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.

F2M

After reading Halberstam's writing on transgender butch I was made aware of the rapidly growing cases of transgendered people. I also did not realize how our society is so obsessed with the need to catalogue people. As of now there are apparently several different "classifications" and more that are even unknown so the standard never completely represents everyone which is problematic; therefore, we should be less concerned with categories and more concerned with an all inclusive society. As we have discussed earlier there is confusion with gender and a person’s biological sex making this article that much more confusing. I honestly don’t understand how people that are trying to deconstruct the socialization of sexuality can classify themselves as trans”gendered” because the word gender is already implying that they are accepting society’s notions of what femininity/masculinity are. I do agree with the author when she said, "masculinity of course is what we make it." If a little boy tells his mother that he feels trapped in the wrong body, he has already been socialized. I feel like it is the responsibility of the parent to tell their child to embrace their innermost desires and thoughts as their own and not contradictory of their physical bodies. Why don’t the parents inform their child that it is ok to feel that way without having to change their actual sex as if they have to validate their true identity? Once again gender roles are affecting families in that, for example, little boys feel trapped in the wrong body simple because they feel more comfortable in a dress and playing with dolls. Instead of advocating these gender roles being lined up with the “appropriate” sex, the parents should accept the behaviors in its current state (a little boy in a dress playing with dolls while keeping his penis) instead of perpetuating the confusion or need to be accepted.

Labels Hurt

I am in agreement with RADICALLESBIANS on labeling. Labeling of any kind is detrimental to the health and survival of the human race. Labels like lesbian, faggot, and gay, are no different than labels like African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American. They are all used to indorse everything that is considered unacceptable to the established norms. The standards for these established norms are set by a European patriarchal thought process.

The authors of the article believe that labeling women who do not fit the male identified description of what a "real woman" is or how a "real woman" acts drives a wedge between women as a whole. It is sad to say but most "heterosexual" labelled women take the side of the male who have placed their "male identifiers" on women as a whole. Heterosexual labelled women feel that they cannot have a true woman relationship with another woman who is labelled a "Lesbian." If you ask the "heterosexual" labelled woman why she has a problem being friends with the "lesbian" labelled woman, her answer will involve reasons derived from a male identifed thought process. (ie: I just have nothing in common with a woman that doesn't want a man in her life.)

The above statement is far from the truth. The "heterosexual" labelled woman has created division based on a sexual categorycreate by men. If her blindfold was removed she would discover that she and the "lesbian" labelled woman share economic, health and environmental disparities which she does not share with her male counterpart. At the end of the day, women, regardless of the labels placed on us, share a common bond. That bond will allow us to destroy the dehumanization we all share.

Enemy of the State

The article, The Woman-Identified Woman, by RADICALESBIANS was a very great piece that I believe could be correlated across academic disciplines. The article addressed the societal stigma on lesbians. Lesbians are basically enemies of the state or society because lesbians defy the normal role that society perpetuates through media, books, and various vehicles of communication. Lesbianism exists in a patriarchal society where there are clear sexual divisions and sex roles. As a result, lesbians are alienated and are lonely. A lesbian has no peace and cannot accept herself because society doesn’t accept her.A lesbian’s love and acceptance by other women is her liberation. RADICALESBIANS write this article in order to expose the fallacies in the NOW movement. The NOW movement divides women according to their sexual orientation and in return RADICALESBIANS assert that women are perpetuating male stereotypes and ideas.

 

Sex roles dehumanize women by requiring that women become the supportive caste that support the master sex, men. In a society where men do not oppress women and where humans operated on their emotions there would be no heterosexuality or homosexuality. I thought that the point that raises the idea that women are afraid of being called lesbian was clever. The authors proceed to say that

 

I also agree with the author when she said that women who are independent from men are viewed as  “invisible, pathetic, inauthentic, and unreal” (pg. 241). I thought about the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”, where George Stewart wishes he had never existed. When he and the angel visited his wife she was a librarian and single. The angel called her an “old maid”. I was so upset after watching that because it subliminally suggested that her life was horrible without George and as a single woman. This movie definitely has undertones of how patriarchy permeates in society.

 

I disagree with the RADICALESBIANS on the point toward the end of the article that states that women who have husbands will never achieve liberation. I believe that marriage and heterosexual relationships give women the opportunity to influence men. I agree with the RADICALESBIANS’ argument that state that women should not be preoccupied with pleasing their husbands. I believe that it should be 50/50 exchange where women express their concerns as well and help change the men’s psyche. If women are isolated from men like the RADICALESBIANS’ argument suggests then there will be no opportunity for change. Towards the end of the article, I believe the RADICALESBIANS were saying that women should deny their heterosexuality in order to achieve self-love and acceptance as women. I think that this argument is contradictory because RADICALESBIANS said toward the beginning of the article that human should not deny their sexual feelings and orientation. Overall, I believe the basic principle of women thinking with their own minds and ideas will help them achieve liberation. It is important even dealing with race that the oppressed avoid perpetuating the thoughts of the oppressors.

lesbians in socity

“Women Identified Women” , was very interesting. The author gave me new a new viewpoint on the visualization of lesbians. A lesbian is the range of all women condensed to the point of explosion. She is a women who, often beginning at an extremely early age, acts in accordance with her inner compulsion to be a more complete and freer human being that her society-perhaps then, but certainly later-cares to allow her. After reading this selection I viewed homosexual women as women who happen to be lesbians. I was very unaware of the emotional side (so to speak) of being a lesbian in society. It is very true that (generally speaking) society places several stereotypes on lesbians. I believe the author was trying to get across to her readers that the term lesbians just describes the sexuality a women prefers and does not identify how they are.
This reading also gave a standpoint that lesbians challenge heterosexual men. I don’t believe this is done on purpose however I believe this was the author’s view of how men see homosexual women. Instead of the term lesbian being used to describe a women’s sexual preference, the term lesbian is used to create a negative depiction of a homosexual women.

The Woman-Identified Woman

I was taken aback while reading The Woman-Identified Woman and coming to the realization just how encompassing and suppressing the role of gender can be. I’ve witnessed on several occasions just how the accusation of being a “dyke” has the power to stifle many women’s actions. It’s disheartening to read how we as women are not only willingly conforming to the acceptable role of women in society but also disengaging and abandoning our sisters who can’t or won’t fall in line and follow as well.

The subjugation of women is unfortunately worldwide but I wonder if women would be more proactive about the gender situation if there were some example to follow or precedent already set. Women being disconnected from being able to wholly identify with oneself isn’t some the can be swiftly remedied, being that the foundation our alienation is deeply apart of all of us. Are we just so complacent and unwilling to try? Combating this oppression appears so daunting, hopeless to even attempt. But even something as little as acknowledging that we’re all “real” women, authentic despite how society would want us to label one another is a good first step on our way to achieve “maximum autonomy in human expression.”

Reconsidering and redefining our ideas about gender

After I finished the last reading of the three required articles for class, I realized the common link between them was their investment in recreating or destroying the socially and culturally created ideas around gender. In the articled titled “The Woman-Identified Woman”, the Radicalesbians discuss the obstacles lesbians face while trying to carve their own space in a society that only values women who do not deviate from socially and culturally imposed standards of womanhood. In fact, the article also suggests that the term “lesbian” was the creation of men “to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives (including that of all women as part of the exchange medium among men), who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs” (240). In addition, the article also places the use of the word within the context of a heterosexual society. The word “lesbian” or “homosexual” for that matter, would probably not be necessary in a society with “rigid sex roles.”

The rigid sex and gender roles that have dominated many cultures are now insufficient. The world is no longer entirely heterosexual, in fact it never was. Homosexual, transgender, and transsexual communities are becoming more visible and proper terminology and explanations are inadequate to completely describe and distinguish them. In Judith Halberstam’s article titled, “Transgender Butch: Butch/FTM Border Wars and the Masculine Continuum” and a piece from Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , both scholars discuss the discrepancies surrounding gender identities. In Halberstam’s piece, she focused more on the transsexual and transgender communities. However I could not really relate. The terms flew over my head and I was having difficulty figuring out the differences between the respective groups myself. But after reading Butler’s piece I felt that I found the common thread amongst all the articles. In her piece she gives numerous definitions of gender including the following: “Gender is… a construction that regularly conceals its genesis… an action of gender re quires performance that is repeated … is also a norm that can never be full internalized (502-503). Many people look at transsexuals, homosexuals, and transgender people as “Other” and we compare them against the heterosexual standard, assuming that it is the original and that transsexuals/transgendered persons are really homosexuals imitating heterosexual relations. But using the example about people who dress in drag really clarifies that idea that our ideas of sex and gender are not as clear and distinct as we like them to be. In the article she introduces a three important terms: anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender performance. Society expects women to have the anatomical sex of female, gender identity of women, and gender performance of women also. But the example surround drag destabilizes the idea that these terms are coherent and absolute. A male dressed in drag may have the anatomical sex of males, gender identity of men, and the gender performance of females. The confusion this example will present in the mind of many people only further emphasizes the point I am trying to make: gender is not clearly defined, even in our American society that thinks it has clearly defined it.

"Is she a butch or lipstick lesbian?"

Halberstam writes, “I was trying to talk about the ways in which desire and gender and sexuality tend be remarkably rigid.” We often associate butch lesbians with sagging pants or lipstick lesbians with lace and frills, just as gay men are often divided into those with muscles and those with purses. Butler points out that “such acts, gestures, enactment generally construed are performative in the sense that the essence or identity that they otherwise purport to express are fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means.” Therefore, an individual’s desire to act in a certain way does little, or nothing, to dictate their self-identification as a homosexual. Whether one takes hormones or not does not determine her level of being a woman or being a man. It seems that heterosexuals have consumed themselves with trying to expose “are you gay” and homosexuals have consumed themselves with trying to figure out “How homosexual are you?” or even “what are you?” I was shocked to read that some lesbians view female-to-male transgendered women as traitors or that FTM consider butches (who prefer to dress like boys but not take hormones) as punks, who are scared to really make the change. Halberstam identifies this behavior as “border wars” between butches and transsexuals. It seems it would be better to let individuals come up with titles for themselves, because few individuals are totally stone butch, transgendered, lipstick lesbians, soft book or androgens. It is astounding how much energy our society puts into labels.

Butler and Halberstan’s readings have really changed the way that I have considered sexuality. Questions such as, “Are you gay or straight?” have always crossed my mind when meeting someone new. If they were gay they could be followed by thoughts of “Is she butch or femme?” or in the instance of a homosexual man “Is he a top or a bottom”. These readings have broadened my conception of sexuality to extend beyond the boxes that society has created to identify levels of homosexuality and now such questions, as those listed above, seem trivial and superficial.