Queer Politics Response

Queer politics, the “confrontational political formation” of the younger generation (1990’s) emerged from the dissatisfaction with the methods and invisible position of gay activists. An interesting concept from the reading was the idea of transformational politics. Audre Lorde stated that the “master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.” Advocating an agenda that pursues changing values, definitions, and laws that make dominant institutions and relationships oppressive as opposed to seeking integration into such a system is an intriguing strategy to me.

There are also a lot of questions that queer activists and others must address before being able to effectively combat the dominating multiple systems of oppression. My Comparative Women’s Studies class addressed the same question the author posed about those who in some way benefit from the dominant institutions and groups resources. Would you be willing to give up some of the advantages that you currently have in the name of promoting a more permissive and liberating society?

queer theory: a continuation of heteronormativity

The reading of “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” by Cathy J. Cohen comes at a rather interesting time. Two nights ago I was watching an episode of MTV’s True Life. In this episode there was a discussion of couples of different races. The couple of particular interest was a male gay couple, one man was white and the other man was black. Throughout the show they were searching for an apartment so that they could live together. However, they never accomplished their goal due to discrimination. The black male on the show attributed their inability to find an apartment to their interracial status, not to their homosexuality. While watching the show I said to me, "that’s not it”. I believed that if there was any problem with their relationship it would be in their homosexuality and not their races. My treatment of this situation is clouded my heterosexuality. And that is what Cathy J. Cohen discusses in the article. Too often we look at heterosexuality as normal and queers have challenged this. However in the same process they manage to ignore other areas of intersection.

Queer activist in turn manage to privilege themselves based on their master status. For example, a black homosexual may not only be concerned with gay rights but black gay rights. But from my understanding of the reading, queer theory focuses primarily on the differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In this passage contains a good description of one of the aims of queer theory:

In addition to highlighting the instability of sexual categories and sexual subjects, queer activists also directly challenge the multiple practices and vehicles of power which render them invisible and at risk. However, what seems to make queer activists unique, at this particular moment, is their willingness to confront normalizing power by emphasizing and exaggerating their own anti-normative characteristics (Cohen 3).

This process of dichotomization is not helpful because it further alienates people who are marginalized at different intersections in life. By focusing on heteronormativity, queer theory reinforces and recreates dominant institutions (Cohen 1). The primary focus on sexual orientation disregards the struggles that black gay men, black lesbians, transgender, and transsexual people experience. Because of the privileges heterosexuality has in our communities, the major problem I could see in the relationship mentioned above with the couple from MTV was their homosexuality, in regard to public reception (I don’t mean it’s a problem for me, I am saying that the landlords may looked at their sexual orientation as a problem). The way I look at their sexual orientation as a defining difference is directly connected to the reason queer theory falls short of success in transforming “the basic fabric and hierarchies that allow systems of oppression to persist and operate efficiently” Cohen 1). It ignores and fails to address other issues like economic status, race,etc. Until these other aspects are addressed, queer theory will continue to work in the same oppressive manner that heterosexuality does.

GMHC

Its a pity to analyze the politics that have marginalized the rights of those outside of the "heteronormativty" group. The issue is no longer something that can be ignored as people become increasingly conscious of their true identities and are seemingly supported to express themselves, but at a price. All individuals must be represented in our politics to perpetuate equality; therefore, the exclusive nature of how our government is ran must be revamped completely. For gay men to be misrepresented in our health system shows the lack of concern for the true welfare for its citizens. If society were less concerned with the placing people in catergories and boxes, the real issues such as disparities amongst the gay population and denial to sufficient health education and prevention.

Queer?

In Cathy Cohen's; Punk, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens, I found it interesting that many Blacks and other people of color prefer not to use the term queer to describe their sexual orientation, she states that "... like other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered activits of color, I find the label "queer" fraught with unspoken assumptions which inhibit the radical political potential of this cateory (547)".

 I wonder if these people of color who turn away from the label of queer must turn away from the activitist groups that identify with the term queer and as a result are excluded from the demonstrations, texts and other forms of outreach that these groups partisipate in. Is turining away from the term queer worth being exculded? It seems that queer politics follows the model of interlocking systems of oppression by excluding those who have a lower SES (social economic status) and who are of color and can't be as flexible as the majority who can just turn away from their cultural norms and standards and create their own. Isn't the whole point of queer theory and activism to create a safe space for ALL homosexuals so that they can choose their own idenity? Whether it be bisexual, transgendered, curious, lesbian, gay, or etc?

Isn't queer just another label, a term that is used to separate homosexuals and pit them against each other, its like the article we read last class that spoke about how labels push butch women away from transgendered males, when both are considered homosexuals and should be fighting for the same human and civil rights, instead of trying to split one another into boxes. What would have happened if during the civil right's movement blacks would have split themselves up into categories; light-skin and dark-skin? We'd probably still be drinking out of a different water fountain and sitting in the back of the bus. How much stronger could the Gay movement be if they all just did away with labels?

In an Ideal World

In the essay, “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics”, Cathy Cohen identifies the single-minded oppression of heteronormativity as the dilemma in queer politics. I agree with the author’s argument which criticizes queer politics’ primary focus on an individual’s sexual orientation. Cohen defines heteronormativity as “the privilege, power, and normative status invested in heterosexuality” by the dominant society (544). The author challenges heteronormativity and also the policy of queer political activists who neglect multiple systems of oppression that queer, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals experience. The author speaks from her experience as a queer person of color who does not relate to the single-minded doctrine of queer politics which focuses only on heterosexual oppression. Queer activists do not address the race, class, and gender oppression, which is interlocked with heteronormativity oppression.
As a solution, Cohen suggests that leftist politics and coalition work is pursued to destroy oppressions. Cohen presents the welfare queen example to display the problematic doctrine of queer politics that states that the heterosexual society is homogeneous. Cohen states that women of color on welfare are oppressed by heteronormativity because of their race, gender, and class. Cohen’s description of the welfare queen was very limited. I believe that Cohen should have addressed the fact that there are also many white women who are on welfare. She also presents the notion that black and Latino women are hypersexual and therefore defiant to the heterosexual norm (which is established by white, middle class, heterosexual males). Cohen presents the Moynihan report as evidence of how the white dominant society views black women. The author suggests that heterosexuals who have been oppressed by heteronormativity should unite with queers. I believe that Cohen’s argument is debatable because it will be extremely hard to address problems in society with such a diverse group of people such as punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens. While punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens unite, they might neglect each others’ individual oppressions. Overall, I believe her argument was effective but organizing such a large amalgamation of people is problematic and idealistic.

FED UP!!

Reading this article caused me to really confront my feelings towards homosexuality. This may have nothing to do with the reading, but I just need to vent. I am not gay, and I do not understand how/why people are gay, but that is where it stops. I am not going to go out of my way to say that certain people can get married, but others cannot. I feel that I do not have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong because I am not in the position to punish anyone. Quite frankly, I really don't care! This may sound selfish, but my point is why cant people just live their lives in peace? Two men being married has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with me, and it won't affect me one bit, so why should it matter? Seriously...WHO CARES? I dont understand why people will go through soooo much trouble to stop gay marriages and to dehumaniz LGBTQ people, but we have children starving, and millions of homeless people suffering everyday!

It is ironic that African Americans, having been at one point the most hated people, are probably the most homophobic race in the United Staes. I seriously don't understand how we can put others throught the same stuff that we went through; it's like an emotional slavery. We were judged and classified based on one thing: the color of our skin. Now we are judging people on their sexuality. I think it all stems back to our society's need for labels and how ineffective they are. A person's sexuality has nothing to do with how efficient they are in the workplace, their intelligence, or what kind of friend they can be. Sexuality is just one aspect of a person and should not be used to define who a person is. I am just sick of people blowing their tops over homosexuality...I think there are many more problems in the world that need to be focused on.

Why are we so narrow minded?

SIDEBAR I REALLY DON'T LIKE THE WAY THIS BLOG SAVES DRAFTS. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM HAVING TO RE-TYPE THIS BECAUSE OF IT.

Why are we so narrow minded? While reading this article I will honestly admit that there was alot that I had not previously realized before reading this. While reading Cathy J. Cohen's article on Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics? I felt almost well I'm going to put it blantantly... a racist. Who am I to judge? Who am I to not seek understanding if I don't understand and make assumptions. Getting straight out of a class entitled "Black women and the U.S. Presidential Election" going straight into blogging on a topic relating to this I immediately thought of the presidential election and the choice between gender and race. In addition to coming from this class I am coming from this class where the professor identifies herself as growing up "queer in an extremely male dominated society." I had always thought that the term "queer" was the derogatory term that wasn't supposed to be used in today's vernacular. However I guess I was wrong.

While reading I came onto the part where Cohen was describing the interlocking systems of domination that was noted in the opening paragraph of the now famous black feminist statement by the Combahee River Collective that stated "The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that we are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The systhesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. As Black women we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face. (272)" Relating back above when I was speaking about the presidential campaigns considering the gender vs race divide this statement or exerpt made me wonder that with BLACK WOMEN both being included in the presidential election considering Hillary Clinton (a white woman) and Barack Obama (a black man) how are we supposed to "combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face" if both are included relating to current politics?

Then going back to the reading under the heading THE ROOT OF QUEER POLITICS: CHALLENGING HETERONORMATIVITY? It is felt that there of course in a perfect society should be no need for even such a subtitled going back to the "Pledge of Allegiance" that I'm sure all of us have said in our lifetime taking from the part that states "with liberty and justice for all." How is there liberty and justice for all if we are sectioned off as we as American people are. I feel that we are African-Americans are always so concerned on how we're being discriminated against that we often forget that we are not the only minority in the world...

Queer Theory

I feel as though the author of “punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens” is not just charges others to pay attention to the previous ignored identities, but also proposes the nonce taxonomy of “punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens.” The reading I felt just continued along with the main themes  that have transpired through out the beginning of the semester. It showed another layer of how we continuously categorize each other. It can be seen on page 542, when she says "all heterosexuals are represented as dominant an controlling and all queers are understood as marginalized and invisible" (542). It basically goes along with how we lump people into groups to make better sense of why they do not fit the “norm.”

This article further goes along with how society’s heterosexism is observed to be the norm, and used as a justification to exclude everything else. In the article it is referred to as “hetero normativity” and discusses how it is a “localized [practice]…privelige” (440). This article also talks about the intersexuality of different oppressive political and socialized contributors within society. 

Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens

The article, "Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?" by Cathy J. Cohen calls for a movement that basically is anti-assimilationist and that considers intersectionality while challenging heteronormativity. In the last paragraph on page 440, she discusses one of the reasons why queer theory has been inable to effectively challenge heteronormativity, stating that queer politics has often been built around a dichotomy between those who are queer and those who are straight. She states that "very near the surface in queer political action is an uncomplicated understanding of power as it is encoded in sexual categories: all heterosexuals are represented as dominant and controlling and all queers are understood as marginalized and invisible[;] thus...some queer activists have begun to prioritize sexuality as the primary frame through which they pursue their politics" (440). While acknowledging that, strategically, certain parts of our identity may be highlighted to call attention to a certain situation, she warns against activating only one characteristic of an identity or a single perspective of consciousness when organizing politics (440). This, she suggests, rejects "any recognition of the multiple and intersecting systems of power that largely dictate our life chances" (440).



I was especially intrigued by this paragraph as my mind was taken away to the current 2008 Democratic primary elections. Because we, Black women, are faced with the choice of a Black man candidate and a White female candidate, it has been extremely popular for any conversation concerning the elections to include a discussion of which identity characteristic is most important: gender or race? Although, personally, I think that this is completely irrelevant for choosing a candidate to vote for, I have found myself engaged in numerous conversations where many have presented their experience-based arguments as to why race overshadows gender and vice versa. Because of the background I have in Women's Studies, I know that gender, race, class, sexuality, age, ability, religion, and many other things intersect to shape our identities and how we experience our lives in this world. I feel that each element is as important as the other as they all have the power to impact a person's life. Cohen warns against activating one characteristic of an identity or a single perspective of consciousness when organizing politics. While it is okay to reflect upon experiences and discover how an isolated part of an identity may have more of an impact in certain situations, I feel that failing to recognize other parts of the identity which may further disadvantage or advantage an individual tells only part of that person's reality. Further, when one internalizes that a certain part of her/his identity is more important than another, it affects how she/he interacts with others and how she/he makes decisions (i.e. which presidential candidate to support). Expanding upon Cohen's warning, I would add that activating only one characteristic of an identity or considering that characteristic to be the most important at anytime is unrealistic and unjust. Nobody belongs to only one category; every part of everyone's identity is equally important; it is never okay to be oppressed whether its due to gender, race, sexuality, etc. So, to my sisters who are questioning which identity characteristic they identify as the most important or which they want to be loyal to, consider what I've mentioned.

Queer Politics

As a political science major I defiantly see the need for articles such as Cathy J. Cohens “Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens”. Cohen made some very valid points about the exclusion of queer people in politics. “Queers want to be represented and included fully in left political analysis and American culture. Thus what queers want is to be a part of a social, economic and culture.” It saddens me that Democratic Party is supposed to be in favor or social justice, and has managed to exclude queers from its movement toward social equality. In practice, tolerance is supposed to be of all people and all things, but it is clear that America is not yet a truly tolerant country. I agree with the author of “Why I hated the march on Washington” in that “assimilation is killing us”. Images such as the nuclear family that promote “mommies and daddies” are keeping us in boxes that are oppressing a large group of people. These people are homosexuals, transsexuals and queers who America often deems unworthy of, or unfitting for, parenthood, political representation or equality under the law. Much like race, socioeconomic and gender, homosexuals make up a group of people, a part of society that should be represented. Having a clear understanding of politics, it is clear that for any group to be fully acknowledged in our country as “equals” they must have politic representation. The Democratic Party is failing this group, and is untrue to its idea of “social justice”. This really disappoints me. Politics are really queer. Political homos.

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.

opening eyes

Cathy J. Cohen's essay "Punk, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens" offered an abundance of terminology, information but most important, understanding. I learned quite a bit about the creation and the attempted re-creation of queer politics. So much that squeezing my new found knowledge into two paragraphs is going to be interesting, so bear with me.

What I’ve learned about queer politics is that sexual “fluidity” is encouraged and that an individual’s sexual expression does not have to be defined or concrete. This is not the first time that fluidity has come up. In one of our readings from last week, I believe it was Judith Halberstam, that mentions the idea of fluidity and how some queers don’t want to have a category, rather they want to float around in that “grey” area. A particular aspect of queer politics that I found interesting is the fight against “heteronormativity”. This terminology first of all is very clever, and true, because in our society heterosexism is the norm and anything that deviates from that is “wrong”. Queer politics seeks to fight this socially constructed image that “all heterosexuals are represented as dominant and controlling and all queers are understood as marginalized and invisible”(440).

"Many of us continue to search for a new political direction and agenda, one that does not focus on integration into dominant structures but instead seeks to transform the basic fabric and hierarchies that allow systems of oppression to persist and operate efficiently"(437). This statement in the beginning of the essay really stood out to me because it is not just "queers" that long for new politics. The political platforms today are already fully constructed with permanent boundaries. If we want to “fit in” we must force ourselves to adopt the standards and structures already set in stone. Queer politics are necessary in this patriarchal society we live in today. Queer politics seek that left centered approach, an approach that takes queer experiences as a “starting point[s] rather than as [a] footnote”(444). In a more general sense queer politics seeks to create a political stance that refutes “dominant institutions” and demands a change of “values, definitions, and laws” that continue to oppress. This fight for a true queer politic seems as though it can benefit more than the queer population.

Queer is Just Another Socially Constructed Concept...

In high school, two of my really great friends identified as being gay and lesbian.  They were both Mexican.  "Eduardo" came from a traditional Mexican family, while "Cielo" came from a single-parent household.  Their lives at home were a bit different, but their experiences in society were similar.  Eduardo was often called a fag, slut, feminine, and other descriptors genrally used to define women; while Cielo was butch, masculine, etc.  Eduardo experienced much more social hardship than Cielo did.  Perhaps, because it was of his stature, tone, and mannerisms.  Nonetheless, what I realized (and did not realize until I came to college) was that they were battling much more than homophobic remarks.  Their identity was much more than that.  They were not just members of the LGBT community; but rather, identified as being Hispanic too.  Their race caused them to experience some things that perhaps another racial group may not experience.  There is assumption that Hispanics are stern, hard workers, who multiply.  And clearly both of them stood on the outside of the fence. Their "otherness," and "deviant" behavior made them targets for ill remarks.  This is exactly what Cohen points out--there has to be a recognition of of the intersecting components of one's identity.  These intersections rear much different experiences because it is not just one's sexual preference that places them in an inferior position; rather, it is a combination of different labels (such as race, class, gender, etc) that render people invisible.  Place in a position where they are in a constant battle against heteronormative power.  It is important that she explores this field of Queer Theory and Queer Politics.  I always thought that both were essentially the same, in that queer politics derived from queer theory.  After reading the article, I have a much different outlook because she explained the two as two different concepts.  Queer Theory as a field of Gender studies that emerged during the third wave of feminisim.  I did not even know there was a third wave, but evidently this wave is my generation and the struggles, oppression, and injustice that I am met with in today's society.  Again, this field was influenced by Focault and builds on the feminist challenge to the idea that gender is a part of the one's identity, their self.  However, the concept has become socially constructed and has fallen to the debates of "natural" and "unnatural" behavior.  The position of queer theory expands this narrow and dichotomous focus to include any type of sexual activity, sexual identity or sexual preference that has fallen victim to the implications of normative and deviant categories that stem from heteronormativity.  I understand queer theory to be the foundation and queer politics as the enactment or declaration of what these thinkers and activists stand for.  Queer politics celebrates sexual difference and as pointed out by Cohen is against assimilation.  This is very important, especially living in a heterosexist world.  Basically, what this aspect of the politics is arguing is that they will not change or modify who they are to satisfy patriarchal, heteronormative wishes.  Rather, they will command their space and assert who they are by staying true to themselves and their identity.  Queer Politics goals do not just lie in the reformation of the law; rather, they are striving for the transformation of society to ensure that all individuals are sexually liberated.  

brand new to me...

Before reading PUNKS, BULLDAGGERS, and WELFARE QUEENS, I didn't know what queer theory or queer politics was. The information and history presented in the reading was brand new and truly eye opening. Even within my studies in (and around) Women's Studies the term "heteronormativity" seemed new. From the word, alone, I was able to get a general definition. However, I appreciate the explanation of what "heteronormativity" means to the author. (Defines it as practices and insitutuions which legitimize and privledge heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships as fundamental and "natural" within society.) It was interesting to learn about non-violent movements within the queer civil rights movement. I had never heard of, but was not surprised to read about, "kiss-ins" at malls and straight dance clubs or "I Hate Straights" Publications.
I was also interested in the fact that "queer" somehow encompasses gay, lesbian, transgender/sexuals, and more... On page 452 the author says "There are straight queers, bi queers, tranny queers, lez queers, fag queers, SM queers, fisting queers in every single street in this apathetic country". I am not sure what SM queers or fisting queers are. Maybe I will go look it up. I have never heard anyone identify as a "queer" but maybe because they do not know the history.
I was able to relate to this reading when the author addresses Black feminism and interlocking forms of oppression as they relate to women of color. The famous Combahee River Collective's idea that "As Black women we see Black Feminism as the logical politcal movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face" (443). However, I was confused by the statements about thinking about "left analysis and left politics"... Can someone explain what they mean by "left"? Is it related to left as in conservative or liberal? It was used many more times during the reading and I have my own definition in my head that may be very wrong.