I found Bartky to be contradicting Bulter, through she doesn't directly do that in her article. I was often frustrated with her writing and thoughts and found many of her points to be obvious. Maybe this was because I read the Butler selections first and then read Bartky but many of her examples did not feel strong enough to back up her main argument. I found most troubling is her use of the concepts male, female, masculine and feminine. She wants to "probe the effects of the imposition of such discipline on female identity and subjectivity" (64) yet still maintains that we are "born male and female".
My question from this reading is what is feminine according to Bartky? How does her examples and argument further support what entitles a female or a woman being to be in society?
I found intriguing her question, "Who then are the disciplinarians?" which makes me think how in popular culture is this question addressed? (I'm thinking along the lines of the show Heros for example).
Also, troubling is her points relating to her question, "Why aren't all women feminists?" (76). She references to this to other societies globally, which is problematic since she seems to have only a western point of view of feminism. What I mean by this, is her examples and her points do not factor in feminism in non-western contexts and she could have made this point stronger by addressing other factors which causes womens opposition. So, how can she make her argument stronger and what other factors go into how women are perceived as feminism globally? What factors may make feminism differ in other contexts?