gay marriage as reflecting the priorities of white, upperclass gays and lesbians; and suggests that queer communities are not really concerned about the issue other than in opposition to christian groups championing anti-gay marriage proposals. Is this just reflective of 2011? Or have I bought into the media narrative?

I thought it was an interesting read and accessible.

[Alix · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall a good, quick and worthwhile read.

Gaga Feminism tackles a new world of feminism embodied not only by pop queen Lady Gaga, but also Dory from Finding Nemo, Thomas Beatie, Spongebob Squarepants, and Yoko Ono. Halberstam won me over immediately by calling for an end to the gender binary, but then s/he started to lose me at times. For instance, the author's criticism of gay marriage wasn't completely convincing, even if it was something I needed to hear. I would never advocate against anyone else's rights, but I agree that "Marriage pits the family and the couple against everyone else" whereas "alternative intimacies stretch connections between people and across neighborhoods like invisible webs, and they bind us to one another in ways that foster communication, responsibility and generosity." Haberstam's take on marriage is basically, if we ignore the status quo it will go away and we should focus our energies on alternative relationships. My take: to each their own as long as you're not hurting anyone. I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone for standing up for what the believe in even if I disagreed.

Although somewhat pushy and half-baked, many of Halberstam's proposals are enticing. I particularly related to Fred Moten's idea of the "right to refuse rights" which Halberstam introduces in Chapter 4. The idea here is to "see the political landscape in ways that are not already determined by preexisting forms but that wrestle with the possibility that some people may want to live and die outside of state forms of regulation, governance, and rescue." I would argue that it is more than just "some people", this book is describing a political perspective that is already embodied by a large number of people—not only those who identify as feminists, trans, queer, poly, etc. There are important subversive political messages in this book.

To quote Halberstam one more time, "Gaga feminism leads the way to an anarchist project of cultural riot and reciprocation...the tendency [] to cooperate rather than compete becomes today a newly vital model for human interaction. Mutual aid or mutual protection or new notions of exchange actually flourish already in the worlds we inhabit and those we are making as we go...and this notion of working with others rather than in competition is probably the only thing that will save us from the greed of free-market economies."

Welcome to the gagapocalypse!

[R.J. Gilmour · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always been a fan of Halberstam's work and this book is no exception. Although I approached the topic with apprehension Halbertsam uses Gaga's work and approach to her art as a starting point for queer anarchism. While filled with interesting analysis of popular culture, television and film, the idea is as Halberstam suggests always to have fun.

"Lady Gaga is, by her own admission, a fame "monster"; she is positively Warholesque in her love of attention and absolutely masterful in her use of celebrity, fashion, and gender ambiguity to craft and transmit multiple messages about new matrices of race, class, gender, and sexuality, and even about the meaning of the human." xii

"Lady Gaga, as both a media product and a media manipulator, as a megabrand of sorts, becomes the switch point for both kinds of body futures-she represents both an erotics of the surface and an erotics of flaws and flows, and she is situated very self-consciously at the heart of new forms of consumer capitalism." xiii

"This book models the art of going gaga: a politics of free-falling, wild thinking, and imaginative reinvention best exemplified by children under the age of eight, women over the age of forty-five, and the vast armies of the marginalized, the abandoned, and the unproductive." xv

"The anthropologist of sexuality, Gayle Rubin, in fact, noted astutely several decades ago that there has been a long history of training women's sexuality via the mechanism of restraint. In an extremely influential essay that tried to account for the production of the meaning of "male" and "female" in pre capitalist and capitalist societies, Rubin noted that the meaning of "woman" in early human societies emerged out of the tendency of tribes and groups to create bonds with one another through the exchange of women." 13

"In reality, sex is both much more wild than our norms allow for and, at times, much more bland and banal than our concerns for moral order indicate." 74

"The wedding is the "cum shot" of the romantic comedy." 115

[Lucia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought I would disagree with about half of this book and I was about right - some parts I found very interesting, inspiring even. Others I was very skeptical of, e.g. claiming we live in a "postcapitalist society". I would say the type of capitalist society we live in has definitely changed from the original capitalist structure, neo-capitalist or neoliberal capitalist perhaps but I would say we are definitely still very much living in a capitalist society. Also, the claim that women are doing better than men in the current economic situation, which came fairly on in the book, I noted was not backed up with any sources whatsoever and I have read the opposite elsewhere (e.g. Anne Summers) - backed by sources. I also disagree with the assumption that same-sex marriage only helps rich, white gays who want tax benefits. Coming from a country where same-sex marriage is not legal, nor recognised from other countries, I have heard from same-sex couples about having to pay ridiculous amounts of money that a straight couple wouldn't have to pay if they want their partner to relocate to Australia, and another friend who has to have to pay three times more than a straight couple would to have her partners name put on the birth certificate. From the sounds of it, the author is surrounded by a lot of wealthy same-sex friends, but as that's not the world I move in, my experience has led me to believe that no same-sex marriage actually affects couples without a lot of money more than helping hose who do have it. In spite of this rant, I actually think the institution of marriage in general is outmoded and a load of crap. However, if we only offer marriage to hetero couplings, what statement are we making to society about the status of same-sex or gender diverse couplings.
I appreciated the authors attempts to end the book with an inspiring look to a new way for the future, however it was rather to vague to really suggest anything other than the belief that there could be a possibility of a different future.

[Maggie]

I actually finished reading this months ago, and had this long post/comment written in my head, tying together marriage and health insurance and why health insurance ought to be severed from marriage. Because really, health insurance should not depend on one's marital status. But I didn't write the post and I can't reconstruct my argument without re-reading the book, which was a library book on interlibrary loan, so...

To quote: "...one could argue that everyone should have the option to extend their benefits packages to others, to a 'plus one' instead of verifiable relatives....the old lady who lives next door and watches my apartment for me when I am gone...We could argue that these 'alternative intimacies' would make society much stronger and in much more elaborate ways than marriage does. Marriage pits the family and the couple against everyone else; alternative intimacies stretch connections between people and across neighborhoods like invisible webs, and they bind us to one another in ways that foster communication, responsibility, and generosity.'

I find that a refreshing point of view, though I think really we ought to have single-payer government sponsored health insurance that is completely unrelated to one's marital and/or family status.

Also, on page 72, she talks about "hand-bred horses" and though she desperately wants the breeders to sound like they were getting off on it, nothing in her relating of the story argues that the humans were in fact aroused by having to help the horses breed. [I just had to mention that.]

Provocative book - spirited and quasi-academic but not daunting.

[Rachel Hills · Rating 2 out of 5]

According to the Goodreads scale, this really should be a one-star review, because I didn't like this book. But I'm giving it two stars because one would suggest it has no redeeming features, and I don't think that is the case at all.

"Gaga Feminism" is a provocative, fairly accessible introduction to queer theory, presented through the lens of the pop star Lady Gaga. The central thesis is that instead of focusing on equality between men and women, or between gay and straight people, we should seek to do away with those categories altogether; step outside the roles laid out for us and go "gaga" - go off-script that is, not turn into the pop star herself.

It's an interesting, valid argument, but it is let down by its meandering presentation, repetition and diversions, as well as the author's unnecessary nastiness towards straight men (who are apparently leaches if they are in relationships with women who earn more than they do - so much for fucking with gender roles), Susan Faludi and even more conventional queer and trans people. The tone was often smug, as though the author thought himself superior to everyone else, and I ended up giving up on the book after 75 pages.

It also has very little to do with Lady Gaga: she is just a hook to get people to pick up the book.

Despite finding the book very frustrating, I did enjoy the author's flashes of insight and turns of humour. I think his argument would have made for a great article or essay, but it feels stretched out in book form.