There were many different parts that could use deep analysis, but I found the manifesto's understanding of homophobia's connection with sexism interesting, especially as it pertains to our short papers on intersectionality as well as our readings. The piece essentially calls for the deconstruction of the family and insists that it oppresses women and supports male privilege. Revolution is essential because the family reinforces sexist ideologies and lifestyles. I also found the Butch and Femme section really interesting because the manifesto condemns the imposition of masculine and feminine stereotypes. I always thought of butch and femme as more of a physical gender expression rather than an identity that could potentially dictate personality and behavior, and this part of the piece made me wonder how often masculine and feminine stereotypes are imposed (or self imposed) on people who identify as butch or femme. The piece also had other very radical statements and suggestions such as the critique of compulsive monogamy that I'm eager to discuss in class.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think that a same-sex family that operates similarly to a heterosexual family detrimental to the queer community?
2. The piece cites self oppression as the "ultimate success of all forms of oppression," and uses examples such as the femme woman who dislikes butches or the "virile gay man" who thinks of queens as pathetic. Is it self oppressive for a masculine woman to resent a feminine presenting woman, or for an effeminate gay man to look down on a more masculine presenting gay man?
3. Do you agree with the manifesto's analysis of compulsive monogamy? Is there a way to be monogamous without instilling some a power dynamic or feeling of ownership? What are the benefits of monogamy?
Regarding Question 1, I believe that is a false comparison. A same-sex family's mere existence defies the "traditional" heterosexual family, and a same-sex family would not face the same institutional oppression and self-oppression that a heterosexual family would face. That is, in a same-sex family, only both or neither of the two members would face oppression (either both women would be "oppressed", or both men would be "oppressive"). Even imposing heterosexuality would not devalue the queerness of a "traditional" same-sex family. That is, even if one partner consistently earns the paycheck and the other consistently cooks, this dynamic may occur in either a gay or lesbian relationship, so in any case, a woman be the primary breadwinner and a man may be househusband, thus breaking the gender roles imposed.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the first question, I think that there are many sides, and like any problem it is multifarious and I'm going to make a it a little too binary but here I go. As far as the positives, it certainly provides people with some comfort, it is what some individuals/couples want and could possibly (within relatively normative social mores) provide examples of queer people (or at least certain l/g/b/t/q identified individuals) with a sort of new normative example to live up to going into the future (thinking of youth). Certainly it seems pragmatic, right?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do think that the family as it exists has existed in many ways to support patriarchal aims (and this is to assign no blame, but rather an understanding of both synchronic and diachronic influences in a very very complicated societal system) and that these intersect in ways that adversely affect queer people, as we have repeatedly seen and studied in class. This also plays into the question of compulsory monogamy and issues of raising children.
I think this also intersects with many other issues. Marriage as a legal code is economic. It provides benefits and penalties for different people. It is a signifier and it is classed. Remember that this is another thing that marriage, and (here I am making some leaps I understand) the nuclear family with which it is often associated often play into.
While I can see the short term pro-family argument, and I realize that many people want different things and their own personal choices and future families or lack thereof may reflect that, I think that the long-term goals of queer liberation (if we want to keep this argument identitarian, which is a whole other can of worms, and I think a far more theoretical question than perhaps we should address right here) is better suited through a societal restructuring of typical modes of family life. Ofc, I could be an angsty college kid, right?
In response to the second question, I do believe that both examples mentioned count as self-oppression. When a butch lesbian looks down upon a femme lesbian, she is adopting the attitude that one presentation is better than the other. She is also not allowing the femme lesbian to be herself and own her presentation of her sexuality. These attitudes are harmful within an already oppressed minority group. Both the butch woman and the femme woman share the common struggle of being lesbian in a homophobic, heterosexist world.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, personal presentation is often less a personal choice and more a representation of a person. A butch lesbian is presenting her identity as she feels is right and comfortable for herself; a femme lesbian is doing exactly the same thing. Failure to recognize this leads to self-oppression and tension within the queer community.
re: question 3: I wasn't sure how I felt about the way the manifesto presented monogamy, but I definitely agreed with it on emotional exclusiveness. Holding up emotional and sexual monogamy as an ideal, like the manifesto said, fostered closedness and codependency.
ReplyDeleteI think the author(s) hit the nail on the head about queer assimilationism in terms of focusing on marriage equality as the forefront of liberation: "Singly, or isolated in couples, we are weak-the way society wants us to be."
As everyone else who responded, I think question 1 relies quite a bit on the question of marriage. There has been this huge push in the past decade towards "marriage equality" and legalization of "gay marriage" across the US. There are many critics--and I believe the writers of this manifesto would fall into this category-- who argue that the fight is not worth it. That we are spending incredible time and money on a fight that distracts from the true problems of violent attacks and youth homelessness and job discrimination and so many other things. That the promises of access to health care presuppose a gay couple that is already wealthy and well off. These critics argue that marriage is an inherently flawed institution and that the true answer is a revolution of the whole system of marriage and family. And these critics are right: marriage is flawed and patriarchal, there are so many issues that are ignored and stories that are silenced in the quest for marriage equality. The rhetoric of marriage equality in our popular media is heavily flawed in this silencing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, personally, I don't agree with the conclusion that a revolution of family structure is the only answer. I think it needs to be part of the answer. But there are some queer couples that really want to be married and to have children together and live in this "normative" family structure. And they should be legally permitted to do so, and that the fact that this is not legally permitted everywhere is wrong.
But that being said, marriage equality should not and can not be the only fight. We need to work to make sure that if people do want a revolution of family and marriage structures that that is available an option as well. Marriage should not, for example, be the only road for a queer couple to have hospital visitation rights, or the key to any rights. I think marriage equality is important and should be legal everywhere, but there is much else that needs to be focused on.
So this is sorta a response to question #2, but also some other feelings I had about it. First of all, what the manifesto calls self-oppression is (to me) very similar to internalized homophobia combined with a desire to survive. In some cases, queer people look down at other queer people because they are homophobia themselves (e.g. secretly gay right-wing politicians) and wish they weren't/try to suppress their feelings. In other cases (although they sometimes overlap) queer people present themselves "just like an attractive heterosexual" because it can more easily further their movement (e.g. homophiles, human rights campaign for marriage equality) or (and I see this as a more acceptable/understandable reason) for their own safety, such as trans women who wear makeup or get surgery because otherwise they could literally be harassed to death. Now to get to your question, I wouldn't say that it is self oppressive "for a masculine woman to resent a feminine presenting woman" without knowing why. One might resent the other for a number of reasons: a masculine woman might resent the other because that particular feminine woman hasn't ever critically looked at the context of her own femininity (by that I mean questioning sexist, racist, capitalist beauty standards or challenging women's inability to easily get into STEM fields); on the other hand, it can be frustrating for a femme queer woman to not see herself represented in what little media depicts queer women, so that kind of resentment is understandable. Neither of these cases, to me, represent self oppression, but rather intersectional issues. Neither woman (assuming, in the first case, this butch woman is critical of the problematic aspects of mainstream femininity, rather than seeing her femme counterpart as not queer "enough") sees themselves as a model for how queerness can be easily digested by straight people while looking down at the other for ruffling some heteronormative feathers. In conclusion, you can have valid criticism of fellow queer people without it stemming from a need to "fit into" or appeal to a heteronormative society.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to Question 1 if "...a same-sex family that operates similarly to a heterosexual family detrimental to the queer community?" can go both ways. If a same-sex couple raises their children to respect others, to obey the laws, to instill a good work ethic, etc., then that can be a good thing. In other words, to raise their children to be good citizens and it not detrimental. However, if a same-sex couple raises their children to oppress others, to judge others for being different, denouncing others lifestyles, etc., can be a bad thing. So...... can it be detrimental to the queer community would be based on which route the same-sex couple raises their family. In the reading the author uses an example of a dolly lesbian and a virile gay man which both pass judgment on their lesbian/gay sister/brother. If two lesbians raising children or two gay men raising children adopt hetero attitudes toward other gay men and women it would be detrimental because it then becomes divisive within the community.
ReplyDeleteResponding to question 1, I can see how the argument can be made that a same-sex family that operates like the traditional heterosexual family is detrimental in that it is technically perpetuating an institution responsible for magnifying gender roles. But I don't think it actually would be in this sense because the oppressive nature and gender roles that are associated with traditional heterosexual marriage wouldn't be at play. On another note, I'm still not really sure what to think about the idea that marriage "equality" is too heavily emphasized and efforts should be focused on more important issues. I do agree that there are more pressing issues to be dealt with. But part of me also thinks that marriage equality is a good step into these other issues.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with most of the manifesto’s analysis of monogamy. There may be some truth in the statement that “monogamy is usually based on ownership," rooted in archaic constructions of a family, when there was an absolute need for a security-dependent relationship to produce and raise children. Because there is no definitive “man” figure who provides safety for the “woman” figure, there exists the idea that monogamy in general can’t be a good foundation for any other relationships.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though heterosexual monogamy is inherently patriarchal (which is true), that doesn’t mean it’s threatening to the notion of non-heterosexual monogamy. I would say that this power dynamic is independent of gender roles and the argument that it is only gay people who can overturn this compulsory monogamy is close-minded. Yes, if you take into account the fact that in states where only heterosexual marriage is legal, monogamy is socially and financially beneficial to heterosexual couples only. Anyone of any orientation can have the personality type to be the “owner,” and I think sexism helps perpetuate the idea that this person is male, and the subordinate parter is female. Any monogamous relationship can be a breeding ground for emotional exclusiveness and shaming of infidelity, depending on the partners involved.
In answering the first question..
ReplyDeleteAs many others have said, no, i don't think that a same-sex family that operates similarly to a heterosexual family is detrimental to the queer community. The fact that there IS a same-sex couple with a family is in itself breaking tradition for partnership, marriage, and having children. They will still break boundaries and stereotypes, create their own ideas, and simply be another positive example of a family. I would think it would think any same-sex family would help strengthen the queer community. It is unfair to compare them to a heterosexual family with this attitude or question their position in the queer community.
And besides, even though a heterosexual family won't have all the same personal struggles as same-sex family, both types of families DO share basic partnership, marital, and family struggles: managing the household, money, childcare and schools. Instead of comparing types of families how about focusing on family values and the importance of a strong, healthy family.
Re question 1: I find that saying imposing the dynamics between heterosexual relationship on same-sex couples a detriment a little too extreme. I will never deny the sexist "male dominance" in the structure of heterosexual marriage, but I'd like to offer insight to other reasons that might explain the patriarchal nature and gender roles associated with traditional heterosexual marriage. One interpretation is the dependence for men financially is different from "patriarchy" and the oppression of gender roles. Men were, in prior times, commonly seen as the "providers", and this "economic dependency of males" could be a consequent of education that was previously more male catered, in addition to the fact that the work often consisted of hard labor, which was more applicable to men. It can be noted that women are often innate caretakers, and men depend on women to take care of their children and family. In a way, men depend on women for family, and women depend on men financially. It's a co-dependent situation.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, education systems and job culture has progressive changed to a more equal basis, and both men and women can be financially independent today. My mom worked all the time while my dad took care of me. This could be viewed not sign of women oppression but rather as a duality formed between two people. Moving this discussion to same-sex couples, I find that there will always be a sense of balance/dependency within a relationship. It doesn't necessarily have to mean bolstering gender norms of 'masculinity' and 'femininity'. In a same-sex marriage, one partner could be the financial supporter while the other partner supports the family in other ways (we see this played out in popular show Modern Family where Cam is the caretaker and Mitchell provides financially) or they both could be financially independent.
I really enjoyed reading the manifesto's explanation for homophobia on sexism. I speculate that society’s entrenched homophobia is caused by our ideals of the identities assigned to each gender and the failure to conform to qualities of the genders is what spurs discrimination. Queer sexuality violates gender norms of femininity and masculinity, a duality that divides man and woman. Men are viewed as masculine, and the notion of desire for another man develops ideals of femininity, a characteristics associated with women. While gay men are discriminated against their failed performance of “men”, butch lesbians are also victimized for their rejection of the femme quality performed by women. This inversion of the performed gender fosters homophobia and trans phobia against members of the L,G,B,T community. The transgender community would be subjected to even more discrimination because of their more apparent physical/appearance gender inversion.
ReplyDelete