NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17028

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 3.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!ieunet!tcdcs!maths.tcd.ie!longvalley!cjmchale
From: [e-mail] (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:40:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <iw.7245 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 56

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>>I disagree that that any X movement is defined in terms of non-X. For
>>example, I don't think that any GLB (or a subset thereof) movement is
>>defined in terms of straight people.
>
>Surely it is? If there was no unjust imposition of a heterosexual norm,
>there would be no need for a GLB movement to resist its imposition

If I were to define something, let's call it Foo, in terms of, say,
widgets then it would suggest that widgets are fundamental and important
to Foo. To me, and I would think a lot of others too, one of the most
important things about a queer movement is us queers, ourselves. Thus,
we define the queer movement in terms of ourselves. If, instead, we
defined it in terms of heterosexuality then it would suggest two things:
(i) that heterosexuality is a more integral part in our movement
that us, ourselves; and (ii) if we define ourselves in terms of
heterosexuality then presumably this means we are defining ourselves as
not(heterosexual) or *anti*-heterosexual.

(i) smacks of "homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality". 'Nuff said.
(ii) smacks of "homsexuality is destructive because it is opposed to
heterosexuality." I strongly disagree with this; all sexualities should
be able to coexist, and complement each other.

Now, if you changed the word "heterosexuality" to "heterosexism" (the
belief that heterosexuality is the only correct way to be) then, yes,
you could define the queer movemement in terms of it. Certainly, the
queer movement is anti-heterosexist (but that is a far cry from saying
that it is anti-heterosexual) and there would not be a queer movement if
it were not for heterosexism.

I think the confusion about whether or not the queer movement can be
defined in terms of heterosexuality (or feminism can be defined in terms
of men) is a confusion of the terms "heterosexuality" and "heterosexism"
(ditto for "men" and "patriarchy").

The same logic applies to feminism. It cannot, IMO, be defined in terms
of men. It can however be defined in terms of patriarchy.

As for whether one would want to define the queer movement in terms of
(a) queers (i.e., ourselves) or (b) (anti-)heterosexism...
[ditto for defining feminism in terms of (a) women or (b) (anti-)patriarchy]
The first suggests that you think of the movement as being empowering
and establishing pride in one's self-identity; the second suggests a
more activist bent. I think both definitions are valid and complementary.
I view them as being different tactics/viewpoints towards the same basic
goals.


Ciaran.
--
---- Ciaran McHale ([e-mail])
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone]