Well, it looks like the pot has been stirred [up]!

[chreebomb]

Obviously, redindigo was onto something when she posted about heteronormativity and heterocentrism, at least judging from the 312 commentsSo, I'll risk appearing the angry, man-hating separatist dyke and attempt to move this conversation to the next level

Comments

[sunshyncat]

That shirt excludes me too. I don't like slumber parties.

[chreebomb]

er...

??

[sunshyncat]

Sorry... early morning humor gone bad... *sips coffee*

[april_in_paris]

I got your joke. I chuckled fondly.
I was actually thinking the same thing once I read the whole line but it eventually morphed into "who would want to wear that?"
but my sense of humor died after I just failed a quiz in my last class and "witty" tshirts have rarely been my forte especially when they are mass produced and you pass by 6 people in a row wearing the same shirt.

[chreebomb]

the joke did not escape me. i was hoping it wasn't a minimalization of the issue (putting an exclusion based on sexual orientation on the same level as an exclusion based on a dislike of slumber parties). in the spirit of giving her the benefit of the doubt, i didn't attack what i perceived to be dismissiveness.

and despite the heaviness of this response, i do have a sense of humor. a good one in fact. but this issue has had me pulling my hair out by the handfuls since yesterday. so many people have dismissed this topic as unimportant or even devisive.

[bridgegirl]

so many people have dismissed this topic as unimportant or even devisive.

I've been thinking about the issue a lot. The discussion has been very thought-provoking. I think that at the core of the issue is an individual vs. community dilemma. And when I say "community" I'm referring to this lj community, and also the "feminist community" in general.

If individuals don't feel comfortable and represented, don't feel that they have a voice in the community, this weakens the community. More voices/perspectives = stronger community.

But at the same time, if each individual only thinks about the issues of the community as those issues relate to their own self, the community is also weakened.

It is difficult to balance. But of course it's vitally important to keep trying!

I hope that made sense :\

[lavendertook]

But at the same time, if each individual only thinks about the issues of the community as those issues relate to their own self, the community is also weakened.

I think reducing the issue to self-interest here is a dangerous one. By framing the argument this way you risk labelling the requester as self-centered or selfish. I think that's where we got weird leaps of interpretation that saw redindigo's carefully worded post about asking posters to check their heterocentrism as a statement saying she had no interest in reading posts pertaining to the issues of heterosexuals

[bridgegirl]

There is nothing self-centered or even individualistic about asking people to check their heterocentrism, US-centric, white-centric, or bourgeois biases, even if the one asking happens to belong to one of the excluded groups.

I agree with that. What I was referring to were some comments to the post (by more than one person if I remember correctly) that brought up the issue "how do I respond to this post if I cannot personally relate to it?" And from those comments the individual vs. community theme arose. I'm not sure if that theme was something the OP intended to bring up or not, but I saw a lot of comments in the discussion pertaining to that theme.

[bridgegirl]

So perhaps I was wrong to say that "the core of the issue" was the individual vs. community theme...after reading your comment I'm seeing that that probably wasn't the original issue. It was just something that arose out of the discussion that I found particularly interesting.

[lavendertook]

Yes, I saw that too. I guess some poster's responses to the request that parts of the community are being left out was to think, "But what about ME?" and that was why they read a desire to exclude heterosexuals into the OP: "If they get to be included then there will be less room for me!" which of course isn't true, but it is a typical privileged response when excluded groups ask the privileged group to share. And in turn posters who do not feel excluded by social category and see it as a matter of individuals asking for something they feel they aren't getting see it as a self-interested request by the OP, a "You want posts to include queers because all you think about is yourself!" kind of peevish response.

Maybe your frame works as a description of the way responders are misreading the original request?

[chreebomb]

but it is a typical privileged response when excluded groups ask the privileged group to share.

yes. yes yes yes.

[bridgegirl]

Yes, I saw that too. I guess some poster's responses to the request that parts of the community are being left out was to think, "But what about ME?" and that was why they read a desire to exclude heterosexuals into the OP: "If they get to be included then there will be less room for me!" which of course isn't true, but it is a typical privileged response when excluded groups ask the privileged group to share.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I think there was a jump in some people's minds from "consider who your post does/does not include" to "don't post if the topic does not pertain to queers". The problem could be the difficulty of how to make posts more inclusive. Is it the words chosen? Is it pointing out what is *your experience* and not trying to relate it to all others?

What we probably need to be discussing is HOW to share.

[chreebomb]

i think the difference in how things are phrased when awareness of the privileged is raised to a level where people in other situations than white, middle-class, average-aged, heterosexual, able-bodied, male/female-gendered, mentally and physically healthy (what else) people start thinkign more globally and more inclusively.

and when people who are not as described above have a real voice. one that's heard and respected.

[bridgegirl]

But I think the difficulty here is that "thinking globally and inclusively" is a really large and complicated concept. So when people try to apply that to the nuts and bolts of "what am I trying to say and how do I want to say it?"...well, that can be a difficult thing to do. How to address a topic in an inclusive way, when (at least on the surface) that topic only directly pertains to certain people, is tricky.

And balancing perspectives with opinions in a discussion-oriented setting such as this one is also tricky. Because you can hear and respect someone and still disagree with their opinions.

[chreebomb]

well, if you're talking in general, maybe. but we're talking about subjects--intersectionality heterocentrism, racism, etc.--with plenty of backing. i don't see it as a matter of opinion.

do you see feminism as a matter of opinion? (may i guess that you'll say no and respond in the interest of saving time?) if not, then i would suggest tracing the line over to heterocentrism. not a matter of opinion. because i experience it every. day.

[bridgegirl]

Do you mean the existance of feminism/heterocentrism? No, I don't see that as a matter of opinion. But...beyond the existance, there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus. I know when "feminism" has been defined in this community, there were lots of different opinions about what that definition should be.