Contents of H:
Under what conditions ought we consider the heterosexual to be a
Îheterosexistâ? What, precisely, is meant by the term Îheterosexist?â
Perhaps we should approach its root first, and provide a definition of the term
Îsexistâ by itself. Definitions of generally understood terms are always a
problem when it comes to particularizing their meanings, so I can only offer the
clearest version I can concisely conceive of. Do with it what you will. Now,
since the Îsexâ in Îsexistâ refers firstly to gender, a thing which is
Îsexistâ regards a certain treatment of one or the other gender. More
specifically, it regards that which Îtreatsâ the object of its treatment on
the basis of gender. But this is very vague, confusing, and seems to impose
little definition and clarity. My contention is rather strong. To flesh it out,
I offer the following: I see as Îsexistâ, not single comments or actions,
but contexts and networks. This seems to be the only way to eventually identify
a single comment or act as being a sexist one. What I mean is that, if I say
that something is Îsexistâ we only refer to it as such because it is
identified in contrast to a certain context, while itself belonging to a
different one. For example, in the middle of the eighteenth century the
patriarchal family structure was not regarded as sexist, since at that time it
was not even regarded a patriarchy. (Please note that the Greek word for
patriarchy is mentioned in Platoâs Republic and even as early as the Niobe
of Aeschylus; but that the notion there referred to has almost nothing to do
with the more derisive term we use today. Then, Îpatriarchyâ referred not to
supremacy, but only to an arrangement of fatherhood). Today, we see that past
patriarchies were no less violently sexist than the contemporary ones. In fact,
they were often much more violent since they were never juxtaposed to any
possible options. The point is that we can call it a patriarchy only in
reflection, after something other than a patriarchy presents itself as a
workable possibility. Before theories of evolution, we couldnât consider the
standard account of our origin to belong to the arguments of creationism- even
if we did think they were incorrect. We could only refer to the arguments as
such in direct comparison to, or in anticipation of the findings of Darwin. And,
likewise, only after much discontent, violence, and thought, that is, a great
rupture in traditions, were we enabled to name a given system as Îsexistâ.
In my view, the most prevailing context of our society is a sexist one,
and thus, we can locate many individual acts and speeches which constitute our
sexist order. But why should I claim that it is generally sexist? Well, because
it is still the case- despite much progression- that wimmin in positions of
power or great wealth are counted as exceptions to an unpublished rule (this
Îruleâ could be considered a published one, I suppose, if one conceives the
nearest beer billboard to be a Îpublicationâ of the societal value of wimmin.
That is, the billboard is a public document that projects and reinforces a
subversive portrayal of wimmin.). For as long as socially, economically,
politically, etc. autonomous wimmin are truly exceptions in our network of
humanity, there must be something that they take exception to. And that
something, is a prevailing societal, political, economic system that was
designed with deep deliberation and intention by white males- for white males.
White males have gone so far as to define what is Îwealthâ, Îpowerâ, and
Îknowledgeâ. Oh yes, even science has a gender (see Epistemology,
the Demolition of Wimmin). Formally powerful wimmin are still exceptions,
and thinking that it is wonderful when they succeed is not nearly enough. For
the fact that they are exceptions shall only and always point to a fallacious
standard against which they are forced to struggle. And it is precisely in this
way that I understand Îheterosexismâ, which shifts the focus from a
reference to gender to a reference to sexuality.
If you are kind to homosexuals and want them to be able to marry, to join
the army, and to adopt children- this is not enough- Because we shall only then
continue our pseudo-liberal celebration of the individual successes of the
marginalized and oppressed. The true revolution is in education. Education needs
to waste no time in combating this Îconsciousness of exceptionsâ. We canât
leave this job to gay parents alone. It needs to make an appearance in the
earliest of our textbooks so that at no time should some children end up
repressed where others are naturally liberated by some bullshit normativity. For
as long as we wait until our students are supposedly old enough to be taught
about homosexuality, we are insisting that it is an exception to normativity.
And the repressed youth asks the obvious question: ãHow can that which is an
exception to normativity be normal itself?ä And to this you will have no
answer... and for good reason. This is how I understand Îheterosexismâ,
according to which too many beautiful people are psychologically abused by the
most Îliberalâ amongst us. Letâs all do what we can to help nail bullshit
normativity into the coffins of its dying, fascistic advocates.
Homo:
(at times see Nerd, but with maximum threat)
I experience a strange conflict as I think about emotional growth; at
first, much of the growth experience revolves around gaining independence -
being able to do things for yourself, an admirable trait - but later in the
growth curve, one can only progress through interaction and cooperation. Sadly
it seems that many of us are stuck in this latter stage of development, striving
to stand alone and against all forces.
Human beings are not independent. Firstly, we cannot live without other
human beings. There are those rare hermits who are capable of surviving,
at least physically, through a life of complete social isolation. But for almost
all of us, psychological and physical survival is not possible without
cooperation and interaction with other human beings. Simply stated, we are a
social creature, in both emotional and physiological terms.
But our dependence does not end within our own species. We are also
dependent on the other living creatures of the earth, without whom we could not
survive or thrive. In fact, the very atoms in our body are only presently
arranged into what we call ãlifeä because of the action of other organisms.
If not for the work of bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and other animals, we
would cease to exist.
Strangely, our dependence does not end with the living world, for the
earth itself is a prerequisite for our existence. Not just any rock floating
through space will do - ours is a unique planet composed of gaseous, liquid and
solid materials which provide the optimal living conditions for our ecosystem.
Any change, even a minor change, in the characteristics of this inorganic system
has the potential to obliterate this brief phenomenon we call life in a
geological instant.
Anyone who understands human behavior or the earthâs ecosystem
or earth science understands that human beings are not independent; in fact,
we are acutely dependent - we need the earth, all other organisms, and our
fellow human beings. Strangely, our greatest goal seems to be asserting our
independence. Whatâs so bad about admitting dependence?
Dependence gets a bad rap. We see it as weak. We create make-believe
independence to make ourselves feel stronger. Itâs pretty damn dumb. What I
have come to realize is that dependence should be celebrated. We canât make it
without the help of our environment (human, organic and inorganic), so we might
as well find the best ways to work with, rather than against, everything and
everyone around us.
What I have found is that interaction and cooperation produce more than independent effort ever could. This band stands as testimony to this fact - if not for our cooperation, I doubt that any of us could have produced such a work. Certainly, it will not reach the eyes and ears we intend without the help of our fellow Mountain Cooperative members, the hardcore community in general, and you.