Vice and heteronormativity

[loneraven]

I just caught a passing glimpse of myself in a full-length mirror. Barefoot. Jeans that are torn to shreds at the ends and don't fit particularly well. "Bleeding Heart" t-shirt from Threadless. Little female-symbol ear studs. No bra. I'm listening to Ani DiFranco and I'm reading an article - the article - by Carol Hanisch

Comments

[steerpikelet]

You are a big gay and I claim my five pounds.

[hathy_col]

I am sometimes really very, very worried I only like women out of a sort of "FUCK YOU HIGH SCHOOL" reaction. I have very strong memories of my teacher telling us as a class very firmly that calling each other 'gay' was bad because - wait for this - the Catholic Church doesn't believe in that. It's bloody horrible growing up being anything other than Completely Heterosexual, because with the most liberal parents and schooling in the world, there's going to be a huge great world of media and expectations against you. It's a horrible time at the best of times, and you either have to lie or be outrageously confident and brave and willing not to take bullshit. I went for the latter route, obviously, but it was unpleasant

[loneraven]

You were outrageously confident and brave and willing not to take bullshit. It's one of the things I've always liked about you. You came out to me without knowing how I'd react, I remember.

Nowadays I'm inclined to think it's not the rest of the world's business, whom you choose to sleep with, unless you make it so, but like you say, that doesn't stop the abuse.

[original_hell]

I worry sometimes that I only like women in order to prove myself as a weirdo, or something. And I'm currently in what I consider could be a long-term, and certainly is a monogamous, heterosexual relationship, myself. I've had a lot of people assume I was gay this past year, basically since I cut my hair, and then I've had others (supposedly with gaydar) tell me I'm totally straight. I think our attractions can fluctuate. I think it's okay to be with whoever you happen to want to be with, without worrying too much about what dangly bits they have. I find it odd that other people don't think that way.
*hug*
x

[musesfool]

ooh, Katee Sackhoff is pretty

Katee Sackhoff makes straight girls a little gay and gay boys a little straight. Trufax.

[loneraven]

*fervent nodding* yesyes. very much so.

[stupidore]

I did a hideous module one time which was actually called 'Modern Philosophy: from Descartes to Kant' and which involved nine hours of lectures specifically on Kant of which not one made sense.
It was quite nice reading Descartes and the first couple of meditations and Fable of the Bees is always good fun though.

[loneraven]

Descartes' first couple of meditations are lovely. Kant MAKES NO SENSE. TO ANYONE.

[troyswann]

Kant MAKES NO SENSE. TO ANYONE.

I have a chart. :)

Really. With arrows and labels and stuff. For his "Critique of Judgment."

If you want it, drop me a line :) I don't guarantee that it demonstrates any reliable understanding of Kant but perhaps it can be good for "boiling down Kant to the gristle" if that might help. I suspect, though, that you are much smarter than I am and will do juuuust fine.

[loneraven]

Alas, it is the Critique of Pure Reason that drove me to sticking "Kant's taxonomy of everything OHGOD" above the sink for a year, to no apparent avail. Where I come utterly unstuck with Kant is where he talks about the will for hundreds of pages without ever contesting the notion, and it makes my head hurt.

The philosophy faculty library, in yet another example of how they are awesome, pin to their walls anything poignant or amusing they find in their books, and my favourite among the bits and bobs is a short extract from, I think, Roger Crisp, in the foreword to a new translation of Pure Reason. It says something like "We hope, in this new translation, to bring understanding to Kant.... not that it is clear that anyone has truly understood Kant, including Kant..."

In conclusion, I love philosophers. Except Kant. :)

[outintherain]

"One strikes me as kind of melodramatic, and the other sounds like sexual attraction limited to half-man-half-goat creatures with a taste for the flute. Neither of which I am especially keen to endorse."

I wish I wasn't feeling entirely too slow witted to adequately respond to this today, but the above statement resonated with me particularly because I've been studying concepts of gender and sexuality, and the tagging of these concepts a lot lately (no, I never do any reading for my own degree...) and what particularly frustrates/amuses (my reaction alternates here) me is the need to go around tagging every possible sexual preference and behaviour, every method of gender identifying.. or not. I've long been bemused by mankind's need to categorise absolutely everything, but it's even gotten to the stage where the LGBT society at my Uni are going to end up being an 8 letter acronym!

[loneraven]

I've often wondered exactly how large the backlash would be if all LGBT societies retagged themselves "queer". I mean, it's accurate in the vast majority of cases. Maybe "queer and questioning" would cover it?

[outintherain]

The LGBT at my Uni are considering adding queer and curious at least... I think... it certainly does cover all bases. Is there a particular objection to queer, or is it just the backlash of having to retag that you're talking about?

[loneraven]

The thing is, I'm not quite sure of the extent to which "queer" has been reclaimed. It's a word that is definitely uncontroversially used by queer people about queer people, and I actually had a conversation with my awesome political theory tutor about "queer" in the academic context, but I'm not sure it's a word that can be used by straight people about queer people without some eyebrows being raised, you know? I think opinions may vary on this point.