![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nnySo here's the other post I've been thinking about for a while. Reasons I will smite you for the kind of thing that the cut-tag illustrates.
I don't know how widespread the phenomenon is; I've had confirmation that it's current in America, and I sure as hell know that it's popular over here. There's this charming slang trend of late to refer to everything unfair or crappy or annoying or uncool as 'gay', and I find it fucking offensive. For the record.
As I've mentioned before, it's kind of swept under the carpet for the most part. I've worked in four schools so far, only one of which participated in the Stonewall campaign - the same school at which the head teacher allowed me to do an investigation into homophobia, after I had been told by my mentor that it was unimportant, irrelevant and inappropriate. Most teachers, if challenged on it, will tell you that the kids aren't being deliberately homophobic, they're using the word out of the context of sexuality. Most kids, if challenged on it, say 'I just mean it's happy, miss' with a smug little teenage smile of smarter-than-thou on their faces, the kind that makes such a tempting target.
A moment of academia, then:
"as Butler (1997) pointed out, locating or attributing deleterious meaning solely to a word/utterance advances the “notion that injurious speech is attributable to a singular subject and act”, when what needs to be examined is the underlying ideologies from which such utterances derive power.” (as cited in Macintosh, p37)
Actually, I'm just gonna copypasta a little part from my essay here:
“heterosexism includes attitudes, behaviour and practices that constitute heterosexuality as the norm. It describes a context that encourages particular stereotypes of men and women.” This is something that is prevalent throughout the curriculum, both explicitly and implicitly. Perhaps the most telling example is in the DfES guidelines for sex and relationship education, in which it says that “[t]here should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation.” (DfES p.13) and yet states as one of its founding principles that “[a]s part of sex and relationship education, pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.” (p4) This illustrates in a very immediate way the concept put forward by Epstein & Johnston (in Epstein 1994, p198) that “[a]t its most general level, there is a presumption of heterosexuality which is encoded in language, in institutional practices and the encounters of everyday life.”
That's why, see, it's not something that you can explain to heterosexual people by saying 'okay, try replacing it with 'straight''. It doesn't work. Asked to go around calling things 'straight' all day will be a point of humour if anything, something that just doesn't have the same impact because it is not a frame of reference that can be shared.
The assumption of heterosexuality means that it's normal, see. It's something that is an overwhelming facet of your identity, sure, but not in a way that would make you list it off if someone asked you to describe yourself in three words. You only really need to define yourself using such a huge and unchangeable aspect of yourself if you deviate from the assumptions that people are going to make. (You might choose not to, and that's valid too, but not related to my point.) It's something that's been said a million times before - there is no straight pride day because that's every day, and therefore sexuality to the straight isn't really personal in quite the same way.
(Yes, there are different ways in which it is - there are always privilege slide-rules in these discussions, and I accept that. This just happens to be the point I'm making.)
So 'OMG that's so straight' ain't gonna have an impact. So again, how can you explain it?
Here's another attempt. Imagine you have a middle name. It's a family middle name, it's been passed down to you and was given to you when you were born. Now imagine that this name becomes a kind of code for everything in the world that is undesirable and inadequate and frankly shit. Every time it's said it's going to catch your attention, metaphorically flick you, remind you that there's something about you that isn't quite right.
It's a better analogy, but it's not good enough. A middle name can't carry the connotations that 'gay' does, can't reaffirm the stuff that you've been taught your whole life. And then, of course, there's the point that I can't change my sexuality by fucking deed poll. A middle name isn't going to alter the way that I live my life; I can just choose not to put it on job applications.
A middle name isn't something that I have had long internal debates over, that I've had to reassess myself because of, that people've told me would be easier if I chose not to have - that wouldn't tear at me in the same way when they told me that.
There is no satisfying allegory for this, because this is not a frame of reference that straight people share. It is the same as with any argument about issues in which there is privilege for one party at the expense of another, there will always be the Venn diagram of privilege - in which perspectives line up in some respects but there are things that will never be the same. If you are straight you will not understand what it feels like to constantly have something that I have fought so hard to accept about myself used as a word for everything you dislike.
So don't fucking do it. I will hit you.
It's not just a word. It carries weight. And my inability to explain that to 11-18 yr olds is one of the reasons I've been in such a fantastically awful mood, of late.
I don't know how widespread the phenomenon is; I've had confirmation that it's current in America, and I sure as hell know that it's popular over here. There's this charming slang trend of late to refer to everything unfair or crappy or annoying or uncool as 'gay', and I find it fucking offensive. For the record.
As I've mentioned before, it's kind of swept under the carpet for the most part. I've worked in four schools so far, only one of which participated in the Stonewall campaign - the same school at which the head teacher allowed me to do an investigation into homophobia, after I had been told by my mentor that it was unimportant, irrelevant and inappropriate. Most teachers, if challenged on it, will tell you that the kids aren't being deliberately homophobic, they're using the word out of the context of sexuality. Most kids, if challenged on it, say 'I just mean it's happy, miss' with a smug little teenage smile of smarter-than-thou on their faces, the kind that makes such a tempting target.
A moment of academia, then:
"as Butler (1997) pointed out, locating or attributing deleterious meaning solely to a word/utterance advances the “notion that injurious speech is attributable to a singular subject and act”, when what needs to be examined is the underlying ideologies from which such utterances derive power.” (as cited in Macintosh, p37)
Actually, I'm just gonna copypasta a little part from my essay here:
“heterosexism includes attitudes, behaviour and practices that constitute heterosexuality as the norm. It describes a context that encourages particular stereotypes of men and women.” This is something that is prevalent throughout the curriculum, both explicitly and implicitly. Perhaps the most telling example is in the DfES guidelines for sex and relationship education, in which it says that “[t]here should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation.” (DfES p.13) and yet states as one of its founding principles that “[a]s part of sex and relationship education, pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.” (p4) This illustrates in a very immediate way the concept put forward by Epstein & Johnston (in Epstein 1994, p198) that “[a]t its most general level, there is a presumption of heterosexuality which is encoded in language, in institutional practices and the encounters of everyday life.”
That's why, see, it's not something that you can explain to heterosexual people by saying 'okay, try replacing it with 'straight''. It doesn't work. Asked to go around calling things 'straight' all day will be a point of humour if anything, something that just doesn't have the same impact because it is not a frame of reference that can be shared.
The assumption of heterosexuality means that it's normal, see. It's something that is an overwhelming facet of your identity, sure, but not in a way that would make you list it off if someone asked you to describe yourself in three words. You only really need to define yourself using such a huge and unchangeable aspect of yourself if you deviate from the assumptions that people are going to make. (You might choose not to, and that's valid too, but not related to my point.) It's something that's been said a million times before - there is no straight pride day because that's every day, and therefore sexuality to the straight isn't really personal in quite the same way.
(Yes, there are different ways in which it is - there are always privilege slide-rules in these discussions, and I accept that. This just happens to be the point I'm making.)
So 'OMG that's so straight' ain't gonna have an impact. So again, how can you explain it?
Here's another attempt. Imagine you have a middle name. It's a family middle name, it's been passed down to you and was given to you when you were born. Now imagine that this name becomes a kind of code for everything in the world that is undesirable and inadequate and frankly shit. Every time it's said it's going to catch your attention, metaphorically flick you, remind you that there's something about you that isn't quite right.
It's a better analogy, but it's not good enough. A middle name can't carry the connotations that 'gay' does, can't reaffirm the stuff that you've been taught your whole life. And then, of course, there's the point that I can't change my sexuality by fucking deed poll. A middle name isn't going to alter the way that I live my life; I can just choose not to put it on job applications.
A middle name isn't something that I have had long internal debates over, that I've had to reassess myself because of, that people've told me would be easier if I chose not to have - that wouldn't tear at me in the same way when they told me that.
There is no satisfying allegory for this, because this is not a frame of reference that straight people share. It is the same as with any argument about issues in which there is privilege for one party at the expense of another, there will always be the Venn diagram of privilege - in which perspectives line up in some respects but there are things that will never be the same. If you are straight you will not understand what it feels like to constantly have something that I have fought so hard to accept about myself used as a word for everything you dislike.
So don't fucking do it. I will hit you.
It's not just a word. It carries weight. And my inability to explain that to 11-18 yr olds is one of the reasons I've been in such a fantastically awful mood, of late.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 11:10 pm (UTC)and
It's something that is an overwhelming facet of your identity, sure, but not in a way that would make you list it off if someone asked you to describe yourself in three words. You only really need to define yourself using such a huge and unchangeable aspect of yourself if you deviate from the assumptions that people are going to make.
I was thinking about this earlier today, too. I mean, yes, it is obvious for many of us 'round these parts, and yet, putting words on THAT phenomenon was a moment, for me. I was thinking about it for race - that what most white people miss is this piece of relating to the worlds that poc have where, there is an element that is central to your indentity not in a way that YOU define yourself y it and think about it every day, but in the way that the world constantly throws it in your face by differential. Whites don't wake up and think "I'm white", and I'm sure poc don't wake up and think "I'm black" (for example), but then the white person goes out in the world and the world doesn't react to their skintone, whereas the black person goes out and in the time between getting out of bed and starting work they've probably been REMINDED that they're black /and not white/ about a dozen times (by the ads on TV, the pov in the novel they read in the subway, the headlines in the newspaper, the grimace of the asshole who overtook them on the highway, god knows what else).
I dunno, I just had never thought of it quite like that before, I think. Sorry for the babble.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 11:24 pm (UTC)I think when you deviate it becomes a huge part of your identity, because 'Black' and 'queer' does tend to become more than just about what colour your skin is, who it is you take to bed. Because you are reminded constantly that the world doesn't choose to privilege you, 'Black' or 'queer' becomes a kind of shorthand often for a way of thought, a way that you interact, your politics... and that in itself can be damaging. It affects the way you think and interact, but not necessarily in the way that choosing 'queer' as a word to describe myself might make people think that it does.
...babble is totally contagious. :D
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 11:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 01:16 am (UTC)I did a paper for my children's lit class on same-sex parent families in children's picture books, and it broke my heart to actually see 1) how few titles there are, and 2) how hard it is to get hold of them. It took me about two months to get twelve. The trend, though, seems to be towards better quality books featuring same-sex parents. And there were several books not specifically about same-sex parents, but about different types of families that include same-sex parents. My favourite was an adorable one about babies and the people who love them that just casually included two same-sex couples without even mentioning it in the text. I would love to see more picture books with such a casual inclusion of same-sex couples because it's NOT a big deal that needs to be spelled out in the text.
I also did a paper on the portrayal of censorship in children's novels (so, fictional books about censorship rather than books that were censored) and I looked at many different kinds of censorship. One of the books I included was about a gay teen who feels unsure about coming out to his friends and family and who is certainly influenced by derogatory use of the word "gay" (among other words) by a bully because I felt that book showed issues of self-censorship and also how censorship can be different than just banning words/ideas/etc.--it can also be using words/ideas/etc. inappropriately so that their proper use feels wrong or looked down upon.
But you are absolutely right. I'm straight, so I don't actually know how awful it feels to have "gay" thrown about as a word for stupid/bad things. My own research and interest in GLBT issues makes me enraged and heartbroken by turns, but I have the option to be entirely myself apart from those issues--I can't even imagine how it feels to live with that all the time.