In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Things Left Unsaid

piny

(So I’ve been batting this idea around for a while now with various people, but not in any particularly constructive way, because I suck hardcore at organizing or completing anything. I’ve had a really hard time getting some sort of coherent thesis together, even in my head. But it’s threatening to deconstruct itself right out of existence, so I’m just going to put up my call for submissions as is.)

I’ve noticed a lot of bitterness just under the surface–and sometimes boiling to the surface–of some recent blog thrashes. I’ve felt some of it, and lately slid down from discontented to malcontented. I have snipped at some people and shouted at one or two others. I think a more constructive response is in order.

So I’d like you all to come and help out with the first edition of Marginalia, the sidelong sideshow for ideas that don’t seem to fit quite within the usual three rings.

I am setting up this iteration as a response to inadvertent and not-so-inadvertent heterosexism in the feminist blogosphere. Anyone’s welcome to contribute, and I’m leaving the definition of heterosexism (and, heck, feminist blogosphere) individual, so as to cast as wide a net as possible. One problem, an infinite number of corrections. Write about your own experience. Write about what you’d do differently. Write about something that feels thorny, or petty, or weird. Write about something you have trouble even articulating, let alone reasoning through. Write about what heterosexism should mean. Write about how this carnival is unnecessary, counterproductive, or doomed.

The deadline is January 5, but you can probably talk me into accepting stuff a few days late, and I’m hosting it here.

Subsequent editions are meant to focus on other themes, which you’re more than welcome to nominate here.

16 thoughts on Things Left Unsaid

  1. Heterosexism is a strange concept. Since the vast majority of people are heterosexuals, how can assuming this be biased? It isn’t as though half of people are gay and half straight, which is why we have a term for “sexism.”

  2. Eshie- replace “heterosexuals” with “white,” “Christian,” or any other category, and see if you still have the question. Assuming everyone in the room (whether it’s a real room or a virtual one) comes from the same background marginalizes those whose experiences differ. And are you saying that sexism wouldn’t exist (or that we wouldn’t need to name it) if the gender ratio were more skewed? That seems extremely unlikely to me. If anything, to me it seems that various -isms and -phobias are more prevalent in situations where the minority is more outnumbered by the majority, not where two groups are of roughly equal numbers.

  3. Eshie, it sounds from what you say about heterosexism that you don’t have a view of the difference between heterosexist and heteronormative. Are you saying that those words mean the same thing? Or is your criticism really about heteronormativity (in which case, as MK says, are you then saying that assuming that everyone is white, Christian and right-handed is a good idea? )

  4. Via ExGay Watch, I came to this letter from the University of Calgary’s student news paper.

    The real thought that went through my mind when I read it was twofold:

    1) Being gay doesn’t make someone an expert on being trans*, or vice versa. They may share some commonality of experiences in society (discrimination, hostility, whatnot), but that’s the way it goes.

    2) An ex-Gay’s experience does not invalidate the experiences of others. To hold that it does somehow is the height of arrogance.

  9. Eshie, it sounds from what you say about heterosexism that you don’t have a view of the difference between heterosexist and heteronormative.

    I’ve seen them often used interchangeably. Bothersome.

  10. And I should clarify, I’ve seen them used interchangeably by people who are pro-those-ideas. (Which I am too, just not in the vast majority of cases I’ve seen them used in.)

  11. I’ve seen them often used interchangeably. Bothersome.

    I’ve mostly seen heterosexist used to cover both words, and scarcely seen heteronormative at all, so I thought I’d stick with the former. I didn’t want to start a derail, but I wasn’t expecting the first comment.

  12. Sounds like an awesome idea. I’m a little confused as to whether you intend for the topic to be heterosexism in general, or heterosexism in the feminist blogosphere?

  13. Eshie,

    Since you seem to be sincere in your question, here’s a primer. I apologise in advance if I’m telling you stuff you know already. Apologies too to those who are more knowledgeable than I: please feel free to correct me if I’ve erred.

    Heterosexism refers to a bias in favour of opposite-sex (M-to-F or F-to-M) sexuality and social organization. We can say that something is heterosexist when, for example, it discrominates against gay people, lesbians, transpeople, bi-people, and other queers. So when a flight attendant tells two gay men to stop kissing each other because it’s “indecent,” and has the captain threaten to land the airplane, but doesn’t mind when a man and a woman kiss each other, that’s heterosexist. She’s discriminating against homosexual activity, while permitting the same activity to exist in a heterosexual context.

    Heteronormativity refers to a systemic assumption that heterosexuality is the norm and the standard against which all interactions should be judged. So when we say to a woman “feel free to bring your husband,” without first ascertaining whether the woman is married, or to whom she is married, we are exhibiting a heteronormative worldview. When we have a discussion of sexuality that assumes that such a discussion refers only to sex between men and women, we are showing a heteronormative worldview. When a teacher asks about a students mother and father (as opposed to parent or caregiver), the teacher is exhibiting heteronormativity.

    The danger in allowing heteronormativity to go unchallenged is similar to the danger in allowing any worldview that derives from a majority group to go unchallenged: minorities are margnialized, and perceived as less valid, weird, or wrong. So to give a superficial example, just as, in a multicultural classroom we try to have images of children with different skin, hair, and eye colours, wearing different types of clothing, to reflect the diversity of student ethnicities, races, and cultures, so to do we need to use language that reflects non-heterosexual families and does not margnalize students whose families differ from the heterosexual norm.

  14. One issue with heterosexism in feminism is how difficult it can be to do activist work on the issue of same-sex domestic violence. I work with a group in Boston who works on behalf of lesbians, bisexual women, and transfolk in violent relationships, and we frequently find that other activists in the DV movement are very resistant to anything we have to say. They don’t want to believe that women can be abusers. Consequently, they help to maintain the shroud of silence which allows LBT abusers to continue battering their female partners.

  16. How might one submit, if one were so inclined?

    Comment with a link to this post. I’ll email the interested people so that they can get in touch with me, too.

Comments are currently closed.