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

Guilty As Charged?

Aulelia

In the same vein as La Lubu, a comment is an inspiration for this post. In my previous post about Firestone, one comment stuck out to me the most. In response to the question (““Does pregnancy or sex comes first for women who desire both?”), Jamie said:

Try asking a lesbian who wants children. I like your blog, but this question is blatantly heterosexist.

The word that sticks out to me here is ”heterosexist”. Is someone heterosexist if they don’t want to see lesbians or gay men kissing in public? I would say that person is heterosexist. I definitely do not see myself as heterosexist but I am sure many times I have done it without even realising it. Do we as heterosexuals take our “luxuries” if they can even be called that for granted?

Words From A Wicked Woman was a fantastic blog from an African-American woman writing from a LGBT perspective. She opened my eyes concerning gay people of colour. One topic she discussed was the struggles of African LGBT campaigners. These campaigner suffer heterosexism due to the harsh and treacherous concept of ‘tradition’. Whenever I go home to Tanzania and discussions of homosexuality come up, no one is interested in hearing about their rights. However, I am interested and deeply. Another one I read is Angry Gay Black Canadian is another great blog from a black gay man in Canada. I love reading his perspective on the meeting of race and sexual orientation.

South Africa did a brilliant thing by passing that legislation but it hasn’t done anything to convince other African countries to wake up from the dead and pass the legislation. Is this because homosexuality is ‘un-African’ as some people maintain? Defining homosexuality in Africa as ‘un-African’ is heterosexist because it assumes that to have ‘African identity’, you have to be heterosexual. I don’t think most people who are homophobic at home care that much because religion and tradition are so fused these days so if you go against that double juggernaut, you are seen as Westernised…and ‘un-African’. (Something which I have been called many times).

This BBC opinion on homosexuality had some harsh views including:

Africa and Africans should not respect or entertain homosexuality in any form or fashion. Gay recognition and rights is a Western thing. African culture and tradition does support nor encourage such things… if I may go further here, neither does almight God support such a sinful act. -Osa Davies, United Kingdom

This sort of belief makes me feel sick. I just don’t understand it. Of course not all Africans who are against homosexuality think like this but I know from what I have heard when I am at home, many do. I would like to see one day where my country Tanzania and the whole continent celebrates all of her citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Sadly, it might not happen soon or the near future.

22 thoughts on Guilty As Charged?

  1. Personally, I try to differentiate between heterosexist and heteronormative. Was your statement heteronormative? Sure. But was it heterosexist? Not so sure.

    That’s just me though. I’m open to interpretation.

  2. i don’t make the same distinction as lauren does. frankly, i the two are pretty much part and parcel. Erasure ain’t cool.

    once again, we’re talking about overt actions as the only real evil, pointing to someone that’s worse than ourselves. what good is that supposed to do?

  3. I like the distinction between heterosexist and heteronormative.

    The original quote, about whether sex or pregnancy comes first, yes, leaves lesbian experience pretty much out of the question, but it also leaves out heterosexual women in monogamous relationships with sterile men, and, going even further, women who may desire pregnancy but who can’t ever get pregnant for medical reasons.

    But what it did not do was make being able to get pregnant through sex the only normal or okay state.

    I don’t see that it is so much a problem that the discussion (in context one about fertile heterosexual women who want kids) didn’t include every possible variation of humanity so much as it would be a problem if a lesbian shared her differing experience and got shot down or excluded from the discussion.

    As a gay man, I recognize that roughly 97% of men don’t share that experience, and it doesn’t overly upset me when people make statements that more or less apply only to straight men, unless those statements explicitly say that being straight is the only okay way to be.

    It gets very old being left out of the discussion, but it also doesn’t seem right to force everyone to include me in every statement.

  4. Do we as heterosexuals take our “luxuries” if they can even be called that for granted?

    It’s not “luxuries,” it’s privelege, and YES of course they are taken for granted. Members of the dominant culture/group (such as heterosexuals) don’t generally have the set of experiences necessary to understand what its like to have your basic existence defined by dominant others. Try reframing your sentence like this: Do we as men in a patriarchal society take our “luxuries” if they can even be called that for granted?

  5. One part of heterosexism is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. Making a statement like that is assuming that the readership is heterosexual. Thus, it is heterosexist. That doesn’t mean it was meant maliciously or anything like that. When you meet someone for the first time, and quickly inquire “Do you have a boyfriend” (if they are a woman) without them having shared any details of their sexual orientation, that’s heterosexism too. It’s not always done with the intent of oppressing non-heterosexuals, though that is the unfortunate effect.

  6. The word that sticks out to me here is ”heterosexist”. Is someone heterosexist if they don’t want to see lesbians or gay men kissing in public?

    Well, yes. But I would be more inclined to call them homophobic. To me, heterosexism is more about the erasure of sexual identities and experiences. It’s about assuming heterosexuality to be the default, forgetting that we can’t speak as though all women are attracted to men and vice versa and basically seeing the heterosexual experience as universal. Just like racism is about more than straight up bigotry — it’s also about seeing whiteness as the default experience and either purposely or inadvertently erasing the experiences of people of color through discourse.

    By that definition, I would say that yes, you are heterosexist. As a heterosexual woman, so am I. So are a vast majority of heterosexual people. We’re socialized that way from the moment we can understand a fairy tale. It’s hard to just grow up and forget all of that, even when you want to. I try to not be heterosexist, I work very hard to make sure that I’m not heterosexist and to stop thinking in a heterosexist manner. But I am still heterosexist.

    Do we as heterosexuals take our “luxuries” if they can even be called that for granted?

    Yes. Of course we do. And sure, they can be called luxuries, but the more common word is “privilege.”

  7. I tend to agree with Concerned; particularly the part about how the statement was clearly not made maliciously. I think that, to a certain extent, it is more or less fair to assume that folks are heterosexual because statistically, they are (one of my younger friends who has never dated anybody is jokingly referred to as “statistically straight”).

    However, I would like to see that change, if for no other reason that it would often make the coming out process considerably easier. It is very difficult, when one’s grandmother and aunt ask when one is going have babies like one’s cousin, to handle that question. Why? Because they are not being malicious, but it is still likely that they would be thrown by me being gay, and by thrown, I mean freaked out.

    My point is that while heterosexuality may be the dominant orientation, care needs to be taken, particularly with an audience such as this one, to remember the homos and that our default experience is not the same as the heteros’.

  8. I’m still curious: did Firestone even address lesbians who might want chldren in her book, or was she working from the same assumption as Auleila that only heterosexuals want children?

    Personally, I do need to be reminded from time to time that I’m making assumptions, and reminding me that I’ve just said something heteronormative so I can correct my error feels a little less accusatory than calling me a heterosexist. But YMMV.

  9. Until I get to know someone better, my automatic assumption is that everyone is just like me — I think that is natural. Plus, my gaydar is practically nil — guys should please come out of the closet before I try to fix them up with women I know.

  10. my automatic assumption is that everyone is just like me — I think that is natural.

    Well, I think that is exactly what privilege is, that everyone is just like you and sees the world the way you see it, because only some people can believe this to be true. If you’re gay, or black, or an atheist, you know from the minute you look around that not everybody is just like you.

  11. I’d say it was definitely privileged and heteronormative, though understandably so. I’d also say that it’s a teachable moment, I’m glad it was pointed out, and that us hetero-privileged feminists should endeavor to be more inclusive in the future.

    Peter makes an interesting point that, yeah, obviously, not every discussion is going to be relevant to all parties. I think that makes sense, but it’s something of a slippery slope. That is, it probably shouldn’t be used by, say, hetero-privileged feminists to justify heteronormativity, as the line between that which is justified by this and that which is improper but could be excused by this is… not always clear to the privileged.

    On the other hand, I think this is being handled well. The calling out of heteronormativity wasn’t dismissed, but was thoughtfully discussed. Cookies should not be demanded for doing what’s right, of course, but I think this IS doing what’s right when confronted with privilege.

  12. Shulamith Firestone’s explanation of both lesbianism and of male homosexuality, was effectively that they are psychological disorders caused by the dysfunctional nuclear family relationships imposed by the patriarchy: “Homosexuality is only what happens when these repressions don’t ‘take’ as they ought to…seriously crippling that individual’s sexual relationships, or even his total psyche” – “Male homosexuality could result from the refusal by the child at five or six to make the transition from ‘mother-centredness’ to ‘father-centredness'” – “Female homosexuality… has its sources in unsuccessful repression.” Firestone concludes this section with, “Homosexuals in our time are only the extreme casualties of the system of obstructed sexuality that develops in the family.” She does add, however, “…a day may soon come when a healthy transexuality would be the norm”. She appears from context to use “transexuality” to carry the meaning that currently we use “bisexuality” to convey.

    Going back to the original question, I understood the context to be as follows:

    “given that sex, pregnancy and having children can (at least potentially) be rendered independent of each other, what then follows for women who want to experience natural pregnancy anyway?” In other words, if the sex drive, pregnancy drive, and child-rearing drive are all independent, but a person still experiences two or more of them, which drive comes first?

    And personally, I can’t see anything heteronormative or heterosexist about that. Since a lesbian woman can experience pregnancy without involving sex with a male (artificial insemination by donor being possible these days), it follows that any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can have a wish to be pregnant without wishing to have sex with anybody; and that any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can wish to have children without wishing to undergo pregnancy to achieve that goal.

    As indicated by the quotations I started with, it seems that if there is heterosexism or heteronormativism involved, then it is in Firestone’s model of what causes homosexual orientation and not in the questions that arise from looking at Firestone’s vision of a future world.

  13. Thanks for addressing my comment. I think we all normalize our own experience to some extent. I know I’ve made comments (one from the last week springs to mind) that take my white privilege for granted.

    I think this particular question pushed my buttons because I work in the childbirth field, and I find that normally queer-friendly (or even queer!) people often see a pregnant person and create a whole set of assumptions about sexuality, gender identity, marital status, etc.

    Other readers have addressed this, but when I said the question was heterosexist I meant that it presumed that we are all heterosexual. I differentiate between that and homophobia, a fear or hatred of perceived homosexuality.

  14. I identify as asexual, and so am generally completely left out of the questions altogether, which doesn’t really bother me, seeing as the questions involve attraction, and I don’t experience any. It is kind of lonely, though, being a silent, often-ignored, and sometimes considered “imaginary” sexual minority… what a weird phrase, “sexual minority.”

    Anyway. Being automatically left out of many, many conversations does get lonely after a while, but I try not to take any of it personally. This is of course different from what a bi- or homosexual person* experiences, and certainly different from what a POC who is bi or gay experiences.

    I bring up my asexuality because of this:

    And personally, I can’t see anything heteronormative or heterosexist about that. Since a lesbian woman can experience pregnancy without involving sex with a male (artificial insemination by donor being possible these days), it follows that any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can have a wish to be pregnant without wishing to have sex with anybody; and that any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can wish to have children without wishing to undergo pregnancy to achieve that goal.

    This sounds pretty accurate to me.

    I’m very interested in the race and sexual orientation and nationality intersection situation raised in the original post. The “Un-African” statement is startling, but of course not unfamiliar, overall. Being unpatriotic or “not a proper citizen” is such a strange and powerful tool of uniformity and oppression. I’d love to hear more about the intersections of race, sex, class, and nationality.

    *Asexuals of course can also be romantically attracted to one or both sexes, either opposite or same, but this is getting rather technical and complicated and not necessary to the discussion at all (but I felt clarification was needed).

  15. Heterosexism is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and shares a hetrosexual perspective (as if there were a unified one to begin with). Heterosexists also believe heterosexuality to be superior to other sexual orientations.

    Heteronormativity is the state of enforced heterosexuality. Heteronormativity seeks to silence, persecute or marginalize other sexual orientations. Heteronormativity also enforces traditional gender roles. Again as in heterosexism, heterosexuality is considered the only natural form of sexuality and sex role.

    Homophobia was technically the fear of homosexuality but now also means hatred, bias and bigotry against homosexuals.

    The terms parallel the feminist terms sexism, patriarchy and misogyny in many key ways.

    Feeling type A today.

  16. Is it possible to be bi-sexist? (Am I understanding the term correctly? It’s a new one to me.) I’m bi and have a bad habit of assuminmg that everyone sees the world the way I do, which can lead to some amusing moments as well as some not-so-amusing moments. Being bi is about the best way to look at the world, in my opinion, and it always startles me when people don’t see that. 🙂

    It jangles when I see someone declare that certain races or creeds cannot be gay/bi/trans/whatever, because that’s like saying apples can’t be eaten in the winter since they grow in the spring/summer. It’s two different things and one isn’t encumbent upon the other. A friend of mine is Comanche and when she came out to her family, she was told that Indians aren’t gay. Yeah, doesn’t work that way, sorry.

    For the most part, I don’t assume that everyone will agree with/know about/care about my particular axe to grind. I don’t expect everyone to automatically include the LGBT communtiy in their thought process, though I’m always pleased when they do. If they don’t include it and I think it deserves a bit of a shout out, I’ll speak up, but I don’t get my panties in a twist over it, unless they are being assinine about it, then I come out both barrels blazing. Live and let live is a pretty nice philosophy.

  17. @ Rebecca

    I’ve heard the term “bisupremacy” in reference to those who think that everyone is inherently bisexual, and it seems like a good word to me.
    I haven’t heard anyone “declare that certain races or creeds cannot be gay/bi/trans/whatever”, but have come across the assumption that the person in question must be putting it on, or seeking attention; ‘wanting to be different’ as my Grandma would say.
    (And I agree with ju: single-sex attracted people are just flipping weird, but if they enjoy it, that’s their prerogative).

  18. Pingback: Sore Losers and Good Sports : Elaine Vigneault

  19. Is someone heterosexist if they don’t want to see lesbians or gay men kissing in public? I would say that person is heterosexist. I definitely do not see myself as heterosexist but I am sure many times I have done it without even realising it. Do we as heterosexuals take our “luxuries” if they can even be called that for granted?

    I think it has to go deeper. (and I know that a readable post leaves out a lot, so this is not intended as any reflection on the clarity of your writing.)

    I think that to judge what is going on when someone doesn’t want to see gay or lesbian people kissing in public depends on why. Do they want everyone equally to get a room? Is this reserved only of gay and lesbian people? Is it about appropriateness? Linked to perceptions of marriage? Etc.

    If it is the ick factor with regards same-sex activity, or worse, the existence of gay people, then it is homophobia, and bigotry.

    If it is based on the idea that married or committed couples can peck each other on the cheek or dry kiss as a sign of simple affection, but that gay people are inherently not committed, having shallow relationships, etc, so by definition, any gay people are “having sex” in public even when they peck each other goodbye at the train station, then it is probably a bit of both.

    If it is based on the idea that people shouldn’t be doing things in public that make others uncomfortable, but different rules for essentially identical behavior apply to gay and lesbian people, then it is probably far more heterosexism.

  20. It’s about assuming heterosexuality to be the default…

    I’m not sure how to phrase this without sounding like an ass, so I’m just going to be blunt and then apologize profusely.

    Heterosexuality kind of is the default–you can assume that something like 85% of the people you see walking down the street are het. If (to use a totally made-up example), 85% of people with blue hair owned guinea pigs, it would not be unreasonable to ask a new blue-haired acquaintance how their guinea pig was. The reaction of the non-pig-owning blue-haired person should then be, “Oh, I don’t have one,” and then you both get on with the getting-to-know-you conversation.

    This is not to say that I think homosexuality is bad, because I don’t; who someone has sex with is not even my concern unless they want to have sex with me, and even then their gender is of far less import than whether they’ll take “no” for an answer. Being gay is not bad or evil or ungodly or sinful or any of the stupid words that people with too much time on their hands try to stick to it. But it is uncommon.

    Be nice if the media would recognize that “uncommon” isn’t the same as “nonexistant”, though. I am now picturing a Cosmo cover blurb about “Six Sex Tricks She’ll Love”, which is a truely bizarre image, because, well, Cosmo.

  21. to remember the homos and that our default experience is not the same as the heteros’.

    And to remember the bisexuals and everyone else too… 😉

  22. Rebecca: Good question. I wasn’t aware any term existed like “bisexist”. Biphobic is something with which I am quite familiar with but I’ve never heard of the other term. A google search does nothing to help either.

    Though I know where you’re coming from. Most of my closest friends are bisexual (as am I) and it’s a different experience when my straight or GL friends are over as the dynamic is changes with regards to discussions around romantic/sexual relationships.

Comments are currently closed.