I recently posted this photo to the 'this is oz' website, an Australian initiative which basically involves people posting an anti-homophobia message in the form of a photo of themselves with a handwritten sign. The posts vary from playful, to political, to passionate pleas for equality, to more abstract statements.I have received mixed responses to my "Queers have more fun...you're just jealous", from the positive to the confused, culminating last night in a straight woman saying something along the lines of "but I'm straight and I have fun"...or some such. Could she make a "Straights have more fun" sign, she asked.
There needs to be a class compulsory for all school students which explains privilege and power. Which explains why it is ok for a black person to say nigger, why there aren't straight bars or a straight mardi gras (because 364 days of the year ARE straight mardi gras) and why my statement about queers having more fun is not a flippant allusion to the idea that drag queens are like totes so funny right now and like being a lez is totally awesome cos it's just like falling in love with your bestest friend.
I chose my "Queers have more fun...' statement because I am sick to death of asking for acceptance, for equality, for tolerance (my MOST hated word). Because I am sick of gay rights meaning having exactly the same rights as straight people when I don't actually like the parameters of straight society and would rather redefine relationships and families for myself.
Being queer has given me a sense of history and culture. In a country where a lot is tossed around about a lack of history (white history anyway) and a lack of coherent, unifying culture, I feel I am part of an international shared history and language of queer. Though my community is extremely varied I feel a sense of nationhood and ownership and safety. We have citizens to be proud of and revere; writers and artists and activists and musicians and philosophers. And for me personally, I found that history and sense of unity in the family home where my wonderful mothers gave me a sense of my personal and global history - the events leading to the possibility of my mere existence! I had an A-Grade upbringing by queers.
It's fun to socialise and analyse with people that want to understand and better the world around them. Of course there are gays who do not strive for change and heterosexuals who work tirelessly for a better world. But when I think of my own queer community I see a higher than average willingness to support minority views and respect a marginalised group's right to agency. The other day a friend of mine who uses a wheelchair complained of perceived discrimination in a first aid course. Our coworkers initial reaction was to defend the tutor's intentions and try to explain his error, instead of saying to her - that's fucked that you felt persecuted. From a privileged position, it is easy to forget that when someone feels attacked they don't want the first response of their friends to be a justification of their attacker - they want support and then balanced analysis. I was really bothered by this interaction as I don't like to see a friend silenced, and on a personal level it reminded me of the myriad times I've been told I am overreacting to homophobia or seeing sexism because I want to (that evil Feminist agenda makes me oversensitive, remember?)
From the moment of self-realisation or 'outing' queers are explaining and justifying their sexual practices and relationships to the world. The number of overly personal questions that get asked is amazing. The positive of this (the fun part if you will) is that my queer friends are wonderfully analytical and productively critical about their relationships. We search for new ways to love each other and fuck each other and strive to find a model that makes us happy. We don't always get it right but I am proud and privileged to relate to people that care about how they love me and how I treat them and want to experiment with human interaction.
From the moment of self-realisation or 'outing' queers are explaining and justifying their sexual practices and relationships to the world. The number of overly personal questions that get asked is amazing. The positive of this (the fun part if you will) is that my queer friends are wonderfully analytical and productively critical about their relationships. We search for new ways to love each other and fuck each other and strive to find a model that makes us happy. We don't always get it right but I am proud and privileged to relate to people that care about how they love me and how I treat them and want to experiment with human interaction.
Maybe I think you're jealous because you have to stifle any urges you have for the same sex to fit in with your societal position. Whereas I can have a sexuality that is fluid and will not suffer the wrath of my friends if I deviate from their expectations of my gender and desire. Maybe you are jealous because I have sports teams I can join just for my kind and I have parties and events designed to appeal to my sexuality and desires. Or because some of my people are so clever they developed a whole queer theory. Are you jealous because I can define the rights I am fighting for and have a framework for analysing this very confusing world? Or because there are websites devoted to people posting messages of support for ME.
If you aren't jealous, you should be!
...
DISCLAIMER: I don't think the people I have referred to here read my blog, but if you do and you find it problematic that I have used your comments in this way, please let me know. I do not wish to offend you, but I do think it's worth me bringing up stuff I find problematic. If I am even talking to you, I obviously like you so hold you to a higher standard than the general population. And I'd be willing to chat and clarify. xxx
...
If you aren't jealous, you should be!
...
DISCLAIMER: I don't think the people I have referred to here read my blog, but if you do and you find it problematic that I have used your comments in this way, please let me know. I do not wish to offend you, but I do think it's worth me bringing up stuff I find problematic. If I am even talking to you, I obviously like you so hold you to a higher standard than the general population. And I'd be willing to chat and clarify. xxx
...
15 comments:
Maeve! This is a truly awesome post. Essay, if you will, in the best sense of the word. I've also wondered about who my 'community' would be if I wasn't queer. I love the queer community so much, even though it's far from perfect, and even though, to be blunt, there are still queers with totally fucked up politics/perspectives. I miss the community in sydney, but it's comforting to know that there are queer communities existing almost everywhere, even in a sleepy arch-catholic country like austria... Wonderful post.
Hi Maeve, just came to your blog via Dan's post on Facebook.
I love this post, especially the part about community. From the bus at 6.45am this morning I saw someone in a Bats hoodie walking their dogs in the park and I too was thinking exactly the same thing about how lucky I am to be part of such a close community.
Anna.
That's the thing, isn't it. We're lucky! There's often discourse saying that gay people "don't have a choice" or were "born this way" and it implies that, given the choice we'd just love to be "normal" straight people. But I know I for one am THRILLED to be queer and wouldn't have it any other way! :-)
"it is ok for a black person to say nigger" yes but no black person would dare take away the choice of their fellow people of colour by referring to a "nigger community".
Lots of gay people including this one find the term very offensive.
If we start calling ourselves "the queer community" then Fred Nile and the rest get to call us a bunch of dirty queers and the only thing an anti-discrimination tribunal would be able to find offensive about that statement would be that he called us dirty.
Do you even know where the term "gay" came from? It was chosen as an inclusive term, that was not gender specific, and a deliberate rejection of the idea that there was a stark homosexual/heterosexual divide- to recognise the entire spectrum of the non-heterosexual groups in society in a single term. Oh- wait a minute- that's exactly what the term Queer tries to do but without offending anyone!
Gay was always meant for everyone- the only reason it's associated with just men today is because a group of radical seperatist lesbians wanted to punish same-sex attracted men for their treatment by opposite attracted men.
I also think the statement "Queers have more fun" is at its heard heterophobic. It basically implies that there is something wrong with them or that their heterosexuality intrinsically holds them back from having as much fun as we do.
Do YOU even know where the term Queer came from? When I use queer I am specifically NOT referring to the entire gay population. Because a lot of gays are of the conservative type that think marriage is the key to everything and that use words like heterophobic.
I am not gay. I am queer. And the friends I refer to are part of MY queer community. And I have every right to refer to my community as queer because I value the fact that we are queer, that we queer the norm and that we are very much not like the mainstream straight society you seem to want to suck up to.
If Fred Nile got the terminology right and called me Queer in the sense that I use it he'd be on the way to understanding. But he does not.
Queer, in fact, can incorporate heterosexual people - my Queer community DOES include heterosexual people whose sexualities and desires deviate from the norm. It can also include bisexual people and trans people who do not identify with 'gay' - the gay community has often excluded trans people especially!
What it does not include is heteronormative wankers who think that reclaiming former insults encourages their use. Further, gay is currently far more commonly used in a negative sense by youth that say "that's gay" every time someone does something stupid. Keep up with the lingo pal.
And as if gay was rejected by lesbians in that way? That's ridiculous.
Mr or Ms Anonymous, you have no sense of humour or provocation. To state that straight people are homophobic because they are jealous of our fun is not only sassy and amusing (in my humble opinion) it also alludes to the frequent comments such as "why do you need a mardi gras?" "why do you need your own bars" and so on.
Finally, who the fuck are you to tell a huge sector of the GLBTQI community that they can't choose the label they put on their sexuality?
"Do YOU even know where the term Queer came from?"
I know exactly where it came from- people who couldn't find work outside of academia. Thankfully it mostly stays there.
"I am not gay. I am queer. And the friends I refer to are part of MY queer community."
I am SO glad to learn you and I are not part of the same community. Thanks for that- I will sleep more soundly at night. Now why do you expect us to whack a Q on the end of LGBTI again?
"Queer, in fact, can incorporate heterosexual people"
Oh I see- so when you say "Queers have more fun" you're not just dumping shit on non-Queer straight people, you're dumping it on non-Queer gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people as well? YOU HOMOPHOBIC QUEER NAZI BIGOT!!! :)
Keep your Queer supremicist hate messages off the This Is Oz website which is "an online photo gallery where people can help fight discrimination against Australia’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community." *joke*
"as if gay was rejected by lesbians in that way? That's ridiculous."
Uh, that's exactly what happened- there's no debate there. It's recorded history. Or "herstory" if you prefer. Seriously, while you're at Uni, pick a book up from time to time!
"Mr or Ms Anonymous, you have no sense of humour or provocation."
Girlfriend, I've been laughing and provoking from the start. Please post in reply to this and keep my fun train rolling :)
"Finally, who the fuck are you to tell a huge sector of the GLBTQI community that they can't choose the label they put on their sexuality?"
They're an incredibly small sector of the GLBTI community- usually university students who are ashamed of their white privileged backgrounds and that their parents own shares who are desperately seeking a label to make them feel edgy and special. It's like they're screaming 'I'm an individual- so I joined this club to prove it!'.
There is no reason anyone should put a Q in GLBTI or that you should even want one. Check it out-
Being gay isn't a choice.
Being lesbian isn't a choice.
Being bisexual isn't a choice. Being trans isn't a choice.
Being intersex isn't a choice. Being Queer IS a choice.
Can you spot the odd one out? Queer identity is an ideology not a sexual orientation. There should no more be a Q for queer in GLBTI than a V for vegan, a C for Christian or an S for Socialist. If we're all such squares why would you even want one?
I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't choose to do- I'm just putting in my two cents which is that it's a stupid choice to make. The world is divided enough as it is. You put a photo on a website which you intended to be provocative and provided a link to this blog so that people could find out what you were on about and didn't expect anyone to chime back? What part of the concept "blog" do you not get?
"it also alludes to the frequent comments such as "why do you need a mardi gras?" "why do you need your own bars" and so on."
Yeah because there are no boneheaded morons who ask stupid questions on our side of the fence and make the rest of us look bad. So when are you Queers going to start your own bars so you can keep us gays out as well? (irony intended)
First of all, decide whether you are joking with me or not. If you are joking, whatever, there's no point continuing with this. If you are not, then please don't use words like 'Nazi' cos that's quite fucked up. I know you put "* joke *" after, but really it's offensive.
Now, Queer was not created by the academia (and obviously since you are suggesting that academics are a waste of space then we have differing politics way beyond the terminology we use for our sexuality). As you originally pointed out, Queer came from an insult and was reclaimed, much like fag, poof, dyke and so on.
"Thankfully it mostly stays there."
No it doesn't. The people I know who use the term are teachers, public servants, social workers, chefs, designers, lawyers, nurses, sex workers, and a whole host of other occupations. It's also used by organisations like QueerScreen. It is used commonly but a lot of people.
I am "dumping shit" on people who discriminate against alternate sexualities - THAT is who the "you're just jealous" is directed at.
You claimed that separatist lesbians were "punishing" gay men for their treatment by straight men. Afraid to say that gay men can be just as sexist as straight men so if lesbians don't want to identify with a gay male community that makes sense. That's why I was calling you ridiculous.
You are very very wrong about queer people being always privileged. Your understanding of the queer community is limited and packed with generalisations. I can just as easily pin you as a pill-popping, middle class, Oxford St going, airhead gay guy who has no politics, spends his life in the gym, is sexist and stupid. But we don't know each other so probably shouldn't make such assumptions, right?
Your Vegan / Christian thing is stupid. GLBTQ are all sexualities. Queer is a sexuality AND and ideology. These things aren't mutually exclusive. Vegan / Christian are not.
I don't have a problem with you commenting here which is why I respond at length. I put the link because I am interested in people's ideas and responses. What was your slogan incidentally?
Sexuality may not be a choice but the words we use ARE a choice regardless of if you choose gay, lesbian, queer, dyke, fag, whatever. All language and identities are a choice. It's not a matter of "normal" and "alternative." You have chosen gay. I have chosen queer. These terms reflect our lifestyles.
Now obviously we have remarkably different politics and may not get anywhere. I am happy to go on with this if you want though.
The discussion here between Anonymous and Maeve is interesting. I think both of you raise important points. Perhaps I might put in my 2 cents.
1. To the extent that someone is offended by the term "queer," including Anonymous here, then it is correct that they need not have to identify with that word or with that community, and should not be pressured to either.
2. To the extent that someone feels that "queer" is an (or even the most) authentic expression of their identity, then clearly they should not be forbidden from identifying as such either.
3. I identify both as "Queer" as well as a "Gay man." One or the other of the two identities is more specific or 'correct,' depending on circumstance.
4. Anonymous writes, "seperatist [sic] lesbians wanted to punish same-sex attracted men for their treatment by opposite attracted men."
To the extent that there are separatist lesbians, I believe the motivation for lesbian separatism has as much to do with "punishing" same-sex attracted men as it is true that gay people hang out on Oxford Street to "punish" straight people. Clearly this is quite dubious reasoning.
However, I do think Anonymous is right when ?he? mentions that separatism can contribute to (or is, at the very least, a manifestation of) an unintended fracturing of unity of vision. On the other hand, sometimes pluralism is precisely where we want to organize a vision of unity ANYWAY.
Where the word "Gay" was, at one point, a word that was used to encapsulate broadly sex/gender non-conforming populations (whom we might now call "Queer"), the reality is that "Gay" does often equate, as Maeve has correctly pointed out, to unexamined male privilege. I personally have found that "Queer" self-defined spaces have generally been far more gender diverse than "gay" ones; Where Gay seems to organize around Homosexual freedom (a completely wonderful and legitimate and well-needed expression of selfhood), Queer seems to organize around Sexual and GENDER freedom (ALSO a completely wonderful and legitimate and well-needed expression of selfhood), without seeing gender-nonconformism as "Other."
It seems, therefore, that Queer (at least by definition) is not AS interested in maintaining strict rules of masculinity and femininity that say, Gay people, are more invested in maintaining (for better or for worse).
5. I think whether we are "Gay" or we are "Queer" or otherwise, that there is as much an element of 'naturalness' and 'inevitability' involved in our sexual/gender identities as there is CHOICE. Here, I disagree with Anonymous. True, to a significant extent, I do not "choose" the homo-sexual proclivities underlying my desires, but I DO choose whether to IDENTIFY as Gay, whether or not these desires are central to my identity, how I act on them, and even WHETHER I act on them. Not every 'inevitability' of our desires is justifiable. Often, for example, this is how gay-bashers justify their bashing of gays;- as an "inevitable" and "natural" response by being a heterosexual [man] to being hit on by someone of the same gender.
Sometimes, it is important that elements of our sexuality be Chosen. And this includes HOW I manifest my homosexuality. Whether I CHOOSE to "Be Gay" (i.e. Identify with my desires as central to how I organize my selfhood and community), and/or whether I CHOOSE to be Queer, or Neither.
6. Such is my Defence of queer. And gay.
HOWEVER:
7. Some of the reasons that Anonymous expresses for rejecting the word Queer, or perhaps more accurately, the formation of community around the idea of Queerness, seem to be founded. In particular, that Queerness seems to indicate white privilege and "university/educated-privilege" (or class-privilege)
8. On the other hand, re: privilege, to the extent that DISCOURSE AT ALL is a manifestation of privilege (the "right to speak"), then white/class privilege is as much typically manifested in queer spaces as gay spaces. Where Queer people fetishize "struggle," gay people (men) fetishize working class masculinity.
Still, just because one acts out of privilege or IS OF privilege is not sufficient reason to dismiss the philosophical foundations of Queer community formation outright. Many ways of forming identity are based on a complex mix of privilege and oppression. We can call the Stonewall Uprising a manifestation of "American privilege" (given that the political conditions somewhat unique to the USA are what precipitated such a riot) or early Marxist ideologues a manifestation of "European privilege" (given that the material conditions and ideological freedoms generated by the European Enlightenment were what gave rise to Marx) and so on. But just because something is born of privilege does not immediately discount its political/social importance and/or its potential for creating REAL freedom from bondage to suffering.
9. So yes, Anonymous, kudos on you for challenging the white-privilege and class-privilege of Queer spaces. You have clearly demarcated the problems within Queer community formation. Now let's challenge the white privilege and class-privilege (let me be more frank: The Racism and Classism) of basically EVERY OTHER SPACE that people organize around in this society, of which Queer space is but one.
11. Now let's challenge male privilege also.
I sincerely believe that the propensity to accuse another of "privilege" is a manifestation of our OWN unexamined privilege.
As Audre Lorde has written "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house" (let's not fight manifestations of inequity with our own unexamined abuses of our own power).
Equality in equanimity!
Ok I'm done.
Peace
Shinen- thank you for your more informed comment. However the history of the gay/lesbian split is well documented.
Gay was the political term that was adopted to unite us all in the months following Stonewall in 1969. That movement, the Gay Liberation Movement, from the start included homosexual men, bisexuals, lesbians and transpeople because they were all present in the group that fought back against the cops in that riot.
However, because lesbians (for reasons yet to be understood) exist as a statistically smaller group in the population than gay men, and are in general more monogamous in their relationships so tend to be less involved in the scene, many women (particularly radical feminists) felt threatened by the number of homosexual males in leadership roles in the movement and decided this was an extension of the heterosexual patriarchy which lead to the lesbian separatist movement emerging in the mid seventies, who demanded separate billing- hence it became the Gay & Lesbian Movement.
Some lesbians took this so far that they decided that penetration in sex was an extension of the patriarchy, and there was a huge spilt and fall out amongst political lesbians during the whole decade of the 1980's. Some of these extremists are still around- I've personally met feminist lesbians who told me that even as a gay man I could not help being anything but the enemy of all female-kind for having a penis and even gay men viewing gay pornography was oppresive of women because it contained penetration, and in their minds 'any act of penetration is a rape'.
As a result of this split, the term gay became almost exclusively associated with homosexual men, so the bisexuals and transpeople now felt unincluded, so it became GLB and then GLBT. Then Intersex people decided that the term transgendered no longer included them and it became GLBTI.
Around 1990, in Universities, Queer Theory was born- created by accademic theorists who were interested in identity politics and who had been heavily influenced by marxist and extreme feminist ideas about gender and sexuality, and the usage of the word Queer in the political sense that maeve and shinen use it came about as this usage was circulated wider through student bodies through courses in "Queer Studies" etc, to the point that it escaped into the general population and is now used as an all encompassing catch term for radical GLBTIs and a few straight hangers on, most of whom have very little idea of the term's original accademic and ideological meaning.
Mostly its used by politically radical gays who've come to realise that GLBTI is an unweildy mouthful and who've come to associate the term 'gay' as being 'commodified' despite its radical and liberationist origins.
Really its a lot of pretentious posturing by kids desperate for street cred who need to cling to labels and want to separate themselves from the squares they want to look down on whether they be straight or gay.
“the history of the gay/lesbian split is well documented.”
I think the history of the gay/lesbian “split” is one that presumes an ideal “unity” that only dubiously existed. Insofar as a split DOES exist (or was historically traceable to some catalysing moment), it simply reveals continued different political priorities between communities, a statement with which I am sure you (Anonymous) would not disagree.
Where we DO disagree is in your emphasis on the superiority of a “gay”-based politicism, as opposed to a somewhat vaguely defined “lesbian”-based or “queer”-based one. The antagonism between gay and queer is one that I empathise with, given the reality of different political emphasis between the two (once again, vaguely defined) ‘communities,’ but it is not an antagonism that I ultimately base my sexual credos on nor am I invested in maintaining.
“Gay was the political term that was adopted to unite us all in the months following Stonewall in 1969.” No it wasn’t.
Firstly: Your decision to consider “Stonewall” an “us all” movement is admirable, considering that it has since been reconstructed as an event that almost singularly focuses on the suffering of the gay men involved in the Inn, while ignoring the fact that it was historically a space for many socially outcasted individuals, including working class white, black and latino men and women, trans-persons, gender variant and homeless youth, etc.
However, the fact that this political event has come to signal a movement largely defined by the whims of a powerful gay male elite has as much to do with radical lesbian separatism as it has to do with the myopia of that very gay male elite (who could just as easily be called “gay male separatists,” if you’d like). The question is: Whose side are you on?
I ask that question rhetorically. The reality, given the politics you claim, is that we should not HAVE to choose a side, either with “gay men” or with “lesbian separatists,” but that we might be invested in a broad umbrella term, such as “gay” once was, and under many circumstances still is, or such as the word “queer.” There are REAL problems that you name with the term queer (white privilege, class elitism, image-consciousness, etc.), but I am not sufficiently convinced that “Gay” isn’t racked with the very same problems.
“Some lesbians took this so far that they decided that penetration in sex was an extension of the patriarchy, and there was a huge spilt and fall out amongst political lesbians during the whole decade of the 1980's.”
Alright. Once again, you are making some leaps of logic based on dubiously defined ‘facts’ that do not hold up under the weight of rational scrutiny. If SOME gay men, for example, like to go to bath-houses and have sex with 20 strangers without condoms while smoking methamphetamine and popping pills, does that mean that ALL gay men think this all that wise or that this is a “Gay-Defining” attitude? Similarly, if SOME lesbians believe that penetration in sex is an extension of patriarchy, does that mean that ALL lesbians believe that, or that this is a “Lesbian-Defining” attitude?
It is helpful, of course, to see the WAYS IN WHICH rhetoric about ‘gay-ness’ and constructions of maleness and manhood might contribute to the formation of environments in which mostly same-sex attracted men might engage in behaviours that compromise their physical, psychological, and sexual health. But that is ENTIRELY different from saying that “Gay men are stupid, and are the reason that str8 people hate us.”
Similarly, it is helpful to see the WAYS IN WHICH rhetoric about ‘lesbian-ness’ and constructions of femaleness and womanhood might contribute to the formation of conditions in which large groups of women would choose to philosophically distance themselves and create a separate activistic bloc away from the larger, ostensibly all-inclusive “Gay Liberation Front.” But that is ENTIRELY different from saying “radical lesbian separatists are the reason that GLBT(IQ) people are splintered and ineffectual.”
Anonymous wrote: “Some of these extremists are still around- I've personally met feminist lesbians who told me that even as a gay man I could not help being anything but the enemy of all female-kind for having a penis and even gay men viewing gay pornography was oppresive of women because it contained penetration, and in their minds 'any act of penetration is a rape'.”
The fact that you are posting this on this blog and assuming that this is indicative of a viewpoint that either ‘lesbians’ or ‘queers’ unanimously share (even some of the most extremist of us) is quite problematic, given that neither Maeve (to my knowledge) nor myself are anti-porn. On the other hand, if you CANNOT understand the position on pornography that does see it (I believe correctly) as an exploitative industry, then a single blog post would be insufficient in informing ourselves.
“Around 1990, in Universities, Queer Theory was born- created by accademic theorists who were interested in identity politics and who had been heavily influenced by marxist and extreme feminist ideas about gender and sexuality, and the usage of the word Queer in the political sense that maeve and shinen use it came about as this usage was circulated wider through student bodies through courses in "Queer Studies" etc, to the point that it escaped into the general population and is now used as an all encompassing catch term for radical GLBTIs and a few straight hangers on, most of whom have very little idea of the term's original accademic and ideological meaning.”
1. Queer Theory, thus defined, was indeed created by academic theorists. The causes and conditions in which Queer Theory came about, on the other hand, were as much based on liberationist grassroots origins as “Gay” ever was. Incidentally, “Gay & Lesbian Theory” is one of Queer Theory’s rightful predecessors. Also incidentally, Marxist and Extreme Feminist ideas about gender and sexuality have as much informed Gay & Lesbian Theory (as well as Gay & Lesbian IDENTITY) as they have Queer Theory and Queer identity.
What I am saying is: “Queer” is to Queer Theory as “Gay & Lesbian” is to Gay & Lesbian Theory. Both were predicated and continue to be informed by the issues and concerns of people struggling both inside and outside the academy.
2. Once again, just because something was generated within academic settings does not mean that they are illegitimate influences on social organizing.
You mention that the word ‘queer’ is used in the following manner: “Mostly its used by politically radical gays who've come to realise that GLBTI is an unweildy mouthful and who've come to associate the term 'gay' as being 'commodified' despite its radical and liberationist origins.”
I am confused. On the one hand, you’ve argued for the maintaining of the term ‘gay’ as an umbrella term to encompass the groups of people who are now more likely use the term ‘queer’ as self-labels. You argue for ‘gay’ based on the idea that gay is the more authentic of the two struggles, born out of Real suffering (as compared the privileged quibbling of academicians, of which I must note, not without irony, that this is an example of). You go on to glamourize the history of the Stonewall riots as an example of political radicalism, in terms of its suspicion of the police, its gender variance, and its apparent lack of ties to the academy.
On the other hand, you accuse queer of being TOO politically radical (as if gay itself, as you have yourself put it, was not originally a radical disavowal of normative social values).
For me, you exhibit a philosophical ambivalence to this entire issue that is one that I actually ultimately also share: Any time any of us might be triggered to conversation about the politics of identity, it is as much a form of “pretentious posturing” by “kids” for “street cred” who need to “cling to labels” and who want to “separate themselves” from “the squares” we might want to “look down on” as it is based on any REAL basis of knowledge of our political circumstances. That is to say: You are not my enemy, neither Anonymous nor Maeve. There are behaviours we can exhibit in any political constituency, or words we might say in our own political commentary, which are either insightful or immature, accurate or not well founded. But whatever they are, they are often simply manifestations of our own continued search for authentic identity, one which neither ‘Gay’ nor ‘Lesbian’ nor ‘Queer’ could ever ultimately fulfil.
I humbly request, therefore, that neither gays nor lesbians nor queers be ultimately targeted as projections of our own hatred, given that the exploration for authentic identity is one that we all share. Particularly given that we get enough of that shit from outside our circles (what the Gay & Lesbian theorists and the Queer Theorists would all call “heterosexist” society), let alone from people who supposedly define ourselves by our similar struggles. Once again, my conclusion here is the same as to my previous post: To the extent that we can accuse others of acting out of privilege, we might ask to what extent we are ourselves ignorantly informed by our own privilege (and privileged responses to our oppression), so that our words and actions might come across to others as, and in fact may well be, forms of abuse.
Peaces
Shinen, as always you are far more patient than me and are willing to take the time to educate someone who makes sweeping contradictory generalisations as a form of argument.
Anonymous, if you are attempting to position me with radical feminists you need do no more that read other posts of mine to know that I am not anti-porn or anti-penetration or anti-male.
However to suggest that men were in leadership roles in the gay liberation movement because there are LESS lesbians and and because lesbians are "more monogamous" is not only blatantly ridiculous and ignorant of male privilege it is sexist and presumptuous.
Do not call it the heterosexual patriarchy. While I know many wonderful, feminist men (Hi Shinen!) of all sexualities, the 'patriarchy' and male dominance in society is alive and well in GLBTQI spaces. As you demonstrate so well, Anonymous.
Now I have huge problems with the Queer community's privilege and Whiteness and "street cred" attitudes, as Shinen outlines. But those problems are equally present in Gay communities, but just expressed differently. And those problems don't cancel out what is good in the queer communities I have participated in.
Finally, there is a reason for all those letters in GLBTQI. Transpeople, lesbians, gay men etc etc are all discriminated against in different ways, have different needs and community identities. Yes, I think Queer is a good umbrella term but at the same time I think it is a separate identity so will now be always writing it with yet another letter.
Hurrah.
Post a Comment