Repurposed feminism - Why we still need it

[mormont]

And why exactly are these considered "straw men" again?

Because when I call them 'Aunt Sallys', nobody gets the reference.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Please do not use epithets, particularly those intended to be derogatory, to refer to individuals participating in the thread. [/mod]

[Kolantero]

Because when I call them 'Aunt Sallys', nobody gets the reference.

Alright but don't tell me about it. Tell that to the feminist professor of the university of York, Celia Kitzinger, who used examples 1 & 3 as proof and evidence for heteronormativity in real life situations (I changed example 1 a bit but the essence remains the same). Btw that's part of the LGTB research sologdin was talking about in his post in page 1.

P.S. About the medical beds: When I visited a doctor here in Enlgand the bed was pretty high (not for me, for a dwarf). Whether these beds are even real or not is actually irrelevant to my argument. The point is that, according to heteronormativity (if we expand it in other areas than sexuality), the doctor's assumption about an unknown person (taking for granted that the person is a non-dwarf through his words) is "offensive". See response to terra prime.

[Greywolf2375]

Alright but don't tell me about it. Tell that to the feminist professor of the university of York, Celia Kitzinger, who used examples 1 & 3 as proof and evidence for heteronormativity in real life situations (I changed example 1 a bit but the essence remains the same). Btw that's part of the LGTB research sologdin was talking about in his post in page 1.

P.S. About the medical beds: When I visited a doctor here in Enlgand the bed was pretty high (not for me, for a dwarf). Whether these beds are even real or not is actually irrelevant to my argument. The point is that, according to heteronormativity (if we expand it in other areas than sexuality), the doctor's assumption about an unknown person (taking for granted that the person is a non-dwarf through his words) is "offensive". See response to terra prime.

So because the bed you were presented in the format you were presented it in was set for someone approximately your height that indicates that in that facility there is no bed for someone of a shorter stature or that the bed itself can be adjusted to someone taller or shorter?

[Kolantero]

So because the bed you were presented in the format you were presented it in was set for someone approximately your height that indicates that in that facility there is no bed for someone of a shorter stature or that the bed itself can be adjusted to someone taller or shorter?

It was the only bed in the room (a room where patients get examined). And for the love of god it doesn't matter. In my example that hypothetical doctor asked a hypothetical dwarf to climb on a hypothetical bed which was too tall for him (even if the bed could be adjusted, at that time it was too tall and you cannot expect the patient to adjust it.)

Therefore the doctor's words were taking for granted that the patient is a non-dwarf, that's the whole point.

It doesn't matter if there were ten shorter beds elsewhere in the building, it doesn't matter if the bed could be adjusted, it doesn't matter if the building has a super-luxury wing reserved only for dwarf patients. This isn't a critique on the (hypothetical) building/hospital/doctor's office treatment of dwarf patients. It is an examination of what the doctor's words would reveal when examined through the scope of heteronormativity in that particular situation (expanded in other areas aside from sexuality).

[Merentha]

P.S. About the medical beds: When I visited a doctor here in Enlgand the bed was pretty high (not for me, for a dwarf). Whether these beds are even real or not is actually irrelevant to my argument. The point is that, according to heteronormativity (if we expand it in other areas than sexuality), the doctor's assumption about an unknown person (taking for granted that the person is a non-dwarf through his words) is "offensive". See response to terra prime.

I don't know about the UK, but here, hospital beds are adjustable. I suppose our bariatric beds don't go low enough to accomodate a dwarf, so we are assuming that we will not encounter any 200kg+ dwarfs. You, as a person of average height, were presented with a bed suitable for a person of average height is somehow proof of height-based discrimination?

Are you really trying to argue that places of business supplying beds suited for the average population while retaining the ability to provide for outliers is somehow analogous to not making assumptions about someone's sexuality or gender identity?

edit: Yes, I see that you are. You are honestly trying to say that heteronormative social practices are somehow totally fine because of what a place of business does to provide for outlying members of the population in a high-cost-investment area. (By the way, when you make an analogy, if your analogy sucks, people are allowed to critique the analogy)

edit2: nvm

[mormont]

Alright but don't tell me about it. Tell that to the feminist professor of the university of York, Celia Kitzinger, who used examples 1 & 3 as proof and evidence for heteronormativity in real life situations (I changed example 1 a bit but the essence remains the same). Btw that's part of the LGTB research sologdin was talking about in his post in page 1.

So? The fact remains, you're being asked to critique heteronormativity here, not pick out a few examples you think are esy to refute and then say 'LOL this is silly'. I also think you are deliberately blurring the line between 'this is an example of heteronormativity' and 'this is a serious disadvantage caused by heteronormativity', which is another common tactic when someone wants to discredit an entire ideology but can't be bothered to do it properly.

Consider some more serious examples: for example, the practise in the UK, until relatively recently, of naming sexual health clinics 'family planning clinics', a name that embodies a whole range of heteronormative assumptions and by implication excludes sexualities for whom pregnancy is not the primary consequence of sex. Consider the case of a woman who is rushed to hospital by her partner, who nobody thinks to brief on her medical condition because they assume she's just a friend. Consider the case of a GP who fails to offer certain health tests to a patient because it never occurs to him that the man might be gay. These are real examples. Tell me how they are 'ridiculous'.

[Kolantero]

Are you really trying to argue that places of business supplying beds suited for the average population while retaining the ability to provide for outliers is somehow analogous to not making assumptions about someone's sexuality or gender identity?

edit: Yes, I see that you are. You are honestly trying to say that heteronormative social practices are somehow totally fine because of what a place of business does to provide for outlying members of the population in a high-cost-investment area. (By the way, when you make an analogy, if your analogy sucks, people are allowed to critique the analogy)

I have no problem with people giving critique to my analogy provided that the people understood my analogy.

My analogy is between:

1) A doctor assuming (without any evidence, e.g. seeing the person) that a person has a so-called "normal" height

2) Anyone assuming (without any evidence) that a person has a so-called "normal" sexuality (i.e. being straight)

[Kolantero]

So? The fact remains, you're being asked to critique heteronormativity here, not pick out a few examples you think are esy to refute and then say 'LOL this is silly'. I also think you are deliberately blurring the line between 'this is an example of heteronormativity' and 'this is a serious disadvantage caused by heteronormativity', which is another common tactic when someone wants to discredit an entire ideology but can't be bothered to do it properly.

The fact remains that if you support heteronormativity as a correct notion, you cannot do it selectively. Example 1 IS a perfect and clear example of heteronormativity, the guy assumed that a married woman must be married to a man. You can't just say "Well heteronormativity shows up in these 10 cases but I will only apply that notion to these three which I think matter the most."

So yeah in such situations heteronormaitvity does seem problematic. It's not like I said that assuming that everyone is straight all the time poses no problems or discrimination issues.

If you can show "problematic" cases selectively and apply the notion whenever you want and avoid applying it at cases where it fits the criteria then what's the whole point of defining "heteronormativity"?

Consider some more serious examples: for example, the practise in the UK, until relatively recently, of naming sexual health clinics 'family planning clinics', a name that embodies a whole range of heteronormative assumptions and by implication excludes sexualities for whom pregnancy is not the primary consequence of sex.

That would also apply to steriles as well. Should I accuse you of "gaynormativity"?

Consider the case of a woman who is rushed to hospital by her partner, who nobody thinks to brief on her medical condition because they assume she's just a friend.

As far as I know, girlfriends/boyfriends are not considered different from "simple" friends in those situations, only family is. If the woman of your example is married with the patient, she can just say so. Of course there are places where gay people can't get married but that's another story.

Consider the case of a GP who fails to offer certain health tests to a patient because it never occurs to him that the man might be gay. These are real examples. Tell me how they are 'ridiculous'.

What kind of illness/problems affect only gay people (or gay people at a much higher rate?). The only one I can think of is some problems related with physical contact at specific body areas and I am fairly certain that a doctor would realize that the patient might be gay. Furthermore, such problems would prompt the patient to state so himself.

[Merentha]

I have no problem with people giving critique to my analogy provided that the people understood my analogy.

My analogy is between:

1) A doctor assuming (without any evidence, e.g. seeing the person) that a person has a so-called "normal" height

2) Anyone assuming (without any evidence) that a person has a so-called "normal" sexuality (i.e. being straight)

I understand it, yes. The problem is the step between that "and therefore, fuck critics of heteronormativity." For example, if a male patient comes into my ER, I do assume that they are probably straight, because that is the average person in the population. However, my care is not centered around that straightness. Rather than asking "do we need to call your wife and tell her where you are" I ask "is there someone we should call?" I do not avoid asking them if they have had sexual contact with a male (incidentally, if they say yes, I do not assume that they are gay based on that), and I do so in a way that, hopefully, normalizes the behavior. Or, for instance, I ask a patient how many separate sexual partners they have had within the last week, instead of the last month or year, because the latter two assume that the number will be small enough to remember. I assume that my patient will speak some modicum of English, but I also know the protocol for a translation service should I need it. I also know to factor in the possibility that English is a learned language when conducting a neuro exam. In other words, while my assumption is that they are probably straight, it does not alter my care at all, ideally, and the assumption has little to no negative impact. Being open to the idea that they could be anything, and following up on that, is important to good care. My initial assumption is...barely there, in fact, but I do have to acknowledge that it is. And the longer I work, the better at it I get. On the other hand, I also have to prepare a room beforehand, and to do that, I HAVE to make assumptions, or we will be waiting for 20 minutes to set the room up while a patient is potentially dying. So, in the interests of time and cost, I do have to make some assumptions, and those assumptions trend towards preparatory work that caters to the mean.

That is in fact exactly like a MD office that sets up exam rooms for the average population but is willing and able to accommodate outliers. One that has planned ahead for the possibility that there are people outside of average parameters is one, in fact, that is deliberately going against heteronormative behaviors. There is not a checkbox for "is guilty' or "acquitted" of heteronormative behavior, and saying that someone has made an assumption towards the median does not invalidate the entire critique of heteronormativity.

preemptive editing, thanks to the "show post" feature:

What kind of illness/problems affect only gay people (or gay people at a much higher rate?). The only one I can think of is some problems related with physical contact at specific body areas and I am fairly certain that a doctor would realize that the patient might be gay. Furthermore, such problems would prompt the patient to state so himself.

A well-dressed, well-groomed male lawyer comes in with fever, nausea, vomiting, and malaise. Until recently, unless the patient declared that they had recently had sex with a man, or shared needles, very few physicians would think about the possibility that the patient was in the initial acute stage of HIV infection, and so wouldn't ask about needle sharing or male-male sex. Did you? Because you, and everyone else, said "yeah, they've got the flu" and went on with it. But then, you get your medical information from House, so...

As far as I know, girlfriends/boyfriends are not considered different from "simple" friends in those situations, only family is. If the woman of your example is married with the patient, she can just say so. Of course there are places where gay people can't get married but that's another story.

Policy in my hospital is for SOs, whether married or not, to be treated identically except where superceded by law. So, yes, they are accorded more rights, as best as we can accommodate. Also, your rebuttal requires that the wife state that she is married to the patient, which, usually, a heterosexual couple would not be required to do.

That would also apply to steriles as well. Should I accuse you of "gaynormativity"?

What? He is supporting the renaming of "family planning clinics" to "sexual health clinics" because the latter is more inclusive of people for whom pregnancy is not an issue. That would include people who have been sterilized, so I'm not even sure what your point is.

The fact remains that if you support heteronormativity as a correct notion, you cannot do it selectively. Example 1 IS a perfect and clear example of heteronormativity, the guy assumed that a married woman must be married to a man. You can't just say "Well heteronormativity shows up in these 10 cases but I will only apply that notion to these three which I think matter the most."

Why not? We do it for everything else. Various injustices are granted different punishments. Stealing a cheap item and stealing a large item are two entirely different crimes. Defacing those items are two different ones. All things are not equal, and all things are not black and white. Something is not "always wrong", and there are differing degrees of wrongness. Acknowledging that the first person's thought process was heteronormative, and yet no harm came of it, does not somehow invalidate the entire theory that several obvious and observable wrongs come from the same thought process.

tldr: Your argument is identical to "political correctness has gone maaaad!"

[straits]

A well-dressed, well-groomed lawyer comes in with fever, nausea, vomiting, and malaise. Until recently, unless the patient declared that they had recently had sex with a man, or shared needles, very few physicians would think about the possibility that the patient was in the initial acute stage of HIV infection, and so wouldn't ask about needle sharing or male-male sex. Did you? Because you, and everyone else, said "yeah, they've got the flu" and went on with it. But then, you get your medical information from House, so...

I'm going to ask this because I no longer see the direction the thread is going in, but why is he well groomed?

[Merentha]

I'm going to ask this because I no longer see the direction the thread is going in, but why is he well groomed?

Why did I pick that word? The assumption among many people is that IV drug users are unable to care for themselves. It was more about assumptions and stereotypes in general, not specifically those associated with people who are gay.

edit: I did see a problem with something I wrote, though, so I've corrected it. I hadn't made it explicit that the lawyer was male, though I had hoped that context would be clear.

[straits]

Why did I pick that word? The assumption among many people is that IV drug users are unable to care for themselves. It was more about assumptions and stereotypes in general, not specifically those associated with people who are gay.

edit: I did see a problem with something I wrote, though, so I've corrected it. I hadn't made it explicit that the lawyer was male, though I had hoped that context would be clear.

Oh, I thought you were referring to the 'male-male sex' context in the rest of the sentence. But I guess the assumption you outlined is pretty common.

[Kolantero]

I understand it, yes....of heteronormative behavior, and saying that someone has made an assumption towards the median does not invalidate the entire critique of heteronormativity.

That's great and all but I am not the one who says "heteronormativity=baaad" (notice the lack of settings specification). Feminism (or a large chunk of them anyway) is.

A well-dressed, well-groomed lawyer comes in with fever, nausea, vomiting, and malaise. Until recently, unless the male patient declared that they had recently had sex with a man, or shared needles, very few physicians would think about the possibility that the patient was in the initial acute stage of HIV infection, and so wouldn't ask about needle sharing or male-male sex. Did you? Because you, and everyone else, said "yeah, they've got the flu" and went on with it.

So straight people don't do drugs? Or straight people don't get aids? If you are working on the assumption that gay men get aids easier because they use less condoms, that's fine by me. But I do remember some members of this forum making a fuss about gay people not allowed to give blood (And I assumed the reason they are not allowed is the same one you present).

But then, you get your medical information from House, so...

Because when I use my own experience (too high bed) and just connect it with what is actually a non-medical issue i saw on House MD (A dwarf not able to reach a bed) means that I get my medical info from House.

Policy in my hospital is for SOs, whether married or not, to be treated identically except where superceded by law. So, yes, they are accorded more rights, as best as we can accommodate. Also, your rebuttal requires that the wife state that she is married to the patient, which, usually, a heterosexual couple would not be required to do.

Don't know what's SO, i assume it's sexual partners. So in that case, the woman can just state it (oh the horror!).

What? He is supporting the renaming of "family planning clinics" to "sexual health clinics" because the latter is more inclusive of people for whom pregnancy is not an issue. That would include people who have been sterilized, so I'm not even sure what your point is.

But he didn't include steriles in the list of people who would be benefited. And yes that is a "non-steril-normative" assumption.

Why not? We do it for everything else. Various injustices are granted different punishments. Stealing a cheap item and stealing a large item are two entirely different crimes. Defacing those items are two different ones. All things are not equal, and all things are not black and white. Something is not "always wrong", and there are differing degrees of wrongness. Acknowledging that the first person's thought process was heteronormative, and yet no harm came of it, does not somehow invalidate the entire theory that several obvious and observable wrongs come from the same thought process.

I'm not saying that heteronormativity cannot cause harm in specific settings. Ofcourse you can point out that in some occasions such heteronormative assumptions must not be evoked because they might be harmful but that's not the same as going against heteronormativity in general which is what any feminist research I read does.

If you are against heteronormativity because of these occasions then you have to be against it in all situations because they support and show the same beliefs. Saying otherwise is like claiming that you are against gendered insults because they are sexist (e.g. bitch, slut etc) but you have no problem for them to be used when there are no women around to hear them. Well no the (main) problem isn't that a woman might hear these insults, its that it reveals (according to some) a specific way of thinking from the part of the speaker.

So feminists (a part of them at least) are against heteronormativity and consider it problematic regardless of consequences. Me disagreeing with that because of the practical implications does not mean that i don't recognize that in some cases heteronormativity can have consequences and therefore should be avoided.

tldr: Your argument is identical to "political correctness has gone maaaad!"

Not exactly, although yeah the notion that feminists can reject any criticism by claiming that it refers to "anti-political correctness" is one i find funny.

[mormont]

The fact remains that if you support heteronormativity as a correct notion, you cannot do it selectively.

I don't. However, saying 'you cannot do it selectively' is not at all the same as saying 'you cannot say that different examples of heteronormativity present different levels of problems'. Because that would simply be absurd. Any prejudice, anything, can have different consequences, some more serious, some less.

Example 1 IS a perfect and clear example of heteronormativity, the guy assumed that a married woman must be married to a man. You can't just say "Well heteronormativity shows up in these 10 cases but I will only apply that notion to these three which I think matter the most."

I'm not. But equally you can't say 'heteronormativity is all about these examples that I think are trivial'.

It's not like I said that assuming that everyone is straight all the time poses no problems or discrimination issues.

You said heteronormativity is ridiculous. What does that mean, if not that assuming that everyone is straight all the time poses no problems? Either you're rowing back or you're splitting hairs, it seems to me.

[Prince Alexander]

I consider myself a realistic/theoretical feminist. I think it's stupid to argue that rights of men and women should ever be different. Theoretically, I'm down for anything that helps achieve this, as well as destroy any bias, stigmas and sexism remaining.

Realistically, though, fighting for feminism is a full time job. In many places, it will get you hurt, physically or emotionally. It will severely limit your possibilities romantically and in terms of career. Oh sure, we all love to be all morally righteous on the forums and argue semantics and whatnot, but it does absolute jack shit overall. Media is still fucking sexist, 90%(in the better places of the world) population is still fucking sexist, and we are still going to be sexist for another 1000 years, until we devolve or something. It's an uphill battle because 1) vaginas and penises 2) babies 3) culture&history.

My beef with feminism? 99% of it is smalltalk on the internets (my own post included), uneducated opinions and drama for the sake of drama, not meaningful change. Which is why I offer a middlefinger to that 99% for adding more bullshit into my life. As far as I'm concerned feminism as a movement is dead, buried under tons of garbage it unintentionally created. Probably not salvagable. Don't really care at this point. I don't need feminism as a movement. I have a solid moral compass and a working brain to overcome my cultural biases and make unsexist decisions and actions in life. I'm sure a few others can do the same. As for those who can't - fuck em, they always existed, they always will exist, no movement can realistically change that.

[Sci-2]

My beef with feminism? 99% of it is smalltalk on the internets (my own post included), uneducated opinions and drama for the sake of drama, not meaningful change. Which is why I offer a middlefinger to that 99% for adding more bullshit into my life.

Isn't it more likely that this measurement of percentage is based on your subjective experience?

I find it a bit odd that many people, but in this forum mostly men, are so quick to criticize feminism based on what I can tell is very little real world experience with, or academic education about, feminism.

While people protest "PC-ness" in general, am I the only one that suspects feminism gets the brunt of this kind of criticism? That feminism must change, must rebrand itself, and so on?

I'll admit to not having data, but it seems to me that feminism is the most shat upon because it takes on the universal privileges and assumptions of the patriarchy.

[Merentha]

That's great and all but I am not the one who says "heteronormativity=baaad" (notice the lack of settings specification). Feminism (or a large chunk of them anyway) is.

Ah, so this entire time we've been arguing against the "feminism" in your mind. I see.

So straight people don't do drugs? Or straight people don't get aids? If you are working on the assumption that gay men get aids easier because they use less condoms, that's fine by me. But I do remember some members of this forum making a fuss about gay people not allowed to give blood (And I assumed the reason they are not allowed is the same one you present).

...You're not too quick, are you? Straight people do use drugs, and they do get HIV. But until very recently, when medical workers started thinking about those assumptions, a rich looking man in a suit was obviously not gay OR a drug user, so those questions wouldn't get asked. They still often don't, especially by older healthcare workers.

Also, since you asked about gay-specific comorbidities, they're at a higher risk for depression, suicidal ideation/attempts, drug addiction and most other psychiatric illnesses. In the United States, they have a much higher rate of HIV, though that's slowly changing in favor of IVDusers.

Don't know what's SO, i assume it's sexual partners. So in that case, the woman can just state it (oh the horror!).

Significant Other. Did you...miss...the incredible amount of discrimination towards gays and lesbians? Yeah, that can be pretty hard for people, especially if, say, they've been hiding it from one or both of the families.

I'm not saying that heteronormativity cannot cause harm in specific settings. Ofcourse you can point out that in some occasions such heteronormative assumptions must not be evoked because they might be harmful but that's not the same as going against heteronormativity in general which is what any feminist research I read does.

If you are against heteronormativity because of these occasions then you have to be against it in all situations because they support and show the same beliefs. Saying otherwise is like claiming that you are against gendered insults because they are sexist (e.g. bitch, slut etc) but you have no problem for them to be used when there are no women around to hear them. Well no the (main) problem isn't that a woman might hear these insults, its that it reveals (according to some) a specific way of thinking from the part of the speaker.

So feminists (a part of them at least) are against heteronormativity and consider it problematic regardless of consequences. Me disagreeing with that because of the practical implications does not mean that i don't recognize that in some cases heteronormativity can have consequences and therefore should be avoided.

So you can be against heteronormative assumptions in some cases based on the consequences of those assumptions (even though its "ridiculous") but feminists must, by definition, be opposed to any and all instances of heteronormative behavior unequivocally? Why?

We can play this game with any ideology.

[Lummel]

Theda Baratheon mentioned Femen in the previous thread and so this article, actually suitable for work from the point of view of pictures, stuck out to me:

Machismo can be defeated only through feminine rebellion. No authoritarian leader is interested in popular opinion, which would personally hurt him. Femen's tactics aim to do just that: hurt and humiliate them personally...

Femen is a huge experiment. Every day we find new ways to destroy the patriarchy, new words with which to answer our opponents. We are calling for a global sexual revolt against the system. We cannot tell you of our upcoming plans, or what the final result of our struggle will be, but we're working on them around the clock. The only thing I can say for sure to all those against whom we are fighting is that we are not about to let you enshrine such shit as yourselves in a cult.

Its interesting in the context of our discussion here to see something so explicitly political, but cometh the hour cometh the woman I suppose.

[Kolantero]

Ah, so this entire time we've been arguing against the "feminism" in your mind. I see.

Well, less in "my mind" and more in "feminist academic research", from which i even brought examples and named the professor who came up with them...

But let me guess its time for the "not all feminists agree therefor you cannot use this against feminism even if there is literally NOTHING that all feminist would agree on except the very basics" BS argument.

...You're not too quick, are you? Straight people do use drugs, and they do get HIV. But until very recently, when medical workers started thinking about those assumptions, a rich looking man in a suit was obviously not gay OR a drug user, so those questions wouldn't get asked. They still often don't, especially by older healthcare workers.

Also, since you asked about gay-specific comorbidities, they're at a higher risk for depression, suicidal ideation/attempts, drug addiction and most other psychiatric illnesses. In the United States, they have a much higher rate of HIV, though that's slowly changing in favor of IVDusers.

Before commenting on "quickness" you should really learn to recognize when a hyperbole is to be taken literally.

So basically you are, like I said, taking for granted that gay people have a much higher chance to have aids and you even provide evidence for it. Like I said, fine by me.

Significant Other. Did you...miss...the incredible amount of discrimination towards gays and lesbians? Yeah, that can be pretty hard for people, especially if, say, they've been hiding it from one or both of the families.

Yes...I...did.

I'd say that wanting to know what your SO is doing kinda tramps that fear. And if the problem is with any potential sexist behavior from the stuff then there is no difference between them telling it and a member of a staff asking it.

So you can be against heteronormative assumptions in some cases based on the consequences of those assumptions (even though its "ridiculous") but feminists must, by definition, be opposed to any and all instances of heteronormative behavior unequivocally? Why?

Except that A PART (not all of course) of feminists academics who are working on LGTB feminism are, as seen through their research, against heteronormative behavior in any setting on the basis that it perpetuates normative assumptions in general.