advice on "GLBT" paper please!

[daddysambiguity]

God. I have myself in a mess.

I am writing my Rhetoric paper on two competing discourses that have been identified to be present in the "GLBT" community or whatever. I'm looking at a rhetoric of assimilation vs. one of liberation

To help me with this, I will provide you with this quick, rough overview in case you don't know:

Assimilationists

Comments

[super_elsbian]

To be honest, the dichotomy doesnt' just annoy me, it actually offends me. There's an obvious amount of pro-liberationist bias in it, although I've seen some large and powerful activist groups that fit reasonably well into each of those models. To me (and I realize I'm putting this simply), they both suck. If the dichotomy really were as simple as that, I'd have to say that those who would call themselves "liberationists" are extremely condescending towards those they label as "assimilationists."

I think that I would be labeled an assimilationist by liberationists according to this model. The thing is, I've never really fit into that- I don't care about proving that I'm just like everyone else, nor do I focus predominantly on Gays Who Matter. As someone who is simply less visibly queer, I get a lot of shit from the so-called liberationists all the time.

So many of them are no better- just like many so-called "assimilationists," many so-called "liberationists" insist that they know what's best for queer people. So many of them scoff at less visible queer people, as if they know exactly why we are the way we are; we're not just people being who we are, we're trying to be like everyone else because we're obviously ashamed of who we are. They scoff at marriage rights achievements, because we shouldn't really want to get married because it's such an oppressive and heteronormative institution. The so-called liberationists can't just decide that they personally don't want to get married and leave it at that; so many of them have to shit on the choices we make. To many of them, two queer people aren't simply getting married because they love each other and they want to get married, they're getting married because they are either trying desperately to fit in with "straight culture," or they're too blind to "know" that marriage is an oppressive institution and queer people should stay away from it.

I'm definitely not an assimilationist, but I'll be damned if I associate myself with any group that's going to shit on my choices.

[daddysambiguity]

I'm definitely not an assimilationist, but I'll be damned if I associate myself with any group that's going to shit on my choices.

Yeah, I'd agree many liberationists ridicule the choices/goals/whatever of assimilationists, but I think assimilationists do the same toward liberationists. Everything you said liberationists think about assimilationists works in reverse, as well. :) For every time I have heard a super-radical, genderfucking, poly liberationst mock a monogamous, straight-acting gay couple from the suburbs, I've also heard a gay man say he doesn't need a freaking parade or that he wishes "swishy fairies and trannies" would stop giving men like him a bad name. While oversimplified, the tension there exists and goes both ways.

I'll also mention that I don't actually think that assimilationism is about how visibly queer one is. I know visibly queer folks who'd probably align themselves with an assimilationist model and folks who appear to blend quite well, yet adhere to a more liberationist approach.

[daddysambiguity]

by the way, can i ask why you think you'd be considered am assimilationist?

i ask because it is something that puzzles me. i do know what you're talking about -- that radical folks can often be very critical of folks whose lives/presentations are not so radical, often ignoring the person's actual ideas altogether (kinda the way "outcasts" in high school turn around and mock those who popular and initially mocked them!)

so i'm wondering if you think that you'd be considered an assimilationist because liberationst-types have said shit like that about you before? it interests me because i think i'm often seen by some super-radical folks as being mainstream and a lot of it is based on very trivial crap, like presentation or whatever.