Bi-ness and Queer Theory

[diane_kepler]

I went to see a stimulating lecture this afternoon. Not because the speaker actually used the words "anal fisting" and not because she used these words in a room that on most days is the sanctuary of a church. The talk was intellectually stimulating.

Because brains, I has them.

Jane Ward, Professor of Women's Studies at UC Riverside gave a talk

Comments

[alinealghost]

Ups, I'll try to do my better -but don't trust so much on my English

[diane_kepler]

Those arguments make sense. But it's a double-edged sword. Yes, people can use science to oppress people. They certainly have in the past and the present. But science also confers legitimacy. And I think that's what those activists are aiming for. They want to be able to point to this and say "look, this is real -- we're not imagining this and it's not all in our heads. There exist physical phenomena that we can study and learn more about this."

Sociobiology doesn't necessarily deny the idea of the IDIC. I also happen to think that sociobiology is less deterministic than some people do. Sure, we may be wired to be a certain way, but we're also rational creatures with strong wills. For example, I think most humans are hardwired to cheat on their partners. But there are profound societal and personal benefits from lifelong monogamy and so we strive. Some of us even succeed.

How did you get to be a chaologist? Was it studying or more of just a feeling?

[alinealghost]

I'm a math-geek (have a math degree

[diane_kepler]

Chaology! Here I was thinking it was some kind of philosophical view I hadn't heard of, when in fact it was plain old geekery. *runs away with your lovely brain and admires it in the light*

Maybe you have read more about it than I have, which is admittedly not much. But I think sociobiology is real. Definitely softer than the areas in which you and I have our degrees, but real enough.

[postrophe]

...she might be saying they were trying to be too clinically scientific and not 'human' enough...

(Ni'droi'ik nar-tor is zhit-bal.)

[diane_kepler]

Your Vulcan is adorable! *hugs you* *then remembers propriety and fiddles with her robes*

*clears throat* Your argument has merit.

[chibinecco]

I disagree with #2 the most. If I understand it right... It sounds like she was accusing bisexuals of not caring what gender their partner is at all. My personal opinion of sexuality, and what I think sexuality will be in fifty or a hundred years, is that I have a preference, a very strong preference, but that is by NO means a necessity. I love people not parts. It sounds like she's accusing the bisexual community with being too open minded about any gender instead of emphasizing an interest in both

[diane_kepler]

You made coherent points. Believe me, I've seen you rant much more incoherently than this. :D

It seems like your motto seems right in line with what a bunch of queer theorists are saying. People are people and however their parts are configured may not matter to how you feel about them. From what Prof. Ward said in her talk, this seems to be right in line with some of today's queer theorists. Maybe homo or hetero or bi aren't the best bins in which to file people.

But I don't think your interpretation of #2 was what Dr. Ward meant. I think her point was more that we can't take bisexuality (or whichever other categories we use to categorize people) out of the context of race and class and other aspects of culture. They're always there because those things are part of being human, at least in this day and age.

[chibinecco]

You made coherent points. Believe me, I've seen you rant much more incoherently than this. :D
LOL XD Fair enough.

Ah, but isn't that what all racial groups and pro-tollerance people are trying to do? break down the walls of different classes and subgroups so we're all part of the same big group?

[diane_kepler]

IMHO, Some are, some aren't.