LGBTI?

Recommended Videos

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
Techno Squidgy said:
I must say I disagree with gender constructs as a tool of oppression, or at least I disagree with that being their original intention or purpose. (I'm going to include a disclaimer here that I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean by gender construct while I attempt to crawl across this minefield with two broken legs and one arm.) The idea of the male as the protector and the female as the child bearer probably originated as a primal thing necessary for the continuation of the species while we were still at threat from predators. Considering the rather slow rate at which humans produce offspring it would have been necessary for the males to protect the females while they were pregnant and vulnerable so as to preserve the continuation of the pack/tribe/whatever.

I'm not sure. I've never felt pressured to act a certain way because I'm biologically male but that doesn't mean others haven't. It's a large and complex issue that I don't really know where I fit into.
Uh, no, not really. Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves while pregnant, particularly in the early stages where being with child doesn't really impair a woman in the slightest (in fact, in the last few days before giving birth, women often get a rush of energy and activity). In fact, there are many anthropological studies that report different tribes giving men and women different roles (such as one tribe giving basket-weaving to men while another gives it to women, one tribe giving agriculture and housekeeping to men and another giving them to women, and so on).

If you ask me, the origin of oppression began with segregation. When men and women were segregated to be socialised differently (out of biological reasons, yes, but it was completely unnecessary), and the different socialisation led to both genders being unable to understand each other because each was being taught things that the other had no clue about. And since fear of the unknown is the strongest fear, men felt the need to control women, because they were unknown, and that made them dangerous. This rationale is also observed racially. A lot of races warred with, enslaved and killed other races because they saw them as different and unknown.

A man will trust another man from the same race/tribe because they were both socialised in the same way. They both engage in the same tasks and are often physically placed in the same areas. That man will not trust a woman of his own race or a man of another race (and much less a woman of another race), because he doesn't know them. He doesn't know what they think, what they value, what they do, what they've been taught, and so on.

This is why gender roles are oppressive, because they are used as tools to segregate and indoctrinate. A woman who is socialised differently (and even today women are socialised differently than men) is always going to be an unknown to a man, because society has given a discourse that isn't the same as the one it's given women. This is the root of all those "I can't understand women!" and "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus!" things you hear so often. The idea that both genders are irreparably different and must always be apart is the main reason there is still oppression to this day.

That's also why trans and genderqueer people get a lot of flak from pretty much all aspects of society, because refusing to conform to the gender role society assigns to you at birth undermines the necessity of those gender roles. And if those gender roles aren't necessary, then the entire system of oppression built upon them crumbles down.
 

Spinozaad

New member
Jun 16, 2008
1,107
0
0
Hap2 said:
I really don't give a rat's arse, really. However you chose to define yourself is your business. To me, ultimately, you're a human being.

If people go to great complicated lengths to define their sexuality, go ahead. Don't expect me to applaud it. People think they're born in the wrong body and feel like they're of the opposite sex, and want to change this to surgery? Go ahead, if it makes you happy; more power to you.

To me, you're ultimately still your original sex. But in this case, who cares what I think? Again, if that's what these people want; more power to them and I think they should be allowed to do whatever they want to their bodies. It's just that I frown my brows and move on with my life.
boots said:
Hap2 said:
You forgot:

"Be tolerant of my intolerance!"
Quite the contrary. Tolerance is the willingness to allow and/or accept things you disagree with, you dislike or are not (willing) to understand, because you acknowledge that even some asshat is still a human being. It's not the same as love, a positive attitude towards or a benign indifference to all living things.
 

azukar

New member
Sep 7, 2009
263
0
0
bananafishtoday said:
My bad, imprecise word choice. What I meant to communicate was more like "deviation from the norm." One side wishes to establish and promote a set of behaviors/appearances/etc that can be accepted by society as "normal" (generally embracing the nuclear family and demanding gender conformity.) The other side argues that the marginalization of those with more "deviant" behaviors/appearances just to benefit those willing to "normalize" is unjust (and that "true" acceptance even for "normalized" individuals is impossible anyway without broader changes to society.)
Basically, assimilationists vs. activists. "Queer" has a lot of sociopolitical connotations within the community.
Imprecise choice of words, maybe. But (and again I should probably stress I'm not ranting at you nor angry at you) the thing is, there's also this politically correct prejudice on the word "normal", as if to say that labelling anything as normal is a bad thing.

What I'd like to see, and maybe this is completely unrealistic, is the day when we all just stop being afraid of people who aren't like us, and shed our own guilt about it too. I don't see why we can't call a majority position "normal" without the inference that "abnormal" or "different" are bad things. Do heterosexual people make up the majority of people on Earth? S'far as I know, yes. Is heterosexual "normal" as far as almost the whole animal kingdom? Seems so.

Does that view imply in any way that non-heterosexual people or animals are in any way worse? It shouldn't.
 

bananafishtoday

New member
Nov 30, 2012
312
0
0
azukar said:
What I'd like to see, and maybe this is completely unrealistic, is the day when we all just stop being afraid of people who aren't like us, and shed our own guilt about it too. I don't see why we can't call a majority position "normal" without the inference that "abnormal" or "different" are bad things.
Oh, I completely agree with you on this. If I were to try and sum up the queer side of the argument in a pithy slogan, it'd prolly go like, "Yes, we're different. If you don't like it, fuck you."

Queer activism by and large embraces abnormality and seeks to make the spectrum of human sexuality and gender identity visible and acceptable to the general pop. This necessarily entails challenging and fighting back against a variety of oppressive ideas and institutions within society.

Homonormative assimilation accepts the prejudice against the abnormal. Folks adhering to this view are more interested in codifying and enforcing a set of behaviors and appearances for members of the LGBT community that the similarly prejudiced general pop can accept as normal. Those who are willing and able to conform to this ideal will do quite well for themselves within this paradigm, while those who are not or cannot can kick rocks.

I'm in the former camp.

Techno Squidgy said:
The idea of the male as the protector and the female as the child bearer probably originated as a primal thing necessary for the continuation of the species while we were still at threat from predators. Considering the rather slow rate at which humans produce offspring it would have been necessary for the males to protect the females while they were pregnant and vulnerable so as to preserve the continuation of the pack/tribe/whatever.
On the contrary, these roles originated as a way to limit population. The biggest problem that hunter-gatherer societies faced was availability of resources. Tribes/groups had no way to increase their land's carrying capacity, so population levels needed to be relatively stable. Infant/child mortality was incredibly high compared to what it is in modern societies, but mortality dropped off immensely every year the kid remained alive. (The whole "average life expectancy of 30" thing is very misleading, since it averages in a large number of infant/child deaths.) And all it takes is two children who grow up to have two children apiece to achieve the replacement rate.

According to this paper [http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf], which surveyed extant pre-industrial civs:
On average 57 percent, 64 percent, and 67 percent of children born survive to age 15 years among hunter-gatherers, forager-horticulturalists, and acculturated hunter-gatherers. Of those who reach age 15, 64 percent of traditional hunter-gatherers and 61 percent of forager-horticulturalists reach age 45. The acculturated hunter-gatherers show lower
young adult mortality rates, with 79 percent surviving to age 45, conditional on reaching age 15.
So if we lowball it and say 50% of children live long enough to reproduce, the average woman only needs to be pregnant for 36 months (3 years) of her life.

The actual reason women in these societies didn't do all the same jobs as men (specifically big-game hunting) was family planning. A woman who nurses and stays with her child can remain infertile anywhere from 1 to 3 years after giving birth (lactational amenorrhea.)

Considering how... reluctant, to say the least, people are to be all, "You're right, it would be illogical for us to have sex," it's pretty much the best way to limit population in hunter-gatherer societies that would quickly outstrip their resources and collapse were they to reproduce unchecked. (Incidentally, this illustrates beautifully why the abstinence-only sex-ed crowd is so dumb.)

Techno Squidgy said:
I'm not sure. I've never felt pressured to act a certain way because I'm biologically male but that doesn't mean others haven't. It's a large and complex issue that I don't really know where I fit into.
Consider the incredible pressure put on boys and men to reject anything stereotypically feminine. Consider how readily boys and men who engage in behavior, wear clothes/makeup/hairstyles, pursue hobbies or professions, or consume media that are seen as "feminine" are denigrated as sissies, girly, faggy, bitches, or pussies. There is incredible social pressure put on all boys and men to conform to gender roles.