Homonormativity... is it a thing?

[ShiftyNJ]

So in the "SJW" world there are always new terms and definitions... here is one that I have not heard before "homonormativity" which - it states - is trying to define something that has been around for a long time.

The idea is that -- within queer culture -- there is a pecking (heh) order and that relatively wealthy gay cisgender white men are at the top; the most visible, and given the loudest voice. It states that the focus on gay marriage as the highest priority (at the expense of equal employment or housing laws) reinforces that structure as this is a higher priority for these people than, say, for trangender women of color.

It further posits that our society (and the corporations that drive it) rewards those same-gender couples who conform (or attempt to conform) with the heteronormative ideals of monogamy, child-bearing (or at least rearing) and other efforts to assimilate to the wider culture. You can read the article here.

What do you think? Do you subscribe to the "we're just like you" mentality, preferring to not have your sexuality be "an issue", or do you think we should be doing more to celebrate what makes us unique as a population? Do you think what the authors describe is real, and--if so-- do you think it is the cis "masc" gay white man's job to fix it?

[himself]

The "cis white gay men" (I use inverted commas because a lot of people seem to give out about "cis white heterosexual men" when they themselves are 3 of those things. Cissexual white heterosexual males are the most privileged group in society, but when people complain about them, it sometimes sounds like they're trying to shrug off their own white, heterosexual privilege or their white male privilege.) are probably the most visibile/audible gay group. Maybe they do have a responsibility to hand their megaphone over to less privileged groups who don't have a megaphone of their own.

[ShiftyNJ]

The "cis white gay men" (I use inverted commas because a lot of people seem to give out about "cis white heterosexual men" when they themselves are 3 of those things. Cissexual white heterosexual males are the most privileged group in society, but when people complain about them, it sometimes sounds like they're trying to shrug off their own white, heterosexual privilege or their white male privilege.) are probably the most visibile/audible gay group. Maybe they do have a responsibility to hand their megaphone over to less privileged groups who don't have a megaphone of their own.

That is true, and if you present as masculine as society defines it, you can claim the privilege of all four until/or unless you choose to reveal your orientation, thus the aspiration toward and self-labeling as "straight-acting."

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Cut any human being open and they are the same.

This is my way of saying that under the outer facade all humans are the same, with the same drives, motivations, wants, needs, desires.

For all of its push to be 'unique' humans come from a very small genetic pool of diversity, thus are quite remarkably similar.

So lets try the word human-normative....

[Aike]

The idea is that -- within queer culture -- there is a pecking (heh) order and that relatively wealthy gay cisgender white men are at the top; the most visible, and given the loudest voice. It states that the focus on gay marriage as the highest priority (at the expense of equal employment or housing laws) reinforces that structure as this is a higher priority for these people than, say, for trangender women of color.

It further posits that our society (and the corporations that drive it) rewards those same-gender couples who conform (or attempt to conform) with the heteronormative ideals of monogamy, child-bearing (or at least rearing) and other efforts to assimilate to the wider culture.

I agree with this entirely. It should be put in its historical context though. Gay rights activists have traditionally been aligning themselves with radical, leftist and anti-capitalist movements. The legacy of 1960's political movements was not just about sexual liberation but also about class struggle and anti-capitalism. The alliance between gay activism and leftist movements happened for the simple reason that it made sense: in the old days of pre-1960's, the ideological hegemony of capitalism consolidated conservative family values. The nuclear family model of heterosexual parents and children was not only a unit of production but also a driver of consumption (just think about the ideology of home ownership and suburban lifestyles in the U.S. for instance). Challenging family values nowadays seen as conservative also meant questioning the ideological hegemony of capitalism - and gay activists knew this.

The end of 1960's, when protest movements and all sorts of political currents exploded alongside global economic transformations, was a turning point. Capitalism came under heavy pressure. And what does capitalism do when it faces anti-capitalist critique? It tries to accommodate it - and this has been quite successfully done regarding sexual and gender minorities. Gay equality is not a threat to the capitalist order anymore. Quite on the contrary, gay rights have in a sense become a part of the elite ideology, and they can use it to divide and oppress the "stupid, conservative and uneducated" working people. And, consequently, some people among the working class might want to oppose gay rights because they represent the ideology of the rich and highly educated elites and the middle class.

There's also a deepening process of polarization going on along geopolitical lines. The issue of Israel/Palestine was already explained in the article you linked. It's a good example of gay rights being co-opted by imperialist states to defend their neocolonialist politics and practices. To take a European example: the recent homophobic development in Russia is not just about Russia being a backward country but partly a consequence of deepening geopolitical divisions between Russia and the West (namely the U.S. and Europe).

I think we need to cut our links to the rich and powerful, abandon the politics of accommodation and start forming alliances with other radical anti-capitalist movements.

[MikeW]

To me, the whole SJW way of talking about things is irritating as fuck -- and I consider myself WAY left of center, politically (and have been all my adult life). In some way I find very difficult to explain (but sense intuitively) the whole SJW enterprise is COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY … which is to say "LIBERAL" to its core ("LIBERAL" being a dirty word, for those of you who aren't commie-centric).

So… I can't participate in these discussions with anything other than annoyance from the get go. From my POV they're a form of intellectual elitism and are perpetrated by the elite themselves to keep the rank and file *arguing* over petty shit so THEY, THEIR class, wealth, power and privilege, as always, never become the true focus of revolution.

So, meh…

[ShiftyNJ]

To me, the whole SJW way of talking about things is irritating as fuck -- and I consider myself WAY left of center, politically (and have been all my adult life). In some way I find very difficult to explain (but sense intuitively) the whole SJW enterprise is COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY … which is to say "LIBERAL" to its core ("LIBERAL" being a dirty word, for those of you who aren't commie-centric).

So… I can't participate in these discussions with anything other than annoyance from the get go. From my POV they're a form of intellectual elitism and are perpetrated by the elite themselves to keep the rank and file *arguing* over petty shit so THEY, THEIR class, wealth, power and privilege, as always, never become the true focus of revolution.

So, meh…

I hear you. The definition of privilege is having the luxury of having this conversation, let alone writing papers about it. I have been deeply immersed in this work but I feel like we are sometimes driving ourselves into smaller and smaller boxes at our detriment.

[MikeW]

I hear you. The definition of privilege is having the luxury of having this conversation, let alone writing papers about it. I have been deeply immersed in this work but I feel like we are sometimes driving ourselves into smaller and smaller boxes at our detriment.

WE? Who's "we"?



Whoever controls the terms of the discussion, right? And… who "controls" our language -- the very ideas (boxes) in our heads?

[ShiftyNJ]

The "we" I guess is anybody trying to achieve social justice. I don't think most people's motives are cynical or exploitative... but (as you said) someone is pulling the strings and probably affecting our understanding of the situation.

The way the narrative around Matthew Shepard's death was "managed" is a good example.

[East]

The first thing that came to mind when I read it...the pod people are always rewarded.

There is a reason WHY I state that I had sex with over 750 men....and it isn't because I like to say it over and over...

It is the truth for one thing...but nothing I really want to say as much as I do. I am actually making a point to counteract the pod people's new homonormative bullshit where they lay out what the new "proper and acceptable" behavior is. SOMEONE'S gotta do it!

Acceptance and approval comes with a price.....I have always been completely aware of that....and it is why you will never hear me ask for either. I want equality under the law...for everyone....all the time. I am basically a socialist.

One more thing...I like the new term "homonormative"...so I can retire my own term "march of the pod people"