Search Box

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Queer theory

I've always been sympathetic to gays. I've always thought gay bashers were despicable. And I supported gay marriage back when Barack and Hillary were -- publicly, at least -- against it.

I'm less sympathetic to queer theory. I've always had the vague impression that it boils down to not wanting to think of oneself as an oddball, and preferring to see everyone else that way.

I just looked it up on Wikipedia, which gave this description:

Queer theory is a field of post-structuralist critical theory that emerged in the early 1990s out of the fields of queer studies and women's studies. Queer theory includes both queer readings of texts and the theorisation of 'queerness' itself....Queer theory builds both upon feminist challenges to the idea that gender is part of the essential self and upon gay/lesbian studies' close examination of the socially constructed nature of sexual acts and identities. Whereas gay/lesbian studies focused its inquiries into natural and unnatural behaviour with respect to homosexual behaviour, queer theory expands its focus to encompass any kind of sexual activity or identity that falls into normative and deviant categories.

In other words, it's all about justification and obfuscation.

The whole field can be summed up by that old joke about the mother who watches the parade go by and then says, hmm, every single person in that marching band is out of step except my son. 

12 comments:

Mark Caplan said...

Whereas blacks have contributed little to nothing to civilization other than advocating for their own civil rights, queers have greatly bettered all our lives. I'll mention Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky, Oscar Wilde, playwright Terence Rattigan, Philadelphia painter Thomas Eakins, Leonard Bernstein, Alec Guinness, and mathematicians G.H. Hardy and Alan Turing. But I'm sure a little research could easily add a hundred more names to the list. June is Pride Month. October is LGBT History Month.

John Craig said...

Mark --
There's absolutely no question about the gays' contribution to civilization, in fact I'd say that they've punched way above their weight in that regard. And I'd add Leonardo da Vinci and Isaac Newton, two of the greatest geniuses in history, to that list. (I might subtract Guinness.)

Blacks have contributed to music; I consider both jazz and rock and roll legitimate forms of music (I wouldn't extend that courtesy to rap or hip hop in general).

Anonymous said...

These ideas are affections. You said some gay behavior are affections, they may be more predisposed to it, but they are affections, so is this kind of philosophizing. Everything is being made into a scholarly topic, you can make anything into one. I could make an entire theory off the book "the hungry caterpillar". Have university course on it. Create the study of the book and name it "famelica infantilia lepidopterology", get a PHD and write dozens of best sellers about it. One chapter is about the popular reception, the next is about historical revisionism two weeks after it was released, the modern reception from children compared to the older audiences, interviews with the writer and his inspirations, another chapter on who the author was growing up......that would be less absurd because we know for a fact the book actually exists.

I also wonder if some autistic behaviours on the higher end are also affections. I'm not talking about the symptoms like rigidity or meltdowns, but the "pride" or "intellecualization". I've met them on the internet, these "neurodiversity" scholars, did some debating, I joined one group who were on my side, we won over one guy once actually, but other than that, they didn't budge. Interestingly, the only ones in my faction were men and maybe one female, the other side had a disproportionate amount of women despite more men having it. (I acknowledged it's under-diagnosed in women, yes, they say the ratio of high functioning is 1 to 10, but I think its 1 to 3-4 like the low functioning end, there are real scientific reasons why there is a gap, smaller, but still there.) Little experts they try to be. Women represent a disportionate amount of those little "scholars/experts".

I wouldn't be surprised if "queer theory" was started by lesbians, female bisexuals, or females trying to identify as anything but straight even when they are. I can't imagine men coming up with this idea. It sounds sexist, but women are like this. I don't know the words to describe it, but there is a difference. Men can read too much into things, but it's in the form of conspiracy theories. Women write poetry about stuff.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
Yes, anytime you hear the words "post-structuralist" or "deconstructionism" or "social construct" you can be sure you're dealing with people who want to obfuscate. And yes, it's an affectation (not affection).

Was it lesbians who started this? Possibly. Whenever I hear the terms mentioned above, I sense people who resent the way things are and want to reinterpret the facts, even biological facts. Gender is a social construct? It only seems that way to people who fell between the cracks themselves somehow, and resent that status, so try to redefine it. As I said in the post, I have sympathy for those who fell between the cracks, but not for those who try to redefine the world to their liking.

Anonymous said...

RE: blacks and music....

It seems to me that blacks have been ground breakers quite a few genres of music. What about reggae, soul, Motown and blues (in addition to jazz and rock, mentioned above)? Much of the original rap music was humorous; uglier gangster rap came later. I am an avid listener of a wide variety of music, but don't claim to be a music historian.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
You're more of a music historian than I am, since I forgot reggae and rhythm and blues. (I'd include soul and Motown within the broader category of rock and roll).

Anonymous said...

It also struck me, SJWs of course are mainly female. Of course
What is it about the female mind that makes them like this? Men can be responsible for setbacks, but they are of a more direct kind, usually honest greed or pride is involved. The little philosophers mix in fantastic (I use that world in the older sense) doggerel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sinclair_(activist)#Biography
The Godfather of neurodiversity, the very person who is responsible for this gigantic setback in progress in the autistic community, Jim Sinclair, is according to "them" "intersexed" despite being born female. Another telling quote by Sinclair "It is impossible to separate autisticness from the person's true IDENTITY". A little bit of self advertisement of something more than autism, also gender, eh?

In nature there are two genders. (Note: If someone reading this is trans-gendered, that still doesn't change anything. Please kindly transition into your correct gender.)
If you are born but have a neurology which doesn't fit either of these two, I do not doubt you, it not impossible for accidents to occur. But It will take a lot before I believe you since it's so hard now to know who isn't bullshitting. If I become your friend I will call you "they" even sometimes out of kindness, but I won't use "schlee, xir, zim". But those aren't important, just please don't become a tumblrina for heaven's sake!

-Ga

Btw: Thanks for correcting me John, I mangle my words. I used to say organtic when I was 8 instead of organic. I wan't to ask, do you know a word for something that is learned but insisted on being innate? Like those affectations. Like the gay lisp or the example of anal sex only being a recent activity? Something that is expected so it is done, but people now think it was always done and is even inherent.

John Craig said...

Ga --
I think in general, females are more easily manipulated, since they generally care more about blending in and getting along with others.

No, I don't know of any word which describes what you're talking about. "Trend" doesn't quite describe it, nor does "modern fashion." "Learned behaviors" maybe?

Ricardo said...

I'm curious why you started off with blacks versus just stating that queers have contributed greatly. It's a common theme I notice on blogs, people mention one group and then compare that group with blacks or African American culture. If you could explain it would be great, it's something that always puzzled me.

John Craig said...

Ricardo --
I'll let Mark answer that question, since he brought up the subject of blacks on this post.

Ricardo said...

Thanks John, the question was directed at Mark. I've been lurker of your blog for a couple years now. Great job on the sociopath alert posts.

John Craig said...

Thank you Ricardo.