Originally Posted by Matt Algren
"points to where the responsibility lies. It lies with the oppressors, not with the oppressed, to dismantle the system that benefits them."
I don't understand the objective problem with the word 'heterocentrism'
, though. It's rarely enough used that I think it would probably be best if you defined it on first use, but it's a recognized phenomenon. And yeah, if they didn't offer any alternate word or tack, I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that they may have been uncomfortable with the topic in general rather than the term in specific.
My current favorite is 'heteronormative'
. I'm dying to fit that into a conversation.
* * *
Alternately, it could be that that isn't what they meant by 'equivocation'. As a logical fallacy
, equivocation could be meant as a term that has more than one meaning.
I like the discourse of these terms Great post, Matt!
to me is indeed pointing a finger and frankly stigmatizing. It feels like labeling someone a "psychopath." I feel that though it is gratifying retaliation to a gay person who has been trespassed by oppression, it is counter-productive as it polarizes the oppressor further away from compassion and understanding. It is reacting to the violence of oppression with violence of derisive stigma
has a pro-gay biased political tone to it.
feels as neutral as I have read yet in this thread. I think his is the best term to use. It speaks of origin of unawareness of unintentional gay oppression without accusing someone of malice. I would say that this term provokes the least equivocation.
has a tone of validating oppression of Gays as justified. Though I really like using it in this discourse, I find it threatening. It provokes the challenge: "prove that Levitical moral law oppressing gays is wrong"
These are great tools! And an excellent exercise in Buddhist Right speech
and Ruiz's first Agreement of The four Agreements
(Be impeccable with your word)