Maintaining Dominant Systems Of Sexuality

This book explores the reader to rethink their opinions on social and physical normality. The title suggests that normality shouldn’t be defined so critically and that those of diversity and marginalization should be included. In this instance, the focus is upon the normalcy of those who are transgender. “One image of us that went viral showed us standing in our bathing suits with the caption: ”Does this couple look normal? Because they are.” The intention of the caption may have been good, but what did it even mean by normal? That we passed as cisgender? Were heterosexual?? White? Able-bodied? Attractive? If one of us hadn’t been any of those things, would they still have called us normal?” pg

Wilton refers to Monique Wittig, a French author and feminist theorist, who states “our survival demands that we contribute all our strength to the destruction of the class of women within which men appropriate women.” Thus, Wittig expresses that “heterosexuality is a social system” (Wilton 165). Why heterosexuality is forced upon the majority, however, is still unclear. Emily Martin, in her article, “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles,” explains why this is so. Procreation can only occur upon the union of sperm and egg and their behaviors have created stereotypes which “imply not only that female biological processes are less worthy than their male counterparts but also that women

Freidan (1963, pg. 16) states that “All they [women] had to do was devote their lives from earliest girlhood to finding a husband bearing children”. Gender roles were extremely distinctive and in some ways still are now, however, nowadays there is a belief of gender fluidity which some people identity themselves with as they identify as more than one gender. Women have been recognised as the figure who should conform to their husband, take care of the home and also the children. This role prevented women from being as free as men because they simply didn’t have the rights to. This point of view from feminists is different to Parson’s view because while he puts forward that the nuclear family is the normal family set up, feminists argue against the nuclear family because they can see the

There is always that one thing, be it small or large, that separates a person from the crowd. In Kenji Yoshino’s “The New Civil Rights” he supports this idea, claiming that “in our increasingly diverse society all of us are outside the mainstream in some way” (552). People are bound to be different, as they each have their own experiences that molds their personality. Therefore, it is impossible for everyone to be “normal” if a population is filled with unique individuals with various characteristics, yet, society seems to always find a way to define normality and set the standard. It decides which traits are unique, eccentric, or quirky, and which are strictly “abnormal,” and therefore shunned. When this occurs, other members of the community have little problems ensuring the “different” individual knows they do not fit in. People do this because they do not take to time to understand individuals who are labeled “abnormal.” It is a result of their own laziness and lack of desire to be educated about them; they decide automatically that those human beings are deemed less without getting a chance to know them. This phenomenon occurs frequently with the LGBTQ community. The population decides that not being heterosexual or cisgender is grounds for bullying, and that being part of that faction is too “different” to be a part of their society.This ignorance blinds them from widening their definition of normality and expanding their views. People have to be better educated to have more accepting views as it not only limits themselves, but also harms individuals around

The family has always been a unit that calls for the belonging of the kin. It calls for more than blood relations, but also a relation with ancestry, history, ethnic origins, etc. It serves as the most basic political unit that many can relate too, however, the term family carries a more diverse and complex role that is seen to evolve throughout the years. With the modernization of the human civilization leads to an evolution of thought, morality, and ideology. What was once the idealized nuclear family, is now criticized by many modern day thinkers as it invokes a heteronormative that oppresses any other forms of family and sexual relationships. This concept can be seen in the given article by Bell Hooks. In Hooks’ document, she talks about the racist oppression of sexist domination towards back women. There is a focus on black women in reference to their place in the community, the home, and the home to which they are serving to (Hooks, 1990). Her views show the heavy responsibilities of black women as it reflects their privileges and lifestyle. The second document by Michelle Owen examines the normalization of queer as seen in the Canadian Legal Landscape, assimilation debates, and works to that aim to break the heteronormative family lifestyle (2001).

There are various perceptions of gay and lesbian couples that they represent a more egalitarian relationship. (Civettini 2015:1) However, when same-sex couples are observed there is still a tendency to believe that the relationship contains a masculine and feminine figure following the heterosexual model. So, it is necessary to address both how these couples deviate from society’s norms as gay individuals but might still be reproducing the same behaviors as heterosexual couples because the ideologies are so deeply rooted in social institutions. The stereotypical connotations of masculinity and femininity influence all aspects of American society and gender display relies heavily on meeting those given expectations. So, in the case of this article, the author Civettini views a connection between sex, gender, and sexual orientation when it comes to displaying

Until quite recently, the traditional view of family that has predominated society has been comprised of gender roles. The “ideal” family in the past has consisted of a white, middle-class, heterosexual couple with about 2.5 children. In this heteronormative nuclear family, the father is the head of the household and the breadwinner of the family, while the mother is the one who cares for the children and completes household duties. Of course, most families do not fit into this mould and those who do not fit have been repeatedly marginalized due to their differences. It is no question that race, class, sexuality, ability, and many other identity markers intersect in how forms of family may vary. As explained by the concept of intersectionality, gender must be analyzed through a lens that includes various identity markers which contribute to how an individual experiences oppression. It is through the use of intersectionality, the discussion of patriarchy, and the deconstruction of “family” that bell hooks (1990) and Michelle K. Owen (2001) paint family as a site of belonging and contestation.

From the moment a child is born, the society in which they are born into begins to teach the child what is normal, and what is not. If the aforementioned child has a vagina, they will be labeled a girl and assumed to be heterosexual, and the same principle applies if the child has a penis. Yet the human world is not as simple as this established gender binary. For example, there are people who identify with a gender other than the sex assigned at birth.1 There are also people who are not sexually attracted strictly to the opposite gender, or at all. Such diversions from societal normality are more often than not greeted with opposition, as what is considered normal is also deemed right. The LGBT community has had to deal with fierce societal

Jones observe (2002: 15). In these ways, institutionalized heterosexuality is central to some of the key motivation(s) behind and design of public policy frameworks in the United States. By “institutionalized heterosexuality” I am referring to the set of ideas, institutions and relationships that make the heterosexual family the societal norm, while rendering homosexual/queer families “abnormal” or “deviant” (Ingraham 1999). My queer analysis of social welfare involves examining how sexuality and gender can be rethought and reorganized in economic and social policy frameworks, theories and practices. Throughout the article I examine how heterosexuality is assumed to be the natural basis for defining the family, and by extension, society, both explicitly (by excluding LGBT people from the analysis and by stigmatizing certain individuals as “non-family” or “anti-family”) and implicitly (by assuming that all people are heterosexual, that marriage is a given and exists only between a traditionally-defined man and woman, and that all people fit more or less into traditional gender roles; see Foucault 1978; Fraser and Gordon 1994; Ingraham 1999; Phelan 2001;

It is in the traditional values of family integrity that there are stereotypical views on families of all kinds: single parents, divorced families, families without children, families same sex. Homosexuality, heterosexuality and transgenderism are highly pressured in aspects related to heterosexual marriage such as marriage, childbirth, and the resulting pressures on kinship. At the beginning of the piece.

In her essay titled “Compulsive Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Adrienne Rich claims that any alternative to heterosexual outcome is discouraged by society. The essay claims that Western tradition has used the heterosexual family model as the basic social

Adrienne Rich also speak compulsory heterosexuality in her work, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Compulsory heterosexuality as discussed by Rich is how we view heterosexuality as a part of institution of capitalism that maintains power through the ideas of heterosexuality being acceptable to society and how we do not allow for differences in the binary system. As Rich states, “the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness” (Rich, 135). Meaning that we understand how heterosexuality is maintained by our capitalism system just as we understand oppression of classism, racism, and gender differences. Heterosexuality becomes institutionalized by maintaining through the normalization of forcing us to believe in the capitalism

The heterosexual imaginary is immensely ingrained in our everyday experience that most people, including feminist sociologists, has become inclined to conceptualize and theorize based around the heteronormative. The heterosexual imaginary acts as an invisible framework at play that structures our thinking processes and in which constructs our social identity. For instance, the inquiry of a survey taker’s marital status in most social science surveys come to show that our recognized and appropriate social identity is formed around heterosexuality. That is, any deviation from this heterosexual norm would be considered abnormal and be marginalized. To a minimal extent, this focus has served the interests of women because of the lack of activism

Same-sex partners cannot produce children, but they can still raise a family. Indeed, they can adopt children and raise them as effectively as those who conceive and give birth to children do. As Conger states, a parent’s gender does not effect a child’s development. This implies that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as heterosexual couples are. It would be naïve to suggest that heterosexual unions are always pleasant; however, most people agree that the society functions best with conventional families (Confessore). The many reasons why maintaining stable and healthy marriages is difficult are not reasons for abandoning this idea. Conger points out that enacting a legal change to the conception of marriage is a defining moment for a society, as this bond leads to the next generation of people. It is not wrong or alarming to proceed with caution regarding the transformation of the approved structure of the family. In fact, it is responsible and wise.

In Stephanie Coontz’s article, The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the “Traditional” Family, she states that many Americans revived the nuclear family ideals that had so disturbed commentators during the 1920s. This disruption was people looking upon the same sex for their companionship and friendship. During this era, this was a normal occurrence, now it is shunned and looked at as though it is morally corrupt. This is not a typical family situation. In today’s society, some people would consider this behavior as non-familial and it would not be described as a “traditional” family