The ultimate proof that progressives are only after their ultimate goal – which is a socialist revolution – without caring a straw about the people they claim to stand up for resides in their spiteful attitude towards those who achieve social reforms and settle for them.
After decades of constantly pursuing rights for gay people, progressives have suddenly turned on them, as they too have become part of the “normality” the left so despises. In a way it makes sense, as nothing currently perceived as normal is acceptable to them.
This incredibly entitled article depicts non-heterosexuals as pawns in a larger chess game, with no agency or individual choices of their own.
Homonormativity explains how certain aspects of the queer community can perpetuate assumptions, values, and behaviors that hurt and marginalize many folks within this community, as well as those with whom the community should be working in solidarity. (…)
It also describes the assumption that queer people want to be a part of the dominant, mainstream, heterosexual culture, and the way in which our society rewards those who do so, identifying them as most worthy and deserving of visibility and rights.
The author ignores the fact that sexual minorities are not homogenous groups, somehow programmed to make the same lifestyle choices, and almost attacks those who enjoy being part of the “dominant culture” (being monogamous, getting married, raising a family etc), which becomes even more blatant in subsequent paragraphs.
It is important to note that for many years, the advancement of gay rights has been based on the very idea that non-heterosexuals seeked this exact integration, as opposed to being discriminated against, either systemically or through social disapproval.
By dismissing its validity, the author basicly affirms what certain traditionalist activists have argued all along – that the entire movement was based on some Folsom Street Fair culture (do not click if prone to vomiting), which is apparently not the case as it has given rights to regular people seeking to get on with their lives. Where progressives are concerned, however, it seems they have always interpreted this campaign as a way to open the gates for all proclivities formerly deemed unacceptable.
Their focus was not on obtaining rights and visibility for those who wanted normal lives (I’ll use normal for lack of a better word). For all progressives care, now that they have abandoned the radical bandwagon, these people can go fuck themselves, as they are contributing to the oppression of others simply by existing in the way they have chosen.
As social attitudes change around queer relationships, we’re seeing more representations of queer people in the media, though this representation is incredibly limited.
Turn on the TV or flip through a magazine – for each of the few times that you’ll see a queer person, they’ll more than likely be a cisgender, gender-normative, White, middle class, gay-identifying person.
My interaction with the mainstream media is non-existent so I don’t have a clue whether that is true or not; I can however assume, through mere logic, that exposure in certain environments depends on the context. In other words, their exposure might have nothing to do with their sexual orientation but other aspects altogether. But as expected, progressives see them not as individuals but as ambassadors, who must present a desired image (an image chosen by the so-called community). At present, this image doesn not seem to include undesirable traits such as being “cis”, white or not confused about their gender.
What is more, no group out there today, in the western world anyway, can complain of the lack of a platform to share their experiences, as they can build their own visibility on social media.
This is not some inocuous demand for diversity, but a description of how the image of real life people who happen to have these traits while being gay at the same time is hurting the community. And here’s why.
The kinds of queer relationships we see represented in the media are also limiting, in that they tend to mimic heteronormative binary gender expressions.
Which is, of course, wrong, as the author puts it.
Fighting for sexual liberation and equality is, of course, so much more than fighting for the right to marry, but how is the positioning of marriage equality as the major issue also promoting homonormativity?
Marriage as an issue sets up the requirement that all relationships should mimic this heteronormative standard of sexuality and family structure. It promotes the idea that all people want to emulate straight monogamous couples.
Well, some queer people must have wanted this to happen, or else they wouldn’t have campaigned for it for so long. Which means some of them genuinely embrace this type of life – spiting progressives who want it out the window to the detriment of everyone else – including them.
When we focus only on this issue, we exclude polyamorous and other non-normative relationship structures as acceptable, as well as, of course, those who don’t want to get married.
Even as marriage becomes inclusive of a particular kind of queer relationship, it perpetuates a policing of other kinds of relationships, maintaining the borderline of what is an “acceptable queer relationship.”
Perhaps because they’re not acceptable to just anybody, be they straight or not? Perhaps because there are biological reasons why monogamy is more viable and free-for-all arrangements tend to result in offspring of uncertain paternity, who might face some trouble due to their nebulous origins?
The link will take you to an expose on the ills of marriage, which is, apparently, a tool of oppression, even of those who want it.
By showing that people outside of the heterosexual norm want the same things that “traditional, straight America” wants, themarriage equality movement fights to gain access to this social institution by reproducing, rather than challenging, heterosexual dominance and normativity andusing this as a basis for who deserves rights.
Perhaps the stated goals, which were attained, had nothing to do with “challenging heterosexual normativity”? Maybe, just maybe, some people don’t want to push the envelope every time they gain a right or privilege.
Furthermore, some have committed the ultimate sin of letting their political views lean towards the right – unpardonable indeed, since progressives assume people of a different sexual orientation than the majority should all think the same way in terms of politics, through some biological determinism, probably.
The term homonationalism takes the concept of homonormativity one step further to refer to the way in which queer people — largely White, Western gay men — have aligned with nationalist ideologies of their countries.
While homonormativity describes the alignment of queer people, spaces, and struggles with heterosexual cultural norms, homonationalism describes this alignment within the nation-state, through patriotism, nationalism, and support for a nation’s military and other forms of state violence.
This is not surprising from a Marxist (internationalist) point of view; however, trying to paint patriotism (a dirty word nowadays) as a betrayal of one’s queer activism is laughable; the issues are unrelated, to anyone with half a brain.
Isn’t it strange how they try to control every facet of someone’s personality, by guilting them into thinking it’s not in line with the values they are supposed to espouse?
This is from another article on roughly the same topic:
Marriage was originally constructed to transfer property ownership across generations (especially for white people). Maintaining that married families are superior to other formations, like single parent households, has been key to demonizing low-income black people.
Actually, arguing that single parent households are just as easy to manage is belittling the difficulties single parents face on a daily basis and denying the proven reality that two parents (and ideally an extended family) provide more stability. Far from engaging in any religious puritanism, which sets fixed guidelines for how these families should be, one cannot deny this reality.
Back to the original article:
Some examples include (…) the infuriating participation of White queer people in the denial of their position of privilege and complicity in the current discourse around police violence against Black communities.
(…)And it’s important for us to remember our history: The queer right’s movement’s beginningswere based in a radical politics that consistently challenged corporate capitalism, the military, and the heteronormative structure of marriage.
It is by honoring this legacy of radical politics and prioritizing the needs and voices of those most marginalized that we can truly work toward greater sexual and gender liberation and equality.
And it’s also important to note that the success of said movement was mainly due to a diligent PR campain which detached it from the aspects and purposes progressives are pushing for now. For years, the “hidden goals” of the “gay agenda” were laughed off as conspiratorial nonsense religious fanatics were using as scare tactics. And obviously, it was wrong to paint all gay people with the same brush, just like it’s wrong now for radical leftists to question whether the rights they obtained were actually beneficial. While the right wing argued they didn’t really want marriage, the left now argues they shouldn’t have wanted it.
Instead of the wishes of individuals mattering, it was (and still is) all about political groups and their attempt to micromanage everyone, down to very personal decisions.
The first thing an outsider needs to understand about leftist groups is that they are plagued with infighting, and plenty of it. Far from collaborating peacefully towards a common goal, factions battle each other for oppression points, which leads to a dysfunctionality they are trying to inflict on the rest of society. The success of one faction can bring about not only the envy but the actual disdain of another – that’s how no matter what is achieved, an issue will never be considered resolved in the progressive camp.