fMelanie has 5 post(s)

1. In the piece Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens by Cathy J. Cohens, she goes on to explain how the development of queer activism is hindered by heterosexual normality in society. The exclusion of homosexual sexual orientation in society incapacitates the movement for awareness of the control over the state by heterosexuality. It is evident that the more these identities are oppressed the more likely these activists will feel inclined to push for political change. In order for that change to happen, there has to be a togetherness of people who can relate to that discrimination so that they can put an end to the battle between heterosexual and homosexual individuals. The focus for queer activists is to stop these forms of discrimination and oppression, but this may not be enough, as it is important to also work on changing how the state takes control over the individuals. Another issue is this that some groups may be favored, or generally less oppressed, than others. Based on race, class, or gender, they may have more advantages than others. Unfortunately, this allows oppression to continue and does not give those oppressed groups a chance to be fully accepted in society. In order to make these changes, activists should aim for more than just acceptance. It is important to create change that pushes boundaries and surpasses mindsets so that the laws and politics of society can adjust as well. Once these laws are in place, oppressed groups will be able to have a true voice and place in society. . In today’s society it’s actually a realistic for change to occur in queer activism but it has to start with the government leaders, celebrities, and social activist to spark an interest in the public about queer politics; overall Cohen believes that change can be achieved through enacting new laws that directly approach problems in the queer community.

In their article “Are Women Human? It’s Not an Academic Question”, V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi argue that we should interrogate the connection of “human rights” in connection to heterosexism. Heterosexism is defined as the institutionalization of heterosexuality as only natural way in which people express their sexual and social conducts it’s also a way of analyzing gender differences and how heterosexuality is considered the norm in society. The inequality that comes with heterosexism leads to a more precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender difference and human rights. It is not unfamiliar for this to favor males over females in heterosexual relationships and makes it so that male can continue to promote male escalation in status at the expense of women. The gender hierarchy has been in effect for all of time and women have continuously been deprived of their own sexual freedom due to the oppression brought about by heterosexism and the creation of laws that divide labor by age, class, and gender. Women continue to be tied to the reproductive role in society and heterosexism continues to generate a division between females and males making the differences between them determine their value as people. Another point brought about by heterosexism is human rights and how women are treated poorly for the benefit of men to be able to use toss them around and use them for their benefit and for their own profit. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi both argue that heterosexism is key to help evaluate the contrasts between gender and human rights experienced by women and men in society. In addition it is a source of oppression that has been going on for centuries and has affected the ways children are raised to fit their “gender” and also has impacted religion, morality, and the rules of society that have been constructs of an imaginary “normal” society because in reality there is no such law of the land that decides that heterosexuality is what is normal.

In Adrienne Rich’s, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” she goes on to describe the heterosexual society as the primary sexuality for women due to the dismissal of female choice. Rich goes on to explain that the exploitation of women have led for women to become voiceless in their sexual endeavors which has led them to generations of being taught to be economically dependent on men. The eight characteristics of male power by Kathleen Gough is used as an argument for Rich where she breaks down how the construct of oppression from the male counterparts in society has intentionally hindered the advancement of women in the workplace and in society in general making it ten times harder for women to be placed in positions of power such as CEO for companies.
Rich also argues that the sexual objectification of women is detrimental in the workforce and in part forces heterosexuality onto women where if they were homosexual there would be a double-standard because even though society looks down upon lesbians it is still something that heterosexual men find appealing due to the hyper sexual objectification of women make it only okay if it’s pleasant for them not because that is the women’s sexual orientation. Historically, society has always been controlled by men who have made heterosexuality what is “normal” and because of this there is huge inequalities that apply in the workforce for women still to this day because of the institutionalized idea that men will always be more classified for any job over a women and is also why women get paid 23 percent less than the average man. The disregard of the existence of lesbians causes them to mask who they really are just to get jobs by taking on the role of being a heterosexual women. Through the media the idea that women are only heterosexual is also constantly being forced down the throat of women of homosexual orientation of society making is seem almost as if their sexual orientation might be something that is wrong with them rather than their sexuality being something that they are comfortable with that is normal to feel.

In Gayle Rubin’s essay, “Thinking Sex: Notes from a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality”, the political discourse on sexuality is the main focus of Rubin’s work. In society, the main revolving issue around sexuality is the assumptions determined by civilization because of the identified sex at birth. The absence of bold conversation on the topic of sexuality incites fear in society and when people who are sexually liberated and choose to express themselves, it is seen as something abnormal. The idea of masturbation, abortion, and pornographic literature and art were seen as negative actions to be taken by people and assumptions set by western culture of who women and men are supposed to sexually desire placed a limit on the political discourse on sexuality. Throughout history society has not been specifically kind to members of the homosexual community and this institutionalized stigma against homosexuals is still carried by members of society today and has continued “Queer Bashing” which during the time period from 1940s to 1981 has done more damage than good; attacking gay bars, deeming the name “sex offender’ as an acceptable nicknames for gay people, and arresting them on the sole basis of whom they choose to love. What I found most interesting was Rubin’s hierarchy of sexual activity, the system places heterosexuals at the top allowing them the ability to advance in society meanwhile people with disabilities or abnormalities suffer at the bottom of the pyramid with no type of plan to be able to advance following homosexual people as well. Sexuality has it’s own politics that work behind the scene which are ever-more present now that it is becoming socially acceptable to be homosexual and it is even legal in countries across the globe but, because it’s legal doesn’t mean there isn’t limitations to these new laws.

In Linda Schiebingers essay, “Skeletons in the Closet,” the main focus of the discussion is on the anatomy of women and men in the scientific community of eighteenth and nineteenth Europe. These differences became the groundwork for the argued social and political differences between the sexes. Western science was viewed as the correct answer to the questions comparing whether or not women and men, because the greater part of the scientific community consisted of white males there was no questioning the reasoning behind their “observations” about women. The lack of females in the scientific community definitely held back women’s rights from advancing and used anatomy and science to justify the oppression of female minorities and minorities in general. The scientific findings made it seem that women were inferior to men due to their skull size which they linked to be less intellectually inclined. The scientific community always had another explanation to back up the idea that women lesser than men and even used the uterus against the fact that women are more than just child breeding machines. Science is super important because it is the fact behind the ideas and questions that people have so it is imperative that these findings consist of actual reasonable data. The heavy sexist ideals behind the research done by scientists definitely held back women as a whole from progressing at a faster pace because the findings led to institutionalized sexism which is still present in today’s society and will continue to get in the way of females from achieving jobs, awards, and social acceptance that is just handed out to men especially white men of privilege. It is difficult to undo the mistakes of the past but slowly change is underway and has led to major milestones from having the first women president in countries like Argentina to having female scientists working in NASA.