babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Actresses' Harvard speech decried as "heteronormative"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Actresses' Harvard speech decried as "heteronormative"
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 March 2005 08:42 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
WTF is "heteronormative"?!

queerday.com explains:

quote:
Actress Jada Pinkett Smith is under fire by gay activists for comments she made during a recent appearance at Harvard University. Boston Herald reports that Beyond academics and gay activists, few people had heard the term until actress Jada Pinkett Smith came under criticism for comments at a recent Harvard University appearance.

What did she say?

"Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career..." Jordan Woods, co-chair of Harvard's BLGTSA and Supporters Alliance, called Pinkett Smith's remarks "extremely heteronormative," adding that she made BGLTSA members uncomfortable. Heteronormative is defined as, "sustaining or promoting heterosexuality as the dominant sociopolitical institution by which gender norms and behavior standards are set for everyone in society."

The criticism has drawn fire as well. Someone at Cruel.com said, "Someone needs to kick these whining PC idiots in the a--.'


link to Boston Herald

*shrug* Ya got me on this one....


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 07 March 2005 08:45 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The word they used in the early 90s was "heterosexist", which is probably better, since it doesn't sound quite so jargony (is that a proper word?)
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 March 2005 08:55 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd need to hear/read more of what Pinkett Smith said to object to it as heteronormative.

Happy to dismiss it as a trivial consumerist view of life and family, though.

(Who is she, anyway, and why is she speaking at Harvard?)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Seiltšnzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 07 March 2005 09:04 AM      Profile for Seiltšnzer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
She's the Fresh Princess of Bel Air. Wife of Will Smith.

Why is she speaking at Harvard is a good question.


From: UK (nť Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 March 2005 09:11 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
(Who is she, anyway, and why is she speaking at Harvard?)

You might know her better as the wife of actor Will Smith.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 07 March 2005 09:16 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe she was speaking to the Harvard Fresh Ladies' Association?
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 March 2005 09:17 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, gee, no, Heph. My TV references are a bit thin for the last decade. Sorry. Handsome couple, though; nice dress; still puzzled about the Harvard connection.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 07 March 2005 11:03 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by skdadl:
(Who is she, anyway, and why is she speaking at Harvard?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might know her better as the wife of actor Will Smith.


Speaking of heteronormative...
she was in the Matrix trilogy, see any of that?


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 11:54 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm mystified that they'd have an actress addressing anybody at Harvard, for heaven's sake...

But still -- "heteronormative", as defined in the initial post, seems kind of self-evident to me. Most people are heterosexual. Most societal "norms" are based on the majority. What's the big stink? So some actress says we women can "have it all", which is what most of us are striving for anyway. So what?

Mountains out of molehills.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 07 March 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh come on Zoot! By that argument, most Canadians are of the caucausian persuasion, so there's no problem with ignoring the significant minority of people who aren't. Francophones are a minority in Canada too. Same with people with disabilities, and other groups who are already disadvantaged and have had to fight for representation and acknowledgement.

While its a bit cheesy to see the lengths, say, the Government of Canada goes in advertising efforts to be "inclusive" (usually in a more tokenistic than integrative fashion IMHO), at least its a start. Jada Pinkett-Smith isn't exactly my role model, but I don't think that means we shouldn't call her and any other person who thinks that "the minority" should just suck it up in being continually marginalized cause that's normal.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 March 2005 01:43 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No-one was marginalized. The facts are the facts and heterosexuality is statistically the norm.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 07 March 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the more interesting questions are the whos and whys: why Pinkett Smith, why at Harvard, why did she say those things, who wrote the speech, who paid her fees....there might be a lot of interesting stuff to come out of such a glamorous presence in an academic circles. I mean, from her bio, the closest she's been is playing a college freshman in a movie or something.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 07 March 2005 01:56 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's pretty bizarre to single out Pinkett Smith's comments, which seem trivial enough all round. As to "heteronormative" -- it would be great to reach a society where no one is assumed to be straight. If we explore concepts like heteronormativity, then maybe we get closer to that place.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 07 March 2005 02:02 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No-one was marginalized. The facts are the facts and heterosexuality is statistically the norm.

Then I guess we never need again mention Aboriginal people, visible minorities, the LGBT community, people with disabilities or francophones ever again in discussing Canada. After all, white, able bodied hetero anglos are statistically the norm, so no one is being marginalized. Right? Now that's a society I want to live in.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 March 2005 02:15 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now where did that come from? By acknowledging the norm, one does not exclude the minority.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 07 March 2005 02:18 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Why you always going on about woman Stan?"

"Because I want to be one"

"You want to be one?"

"Yes, from now on, I want to be called Loretta"

"What do you want to be called loretta stan?"
"I want to have babies"
"You cant have babies, you dont have a womb"

"Dont you oppress me!"

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 07 March 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Flip it around Heywood. You're straight, the majiority is gay. People are always asking if you've met a nice husband yet. Nothing wrong with that question, but wouldn't you feel more comfortable and accepted if they didn't automatically assume you were part of the gay majority?
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
Oh come on Zoot! By that argument, most Canadians are of the caucausian persuasion, so there's no problem with ignoring the significant minority of people who aren't. Francophones are a minority in Canada too. Same with people with disabilities, and other groups who are already disadvantaged and have had to fight for representation and acknowledgement.

That depends on the audience and the purpose for which I'm speaking. If, in every sentence I spoke/wrote I had to make sure that I was mentioning every other group that may or may not have anything to do with what I might be talking about, you'd have to be listening to my voice a lot longer than you'd want to, or would be either interesting or useful. You can't acknowledge everybody all the time. Sometimes, time and point permitting, generalities are necessary. Again -- Mountains out of molehills.

quote:
While its a bit cheesy to see the lengths, say, the Government of Canada goes in advertising efforts to be "inclusive" (usually in a more tokenistic than integrative fashion IMHO), at least its a start. Jada Pinkett-Smith isn't exactly my role model, but I don't think that means we shouldn't call her and any other person who thinks that "the minority" should just suck it up in being continually marginalized cause that's normal.

Did she say that minorities should suck it up? I don't think it's fair to attribute that line of thinking to her unless she explicitly went out of her way to disinclude (about as good a word as heteronormative, IMO) the gay and lesbian community(ies?), or to clearly say so.

I don't think I said minorities should suck it up either. Just that, well, *most* people are straight. If they weren't, heteros would be the minority, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Ditto to Heywood. I don't see anyone being marginalized here.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
Flip it around Heywood. You're straight, the majiority is gay. People are always asking if you've met a nice husband yet. Nothing wrong with that question, but wouldn't you feel more comfortable and accepted if they didn't automatically assume you were part of the gay majority?

Like single straight women of a certain age aren't asked that all the freaking time.

Personally, I think it's rude, but fail to see how it's actual oppression.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 07 March 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(written in response to Heywood's comment)

What comes across as "acknowledging the norm" to someone who fits within that norm might come across as "gently enforcing the norm" to someone who doesn't. Besides that- what if not all straight women's views of 'it all' includes a husband, some children, a house? I would have felt about as welcome there as I do when my grandma used to go off about how I should find myself a good financee.

This was a poorly-planned, exclusionary speech, and I don't know why anyone at a university community wouldn't have seen it as potentially causing problems.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 March 2005 02:33 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok. I surrender.

I will now advocate that no mention of husbands, wives, children, or the lack thereof be made in speeches. Ever.

sheesh.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 02:37 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Ok. I surrender.

I will now advocate that no mention of husbands, wives, children, or the lack thereof be made in speeches. Ever.

sheesh.


Perhaps we should just preface any and all comments about anything whatsoever with a pedigree of various majority stati, and an abject apology for being such.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 March 2005 02:41 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
``Women, you can have it all

exclusionary to men.

quote:
- a loving man,

exclusionary to: straight men,gay women.

quote:
devoted husband,

exclusionary to: straight men,gay women, married women with cheating husbands, gay men with cheating husbands, gay men and straight women who are married with workaholic husbands, gay widows and straigh widowers.

quote:
loving children,

exclusionary to: the childless, crappy parents, parents who gave up their children for adoption, parents who have aborted their first pregnancy and havn't had a second, parents with sociopathic children.

quote:
a fabulous career,

exclusionary to: the unemployed, the underemployed, the employed in the wrong field, the employed with a terrible work environment, the unemployed who are BWAGA members (who are all fabulous).


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 07 March 2005 02:47 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or perhaps you could both simply acknowledge that "norms" are culturally constructed and often exclusionary. Men can have husbands. Women can have wives. Same sex couples or single people can have children. Homes aren't necessarily single family suburban dwellings. Family and love and happiness and success come in a lot more packages than 2.3 kids/picket fence/big dog/opposite sex spouse. And if we adapted language to reflect this, it would be less exclusionary and oppressive.

You don't have to mention every potential minority group - just don't privlege the majority, and in doing so marginalize everyone else, by embedding assumptions in your language and questions. I had a partner for many years, not a boyfriend. I ask everyone about adaptations for special needs on registration forms - amazing how many people without visbible disabilities appreciate not having to single themselves out specially to be accomodated. I'm not all the way there, but I'm on the road. Too bad it isn't very crowded.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps, but at some point you find that you've generalized language so far as to become meaningless.

"Partner" is a more generic term than, say, "husband". I refer to my husband as my husband, because partner has an entirely different connotation. It also, to some degree, saps sincerity. If I use a more generic term, I'm telling you something far less detailed about myself, for example. I'm being less open and sincere about who and what I am. I don't think I should have to do that because there are some who are hypersensitive about marital status or sexuality. It in no way implies that anyone should, or even should want to, be the same as me.

quote:
Family and love and happiness and success come in a lot more packages than 2.3 kids/picket fence/big dog/opposite sex spouse. And if we adapted language to reflect this, it would be less exclusionary and oppressive.

By the same token, I shouldn't have to apologize for having 2 kids, a picket fence, a big dog and an opposite sex spouse every time I open my mouth. It's who and what I am. I have no expectation that others should want the same and I can accept people who are not the same as me.

My point is that making big fusses about trivial things isn't going to populate that road you're on. If anything, you'll be giving yourself even more elbow room.

(as an aside -- It's very weird to defend myself as "normal", as I don't actually believe in the concept.)


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, the problem isn't that this woman was acknowledging her OWN situation. Of course people should refer to their husbands as "husbands" or whatever.

The point is, this woman was making a speech and generalizing this to EVERYONE. The idea that EVERY woman wants it all - a house, kids, a husband, a minivan, and a dog and a cat - IS heterosexist, or "heteronormative".

When she says, "You can have it all!" she's not referring to herself. She's referring to all of us - all us women can have "it all"! And of course, what "all" do all us women want? Why, the heterosexual married-with-children dream, right?

Damn right it's heterosexist. Nobody's asking people with 2.5 kids and a heterosexual marriage to apologize for being the norm. They're just asking people not to assume that this is EVERYONE'S dream, as this woman was.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 07 March 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jada Pinkett-Smith's filmography.

I just thought that maybe, maybe, we should refer to Mrs. Pinkett-Smith as a successful actor, rather than continually referring to her as Will's wife.

These complaints about her speech are, IMO (and Zoot's ), the definition of making a mountain out of a molehile.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I know. Personally, I couldn't care less what some silly person thinks all woman want just because it's what she wants. There are so many people who make heterosexist or "heteronormative" assumptions every day that really, it would be too time consuming to challenge each one.

But, if you're going to address an academic community with that kind of sloppiness, you've got to expect to be called on it.

Also:

quote:
I just thought that maybe, maybe, we should refer to Mrs. Pinkett-Smith as a successful actor, rather than continually referring to her as Will's wife.

Now, Briguy, honey, don't you have some more important battles to fight than this one? Gee, now we can't even refer to the fact that she has a husband anymore. Why, this is just making mountains out of molehills, don't you think?

Seriously though...I agree with your point. However, I doubt that Mrs. Will Smith would mind, considering that she seems to think that every woman's goal in life is to have a husband, and that if you don't have a husband and a career, then you don't "have it all".

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 07 March 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Makes me wonder what Jenna Jameson's speech was about when she spoke at Yale and what Ron Jeremy's will be when he speaks at Yale next
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 07 March 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
Personally, I think it's rude, but fail to see how it's actual oppression.

As far as i can tell, no one on this thread is arguing that Jada Pinkett Smith's comments are "actual oppression." But don't we want to try to learn about our assumptions and privilege any more? Isn't that still part of building a world where there will be less "actual oppression"? Isn't this pretty much the same battle as not having people assume that doctor=male and nurse=female?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 07 March 2005 04:45 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I understand the criticism of the speech. Michelle sums it up perfectly.
From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 05:49 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Okay, the problem isn't that this woman was acknowledging her OWN situation. Of course people should refer to their husbands as "husbands" or whatever.

I didn't say it was. I was responding to this:

quote:
I had a partner for many years, not a boyfriend.

For some of us, partner doesn't quite fit, and it's, IMO, disingenuous to alter the term that does to avoid looking "heteronormative".

I still think the whole fuss over Pinkett-Smith's speech is making a mountain out of a molehill and serves no useful purpose. JMO.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 07 March 2005 08:21 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
"Why you always going on about woman Stan?"

"Because I want to be one"

"You want to be one?"

"Yes, from now on, I want to be called Loretta"

"What do you want to be called loretta stan?"
"I want to have babies"
"You cant have babies, you dont have a womb"

"Dont you oppress me!"

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 07 March 2005 08:32 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But seriously, the sentence extracted from Ms. Pinkett-Smith's speech did prick my ears up:

"Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career..."

I'm not a rabid feminist, but my immediate response was faintly incredulous. It's straight out of the 1950's. Whatever terms you use to criticise it, it's a fairly laughable comment to make on many levels. What an all-consuming assumption to make: that all women aspire or should aspire to the 'all' she proposes.

My only caveat is, who was the audience? What was the title and purpose of the speech? Maybe in the context of that the comments were more or less appropriate. Can anyone track down those details?


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 07 March 2005 09:27 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think all these women would endorse her statement.
From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 07 March 2005 10:12 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I tracked it down myself. This article (including the links therein) provides a lot more detail and context. It might not change your mind, but opnes up the issue a little more.
From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 March 2005 11:10 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not a rabid feminist, but my immediate response was faintly incredulous. It's straight out of the 1950's. Whatever terms you use to criticise it, it's a fairly laughable comment to make on many levels. What an all-consuming assumption to make: that all women aspire or should aspire to the 'all' she proposes.

I don't know that it's all that 1950s. In that period, women were encouraged to have the husband and family, but not the career. Women who had both were looked down on because the "had to" work. So says my grandmother, anyway, from the perspective of one that did work.

I think that perhaps not all women want what Pinkett-Smith describes as "it all", but enough women do. They must, or we wouldn't be flooded with so much information on why we can't.

Besides, she's a bleeding actress for pete's sake! Like anyone should be taking this seriously!


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 07 March 2005 11:23 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By acknowledging the norm, one does not exclude the minority.

But by ignoring the minority, one does exclude the minority.
I don't believe it was a gathering of the Heterosexual Middle Class Citizens With Mainstreme Liberal Values Committee she was addressing.

Also, heterosexist and heteronormative are two different things. Heterosexis means "institutionalized set of behaviours and beliefs that presume heterosexuality to be the only acceptable form of sexual expression." Heteronormativity also addresses the specific and very real threat of "normative pull." It's a subtle difference, but it's there, it's relevant, it's important, and it should not be pooh-poohed. Particularly in light of the same-sex marriage debates going on, heteronormativity is a threat to the richness of our society as a whole, and covertly limits the options of those growing up in our society still forming their initial concepts of gender, sex, sexuality, and identity.

If it's a question of "why isn't it okay for the norm to be the norm?" Then why don't we talk about how heterosexuality, and homosexuality, for that matter, are myths constructed by a patriarchal sexually repressed society? How about how "the norm" is just plain old "sexual people" regardless of who they fuck? As swirrlygirl pointed out, if it's okay to accept norms on the basis of sexuality, then there's no moral reason against accepting norms on the basis of race, class, sex, gender, ability, or any other like category.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 March 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

And those damn young Liberals are so homonormative.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 March 2005 04:19 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great graphic, RB!
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 08 March 2005 07:55 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heph, you're praising the Liberals?!??
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 March 2005 08:20 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Faintly. And just the lesbians.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 08 March 2005 08:59 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Charter graphic + Jada Pinkett Smith = gynoaesthethonormativity.

I protest.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 March 2005 10:40 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
gynoaesthethonormativity

ppphhhhfffttt!!! I can't even *pronounce* that!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 08 March 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Faintly. And just the lesbians.

You got something against the Liberal drag queens?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 March 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hedy Fry is a drag queen?!?!
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 08 March 2005 05:12 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure the person in the middle with the blonde wig covering the short dark hair is male.

Pictures like that really make me wish they had captions. I'd like to know the context.

Speaking of politicians in pictures, last night on Monday Report they showed pictures from the annual Pumpkin Regatta held in Nova Scotia, where people paddle pumpkins down a river. (Pumpkins can grow to hundreds of pounds if you let them, and when hollowed out will float with a person inside them.

There was a picture of local MP Scott Brison, paddling a pumpkin. While wearing a wet suit. I think it takes a lot of guts for a Canadian politician to allow himself to be photographed in a wetsuit. Not a lot of brains perhaps, but a lot of guts.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 08 March 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
I'm pretty sure the person in the middle with the blonde wig covering the short dark hair is male.

That's one baaaaaaaaaad drag queen!!!

quote:
I think it takes a lot of guts for a Canadian politician to allow himself to be photographed in a wetsuit. Not a lot of brains perhaps, but a lot of guts.

That entirely depends. This kind of wetsuit is BAD!!

But *this* kind of "wetsuit" is veerrrrrry good!!

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca