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?
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
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.
The Mainstreaming of Transgendered Identity
Recently, there has been an influx of transgendered characters in fictional TV shows and transgendered individuals on documentaries. I think this is a good development. In fact, I find the mainstreaming of transgendered individuals to be a step forward in the right direction. The media is so powerful that it has the capacity to make people more confortable with people of different sexual orientations and gender expressions.
Take, for example, the appearance of gay and lesbian characters on mainstream television shows in the past 10 years or so. If we grow accustomed to seeing gay and lesbian characters on television, does that make us more confortable with gay and lesbian individuals? I think that the answer is yes, especially for younger viewers. I would argue that growing up watching more diverse characters on television makes people more tolerant. So, what does this do for transgendered individuals?
The transgendered character on tv’s All My Children introduces a transgendered character to the daytime viewing audience. However, Zarf (the character in question) is strange at best. From what I have seen, Zarf’s eloquent speeches about being in the wrong body is coupled with a very strange personality with multiple identities. Another show that is scheduled to air a transgendered individual showcases a transgendered (MTF) woman with her wife (they were married before the husband transitioned) with a family of Wiccans and a variety of differently-abled individuals. Do these portrayals of trans individuals help or hinder the transgendered case? Is any publicity good publicity?
This hearkens back to discussions we’ve had about radical lesbian feminists. If Andrea Dworkin and her anti-porn legislation (or bra burners or protesters) are the only face a movement has in the media, does that make them more legitimate or less? Is mainstreaming even a good thing? Are we trying to build legitimacy within mainstream society for lesbian/gay/transgendered identity or do we want to embrace the full spectrum.
Links to TV shows with transgendered characters/individuals:
All My Children: http://abc.go.com/daytime/allmychildren/index.html
Lesbian Pulp Fiction
Lesbian Pulp Montage from Duke University
Lesbian pulp fiction (most popular in the 1950’s and 1960’s) portayed lesbian women in a variety of unhappy situations (except a few notable exceptions, including Prince of Salt, ). Many of the lesbian charaters in these novels, due to the prohibition of mailing literature that appeared to support a homosexual lifestyle (or to counter the popular idea that homosexuals were not mentally ill individuals), married men. If a woman were to remain a lesbian in these novels, she always met an ill-fated end, hospitalized in an institution or even death.
What I find most interesting about these novels is not the ways in which lesbian women are portrayed. Who were the writers of these lesbian pulp fiction novels? Who was the intended audience? Lesbian pulp novels were written by both men and women. From what I can tell, the women authors are both heterosexual and homosexual, and the male authors appear to be largely heterosexual. Audience-wise, lesbian pulp novels appeared to be widely read by heterosexual and homosexual individuals. According to the Sallie Bingham Center for Women’s History and Culture at Duke University, lesbian pulp novels appealed to lesbian readers who were desparate to find a representation of their indentity within popular culture, while providing a moral lesson about the proper place of lesbians within society.
For heterosexual readers, however, lesbian pulp novels satisfied their curiosity, as well as providing a “scientific” study of lesbian culture for the uninformed. This curiousity in the actions and lives of lesbians is reflected today in American popular culture, seen on MTV dating shows like Next, and Date My Mom. Let’s face it, people are intrigued by lesbians.
What is it about lesbians that people are so interested in? Are the things that lesbians do really that different from the things that heterosexuals do? Supposedly, heterosexual men are interested in lesbians because of what lesbians do in bed (and perhaps the hope that they can join the lesbians in bed?). But, truth be told, not all lesbians look like the lesbians on the L-Word or on the MTV daing shows. Are lesbians inherently different from heterosexuals because of their sexual orientation? Does what we do in bed distinguish us in other aspects of our lives? (I can’t answer these questions, but they are interesting!)
More on lesbian pulp fiction: http://library.duke.edu/specialcollections/bingham/guides/lesbianpulp/
