Author: has written 5272 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

7 Responses

  1. Impulsivecompulsive
    Impulsivecompulsive April 28, 2006 at 2:09 pm |

    I’m amazed by her ability to pigeon hole ‘heteronormativity’ into an even tighter catagory. In her mind heteronormativity seems to mean 2.5 kids raised in a dual parent household to grow up, get a spouse, white picket fence, golden retreiver, and produce 2.5 more kids.
    The idea that a friend can’t be more important than a spouse is down right shameful, whether that friend is your partner or not.

    I constantly get the question of, “aren’t you worried that your daughter will get too attached to someone you’re dating?”
    Well, no. Why would my daughter get more attached to someone because I’m having sex with them, than she is to our extended family, that though we don’t currently live with, we spend equal amounts of days and nights at their house as our own?

    Proof positive, Kids: Heteronormativity is bad for straight people too.
    Somehow I don’t see it as being better for gay people.

  2. Kyra
    Kyra April 28, 2006 at 2:15 pm |

    Isn’t that awful? Imagine deciding that most people’s parents are more important to them than their friends! What’s next to complain about: no paid bereavement leave when your dog dies?

    I was more sad about my cat dying than I would be about my brother dying.

    I have few friends, but they are intensely close friends. Society has no business giving you more time to mourn for relatives you may be stuck with and not like, than friends you love and cherish.

    And they’re not just deciding that “most” people’s parents are more important to them than their friends, they’re forcing that decision and those priorities on everyone. “Most” doesn’t matter when you’re not one of them, when you get bereavement leave when the parents who threw you out of the house and disowned you 20 years ago for being gay pass on, but not when your lover dies and you are actually bereaved.

  3. Jay Sennett
    Jay Sennett April 28, 2006 at 2:51 pm |

    I’m more amazed by the fact she doesn’t allow comments.

    This behavior reminds of the tricks we used to do as kids. Ring the door bell and run away, etc.

    Another asshat!

  4. Freeman
    Freeman April 28, 2006 at 5:44 pm |

    What she doesn’t realize is that it’s not ABOUT cultural majority. It’s about language as a means of connoting cultural perception. Say whatever derisive things you will about political correctness (or, as I like to call it, TACT), one cannot use intolerant language and expect anything but intolerant dialogue.

    Wittgenstein and Derrida both talked about this. In order to talk about new concepts, be they cultural, philosophical or spiritual, society needs to continually adjust language and re-examine the meanings of traditional symbols (gay, straight, boy, girl), lest such symbols interfere with real dialogue.

    THAT to me, is blogging against heteronormativity. It’s about changing the way we view certain symbols and roles, in order to create a society more accepting of all.

  5. Maia
    Maia April 28, 2006 at 6:23 pm |

    That’s not what I was saying at all Jill. Spouse would include same-sex partner in New Zealand, because it includes defacto partners (and we have civil unions).

    My post was about how sexual relationships are priviledged above all other forms of relationships. Why that happens, and what effects it has.

  6. zuzu
    zuzu April 28, 2006 at 8:17 pm | *

    Well, in that light, Maia, I can see the government’s point. Because, look, there has to be some end point at which you’re going to give benefits like paid bereavement, and blood relations plus friendships sufficiently strong to register so that there is some legal recognition of the bond (not necessarily sexual) is a pretty good line to draw.

    And I speak as someone who actually had opposing counsel refuse to give consent for an extension of a deadline because I missed a lot of work while my mother was dying. The judge was rightly horrified.

  7. Maia
    Maia April 29, 2006 at 10:13 am |

    zuzu I really recommend you read the post as a whole, because I was making a much larger point with that argument (http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2006/04/down-with-practically-everything.html ).

    The only legally recognised relationships are blood relationships and marriage relationships. This reflects the social situation, where blood and sexual relationships are prioritised. I think we should be able to choose what relationships are most important to us based on the relationship, not on the type of relationship.

    But I am someone who believes in radically changing society. I don’t think that just because it’d be hard to work in the way we organise the world at the moment, that that makes it wrong.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.