![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 5th, 2016 09:58 pm
auntbutch: yehudisha: auntbutch: okay but
via http://ift.tt/2cf1Nj2:
auntbutch:
yehudisha:
auntbutch:
okay but wait “Taxonomies of feminism produce epistemologies to police deviation from official women’s experience.” i’ve thought for a while that the constant splitting of heterosexuality into distinct (not-hetero) categories only reifies the purity of heterosexuality as a category. it says “heterosexuality consists of what is good, pure, and acceptable”. but heterosexuality gains its power in part through its self-definition through disavowal! it started as a distancing from homosexuality - heterosexuality is good and pure and indicates a sound mind and healthy body, because it is not tainted by homosexuality. it exists only in order to say that something is not homosexual. so to continue with this tradition, to continue to say that heterosexuality is not [xyz] is a reaffirmation of its power, and only further recognition of its self-ascribed purity and naturalness
the thing that is natural (the origin from which all other things deviate) does not need to be named. but then also, the thing that is powerful resists naming, power resists appellation, it relies on the notion of being inherent or natural and always unseen. power breeds in the dark
so what does it mean to say that something that deviates from expectations or a heterosexual ideal is in fact heterosexual? i think it has the potential to break down the power of heterosexuality, at least linguistically, in that it forces heterosexuality to be 1) named and recognized and 2) understood as a thing that is not pure
to continually splinter off from the concept of heterosexuality (ie. kink, fetishes, specific kinds of heterosexuality are not in fact heterosexual) says “i recognize the purity of this concept, i believe it should remain pure, and that all deviations from the official heterosexual experience should be policed through constant identification”
it takes me a while to get through long dense text but I eventually parsed it and found it to be really good analysis, so I hope the post author doesn’t mind if I offer a condensed/less term packed explanation below so that more people may be able to access it (this isn’t a criticism @ the way the post was written, as the denser/theory term packed parts are valuable, I just wanted to offer people who’d otherwise scroll by an easier look at what I think is important content overall)
the gist I got from this: people who say things like, for example, “kink/fetish is inherently LGBT/not straight because it’s not the Norm, it’s seen as impure” , give heterosexuality the definition of “normal and pure” by doing so, which then reinforces the concept of heterosexuality as purity and upholds it as good and non-deviant, leading to the continuation of the heterosexist ideal that straightness = more acceptable, more pure. when you define heterosexuality not only by gendered relationship dynamics, but also by “normal and pure and Not any of these deviant things, so things that deviate from any of our norms are automatically not straight”, you linguistically reinforce the social association of heterosexuality with purity and non-deviance.
conversely, when we refuse to define straightness by “normal”, when we define it strictly by the fact that it’s a constructed concept of exclusive man/woman relationships, when we accept that things considered “deviant” and “non-normal” by society can still be part of heterosexuality (such as kink, fetish, etc), that can help to destabilize the concept of “heterosexuality as purity” through linguistics. if we say “no, these “deviant” and considered non-mainstream things like kink exist within heterosexuality often, heterosexuality is not a source of only pure sexual experiences, it’s merely a gendered construct”, we destabilize the heterosexist perception of it as a pure and good identity.
@auntbutch lmk if anything I wrote was off base / not what you were going for.
no, this is a great summary (and honestly probably clearer than what i wrote since i just typed it out as i was thinking). thanks for adding it, it’s great to see how other people receive concepts i’m trying to communicate
auntbutch:
yehudisha:
auntbutch:
okay but wait “Taxonomies of feminism produce epistemologies to police deviation from official women’s experience.” i’ve thought for a while that the constant splitting of heterosexuality into distinct (not-hetero) categories only reifies the purity of heterosexuality as a category. it says “heterosexuality consists of what is good, pure, and acceptable”. but heterosexuality gains its power in part through its self-definition through disavowal! it started as a distancing from homosexuality - heterosexuality is good and pure and indicates a sound mind and healthy body, because it is not tainted by homosexuality. it exists only in order to say that something is not homosexual. so to continue with this tradition, to continue to say that heterosexuality is not [xyz] is a reaffirmation of its power, and only further recognition of its self-ascribed purity and naturalness
the thing that is natural (the origin from which all other things deviate) does not need to be named. but then also, the thing that is powerful resists naming, power resists appellation, it relies on the notion of being inherent or natural and always unseen. power breeds in the dark
so what does it mean to say that something that deviates from expectations or a heterosexual ideal is in fact heterosexual? i think it has the potential to break down the power of heterosexuality, at least linguistically, in that it forces heterosexuality to be 1) named and recognized and 2) understood as a thing that is not pure
to continually splinter off from the concept of heterosexuality (ie. kink, fetishes, specific kinds of heterosexuality are not in fact heterosexual) says “i recognize the purity of this concept, i believe it should remain pure, and that all deviations from the official heterosexual experience should be policed through constant identification”
it takes me a while to get through long dense text but I eventually parsed it and found it to be really good analysis, so I hope the post author doesn’t mind if I offer a condensed/less term packed explanation below so that more people may be able to access it (this isn’t a criticism @ the way the post was written, as the denser/theory term packed parts are valuable, I just wanted to offer people who’d otherwise scroll by an easier look at what I think is important content overall)
the gist I got from this: people who say things like, for example, “kink/fetish is inherently LGBT/not straight because it’s not the Norm, it’s seen as impure” , give heterosexuality the definition of “normal and pure” by doing so, which then reinforces the concept of heterosexuality as purity and upholds it as good and non-deviant, leading to the continuation of the heterosexist ideal that straightness = more acceptable, more pure. when you define heterosexuality not only by gendered relationship dynamics, but also by “normal and pure and Not any of these deviant things, so things that deviate from any of our norms are automatically not straight”, you linguistically reinforce the social association of heterosexuality with purity and non-deviance.
conversely, when we refuse to define straightness by “normal”, when we define it strictly by the fact that it’s a constructed concept of exclusive man/woman relationships, when we accept that things considered “deviant” and “non-normal” by society can still be part of heterosexuality (such as kink, fetish, etc), that can help to destabilize the concept of “heterosexuality as purity” through linguistics. if we say “no, these “deviant” and considered non-mainstream things like kink exist within heterosexuality often, heterosexuality is not a source of only pure sexual experiences, it’s merely a gendered construct”, we destabilize the heterosexist perception of it as a pure and good identity.
@auntbutch lmk if anything I wrote was off base / not what you were going for.
no, this is a great summary (and honestly probably clearer than what i wrote since i just typed it out as i was thinking). thanks for adding it, it’s great to see how other people receive concepts i’m trying to communicate
Tags:
