Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Queer: The New ____________?
After reading Cathy J. Cohen's "Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?," while I can appreciate the fundamental idea, feel as though Queer is simply another category. What exactly is queer? What other categories fall under the umbrella of queer? According to Cohen, "all heterosexuals are represented as dominant an controlling and all queers are understood as marginalized and invisible" (542). Using this definition, is any minority considered queer? Or do you have to be homosexual? Considering I have only heard the term queer used to discuss homosexuals, how can queer politics hope to be "truly liberating, transformative, and inclusive of all those who stand on the outside of the dominant constructed norm of state-sanctioned white middle- and upper-class heterosexuality?" (542). What about the people who stand outside the realm of white middle and upper-class but check the heterosexual box? Where do they fit? What politics fight for their equality? Considering the society we live in which forces everyone to be male or female, hetero or homo, perhaps the best, most inclusive category we have is "other." While many find it offensive, it is perhaps the only category that doesn't force you to separate your identity into smaller pieces to fit different boxes. In defining yourself, while you are setting yourself up in opposition to those who choose to check one of the other boxes, you are allowed to incorporate and acknowledge the multiple facets of your existence which prevent you from checking a box.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I thought it was interesting how the author stated that many Black's don't feel comfortable using the term queer to define themselves because using that label often leads to stereotyping and assumptions. Also how many queer activists groups should take into account how many homosexuals of color do not feel comfortable participating in such events like the mall raids, it is hard for some blacks to participate in this not because they are afraid of how they will be treated for being gay but because of how they feel they will be viewed for being Black and of low SES in a suburban mall, this fear helps to enhance the invisibility of queers of color and it is important for white queer activists to be more sensitive to their feelings of oppression and exclusion.
After reading the article I was also a little confused about the "queer" category. The original post asked the question: "Is any minority considered queer?” I think that is a very valid question. Our discussion in class helped me to have a better understanding of the word queer. Just like many of the other labeling terms in our society, there is no one definition. Queer in some eyes is a derogatory word used to address the homosexual community. Growing up that is exactly how I observed that word being used. The same argument can be made about the word bitch. Most people see the word bitch as harmful and degrading to women. Others feel that the word bitch is a term of endearment. Then there are still others that feel that a woman that is called a bitch is a woman who is outspoken and strong.
After discussing the article in class I was able to see the word queer in that very same light. Queer, depending on how used can be very harmful. Queer can also be a representation of a kind of politics. Queer can also be a way of thinking, in that one with queer beliefs refuses to conform or agree with the dominant rules in our society. So to answer the question posed in the original blog, I think that anyone who does not fit into “ideal societal standards” has the potential to be queer (if that makes sense) but that doesn’t mean you are homosexual.
Many of the articles have been trying to break through this idea that everyone must fit into a specific category. Unfortunately this seems to be a war with no end in sight because there will always be someone that feels that they don’t “belong” to certain group. This idea of “the other” posed by the author of the blog reminds me of the idea of fluidity raised in at least two articles we’ve read in class so far. Categories seem to bring nothing but trouble, confusion and drama. Maybe in terms of sexuality and gender there should also be a box called “fluid” for those that feel that they don’t “belong” or simply don’t want to.
Considering the society we live in which forces everyone to be male or female, hetero or homo, perhaps the best, most inclusive category we have is "other." While many find it offensive, it is perhaps the only category that doesn't force you to separate your identity into smaller pieces to fit different boxes. In defining yourself, while you are setting yourself up in opposition to those who choose to check one of the other boxes, you are allowed to incorporate and acknowledge the multiple facets of your existence which prevent you from checking a box
that was well-written and it addresses what seems to be the problem with "blahblahblah" studies. we are so busy defining ourselves that we don't realize that that is not even the biggest problem. I understand trying to define yourself is important and whatnot but when it gets in the way of you solving the problems that have allowed you to question yourself in the first place, then you need to reconsider how significant it is.
Post a Comment