A lot of homosexual couples get kinda justifiably pissed off if you ask them who the man/woman in a relationship is, just so you know. I forget which comedienne said this, and I'm paraphrasing here since it's been a while since I saw the direct quote, but she said that in essence, "asking who's the man in a lesbian relationship is like asking which chopstick is the fork."
Edited by 24.3.23.43
gfrequency, Yuri Eagle wasn't asking or condoning the question, just pointing out that some people ask it, and that it might apply to this trope. That "just so you know" just seems kind of unnecessarily reactionary/accusatory.
Possibly Zoe Lyons, who discusses issues of gender preference and reactions to hers, in her stage act.
Male, early sixties, Cranky old fart, at least two decades behind. So you have been warned. Functionally illiterate in several languages.
I've been thinking: this trope is highly prone to Unfortunate Implications, mainly because if used incorrectly, it can lead to portraying an issue as black and white when it's really gray in real life. That being said, not all antigay-marriage are bigoted against homosexual individuals in general, most just don't want gay marriage to be legalized. What would happen if this trope were to be played in a gray field by putting said Crusader in a Evil vs. Evil setting with the inversion and the protagonist agrees with both, but in different ways? Surely at least one would recoive a "Reason You Suck" Speech from one of the main characters for attacking the bigoted other while being just as bigoted as said other. Bonus Points if both The Hero and Lancer conduct it and one gay marriage supporter calls out on the invert due to said invert being hypocritical in believing in a non-prejudicial world while being highly prejudiced against those who favor traditional marriage, even if they also disapprove of discrimination against gays.
Edited by Ctrooper2011 Hide / Show Replies
Related: not all instances of someone neglecting to be inclusive in their statements is an attack on the minority group they didn't mention. See the Phineas And Ferb (former-)example.
...Like how describing the human species as "bipedal mammals" isn't an attack on people who are missing legs, it's just a general description of humanity.
I know this post is two years old, but someone's still gotta say it: urgh.
If someone want do discuss heteronormativity as such - take it here in the discussion page, not on the main page. The main page describes how heteronormatvity is used in this trope. There's more to heteronormativity then that.
I'm mentioning this both to encourage discussuion as such, and as a preemptive measure to encourage debates to direct themselves to the right place. :-)
Hide / Show Replies
I'm not entirely sure if you are referring to this, but: Heteronormativity, as a word, actually means to deviate from the norm. I might sound stingy since it is apparently in common use for something that would correctly described as homonormativity (to be compliant/identical to the norm). To explain: Heterosexuality implies you pursue an "opposite" partner (male/female, commonly) while homosexuality implies you pursue a "same" partner (male/male, female/female, etc.). Hence, I was quite confused when I first read that word, but without knowing the old greek root, I acknowledge it may be as counterintuitive to use Homonormative for somebody promoting Heterosexuality as the usage outlined in the article is for me. Not to mention, this is about perception first and foremost, so a transgender man pursuing a conformal woman is heterosexual if perceptions agree. Unlike a transgender woman/conformal man pairing (at the moment), the above pairing can even produce children, since egg cells have been rebuilt into sperm at a laboratory, while the reverse has not succeeded and artificial uteri are not available either, so the issue may become irrelevant through technology sooner or later, since perceptions change and besides this one, the whole debate is about perception as far as I have followed it.
I would suggest removing the "Real Life" category. Since these debates are often extremely emotionally charged, it's too easy to misrepresent the legal/personal facts (see, for instance, the entries on Uganda and GWB; the former reserves the death penalty for rape cases, and the latter is a question of constitutional law clearly unaffected by the personal beliefs of the man, who had open homosexuals rather high up in his administration).
The text also requires a bit of adjustment, IMO, because it looks like it's taking sides. I would recommend replacing "sexual minorities" with "alternative lifestyles" (this is the accepted term, after all), and "the problem" with "the kernel of the conflict". The less partisan, the better.
These are my suggestions, in the interests of keeping this site as cheerful as possible. This particular entry is rather heavy and dull, anyway, because this is, naturally, a topic near and dear to many hearts regardless of perspective.
Hide / Show Replies
The Real Life section was never supposed to be there: When I launched the trope, it had a "No Real Life examples" tag. Somewhere along the way, someone re-categorized the neatorama example into "real life" and removed the tag.
I have now moved this example to literature (since it's not originally from that website, but a century-and-a-half-old pamphlet) and nuked the Real Life section, reinstating the "no real life examples tag. Refined the trope description a bit while I was at it.
As for "alternative lifestyles", it typically refers to... lifestyles. There are gay/BDSM lifestyles and subcultures, but MANY gays and sadomasochists does not belong to any such subcultures. Falling in love with someone of the same gender or enjoying a spanking does not make you a part of any lifestyle or subculture. Many with such feelings chose to go lifestyle, but there are also many who do not. And a Heteronormative Crusader is unlikely to care about if the target is lifestyling or not.
Just added the Inside Scoop example, and noted that he declare using the left hand to be a "lifestyle". Well, I'm sure most left-handed people disagree. ;-)
I agree that there should be no Real Life section. But in my defense, the Real Life section was already in place and flaming by the time I got here.
No need for defense: The RL section was there, and the examples you added belonged there. :-)
There's a good reason that this trope is also under the War On Straw index: it's less true than Gay Pride would want you to believe. I know this because, as a Catholic, I'm well aware that we are strong supporters of traditional marriage, but highly disfavor treating gay people like maggots and trying to "cure" them.
Does Natalie Geln from Khaos Komix count? She does attack two transgendered students, and before was seen throwing around words like 'fag' and 'dyke'.
Removed the Phineas and Ferb "example." While the line "all throughout history men fall in love with women" might be a bit heteronormal (although he never says ALL men fall in love with women), it's not crusading at all. And the rest of the song is just Jeremy singing about how he's going to tell Candace why he likes her.
Okay, the fourth example confuses me. At first I thought that the example said Heteronormative was only against Female-on-Male and okay with Male-on-Female, but then I figured out that it meant Heteronormative thought BDSM was the same as wife beating.
It is a little ambiguous and I changed it to be more understandable, but I think I changed the connotative meaning. The original example preserved below, maybe someone else can make it clearer.
"Condemns Female-on-male BDSM (as well as same-sex BDSM) for blaspheming against the gender roles, while failing to see the difference between male-on-female BDSM and wife-beating"
Hide / Show Replies
Your edit was partly an improvement and partly Completely Missing The Point. Made a new version.
It now says:
- Condemns male-on-female and male-on-male BDSM as being physical abuse. Female-on-male and female-on-female BDSM is more often either claimed to not really exist or accused of being some kind of gender role blasphemy.
The thing is this, in a heteronormative mindset, sexuality is always between a man and a woman, and the man is always the dominant one. Thus, a purely heteronormative persopective cannot even begin to comprehend female domnation, while the understanding of male dominance is restricted to an idea about an all-powerful man beating the poot helpless little female.
Also, someone just added two more bullet points.
- Comdemns non-BDSM heterosexual sex in which positions other than man-on-top missionary position.
- Condemns asexuals under the idea that they are either "homosexuals in hiding" or empty, damaged human beings (though the latter condemnation is less purely heteronormative and more sex-normative, and in real life is just as likely to come from homosexuals and bisexuals as heterosexuals).
I'm pulling the first one and changing the second, because in their current form they are about generic moralism rather then heteronormativity. The remaining bullstpoint now reads:
- Condemns male asexuals for "not being real men". Women, on the other hand, are expected to be asexual but have sex anyway.
Also adding the following line:
"Note that condemnation of homosexuality, BDSM, asexuality et cetera is only heteronormative when based on gender role expectations. A Moral Guardian group that condemn heterosexual love as well might not quality as heteronormative."
Edited by Xzenu
I see people, straight, gay, and anywhere between and outside, like to apply traditional gender roles into homosexual relationships. They often ask questions like, "who's the man/woman in the relationship" or they would assign the roles themselves based on how the people in the couple act. Would this be an example of this trope? Is it something else? Or am I just being a touch sensitive?
Hide / Show Replies