Heterosexism is as Corrupt as Racism

[Huggins293]

I see many similarities between heterosexists and racists:

1. Both feel that activism directed against their attitudes is forced on them. White segregations felt like civil rights actvists were not respecting their "humble" opinion that races should decide if they want to integrate with another race in every public institution. Black heterosexists, accuse aggresive gay activist for not respecting their opinon of not accepting homosexuality or homosexual love.

1. Both base their judgements of physicality, racism on skin color the other the shell of an act. These physical judgments sadly determine thier morality.
2. Both claim that their racism and heterosexism is not harmful to gays and blame gays and blacks for wanting to be accepted as equals. If gays would just lie about being str8 or not tell anyone they are gay, there would be no problem. If blacks just stuck with their own kind, and accept the opinion that whites do not want them to work for them, it would be okay.

2. Both feel that aggresive activist are troublemakers and are obessessed with forcing their view on others when in fact these troublemakers are citing injustice, unfairness and degradation directed against a group of people.

3. Both will continue to respond to activism directed against their status quo and blame the activist for provoking hostility. The goverments.and public adminstartions that for the most part support thier status quo will cite the activist as the one provoking conflict by simply stating their case.

4. Both have perverse view of reality when it comes to who is a victim and who is the pepertrator. Redneck whites in America feel they are victimized by job discrimination and violence against blacks when white America has had a culture and goverment that has victimized blacks for 100s of years.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Huggins293

I see many similarities between heterosexists and racists:

I absolutely agree. And just as most folks really can't see the white skin privelege they enjoy, even greater numbers percentage wise, can't see their heterosexual privelege. At the Catholic Worker gathering I attended last week, I ended a workshop on The Catholic Worker and Heterosexual Privelege with the story of Jimmy Creech.

Jimmy is one of my major heros. He was a heterosexual Methodist minister who was defrocked for performing Holy Unions. The spring following his last trial which ended in his being defrocked, Soulforce attended the General Conference meeting in Cleveland. We were to meet with a group of bishops on Saturday afternoon. So Friday night, we put together a set of demands that we wanted to take to them. One of them was that Jimmy be reinstated and moved out to California where he would be appreciated. Jimmy wasn't at that meeting.

However, the next morning when we went over the demands, Jimmy shocked all of us with an awareness that not a single gay persons had seen. He said he wouldn't tread on his heterosexual privelege - that he wouldn't be reinstated until every lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender minister who had been defrocked, or refused ordination, was reinstated.

I was absolutely astounded to see a straight person more aware of heterosexual privelege than any of us were. Jimmy remains one of my heros, and as I closed with that story at the workshop, I asked everyone there to take seriously their privelege and to challenge heterosexual privelege when they encounter it.

kara

[kara speltz]

I've been surprised as I talk to what I see as very knowledgable straight allys, who have never heard the term heterosexual privelege. Within the last couple of weeks, a number of friends have aknowledged that they had never heard the term nor even considered it.

I really believe this is an important aspect to our struggle. Just as justice loving white people initially had no concept of white skin privelege our straight brothers and sisters have almost no concept of heterosexual privelege. The two who acknowledged that to me had family and close friends who were gay, but they still hadn't gotten it.

To point this out requires, I suspect, an absolute certainty on our parts that our love is blessed by God; and that just as people of color do not deserve the discrimination they experience in their lives, neither do we.

I think I've posted these two stories in other sections of the forum, but I'll repeat them, because I think they're important to our struggle for equal rights.

Several weeks ago, we had our baby baptisms at my Catholic parish, which has been gay friendly for probably some 15 years now. We have had a large LGBT group that meets regularly, and even in the last 8 years a gay pride Mass every June.

The babies were almost always baptised at our family Mass; usually somewhere between 5 to 7 couples, several times a year. Year after year, these straight couples would bring their children with the assurance that they would be baptised, and even though we had a fairly large gay community, never, in 20 years did I see a gay couple bring their child for public baptism. Every year, I wondered when, and if that might happen.

Two young men brought their new born adopted baby to be baptised at our Sunday morning baptisms, and in the introduction the host straight couple said they'd been a couple for 4 years! I had to restrain myself from standing up and yelling Alleluiah! Prior to communion, another straight friend of mine who's sister is gay and I chatted about this historic moment at our parish. But 99% of my straight friends after church hadn't gotten it. As heterosexuals they had always assumed their children would be baptised, but until now, we could never operate from that assumption. Honestly, I'm not sure we can still make that assumption, but I'm surely more hopeful.

The second incident happened as I got into DesMoines for a national Catholic Worker gathering. I spoke with others there about being a gay rights activist and after a few moments this one woman looked at me quizzically asking, "But surely you don't approve of the practice?"

I told her that I did approve of the "practice," that to suggest that God didn't bless our relationships just as straight relationships were blessed was absurd. We spoke later on in the evening, and I acknowledged to her that her statement to me had been hurtful, but that I knew that wasn't her intention. By the end of the weekend, I believe I made real headway with her and she even asked me how my workshop, "Heterosexual Privelege and the Catholic Worker," had gone.

So friends, let's try to point out to our justice loving allys the ever present aspect of heterosexual privelege so they can work as hard at overcoming that privelege as they do at overcoming white skin privelege.

Kara

[Huggins293]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

The second incident happened as I got into DesMoines for a national Catholic Worker gathering. I spoke with others there about being a gay rights activist and after a few moments this one woman looked at me quizzically asking, "But surely you don't approve of the practice?"

I told her that I did approve of the "practice," that to suggest that God didn't bless our relationships just as straight relationships were blessed was absurd. We spoke later on in the evening, and I acknowledged to her that her statement to me had been hurtful, but that I knew that wasn't her intention. By the end of the weekend, I believe I made real headway with her and she even asked me how my workshop, "Heterosexual Privelege and the Catholic Worker," had gone.

Kara

Kara unfortunately, intepretations of the bible influenced by heterosexist sentiment is the root cause of you hearing that unfortunate comment. Large segments of christians believe that verses in leviticus, genesis, as well as books of Paul show a divine disapproval of homosexuality which includes even homosexual emotions. Thus, the only way to eliminate this ideology is either prove the verses as misinterpreatoins or mistranslations or reject the bible as the perfect vison of God.

I would like to discuss another issue that ties in the discussion. This notion that gender differences between men and women are created to compliment heteorsexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are neccessary to complete one as a man and a woman. This belief system is so ignorant and heterosexist, it is sad. First of all, gender differences in straight relationships have a draw back of causing strife which often leads to divorce. Straight partners have many clashes between money, sex, affection, child raising and other things, based on the behavioral differences between men and women. How can they possibly assert that heterosexuality is inherently superior for love and child raising based on these differences. That is why I feel the issue of single moms, two parent families and marriage from a traditional values standpoint implies heterocentered and heterosexist thought even if it does not mention homosexuality.

[Huggins293]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

I was absolutely astounded to see a straight person more aware of heterosexual privelege than any of us were. Jimmy remains one of my heros, and as I closed with that story at the workshop, I asked everyone there to take seriously their privelege and to challenge heterosexual privelege when they encounter it.

kara

Kara, I want to stresss the comment about the single mom issue that effects african Americans and how it fuels heteosexists thought implicitly and blatantly. This idea that a man and woman who love one another are the best partners to raise a child is misguided. It clearly puts child raising as a hetero-privilege. It is very easy for a woman and woman/man and man who love one another to raise a child as good as a hetero couple. If there is a need of a female or male model for the child the sperm doner could be the right choice. Many heteros do not want to get married and rather raise children. A man/man/woman or woman/woman/man would be at equally effective in child rasing while keeping the alleged needed feminine and masculine perspectives.

Heterosexists love to harp on this alleged I repeat alleged fatal flaw of gay relationships but if they would have stoped to think outside their heterosexist skulls they would realize the "drawback" could be solved by adding a sperm doner of the opposite sex as a child raiser. I still question if their needs to be a two gender perspective in two parent child raising. Do you?

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Huggins293

First of all, gender differences in straight relationships have a draw back of causing strife which often leads to divorce. Straight partners have many clashes between money, sex, affection, child raising and other things, based on the behavioral differences between men and women. How can they possibly assert that heterosexuality is inherently superior for love and child raising based on these differences. That is why I feel the issue of single moms, two parent families and marriage from a traditional values standpoint implies heterocentered and heterosexist thought even if it does not mention homosexuality.

Dear Huggins: I agree with you. I often refer to heterosexual marriages as mixed marriages (coming out of Roman Catholic background). Men and women are so very different, I wonder how they hang in there with one another. And truthfully at this point some of the most positive partnerships I see are gay partnerships, because they're often based on an inherent equality. But as the "expression" goes, "that doesn't mean God loves them any less."

Heterosexism is so pervasive, it will probably take centuries to overcome it, but hopefully, we're on the path.

Kara