Compulsory Heterosexuality

Compulsory Heterosexuality refers to the idea that heterosexuality, as a default sexual orientation, can be adopted by people regardless of their personal sexual preferences. Compulsory means “mandatory”, “obligatory”, or “required”. A person’s heterosexuality is generally assumed until proven otherwise; by both one’s self and those around her. Those who have never “thought about” or questioned their heterosexual orientation may be accused of “compulsory heterosexuality”. Since heterosexuality is integral to the way a society is organized, it becomes a naturalized “learned behavior”. When a woman decides she is a lesbian (if this “deciding” even occurs), she is rejecting the ‘compulsion’ toward a heterosexual lifestyle and orientation. But Compulsory Heterosexuality makes coming out difficult, because it keeps women from being able to separate their “true sexual desires” from their “compulsions toward heterosexualty”. This is a concept that stems from the question of whether or not “anyone” could be a lesbian, and what agency an individual has over her sexual choices and desires.

As far as I know, this term was made popular by Adrienne Rich in her essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”, which is a critique of heterosexuality as an institution and it’s negative affects on women. Rich suggests that heterosexuality keeps women from actualizing their full sexual and emotional capacities by denying them a sexual way of being that is unrelated to male pleasure.

Binary

Binary: The root of this word is “bi” which means two, so when we speak of the binary we are talking about that which has two sides. An example of this, seeing as we’re talking about women’s studies, is man and woman. In a simpler context we have the idea of on and off, or up and down.

In our society today we have a strong desire to use the binary to label things right, or wrong, with us, or against us, and the idea of “us” and “them.” This idea holds true with gender as well, you’re either a man or woman in our society with no room for anything else. Bell Hooks calls this “competitive either/or thinking.” This idea that everything has two sides is a very simplistic way of looking at the world.

Invisible

Invisible: To be invisible means to be out of sight, hidden, and unheard by others. Invisibility is the act of “flying below the radar” so to speak, in order to avoid the spotlight or the attention of others.

Do some people intentionally choose to be invisible by not expressing an opinion on a controversial subject, because it’s easier to stay quiet? In avoiding “making waves” there seems to be suppression of emotion and feelings, because it’s easier to step back and be quiet, than speak up and be judged.

Who makes us feel like we should be invisible and unheard though? Is it societal pressure, parents, or peers? Yes, most likely all of the above. Yamada brings up the fact that some women’s desire for invisibility is a “conditioning process” that is taught from a young age.

This conditioning is an issue Yamada had dealt with for some time. By speaking out at her work she was going against the idea of invisibility and the response was; “she seemed like such a nice person, so polite.” There is this idea that it’s wrong to be seen and heard if it goes against the norm. She also talks about letting racist remarks slide and about “quietly fitting into the man’s world of work.” She writes about how tough it is to speak out against stereotypes and how being visible can be difficult because it can make a person vulnerable.

There’s always a risk of criticism involved when a person is visible, but is it a risk worth taking?

Long hair

Long hair is a physical characteristic associated with both “femininity” and “masculinity” conventionally defined.
It is a pervasive Western (patriarchal) norm that women grow their hair long and men maintain their hair respectably short(er). Revealingly, men retain a great deal more freedom in hair length normativity/social expectation than do women.
There are exceptions to this norm, but deviants of both genders risk being socially ostracized by defying hair length normality. In United States history, noteworthy examples include:
-The “Flapper” movement of the 1920s in which women adopted a short “bob” cut and took more “lenient” positions regarding the woman’s proper relation to sex, drinking, partying, dancing, and “masculine” activities such as driving cars and smoking. The Flapper was consequently ostracized by “society” (or “Society”) due to her deviation. This movement all but disappeared with the coming of the impoverished Depression 1930s as opposed to the opulent economic conditions of “the Roaring 20s” that gave rise to such feminine liberation. (this is an interesting correlation to bear in mind: whether economic comfort lends itself to greater opportunities for women liberation? There is–or is there?–a connection.)

-The 1960s ushered forth a social rebellion against established norms. The youth population expressed its discontent with US foreign policy and stifling social expectations by being socially reactionary. Men wore their hair long–whether in protest against norms or simply to “conform” to the non-conformist hippie movement. Long hair was “liberating” but also stigma affixed itself to wearers of long hair and this trend (as a trend) died with the end of the 1960s. However, the 60s men wedged their foot in the door of historical norms, thus allowing for men later in US history to wear their hair long and not to be regarded as a “savage” or space alien.

-The 1990s-today allow for many hairstyles that defy normality. Women with short hair and men with long hair can readily be found. However, social and gendered/sexed significance is still attached to one’s hairstyle, indicating that we haven’t moved nearly as far from Victorian ideas as we’d like to believe. A woman can shave her head, but that MEANS something. A woman can leave her hair long, and nothing more is thought of it. We’ve not escaped foolish hairstyle norms.

One is left wondering: why should hair say anything about what’s in between my legs? And the answer is: it shouldn’t. Frank Zappa once remarked, in an exchange with an interviewer:

Interviewer: “So Frank, you have long hair. Does that make you a woman?”
Zappa: “You have a wooden leg. Does that make you a table?”

(NOTE: this is a severely inadequate history of American hair length–particularly because the women and men involved were all white and middle to upper class in social standing. But, then again, isn’t that the typical historical subject of American history? If anyone has other ideas about hair length and historical normativity, please add!!!)

Difference

I’d like to start out with an example of comparison because that is how we ultimately view difference. Let’s compare apples and oranges and find their differences. One is red and one is orange. One has a core and one does not. Does that make one better than the other? We compare two kinds of people/things and point out what is not similar between the two in order to find difference. That which is not similar is difference.

There seems to be an issue of hierarchy involved when we speak of difference, because one is typically “better” than the other. The one side that is not as good, is the one that is considered of lesser value and therefor it’s the different one. The idea behind difference is finding things that one side has and that the other side is missing. It’s comparing two people or objects, like apples and oranges, or men and women, and pointing out what makes one unlike the other. Many people view this word in a negative way because they often times see difference as an area where two sides struggle to agree. This negative connotation that accompanies difference is not necessary. Being different from someone is not a bad thing or an issue of being unequal to the other.

Scott mentions the Sears case as an example in her essay and how: “Difference was substituted for inequality, the appropriate antithesis of equality, becoming inequality’s explanation and legitimation.” There is this desire for difference to be connected with inequality or equality. Why is there the need to connect something that is different with something that is unequal? The two things being compared, such as man and woman, are only able to be different because the other exists. So aren’t they in turn equal? This idea that “I’m a woman because I’m not a man” wouldn’t be comparable if not for the both of them.

Womanism

“Womanist is to feminist as purple is to lavender” -Alice Walker

Womanism is a feminist term coined by Alice Walker. It is a reaction to the realization that “feminism” does not encompass the perspectives Black women. It is a feminism that is “stronger in color”, nearly identical to “Black Feminism”. However, Womanism does not need to be prefaced by the word “Black”, the word automatically concerns black women. A Womanist is a woman who loves women and appreciates women’s culture and power as something that is incorporated into the world as a whole. Womanism addresses the racist and classist aspects of white feminism and actively opposes separatist ideologies. It includes the word “man”, recognizing that Black men are an integral part of Black women’s lives as their children, lovers, and family members. Womanism accounts for the ways in which black women support and empower black men, and serves as a tool for understanding the Black woman’s relationship to men as different from the white woman’s. It seeks to acnowledge and praise the sexual power of Black women while recognizing a history of sexual violence. This perspective is often used as a means for analyzing Black Women’s literature, as it marks the place where race, class, gender, and sexuality intersect. Womanism is unique because it does not necessarily imply any political position or value system other than the honoring of Black women’s strength and experiences. Because it recognizes that women are survivors in a world that is oppressive on multiple platforms, it seeks to celebrate the ways in which women negotiate these oppressions in their individual lives.

Standpoint

A standpoint is ones perspective or stance and how one views an issue. A person’s standpoint is shaped by many influences such as a person’s race, class, culture, and gender. Because of this, it’s difficult to have a standpoint that is not biased due to these outside forces.

Hartsock talks about the “feminist standpoint” and “how womens lives differ systematically and structurally from those of men.” This idea that women’s lives differ from men is to say that women therefor experience the world and society around them differently, and it has an affect on their standpoint. A feminist standpoint is one that examines and sheds light on womens oppression and views the oppression as something that needs to be changed.

Hierarchy

A ranking system that organizes itself based on arbitrary values. Hierarchies posit one kind of thing at the “top” of the system and have a set list of gradations that end at a “bottom” point. What is at the “top” is generally what has the most power and that which is at the “bottom” has the least power, and is a poor subsititute for the highest ranking thing. Hierarchies allow people to view other human beings as if they exist on a “scale”, making it easy to identify the value (or worth) of someone based on how far away or close they are to the highest point. Race and gender hierarchies are often justified with concepts such as evolution and mental or physical difference. Hierarchies exist within all social spheres and vary according to the culture and values of each group.They can be dependent on multiple determinants; for example, a straight white male (the authority) might be at the top of someone’s hierarchical scale and a black lesbian woman (the subordinate) might be at their bottom. A gay white male could be posited as higher than a gay black male because “white” and “male” are factors that make up the person at the top of the scale. Hierarchies contribute to a narrow world view and both form and are formed by oppressive ideologies, making them ultimately untrustworthy.

‘the Natural’

the Natural.

The Natural is the social explanation for strict and conservative governing of human life. The term itself has much to do with forming and sustaining normativity—what is OK and what is not OK. Claiming that something (an object or an act or a phenomenon) isn’t “natural” often ensures society passing unfavorable judgment on it. First we need to break down what “natural” means and how it transitions into the political weapon I will call “the Natural.”

Let us take “natural” to mean that which is necessary to reproduce the human species. (Or, from a Darwinian standpoint, the actions that maximize a creature’s reproduction success.) In this way, “natural” are the qualities and characteristics of animals that bring about reproduction of the species.

How have we arrived at this definition? Does it not seem rather esoteric? Let’s apply it to our current political and social world and, as a result, it ought to make more sense:
If we take “natural” to mean that which is necessary to reproducing the human species, it should then be taken as truth that homosexuality and other non-heterosexual practices are unnatural. Homosexuality is constantly decried as being ‘unnatural’ (and therefore unnecessary) and should be criminalized, discouraged, punished. With the above definition of ‘natural’ at hand, it is a truism that homosexuality (read: all non-hetero sex practices) is unnatural. But, then again, so are countless other daily activities that we practice in an unthinking manner. For example, driving or riding in a car is a profoundly unnatural practice. We can note that driving a car is unnatural because it poses a much greater risk to the driver while on the road than if she left the car at home and walked.
The US Department of Transportation reports that:
There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States — one death every 13 minutes.
We can then ask, how many of these 42,636 dead or 2.9 million injured would still be reproductively viable if they had instead walked rather than driven a car? Using our standards of ‘natural’ as it applies to homosexuality (that it is an unnatural act that does not reproduce the human species and should therefore be discouraged), by all accounts, we should be criticizing driving and homosexuality equally for being ‘unnatural’ human acts.

We then have arrived at the crux of the problem of ‘natural’:
How is it that the natural suddenly became synonymous with the good and right?

We can see then that ‘the Natural’ becomes that rare occurrence: the irrational idea which (horrifyingly) simultaneously assumes the role of the authoritative idea. Like religions rooted in dogmatism, the Natural defies logic and steamrolls any criticism of itself, so ingrained is its authority and rightness in the minds of uncritical human beings. This is the inception of the Natural as a political weapon: when it is used to batter those individuals and practices that do not reside firmly in the ‘natural’ realm.

When we see that the Natural is ambiguous and nigh-irrelevant to our daily lives and social interactions, why do we persist in being governed by its irrational ‘laws’? This is the point at which we part ways with the Natural. Combating the Natural should not be done by attempting to “explain” homosexuality in such a way that it fits into the narrow framework of ‘natural.’ No, instead we need to reject the Natural as a force entirely. Pleasure governs us, not nature! We respond to reason and discourse, trading of ideas and dialogue, not some politicized concept of what nature decrees as “right” and “wrong”! This is our praxis…

Patriarchy

A society or system which is ruled or controlled by men. Generally, patriarchy is a system of roles that women do housework and that men work outside and support their family. Patriarchy is a hierarchy in society such as women earn less money than men. Patriarchy is not just formed by men. It has a connection with a social economic system such as capitalism. According to Heidi Hartmann, patriarchy is “Controlling women’s access to resources and their sexuality, in turn, allows men to control women’s labor power, both for the purpose of serving men in many personal and sexual ways and for the purpose of rearing children.

Patriarchy can not be separable with capitalism, however, how the division of labour which is women work at home and which is men work outside started is not clear. I think that the system of patriarchy is a social dominance by men, however, I don’t think patriarchy is directly constructed by men, because men don’t necessarily try to form patriarchy.