Queer Theory vs Lesbian Feminist Theory
For my final journal entry, I wanted to weigh in on my impressions of the two major theoretical arguments we have covered this quarter: Queer Theory and Lesbian Feminist Theory. Although I find that Queer Theory is a better approach to the ways that I theorize identity, Lesbian Feminist Theory does have practical applications.
At the beginning of the quarter, we discussed in class how Lesbian Feminist Theorists thought that Queer Theory was dominated by homosexual men. How does Judith Butler’s work play into this? Were the critiques of Queer Theory occuring before Butler was publishing or after? There do seem to be female theorists engaged in producing Queer Theory, which seems to contradict the arguments of Lesbian FeministTheorists. Does it matter that QT is dominated by homosexual men? I would argue that academia, and academic theorists, also occupy a privledged positition within society, regardless of their gender. Does the fact that queer theorists and lesbian feminist theorists are primarily academic indiviuduals with academic privlege?
On the other hand, the queer theorists seem to imply that lesbian feminist theorists cling to biological notions of gender and sexuality (implying that sexuality is related to gender). To this, I ask: does it matter? Does it matter if gender identities and sexualities are linked or not? I would argue that, whenever we think about gender and sexual identities, we are dealing with physical lived experiences in addition to whatever theorizing we do. How do we explain how individuals deal with their gender identities in a world that places an emphasis on biological notions of gender? How do people deal with having a queer sexual identity in a heteronormative culture?
I think that both lesbian feminist theories and queer theories have their place. I actually think that the two disciplines are complimentary in nature. No one viewpoint offers us the complete picture. We need them both to understand how gender identity and sexuality work together to form a cohesive whole.
Gay Rights — Just like everyone else?
The conversation that we had in class about gay marriage last week has really got me thinking. Does wanting to be “just like everyone else” or asserting that gays and lesbians are “just like everyone else” make a nod towards heteronormativity? I don’t think so.
The ideas that are put forth by saying that gays and lesbians are “just like everyone else,” merely serves to say that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is pretty much identical to the heterosexual lifestyle. We all go to work, do our jobs, come home, go out with friends, pay the bills, have pets, etc. There is very little difference in the lived lives of gays and lesbians in comparison with the lived lives of heterosexuals. In fact, gays and lesbians can be involved in political groups, just like heterosexuals. They can even have the same values. I would argue, and maybe this is just an experiential difference – since I think that I live my life “just like everyone else,” that my existance compared with my heterosexual friends’ existances are pretty much equal.
So why then, does the granting of rights to homosexuals make a nod towards heteronormativity? I’m really confused as to where this idea comes from. My girlfriend argues that we all need to do the same steps — she thinks we should abolish marriage and make everyone go though paperwork to be married. How does that nod towards heteronormativity?
What does it mean to be queer?
When Judith Halbersham spoke at UC this quarter, she briefly discussed the idea of queering the family. She said that the family serves to consume queers, and that the idea of queering the family is a fallacy. This discussion reminded me of one that I had in my Family Theory class in Fall 2006. We were responding to a chapter in the Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research, in which the author argued that any family structure that differs from our traditional idea of a nuclear family, constituted queering the family.
The example provided by the textbook occured when a woman was sent to a nursing home against her will. She chose to make the nursing home residents her new family and cut off contact with her immediate family. The author of this chapter alleged that this woman was “queering” her family by altering the definition of who was in her family.
I’m not entirely sure, however, that queering the family has nothing to do with sexual identity. In fact, I take offense to the use of “queering” in such a way by the author. Queering is not simply to make the family different, it is redefining a family based upon lines of sexual identity. Can we really queer the family? Can the family serve to let queers in — or is the family, in itself, tied up in heteronormativity and moderately ridgid gender roles? I’m not entirely sure. I understand that queer people want to have families and to be part of families, but is a family not a family if it has queer individuals in it? How do most people define who belongs to their families? Do we claim biology or do we claim kinship or social ties?
The book for my Family Theory Class was:
Is Sarah Silverman a Lesbian?
I have to admit, I love Sarah Silverman. I think she’s hysterical. On a recent episode of the Sarah Silverman Show, she explores her sexuality. Sarah meets a friend of her sister, Tig, who is a lesbian. After revisiting the ends of past relationships, Sarah decides that she is a lesbian. After raiding her sister’s closet for “lesbian clothing,” and performing an angry folk chick song wearing flannel and a mullet, Sarah has the opportuity to kiss Tig. However, right before contact is made, Sarah turns aside and makes a face (She did this same thing when she was about to kiss a man, so her actions here are not homophobic). At the end of the episode, Sarah concludes that she is not a homosexual or a heterosexual (noting that she has failed at both), but a ME-mosexual, someone who is in love with herself.
What I find most interesting at Sarah’s identity struggle is that she feels that she has “failed” at being homosexual and at being heterosexual. What does it mean to fail at a sexual identity? Is it that she doesn’t feel attracted to men or women? Or is it the acts themselves that she cannot perform?
Sarah’s struggles with her sexual identity reminds me of many of the discussions we have had in class about who is and who is not a lesbian. Sarah’s insistance that she is, in fact, a lesbian even though she has not kissed a woman begs me the question: can lesbians have close friendships/attractions towards women that they have not acted upon (I mean, here, never having been with a woman). If we can claim a lesbian identity as a political identity, then does it matter what we do in bed? If we claim a lesbian identity, as Andrea Dworkin did, and then have a relationship with a man, will it affect our political identity as a lesbian? Some of our classmates seemed to think that if a lesbian has sex with a man, she is no longer a lesbian, but, to me, that is policing an identity that we don’t need to police — someone else’s.
Then again, if we are not going to police identity, what does it mean when heterosexual men claim that they are “lesbians trapped in a man’s body?” Is that mocking and problemmatic or does it lend more support to gay and lesbian rights?
For more on The Sarah Silverman Show:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Silverman
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_sarah_silverman_program/index.jhtml
Heteronormative Morning TV
In my house, every morning, we watch the Today show. The Today show appears to provide a mixture of news and cultural information to a wide audience (women, men, people who work and people who stay at home). Every morning, the Today show has a segment called “five things every woman should know.” Sometimes, this segment features fashion or health information, but, fairly often, this segment doles out parenting information (or information about children’s clothing).
I have a problem with the immediate construction of women as mothers/most important parental figure, for two reasons.
First of all, there is the automatic assumption that all women are mothers/want to be mothers. Not all women are capable of having children, and not every woman wants to have children. Motherhood is also not the only identity available to women (the Today show seems to think that all women are interested in fashion, health and children (and nothing else)), women can be business-oriented or money-oriented, too.
Secondly, there is the assumption that men don’t care about their children/want to be fathers. The fact that every woman should know about children’s back to school clothing has an automatic assertion that men don’t need to know about their children’s clothing. What are the “5 things every man should know?” How would they be different from the things women should know?
The way the Today show presents women revolves around the ideas that all women are interested in fashion, health, and childrearing (and only those three things).
The Today Show Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Today_Show
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/
On the Limiting of Marriage
The DOMA that is working its way along in Washington state attempts to limit marriage to individuals who can/intend to produce offspring. Take a look at the text:
On July 26, 2006, the Washington supreme court cited the “legitimate state interests” of procreation and child-rearing as a basis for preserving the defense of marriage act. The People of Washington find it desirable to place part of this ruling into statutory form and make procreation a requirement for valid marriage in this state.
From: http://www.wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx
There are so many problems with DOMAs in general, but this DOMA, in particular, is insane.
Some other choice quotes:
The following individuals cannot be married:
(d) When the parties are unable to have children together for any reason
and
(1) All couples married in this state shall have three years from the date of solemnization of the marriage, or eighteen months from the effective date of this act, whichever is later, to have filed with the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar at least one certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act.
(2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) of this section shall result in the marriage being unrecognized as described in section 7 of this act, effective as of the midnight ending the time period described in subsection (1) of this section.
Now, then. What I take issue with here is not the attempts to say that reproduction is the sole and most important byproduct of marriage (although I do find that problematic in itself), but the fact that there are many heterosexual couples who cannot have children and many more who do not have children. The Washington state DOMA would prohibit a large population of heterosexual individuals from getting married, including:
the elderly
couples with fertility issues
couples who choose not to have children
women who are infertile due to health reasons (PCOS, hysterectomy)
men who are infertile due to health reasons or accidents
When we cling to an essentialist construction of gender, we believe that men and women are constructed differently and complementary. A marriage that produces children fufills the essential duty of marriage. However, not all women can have children (or want to have children). Is a woman any less a woman because she is infertile or has had a hysterectomy? This DOMA seems to imply that our gendered roles are fulfilled by our wanted to become mothers and fathers.
