A whole lot of isms, but mostly heterosexism.

May 14, 2009 10:52

Given that this Sunday, May 17, is the International Day Against Homophobia, it's interesting that I was recently called out for being heterosexist. To my face, by a lesbian. I was pretty embarrassed. (Not that it would be any better to have this pointed out in another way, but I felt pretty careless.)

Details and some discussion ahead... )

discussion

Leave a comment

Comments 112

meetme2theriver May 14 2009, 16:43:39 UTC
I don't think I have too much to say on the topic of real life heterosexism, except that yes, it's very, very easy to be so without even thinking about it, because of the society we live in. Also, absolute constant vigilance is difficult unless you care really, REALLY deeply about something, and while you can strongly support something you're usually not at that level of REALLY deep care unless you're part of the offended group yourself (as such I'm probably quicker to notice sexism than heterosexism, etc ( ... )

Reply

meetme2theriver May 14 2009, 16:51:11 UTC
Also, mostly unrelated, May 17th is also my country's (Norway) national day. Hee.

Reply

strange_tomato May 14 2009, 16:55:46 UTC
Your whole country is gay? I didn't know that. :P

The date is actually the date the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

Reply

leskuh May 14 2009, 16:58:55 UTC
Oh man, I know people like to complain about how things were better 'back in the day', but knowing that we're beyond things like that makes me believe that we are still moving forward. :3

Reply


wtsims May 14 2009, 17:06:07 UTC
This may not be a popular opinion, but oh well:

Expecting people to go out of their way to make sure that everything they do depicts some percentage of (insert minority here) is just overwhelming PC bullshit. That's doubly true when it comes to a situation wherein the person in question is working with someone else's source material. If anyone out there is 'heterosexist' (and how I hate that term, let me tell you), it's the makers of the clip art...

...but like it or not, heterosexuality is the norm. That's what you call it when a large majority is one way and not the other. And that means that if you're depicting a small group or working with other people's source material or doing something on the fly, it's quite likely that you just aren't going to get a diverse group for that particular depiction.

If it were a pattern in someone's behavior (always white always straight always pretty whatever) then calling them on it is one thing. But as a one-time thing? My reaction would be to tell the person to stop being so sensitive ( ... )

Reply

strange_tomato May 14 2009, 17:43:06 UTC
You sound like my SO, who has no time for extremely PC thinking as a rule, even when he agrees with the concept. I agree that nobody should have their head ripped off over it (and it wasn't at all that harsh in my case), but I still think this stuff is worth considering.

It's easy to roll your eye at things like spelling womyn with a y, but without those actions to that extreme, we'd probably still be calling it mankind instead of humankind. I don't think I should have to make everything inclusive to absolutely everyone all the time, but it's more about harm reduction for me. It's just as easy for me to ask someone if they are dating "anyone" than to ask if they have a boy/girlfriend, so I do think behaviour like that can (and should) be easily changed.

I've also gotten myself tangled up when it comes to trans people once or twice, and I'm very much someone who's not down with gendered thinking. It can be hard to always be perfectly inclusive. Overall, though, I think it's worth being aware of it and doing what you can do to be

Reply

wtsims May 14 2009, 18:15:08 UTC
Being respectful and aware is good, that's one thing. My objection is to the idea that anyone has to constantly double-check every single thing they do to make sure it's all-inclusive. Not possible, and ultimately, I maintain it's a poor goal because I do firmly believe it perpetuates the "us and them" mentality. There is no "us and them"; it's all "us ( ... )

Reply

catpaw87 May 18 2009, 04:19:06 UTC
I don't usually comment on sim journals (laziness partially, and because I don't make legacies or stories myself), but this whole argument is so interesting I feel I need to get in and add my two cents ( ... )

Reply


crushthecamera May 14 2009, 17:25:26 UTC
One of the things that I find genuinely upsetting in Sims 2 fandom is when sim stories and legacies actually put up warnings for gay sims. As if it were exceptional. As if it were Other. I don't think anyone's doing it out of genuine malice - like you say, it's so unconscious that even people who have had a lot of space to work on this mess up, because it's part of the culture right now, and it's so subtly beaten into our heads every day of our lives that we don't even register what we're doing until it's pointed out. (And then we do the Oh-Shit-How-Did-I-Not-See-That!? dance.) That's the magic of kyriarchy ( ... )

Reply

leskuh May 14 2009, 17:30:37 UTC
One of the things that I find genuinely upsetting in Sims 2 fandom is when sim stories and legacies actually put up warnings for gay sims.

XD I did that when I was younger! I don't anymore because it doesn't matter to me and if it matters to you well... oh well.

Reply

strange_tomato May 14 2009, 17:46:52 UTC
One of the things that I find genuinely upsetting in Sims 2 fandom is when sim stories and legacies actually put up warnings for gay sims.

I agree.

Reply

meetme2theriver May 14 2009, 17:55:09 UTC
One of the things that I find genuinely upsetting in Sims 2 fandom is when sim stories and legacies actually put up warnings for gay sims.

The conflict-avoidance is strong in me, but I often think I should leave a comment saying something like, "I hope you're going to warn for heterosexual sims, too,"

Oh man, that makes me want to write something quick and stupid purely so I can have a warning like:

WARNING: Sims having heterosexual sex in the missonary position on a bed with the lights off.

Reply


showercapfrog May 14 2009, 17:33:08 UTC
Ack. It's difficult to counter several stereotypes at once (Old people are happy? And do things other than sit on the couch and yell at kids on their lawns?), but I do think that this isn't your fault ( ... )

Reply


Long reply is long ikichi May 14 2009, 18:07:14 UTC
"Heterosexism" is a curious thing- even by having the word exist is a form of it; it's still implying (or flat out saying) that heterosexuality is the "norm, even though a "norm" in sexuality is a laughable concept at best. ("Heteronormative" is another concept that irks me to no end: if you're raised with the expectation that you'll fall in love and marry, why is it *hetero* normaltive if you marry a person of the same (or trans) gender? It's just f-ing normalitive, isn't it?! [granted, this is the same thing that pisses me off about "white trash"- it implies that the same behaviours are acceptable and expected in other races, but how dare a white person sink so low ( ... )

Reply

Re: Long reply is long wtsims May 14 2009, 18:40:32 UTC
The thing about the term normal is that it doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means, at least in this context. Normal means usual. Some people have this connotation that it means 'good and right', but that's an interpretation I personally am trying to dissuade people I know from. Unusual is not bad. It's just different.

Other things that are not normal: genius+ IQs, extreme height, AB- blood. Nothing wrong with any of those things, but they do all fall outside the norm. I know precisely one person with AB- blood (that I know of). He's not normal in that regard; he is quite unusual. I know someone who has an IQ over 180; he is not normal in that regard. I know someone who is 7'1". He is not normal, except perhaps in a group of basketball players. (He does not, btw, play basketball.)

Reply

Re: Long reply is long ikichi May 14 2009, 18:52:44 UTC
You're right, it does mean usual. But in cases of gender and sexuality (and man, do I hate having to use the term "sexuality") we as a species have no real idea what usual is and isn't. We only know what's usual in the context of the societies we've formed, that sometimes- I'm not saying always- retrains behaviors into what they find more acceptable. How different would our concept of normalcy be if the concept of "no sex expect for procreation" had never existed? How many cultures acknowledge more than 2 genders?

Your "abnormal" examples are better than most because there is a non-arbitrary constant to measure them against. This is harder if not impossible to do with socialisms (let's pretend it's a word, because I can't think of the real one); you can't "force" a culture to be 7'1" (without eugenics), you *can* pressure/force a culture to "be" straight.

Reply

Re: Long reply is long wtsims May 14 2009, 19:24:41 UTC
IQ is pretty arbitrary, too, IMO, but that's a different argument.

My point stands, however. It doesn't really matter why the norm is currently heterosexuality... social, biological, some mix of the two, whatever the reasons are. It's still the norm at this time, because that's measured on observation, not cause. You could argue that self-reporting may be somewhat unreliable but it's the only way to measure something like this, and based on those standards, a large majority of people identify as heterosexual... hence, the norm ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up