Opinion of Queer Theory

[LLR]

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and (((presumably affluent))).

Using buzzwords too? Sad!

[SATW]

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and presumably affluent.

1. Not rich or even upper middle class.
2. I'm not even considered to be completely "white" by Jewish subculture stereotypes (I'm mizrahi according to the awkward ethnic divisions within Judaism and Jewish culture).
3. Also arguable that being Jewish could be put in a different category then being white (not that I'd argue this because IDGAF, but I like popping holes in faulty logic presented by leftists).

Though, I do Identify as being white, but clearly it's more complicated then you or others think. Also, there is literally nothing wrong with being white or male.

This is literally why 2016 went the way of Trump. This game of oppression Olympics is disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

No group's suffering is inherently worth more then another group's suffering.  There is also nothing wrong being white, male, straight, christian or jewish, or anything else the far-left thinks is "too normal."

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and (((presumably affluent))).

Using buzzwords too? Sad!

Isn't the stereotype for jews "fat rich banker" and not merely "affluent".

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and presumably affluent.

1. Not rich or even upper middle class.
2. I'm not even considered to be completely "white" by Jewish subculture stereotypes (I'm mizrahi according to the awkward ethnic divisions within Judaism and Jewish culture).
3. Also arguable that being Jewish could be put in a different category then being white (not that I'd argue this because IDGAF, but I like popping holes in faulty logic presented by leftists).

Though, I do Identify as being white, but clearly it's more complicated then you or others think. Also, there is literally nothing wrong with being white or male.

This is literally why 2016 went the way of Trump. This game of oppression Olympics is disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

No group's suffering is inherently worth more then another group's suffering.  There is also nothing wrong being white, male, straight, christian or jewish, or anything else the far-left thinks is "too normal."

Being white makes your life easier then it would be if you were black. Being male makes life easier then being female. Being cis makes life easier then being trans(esp. if nonbinary). These are simple facts.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

My sentiments are increasingly negative, and I wish that it were easier to discuss these things without critical thoughts or skepticism being interpreted as an attack on someone's human dignity. (Sort of a broad topic for a poll, though, isn't it?)

     It's a convenient defense mechanism for the ideology; criticisms of it can be dismissed as bigoted and ignorant attacks on the people placed under its aegis. As someone who values discourse, I have an instinctively negative reaction to any ideology where a response of this kind is proffered as an actual argument:

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

Being Snarky is not attempting to make an argument.

[Intell]

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and (((presumably affluent))).

Using buzzwords too? Sad!

Isn't the stereotype for jews "fat rich banker" and not merely "affluent".

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and presumably affluent.

1. Not rich or even upper middle class.
2. I'm not even considered to be completely "white" by Jewish subculture stereotypes (I'm mizrahi according to the awkward ethnic divisions within Judaism and Jewish culture).
3. Also arguable that being Jewish could be put in a different category then being white (not that I'd argue this because IDGAF, but I like popping holes in faulty logic presented by leftists).

Though, I do Identify as being white, but clearly it's more complicated then you or others think. Also, there is literally nothing wrong with being white or male.

This is literally why 2016 went the way of Trump. This game of oppression Olympics is disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

No group's suffering is inherently worth more then another group's suffering.  There is also nothing wrong being white, male, straight, christian or jewish, or anything else the far-left thinks is "too normal."

Being white makes your life easier then it would be if you were black. Being male makes life easier then being female. Being cis makes life easier then being trans(esp. if nonbinary). These are simple facts.

It really doesn't. A black female trans middle class person, doesn't have a harder life, than a person who is white and born into poverty or is homeless in New York or wherever.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and (((presumably affluent))).

Using buzzwords too? Sad!

Isn't the stereotype for jews "fat rich banker" and not merely "affluent".

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and presumably affluent.

1. Not rich or even upper middle class.
2. I'm not even considered to be completely "white" by Jewish subculture stereotypes (I'm mizrahi according to the awkward ethnic divisions within Judaism and Jewish culture).
3. Also arguable that being Jewish could be put in a different category then being white (not that I'd argue this because IDGAF, but I like popping holes in faulty logic presented by leftists).

Though, I do Identify as being white, but clearly it's more complicated then you or others think. Also, there is literally nothing wrong with being white or male.

This is literally why 2016 went the way of Trump. This game of oppression Olympics is disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

No group's suffering is inherently worth more then another group's suffering.  There is also nothing wrong being white, male, straight, christian or jewish, or anything else the far-left thinks is "too normal."

Being white makes your life easier then it would be if you were black. Being male makes life easier then being female. Being cis makes life easier then being trans(esp. if nonbinary). These are simple facts.

It really doesn't. A black female trans middle class person, doesn't have a harder life, than a person who is white and born into poverty or is homeless in New York or wherever.

That's not what I said.

[SATW]

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and (((presumably affluent))).

Using buzzwords too? Sad!

Isn't the stereotype for jews "fat rich banker" and not merely "affluent".

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and presumably affluent.

1. Not rich or even upper middle class.
2. I'm not even considered to be completely "white" by Jewish subculture stereotypes (I'm mizrahi according to the awkward ethnic divisions within Judaism and Jewish culture).
3. Also arguable that being Jewish could be put in a different category then being white (not that I'd argue this because IDGAF, but I like popping holes in faulty logic presented by leftists).

Though, I do Identify as being white, but clearly it's more complicated then you or others think. Also, there is literally nothing wrong with being white or male.

This is literally why 2016 went the way of Trump. This game of oppression Olympics is disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

No group's suffering is inherently worth more then another group's suffering.  There is also nothing wrong being white, male, straight, christian or jewish, or anything else the far-left thinks is "too normal."

Being white makes your life easier then it would be if you were black. Being male makes life easier then being female. Being cis makes life easier then being trans(esp. if nonbinary). These are simple facts.

Alright, i'm sorry, but I can't deal with this crap.

My family immigrated to this country. My Paternal Grandparents were proud union members who taught themselves english. They worked for every penny. They two homes in their lives so far and have lived amazing lives after putting in so much work in.

 My Mom has the foreign equivalent of the American GED. My Dad either has only a high school diploma, or a GED (idr atm). My mother has lived in three countries. Had to learn 2 different languages before she was 25 (she knows 2 fluently, one semi-fluently, and one conversationally - 4 total). My dad went to a majority black high school in a impoverished neighborhood. He was able to have a very successful career for many years - he's struggling a bit now - but for someone with his background he has done damn good. My mom, she was a homemaker who later decided to go work and she has done amazing in everything she's done since (even if they aren't considered to be amazing jobs.)

My parents bought two homes in the early 2000's - sold one of them due to financial struggles and went bankrupt on another. We still pushed through and persevered. They forced my sister and me to get a good high school education and prepared us to go to college  - even though they didn't know anything about the college process or how to navigate it.

My sister and I, and my cousins as well, certainly had a MUCH easier upbringing then our parents and grandparents but we still go through challenges that many people - regardless of race or sexuality - in today's America consider "easy" to navigate through. I was a first generation college student. My sister is one of the first women in my family to go a four year college - she's also one of the only Jews at her school.

At my college graduation I heard my fellow students babble about how college was a joke and that they hated that they even had to be at commencement. Meanwhile my family drove up to my college, showed up to commencement hours early, with all of the kids, and celebrate something that they didn't have the opportunity to achieve themselves. On that day I was never more mad then I was at that moment to hear people belittle something that millions of people didn't have an opportunity to do. Belittling something they should be proud to have been able to accomplish.

I remember that feeling when I tried to off myself last October. That's one of the reasons I wound up calling my friends to help me save myself.  

No one in my family ever had it easy. We've all had very different problems and issues in our individual lives. We aren't your stereotypical Republican voters. We aren't your stereotypical people.

Yet, none of us complain that society is stacked against us. No one in my family ever told us that we had a worse deck of cards because our family speaks a different language. My parents were raised to be proud of where they lived, how they grew up and to cherish all of their experiences without any ounce of bitterness. My family - all of us - have American flags waving outside of our homes/apartments. Because that's what separates grown ups from people living in bubbles.

So, you don't get to tell my family or me that we are privileged. Or that they had it easier then other groups of people.

I know you are young and I think you are generally a very good poster but making assumptions about people you don't know is generally not a good idea.

I'm not saying your life isn't hard. I'm not saying everyone is equal or has the same opportunity. But, stop judging people because of who they are. And yes, being white, male and/or straight is a unique experience, even if it's not what the left thinks is "unique."

[Goldwater]

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

If you're cis, straight and white, there is no reason to believe they're privileged.

I'm bisexual, and I don't think this "privilege" nonsense is a legitimate thing to whine about.

I mean, you're also white, male, and presumably affluent.

1. Not rich or even upper middle class.
2. I'm not even considered to be completely "white" by Jewish subculture stereotypes (I'm mizrahi according to the awkward ethnic divisions within Judaism and Jewish culture).
3. Also arguable that being Jewish could be put in a different category then being white (not that I'd argue this because IDGAF, but I like popping holes in faulty logic presented by leftists).

Though, I do Identify as being white, but clearly it's more complicated then you or others think. Also, there is literally nothing wrong with being white or male.

This is literally why 2016 went the way of Trump. This game of oppression Olympics is disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

No group's suffering is inherently worth more then another group's suffering.  There is also nothing wrong being white, male, straight, christian or jewish, or anything else the far-left thinks is "too normal."

Being white makes your life easier then it would be if you were black. Being male makes life easier then being female. Being cis makes life easier then being trans(esp. if nonbinary). These are simple facts.

Sure, everything else being equal these statements are true, but that does not make them helpful in any way.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There's an enormous diversity within it, all the way from "jsyk plenty of societies have more than two gender roles" to "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ADDING AROMANTIC HETEROSEXUALS TO ~THE ACRONYM~ YOU'RE COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE". Voted HT because I've had personally iffy experiences with it, but it's not uniformly bad and some of its more helpful insights have been rightly imported into more august fields.

I thought a big point of Queer Theory was questioning these acronym-style categories and their supposed opposites?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's an enormous diversity within it, all the way from "jsyk plenty of societies have more than two gender roles" to "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ADDING AROMANTIC HETEROSEXUALS TO ~THE ACRONYM~ YOU'RE COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE". Voted HT because I've had personally iffy experiences with it, but it's not uniformly bad and some of its more helpful insights have been rightly imported into more august fields.

I thought a big point of Queer Theory was questioning these acronym-style categories and their supposed opposites?

I mean, sure, allegedly. But even that can lead in some really uncomfortable "being queer is What You Make Of It (...and therefore gay people who want to get married and be faithful are 'homonormative' and Not Radical)" directions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

My sentiments are increasingly negative, and I wish that it were easier to discuss these things without critical thoughts or skepticism being interpreted as an attack on someone's human dignity. (Sort of a broad topic for a poll, though, isn't it?)

     It's a convenient defense mechanism for the ideology; criticisms of it can be dismissed as bigoted and ignorant attacks on the people placed under its aegis. As someone who values discourse, I have an instinctively negative reaction to any ideology where a response of this kind is proffered as an actual argument:

Of course a group of straight white privileged cis-men would hate it.

Being Snarky is not attempting to make an argument.

     True, but I have also seen people make the argument in all seriousness. I used your example mainly because it was there at hand.

[afleitch]

From an old effort post;


Society is shaped by those who hold authority. Many people held authority by virtue of having a penis. There will always be identification and demarcation along gender and sexual lines precisely because society based on serving the needs of heteronormative power model (and I make no apology for going all ‘feminist’ here) is the hegemony. The reason why sexuality is an issue for those who have a minority sexuality is because same sex acts were opposed by the hegemony. It didn’t matter whether you just liked casual same sex encounters or wanted to be able to be publically seen and safe with a romantic sexual partner for life. Everything on that spectrum was oppressed. If homosexual behaviour was not specifically excluded (or excluded by omission) in civil, social and religious structures and statutes then there wouldn’t be an LGBT identity as you know it today, because it wouldn’t be defined as a characteristic. There would never have been a black identity either because skin colour like sexual attraction would never be identified as a discernable characteristic. It’s not as if society divides along hair colour, though there are issues of ‘preference’ involved even in that. And of course this demarcation with proscribed gender roles and correct and incorrect sexual behaviour is perpetuated within certain understandings of religious revelation as being mandated by god and this can further perpetuate this.

If you say to someone that heterosexuality is a construct, therefore deconstructing everything from marriage to an erection, you’ll be casually dismissed in various academic and scientific circles (as well as the local pub) because it doesn’t fit in with someone’s sexual-social experience. But if you say that homosexuality is a construct there are enough ‘bourgeois’ (to use that term) who have an issue with homosexuality that stems from religious, social, cultural and power structures to take note. Therefore the constructionists are essentially ‘useful idiots’ and the very playthings of the structures they so vehemently oppose. Why people are straight and do straight things like marry and have children or associated with that; cheat, divorce and abandon their children is of no real concern to anyone. Funny that. Perhaps it should be, but it’s not. You can’t engage people on that premise. However if you make the issue about the gays, then you can demonstrate your philosophical prowess to an audience that doesn’t give two sh-ts about Marxist theory because a predominantly straight audience really want to know why people don’t think and act like they do.

So we have the ‘constructionist’ camp; i.e the concept of sexual orientation was invented in the 19th Century mainly through medical discourse which constructed the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy for bourgeois purposes (because everything, apparently, is a class struggle) This means that prior to this point homosexuality was characterised not by sense of identity but by sexual acts which were perceived as structures of power (with an active and passive role) This view is ideologically and in many ways politically grounded. You need to have your Marxist hat on. Despite the fact that most people don’t wear that hat, hasn’t deterred many constructionists within queer theory who in full Frankfurt School mode neglect to communicate that the primary focus is not necessarily to discover an accurate historical model but to foster a new social construct reflective of their political leanings. To them, the homosexual can’t simply ‘accept’ his or her groundings as a gay/LGBT because that is part of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy that is symptomatic of bourgeois capitalism. Instead they should, in effect be politicised into someone who questions all the concepts in the basket of the bourgeois, such as gender and heterosexuality and class therefore meaning that all these things (even men and women themselves) disappear as a class and are no longer subjects of oppression. If you de-stable heterosexuality then you eradicate homophobia (or so was the thinking) But once you start deconstructing something, therefore proving that it’s a construct, you start doing it with everything. It made no difference to them throwing both heterosexuality under a bus as throwing homosexuality under a bus. Even when LGBT academics do this and crawl up from underneath the wheels, they still realise (not that they assumed anything other than that) that they are sexually attracted to whom they are attracted to and therefore the whole experiment hasn’t really validated anything. Whatever the other sciences are up to at this time doesn’t concern them because academic bubbles are precisely that.

However constructionists also make a mistake in assuming that the ‘now’ is more entrenched and is therefore more relevant than the ‘then.’ What is considered ‘gay’ now might not be what is considered so in a hundred years’ time, or a new term is used that describes the social grouping or self-identification of those with non-heteronormative sexuality. Or they might simply do different things in an environment that is more open or more closed towards them. Therefore what is currently the ‘now’ will for the future be the ‘then’ and because what they did ‘then’ is not what they do ‘now’ so the ‘then’ is dismissed. The experiences of those in the past are dismissed and the new ‘now’ are told that their experiences are constructed. Which as you can see is deeply problematic.

In contrast to this you have ‘essentialists’ (which would be my own view) where both knowledge and practice are not constructed but are ‘discovered’ (for which you can at times read inherent) but subject to repression and then rediscovery through both history and experience. It emphasises continuity and the dichotomy of liberation/suppression to what was already there.

[Torie]

To be honest, I have never really thought about that, and it is not really an interest of mine. All I know is that I am queer. Having said that, I do find afleitch's essay fascinating, and while in no position to judge given my relative ignorance, it seems on the mark. Obviously he has thought about the issue a heck of lot more than I have!

My lack of curiosity may have something to do with the fact, that I have lived a life of privilege (I just was really lucky, starting with whom my parents happened to be), and didn't figure out my sexuality until I was 57, and my failure to figure it out, was about me, rather than some external factors. So I have never had a negative experience in being gay - ever.

Now my partner Dan, who has had negative experiences, many of them, including his Dad through physical abuse trying to beat the gay out of him, has thought about these issues a lot.  Maybe I should try to induce him to post something (hopefully I will not get banned, if he posts under my name  ).

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for sharing your life experiences Sunrise. It's very inspiring, and I admire your attitude. And you were very lucky, as I am sure you would agree, that you had such fine parents.

[DavidB.]

Alright, i'm sorry, but I can't deal with this crap.

My family immigrated to this country. My Paternal Grandparents were proud union members who taught themselves english. They worked for every penny. They two homes in their lives so far and have lived amazing lives after putting in so much work in.

 My Mom has the foreign equivalent of the American GED. My Dad either has only a high school diploma, or a GED (idr atm). My mother has lived in three countries. Had to learn 2 different languages before she was 25 (she knows 2 fluently, one semi-fluently, and one conversationally - 4 total). My dad went to a majority black high school in a impoverished neighborhood. He was able to have a very successful career for many years - he's struggling a bit now - but for someone with his background he has done damn good. My mom, she was a homemaker who later decided to go work and she has done amazing in everything she's done since (even if they aren't considered to be amazing jobs.)

My parents bought two homes in the early 2000's - sold one of them due to financial struggles and went bankrupt on another. We still pushed through and persevered. They forced my sister and me to get a good high school education and prepared us to go to college  - even though they didn't know anything about the college process or how to navigate it.

My sister and I, and my cousins as well, certainly had a MUCH easier upbringing then our parents and grandparents but we still go through challenges that many people - regardless of race or sexuality - in today's America consider "easy" to navigate through. I was a first generation college student. My sister is one of the first women in my family to go a four year college - she's also one of the only Jews at her school.

At my college graduation I heard my fellow students babble about how college was a joke and that they hated that they even had to be at commencement. Meanwhile my family drove up to my college, showed up to commencement hours early, with all of the kids, and celebrate something that they didn't have the opportunity to achieve themselves. On that day I was never more mad then I was at that moment to hear people belittle something that millions of people didn't have an opportunity to do. Belittling something they should be proud to have been able to accomplish.

I remember that feeling when I tried to off myself last October. That's one of the reasons I wound up calling my friends to help me save myself. 

No one in my family ever had it easy. We've all had very different problems and issues in our individual lives. We aren't your stereotypical Republican voters. We aren't your stereotypical people.

Yet, none of us complain that society is stacked against us. No one in my family ever told us that we had a worse deck of cards because our family speaks a different language. My parents were raised to be proud of where they lived, how they grew up and to cherish all of their experiences without any ounce of bitterness. My family - all of us - have American flags waving outside of our homes/apartments. Because that's what separates grown ups from people living in bubbles.

So, you don't get to tell my family or me that we are privileged. Or that they had it easier then other groups of people.

I know you are young and I think you are generally a very good poster but making assumptions about people you don't know is generally not a good idea.

I'm not saying your life isn't hard. I'm not saying everyone is equal or has the same opportunity. But, stop judging people because of who they are. And yes, being white, male and/or straight is a unique experience, even if it's not what the left thinks is "unique."

Slay.

[Mr. Reactionary]

These conversations inevitably wind in this impoverished, accusatory, onanistic direction, don't they? Is [x identity] more or less oppressed than [y identity]? Which has more privilege points?

A person isn't reducible to some quantifiable collection of identities that can be measured against anyone else's. It's a useless method of understanding people in context, and a piss-poor means of doing politics.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Option 4 and I'm not clicking the wiki link to read about it.

[SATW]

Thanks, Torie

@David: I try lol

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are constructed categories. And it has very little to do with class struggle, as much as the left exasperatingly tries to relate everything to that. It has to do in large part with the development of social science along positivist lines. This included a desire for taxonomies to describe and analyze humanity, and to develop secular norms on the basis of psychological and biological categories.   Heterosexuality and homosexuality are very much modernist, atomistic categories. They wouldn't make sense in a culture that approaches sex in terms of the role of the person in a social and cosmological framework.
This doesn't mean at all that nothing about sexuality has a basis in our physical makeup. It means that our physical experience is always interpreted, and our understanding of ourselves, informed by culture and social interactions, can in some ways shape our physical experience.  Culture places our physical experiences in a context of meaningful associations, and can heighten or lessen their significance. The pursuit of certain physical desires or sexual imaginations can be encouraged in terms of its meaning to our lives, either explicitly through affirmation, or implictly through prohibition.  And what names we give ourselves, what categories we pick up on from our society and apply to ourselves, has a profound impact on our self-understanding, and thus as on our development, including sexually.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Forgot to add to my previous post, after the word "faithful": "...or who have distinct memories or experiences of 'queer' being a slur and (heaven forfend!) aren't comfortable being lumped under that word by their alleged compatriots".