What and Why Heteronormativeness

A while back nubian of Blackademic proposed a "blog against hetero-normativity day." That day arrived yesterday with a myriad of blog posts. I didn't read them all. Don't intend to. One entry I did note was Keguru who stated:


It is easy, too easy, for discussions against heteronormativity to turn into diatribes against heterosexuality. It is also too easy for we who critique normativity to misunderstand the object of our critique, to believe normalcy and normativity are necessarily oppressive states from which we should liberate poor heterosexuals who are dupes of ideology.

I fall prey to this all too often. Another instance of queer hubris.

However, for whatever reason he refuses to go further in this critique.

Let me go back to nubian's specific definition of hetero-normativity. She says:

why should we blog against heteronormativity?:
as bloggers, we can use our words to disrupt those pesky normative ideas that are based on the categories of male and female. we can use the internet to question the oppressive institution of heteronomativity because: not all of us identify as male/female--some of us identify as neither; not all of us are biological heterosexuals--we are homosexual, polyamorous, bisexual, transgendered, butchdykes, sadomasochists, leather queers, straight queers, and even asexual; not all of us are married, and not all of us want to be; not all of us believe that female/male coupling is the norm--some of us don't even believe in the terms "male" and "female"; not all of us believe that what makes a man is his penis, and what makes a woman is her vagina.

those of us who are blogging today, believe that there are NO traditional roles that males and females should adopt. those of us who are blogging today understand that the gender roles that are assigned as "male" and "female" are social constructs that support "the patriarchy." those of us who are blogging today, understand the multiplicity of gender identities, of sexual identities, of sexual desires, and of sexual practices.

those of us who are blogging today are against supporting the status quo that deems the male/female dichotomy as normal. we are blogging against heteronormativity.

I'll give the reader five minutes to think of the problems with the above statement.

...
...
...
...
...

OK. The problem is the mashing together of various groups, the complete mis-use of the term "normal" and the mashup of patriarchy and "hetero-normativety." In essence nubian makes this effigy that consists of a menagerie of social ill and social groups and then takes a torch to it. I wont say that it was done maliciously, but it smacks, to me, of the same pitfalls outlined in my "notes to the so called POC revolutionary". I also think it falls into the same semantic trap that the term racist and racism. let me explain.

1) Normal is defined as:
Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical or expected.
Noun: The usual, average or typical state or condition.

2) Normative:Establishing, relating to or deriving from a standard or norm.

3) Hetero is used as an abbreviation of heterosexual generally implying or defined as male-female sexual practices.
Thus hetero-normative is definitively:

Heterosexuality as the normal sexual behavior (in humans). This definition implies the existence of non-normal behaviors. What many people do is mistake hetero-normativity with hetero-exclusivity. These are two different things. Had nubian offered a blog against hetero-exclusivity then the mashups would probably be appropriate.

See normal is something we have to come to terms with. It is not normal to be homosexual, it happens, but it is not normal. It is abnormal for biological males to be "mental females." It happens but it's not normal. It is abnormal to be a hermaphrodite, but it happens. To take this out of the sexual realm; it is abnormal to be without melanin, but it happens. It is abnormal to be a "pink" or "pale' human, but it happens. The vast majority of the human species are "significantly" melanized. They do not normally get "melanomas" caused by exposure to the sun. They are "normal." Similarly, the vast majority of the world's human population is heterosexual. That is normal. There is nothing wrong with that.

Lets move on to gender roles. I'm in agreement, to an extent, that there shouldn't be, in this modern society, fixed gender roles. I'd be hard pressed to make that same statement to people in other parts of the world though. The one thing that I don't usually see discussed is how gender roles came into existence. I would like to assume that such things are known, but I don't think that is the case. Briefly then, in primitive man, lacking the varied tools that we have today, work was divided by necessity. Males of the species are physically stronger (in general) than the females of the species (Though the Kikuyu creation myths states the opposite). You simply were not going to have a 6 month pregnant female out on the hunting expedition. Pregnant women, and children have to be protected from other men and wild animals. Whiled hunting parties are out (often for days on end) women, children, and elderly must be sheltered and fed. It should not be surprising then that women, who bear the children and, in primitive societies, the primary food giver of said children, are put into caregiving roles. It should not be surprising that whole social systems that prepare women for these roles sprang up everywhere. It should not be surprising that similar social systems preparing males for their roles also sprung up. Within these communities you had reactions to various social and biological pressures. Polygamy is a normal reaction to a relative lack of males in a given society. Males may be in short demand due to many things, including wars. Thus polygamy, often put down as another means of "male domination" is in fact a rational; extension of the original division of labour. It provides that the "weakest" and "most vulnerable" of society are indeed looked out. As a side note: this very thing is why I find it amusing for black communities that discuss "man shortages" to not seriously consider polygamy. Of course the reason has more to do with sex than actual marriage or familial responsibility.

Speaking of responsibility, the one thing that is beneficial of socially enforced "rule" is that it's members knew what was to be expected of them when they entered a marriage. Rightly or wrongly, a woman knew that a man had to provide shelter and food. A man entering a familial situation knew he was required to provide home and food. He knew that having provided that, he would receive in return care of children (and elder family members) and a "kept home." I'd add that each would "expect" sexual relations as well. Ideally, these roles were coequal in the minds of all parties. We know that to not necessarily to be the case, but it would be wrong to equate the mental deficiencies of the practitioners, with the institution(s) themselves.

Fast forward to today (I said I was going to be brief), many of the "no -roles" people live in technologically modern societies, where women don't breast feed but give their children Similac. Things like housework, if not delegated to maids, are minimized by washing machines, rooombas, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, etc. Food can be prepared in 5 minutes. Indeed, technology and the capitalist idea of individual as "time is money." throws the "need" for strict roles out the proverbial window. No one is hunting for food. House building is delegated to a specialized few, energy is paid for by the KW Hour. Anyone with cash, can buy the things that were originally attended to by the individual. Many jobs, especially in the middle class areas, consists of computer use and mental prowess, which any one can do. In the realm of reproduction, one can be artificially inseminated if one wants a "biological" child or one can adopt a child, often the product of one of societies "systems' (For example, and this may not be reflective of the larger community, but I notice that white gay couples adopt black and other non-white children at a particularly high rate).

it should not be surprising that in the face of all this lack of surity, this lack of that which is to be expected, that "Social conservatives" find fertile ground for their messages. People want to have something to hold onto. They want some standard to aspire to a message that tells them they are "full of it" for wanting that will go nowhere fast.

I want to touch on the issue of paternalism. In "the west" paternalism can arguable be traced to Plato and the Greek notion of manliness as being more rational and femininity being hallmarked by frailty and irrationality. Rationality being a hallmark of God (Though even in Greek mythology "Gods" were prone to multiple irrational acts), men were closer to godliness. the development of patriarchy in Africa is different though. I think Pan-African notions of patriarchy are more rooted in the environmental realities rather than religious or philosophical ideologies. Of course colonialism and its implantation of Christianity had a great impact on how the affected societies rationalized male dominance. It could be argued that certain current paternalistic ideas are the product of colonialism rather than of the normal ideological development of the affected societies. To follow this thread of conversation though it would be a discussion of cultural development and not one of hetero-normativity and therefore off topic.

Let me end by saying that as Keguru hinted at, the discussion against "hetero-normativity" may turn into an exercise of unnecessary demonization and generalization in order to prop up another ideology. In practice (which I point out in "notes") it may not work if it becomes impractical. You can't simply say there are no roles when millions and millions (if not billions) of people are certainly happy with having defined roles. many of these people, specifically women, want their "roles" validated and respected. They want to have children and stay home and care for them (and have a small business running out that home too). Lastly, I want to remind people of a little problem that Europe is having. Europe has an average age population in it's 40's or thereabouts. The reason is, they don't have many children. Why don' they have many children? Because in part, they are more worried about business and making money. They want "independent lifestyles." They want big houses and big careers and put off having children. If it weren't for immigration much of Europe (at least Western Europe) would not only have a lower population, they would have a huge negative population growth. Negative population growth is a euphemism for "dying out."
The large reason for the large population growths of "third world" countries is that reproduction and them social structures that support it are a high priority. If such ideas and philosophies are thrown to the side and replaced with individual-centered sexual and familial ideologies I would not be surprised to find the same thing happen to non-European, populations (an episode of Battlestar Galactica touched on this very issue and a recent 60 minutes show on the gender imbalance in China due to the aborting of female fetuses).

I know I said I was going to close but I wanted to comment on one commentator that offered books like "joey has two dads". I think this kind of stuff is wrong and counter productive. I had this conversation with a child recently who apparently had been exposed to this idea. I told him that "so and so" could not possibly have two dads. He may have two male parents or two male caretakers but he does not have "two dads." I had to explain how in fact a person is created (a conversation I don't think he should have been subject to at that age). There is only one mother and one father. There may be any kind of "living arrangements" but biologically the book has no basis in fact. I shiver at the thought of any number of teachers or parents having to have THAT conversation since they often mess up other conversations anyway. Of course as, outlined above, one can have such 'Two daddy" arrangements specifically due to how this society is arranged around individualism and work. A parent is a job description that can be filled by any "qualified candidate." Heck in Japan, they have robots created to care for the elderly. Definitely more efficient AND frees up children from the pesky task of caring for their parents. Instead they can work more hours for some company or be better consumers.

So OK I'm done.

Technorati Tags: Culture