Dismantling Heterosexual Privilege

[kara speltz]

DISMANTLING HETEROSEXUAL PRIVILEGE


It's been some 40 to 50 years since the Civil Rights Movement made its mark on our country, and we're still at the beginnings of understanding white skin privilege. My guess would be that the vast majority of well meaning white folks would deny the very existence of white skin privilege, but their denial doesn't change the fact that it exists and that even the best of us benefit from it. In Memphis, this March there will be one of the largest conferences ever to address this very important issue.

All of this leads me to wonder how long it will take to dismantle heterosexual privilege. Two years ago in Des Moines at the Catholic Worker gathering, I gave a workshop on "Heterosexism and the Catholic Worker Movement." I was amazed that somewhere between 50-60 folks attended; the vast majority saying that they didn't know what heterosexism meant. The discussion was, for the most part, lively and healing. The Des Moines Catholic Worker printed an article on the workshop, which I believe may have been the first time a CW newspaper had addressed the issue of gays within the CW.

When I returned home, I wrote my former pastor, Michael, a note about the workshop. He had always been very supportive of LGBTs, and his brother is gay, so I was shocked when he wrote back to me asking me what I meant by "heterosexism." That Sunday at church, I spoke with another straight ally, kind of chuckling about Michael's ignorance and she said, even though I have spent a lot of time with gay people, I'm afraid I don't understand either. Since then, I've found myself thinking that we LGBTs have really failed in helping our straight allies in understanding how heterosexism works.

Two examples of heterosexism that I gave at the workshop, I believe, will help people understand how heterosexual privilege works. The first happened back in 2000, when Soulforce organized its first large denominational protest at the United Methodist Conference in Cleveland. Jimmy Creech, a former Methodist minister who had been defrocked for performing same gender marriages was one of our major heroes. We had been invited to meet with some of the Methodist Bishops and put together a list of demands. One of them was the reinstatement of Jimmy Creech, and a request to send him to California where he would be a welcome asset to the Conference there. Jimmy wasn't present when we were putting together these demands. The next morning he addressed our gathering asking us to remove that demand, because he couldn't, in all conscience rely on his heterosexual privilege and be reinstated until every LGBT who had been denied ordination, or removed from the UMC, was also invited back. Everyone was shocked. It hadn't occurred to any of us that Jimmy's being reinstated without the reinstatement of others who were LGBT would be a matter of supporting heterosexual privilege.

The second example happened just a few weeks prior to the gathering in Des Moines. At our parish, we baptize the babies in groups of 5 -7 families at our 9:30 am Family Mass. For the first time in my memory, they actually had a gay couple's baby being baptized and introduced the couple saying they'd been together for 7 years. For all of us who were gay and lesbian, it was an amazing moment, and almost all of us cried tears of joy. As we were having coffee upstairs, I talked about the experience with my straight friends. None of them got the significance of what had just happened. For 18 years, I'd sat and watched the baptisms, wondering if ever, I would see a gay or lesbian couple publicly have their baby baptized. I explained to my straight friends how they could always assume that their child would be baptized, but for the vast majority of gays and lesbians, we could never make such an assumption. The very fact that heterosexuals don't comprehend what heterosexism is, is I suspect a precise definition of heterosexism.

One of the other ways I personally experience heterosexual privilege is when I communicate with a number of my straight friends and family, there is this unstated rule. We'll enjoy each others communications and company, as long as I don't mention ANYTHING about my being a lesbian. When I do, there is absolute silence. Not by all my straight friends and family, but by significant numbers. Those who have close friends or family who are gay, for the most part don't have a problem with this. It is those who think they don't know any gays, and in their own hearts still believe there's something "not quite right," about being gay who silently demand it not be acknowledged nor discussed.

I'm writing this piece to invite all my straight friends to seriously begin to examine your own heterosexual privilege and to begin a process of confronting and dismantling it. I'm also writing it to all my LGBT friends so that they can help their straight allies reach a place where they are willing to challenge themselves around these issues.

Kara

[Alecto]

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I pictured 60 people showing up to a workshop and then being like "Um...what does the title of this workshop mean exactly?".


I think one part of the problem with "heterosexism" is that we're a fairly new movement, and a fairly new identity. Sure, queer people have always existed, but they haven't always taken that on as an identity, so we're still very much building a language to talk about ourselves and our oppression and I think a lot of folks use "homophobia" when "heterosexism" would be more accurate just because the word isn't in common usage yet.

The other part does definitely tie in to privilege: the first part of ANY kind of privilege is that you have the luxury of not realizing it exists.

[alphie]

Re: DISMANTLING HETEROSEXUAL PRIVILEGE
thanks Kara for your post - You helped me to see some things I hadn't thought about before.

[kara speltz]

A trans friend of mine pointed out that this article doesn't reflect at all on the lives of transgenders. And I agree it doesn't. The issue is much, much more complicated when it comes to transgenders and I'd love to have someone help us understand that aspect. Kara

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

One of the other ways I personally experience heterosexual privilege is when I communicate with a number of my straight friends and family, there is this unstated rule. We'll enjoy each others communications and company, as long as I don't mention ANYTHING about my being a lesbian. When I do, there is absolute silence. Not by all my straight friends and family, but by significant numbers. Those who have close friends or family who are gay, for the most part don't have a problem with this. It is those who think they don't know any gays, and in their own hearts still believe there's something "not quite right," about being gay who silently demand it not be acknowledged nor discussed.

When thinking about many heterosexuals' lack of respect for homosexuality, I have always automatically assumed it was "homophobia," or the subconscious fear of something they don't understand. I have never actually considered heterosexual privilege.

This makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Alecto

....the first part of ANY kind of privilege is that you have the luxury of not realizing it exists.

This is profound. I have never thought of it this way before.


Rick

[nmwolfboy]

Kara, thank you. This is something that occupies my thoughts often, though i think of it using the term heterocentrism rather than heterosexism. In usage they're interchangeable.

Here's a definition i found that puts it clearly:

Heterocentrism

Heterosexism (or heterocentrism or heterosexualism (Corsini, 2002)) is the assumption that everyone or a particular person is heterosexual. It can be distinguished from homophobia in that it doesn't necessarily imply hostility towards other sexual orientations, merely a failure to account for their existence.

In queer theory and gender studies, the term is closely related to heteronormativity.

Here's one of my pet peeves: how the media bombards us with messages about what men or women do or don't like, or what are generally seen as defining characteristics of any gender, when what is actually meant is heterosexual men & women.

So how do we awaken straight folks to the reality of heterosexism? i think that our current struggles for equality provide our most immediate opportunities. Isn't it heterocentrism that makes the discrimination against us permissible? Doesn't the obviously visceral reaction of some heterosexuals against gay marriage spring from a heterosexist world view?

All i come up with are questions, but that seems to be how my brain is working lately. How many times in a one day do you hear, on tv, radio, in conversation, in print, or online, references to gay people? How many times in one day are there references to heterosexuals? How many straight people notice that disparity, or note the irony when gay people are accused of dominating the attention of the media or of politicians? Some straight people are definitely aware of it. Does pointing this out to the ones who don't 'get it' lead to any raising of their (and our) consciousness?

[Eugene]

Well, personally I don't like the concept. It sounds like one more piece of ammunition to be used against us by those who demonize homosexuals as radicals out to deconstruct-and-reconstruct traditional society.

"Privilege" is a relative term. If your starting place for human experience is abject poverty in a totalitarian state, then I suppose you could accuse everyone in America of being "privileged". If your starting place for human experience is what we enjoy in America, then heterosexuals aren't "privileged", and homosexuals are seeking equal "rights" rather than similar "privilege".

In my opinion, a good test for the worth of a gay person's view of heterosexuals is whether that view could be applied to his (or her, as the case may be) parents and grandparents. I can't imagine thinking of my parents or grandparents in this way, much less telling them that they should "confront and dismantle" their "privilege".

[Jennifer5]

Kara, it is interesting to hear what you have to say on this topic.

This concept comes up when dealing with any minority.

Although I don't think there's anything really wrong with the concept, I do continue to have one problem with it. I feel like having the attitude that the majority is privileged, leaves the minority as the less fortunate or sometimes considered "victims". Now, I think that getting equal rights means that we have to level that playing field at some point. And I think that that requires that no one come across as a victim.

My reason, victims get victimized. I think that for the most part, ignoring the things that once divided us, will make them eventually go away. Sometimes ignorance might be a good thing??


So, for now that's where I stand on the issue.

[BenL]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

A trans friend of mine pointed out that this article doesn't reflect at all on the lives of transgenders. And I agree it doesn't. The issue is much, much more complicated when it comes to transgenders and I'd love to have someone help us understand that aspect. Kara

Kara,

As you knnow, sexual orientation and gender identity, while intricately intertwined, are actually two different things. Sexual orientation is about who a person is attracted to. Gender identity is about the gender a person considers his or her own.

When my spouse transitioned from female to male, he continued to be attracted to men. He is now perceived as gay, where once he was preceived as straight. His orientation hasn't changed, but the label people put on him has. When he transitioned, we went from looking like a straight couple to being the gay male couple we had known for years that we were. With the transition went the hetero privilege that people accorded us previously.

When one of two people who appear to be a lesbian couple transitions to male, they become outwardly a straight couple. If they were out and proud lesbians, they might hate their new external identity and the privilege it carries with it. They might continue to ID as queer, but society still sees what it thinks it sees and accords privilege on the basis of looks.

When a person IDs as genderqueer, neither male nor female, or occupying the space between the extremes of the gender binary, that person has the most difficulty of all. People make gender assumptions within three seconds of meeting someone, and when that identification is ambiguous, many people become violent. Others are dismissive or treat the person with derision.

Much of the privilege question is about other people's perception of an individual. I'm not sure this addressed the concerns your trans friend was trying to bring up.

[Alecto]

Originally Posted by Eugene

Well, personally I don't like the concept. It sounds like one more piece of ammunition to be used against us by those who demonize homosexuals as radicals out to deconstruct-and-reconstruct traditional society.

"Privilege" is a relative term. If your starting place for human experience is abject poverty in a totalitarian state, then I suppose you could accuse everyone in America of being "privileged". If your starting place for human experience is what we enjoy in America, then heterosexuals aren't "privileged", and homosexuals are seeking equal "rights" rather than similar "privilege".

In my opinion, a good test for the worth of a gay person's view of heterosexuals is whether that view could be applied to his (or her, as the case may be) parents and grandparents. I can't imagine thinking of my parents or grandparents in this way, much less telling them that they should "confront and dismantle" their "privilege".

You kind of nailed something important: there are VARIOUS overlapping systems of oppression and privilege. I'm a gay white person. The fact that I'm gay doesn't do anything to take away my white skin privilege, or most parts of my male privilege. So, yeah, in a way it's "relative", but that doesn't mean it's not problematic. It just means it's not the ONLY thing that's problematic.

Personally, I wholly and totally believe that my parents enjoy hetero privilege. And I'd like it very much if they would confront and dismantle it. We're not there yet, but I think there's progress.

If you're saying that the word is going to set someone off on the defensive, then 1)maybe using the word isn't super important, but the idea is the same, and 2)maybe we need to be a little better about just what the word means. Like I said, it's almost a part of the definition of privilege that you don't have to recognize it / see it on your own; it's therefore unfair to expect people to recognize it and see it on their own. Having, and even wielding privilege doesn't make you a monster of a bad person, it just means you can't see the problem yet.

And, Jennifer, I wholeheartedly disagree that ignoring the problem is going to make it go away. Acknowledging an imbalanced power structure is the first step towards fixing it. It's not the ONLY step, but it's the first one. (See "bars of cage" analogy in the "responsibility to society thread: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5953).

[Jennifer5]

Originally Posted by Alecto

And, Jennifer, I wholeheartedly disagree that ignoring the problem is going to make it go away. Acknowledging an imbalanced power structure is the first step towards fixing it. It's not the ONLY step, but it's the first one. (See "bars of cage" analogy in the "responsibility to society thread: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5953).

You're right, I didn't present my opinion very well at all. "Ignoring" was the wrong word and would be the wrong way to deal with it.

I think that it is important to not become the victim, because you are underprivileged.

We need people to be aware of heterosexual privilege.

[offog]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

A trans friend of mine pointed out that this article doesn't reflect at all on the lives of transgenders. And I agree it doesn't. The issue is much, much more complicated when it comes to transgenders and I'd love to have someone help us understand that aspect. Kara

Hi Kara! Greetings from Canada.

I belong to an organization for GLBT people and allies. About a week and a half ago, two transgendered people spoke at our monthly meeting. One of the things they talked about is the difficulty of being recognized the way you identify and getting the surgeries.

Our provincial health system partly covers sex-change surgery, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops. First you need to get a referral to a doctor in Montreal for counselling. It can take 6 months to a year for that. Then you have to live as a person of your preferred gender for a few years. (I think it's five years.) So if you're a man who identifies as female, you have to live as a woman for those years. The speakers said that's a very dangerous time, as in having to worry about your physical safety.

Another problem is that your I.D. will show as being the gender you were born to. They spoke about one woman who identified as male. He was "outed" when he was was with some friends who didn't know he was transgendered. He had to show his health card some place, and the person who looked at the card said "Your card says you're female."

I'm going to ask someone I know to tell the speakers about this site and this thread, and ask them to check it out. Maybe they can give you some more insight.

[kara speltz]

I must say I'm finding this thread to be very interesting and helpful as I try to figure out how to confront this privilege issue. Clearly, its complicated, especially when you enter into the whole trans issue.


But one of the reasons, I'm feeling committed to confronting this is that I think one of the major reasons we lost the right to marry, is that we LGBTs have allowed heterosexuals to define the terms, far too often.

I wrote the article in response to a straight friend of many year, who is not an ally. His response has consistently been to ignore any thing I have to say about LGBT issues. And as I expected, when I sent him the article, he chose not to respond at all.

Now, I'm planning on following up by helping my friend Tom see that any healthy friendship has to have boundaries that both people can respect and he has not understood the pain he creates, when he acts like my being gay is of no importance.

The more out we are in the world, the faster, I believe these prejudices will be overcome.

Kara

[Eugene]

I wrote the article in response to a straight friend of many year, who is not an ally. His response has consistently been to ignore any thing I have to say about LGBT issues. And as I expected, when I sent him the article, he chose not to respond at all.

Now, I'm planning on following up by helping my friend Tom see that any healthy friendship has to have boundaries that both people can respect and he has not understood the pain he creates, when he acts like my being gay is of no importance.

That's sort of like lifestyle evangelism -- like when I tried for years to bring up Jesus and salvation with one of my Jewish friends. I'm glad he has remained my friend in spite of all that. I don't do it anymore. I'm not that religious, and he's still unconverted.

[Alecto]

I think the comparison you make is faulty: Kara's not asking her friend to BE gay (and I'm guessing, perhaps unfairly, that that was the context of your bringing up Jesus and salvation?). It's more like if you brought up Jesus and salvation because that was an important part of who you were, and you wanted your friend to understand you and where you're coming from better. There are ways to do that without implying or asking your friend to be just like you, but still allowing for a greater understanding of your values and your life.

[Eugene]

I don't see the difference. In both cases, you're demanding that a friend change in order to satisfy your own convictions about what's right and wrong in/with the world.

And in both cases, your friend has every right to walk if he isn't willing to capitulate to your demand -- and your implication that his lifestyle is somehow deficient (or even immoral).

[Alecto]

I think there's a major difference between telling someone that their lifestyle is immoral, and telling someone that MY lifestyle ISN'T immoral. And maybe you don't think there's a difference, and that's an agree-to-disagree thing.

[Eugene]

Feel free to tell people that your lifestyle isn't immoral. I agree with you, and I'm not afraid to defend my lifestyle, either.

But this thread isn't about defending your lifestyle to heterosexuals. It's about telling heterosexuals that there's something wrong with theirs. As it was stated in the original post:

I'm writing this piece to invite all my straight friends to seriously begin to examine your own heterosexual privilege and to begin a process of confronting and dismantling it.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Eugene

That's sort of like lifestyle evangelism -- like when I tried for years to bring up Jesus and salvation with one of my Jewish friends. I'm glad he has remained my friend in spite of all that. I don't do it anymore. I'm not that religious, and he's still unconverted.

First and foremost, my lifestyle has NOTHING to do with this. My lifestyle actually is LIVING SIMPLY, taught to me by the Catholic Worker. Just as there is no heterosexual lifestyle, there is no homosexual lifestyle. We are all unique children of God. And what kind of hypocracy are you playing in trying to convert your Jewish friend, when you state that you're not that religious?

Just as there is white skin privilege, whether we whites wish to acknowledge it or not, there is also heterosexual privilege - like the 1,047 benefits straights get when they marry. You can deny it all you want, but it still the simple truth.

Kara

[Eugene]

And what kind of hypocracy are you playing in trying to convert your Jewish friend, when you state that you're not that religious?

You don't read very carefully, Kara. I said I tried converting him for years. I said I don't do it anymore because I'm not that religious.

I'm not that religious NOW. Like some others on this forum (I think), I was highly and sincerely religious before coming to terms with my homosexuality. I am no hypocrite, thank you very much. I never have been.

First and foremost, my lifestyle has NOTHING to do with this. My lifestyle actually is LIVING SIMPLY, taught to me by the Catholic Worker.

For clarification, lifestyle evangelism is an approach to Christian living taught in fundamentalist and evangelical churches. It encourages the making of friends for the express purpose of creating converts. Ideology is therefore treated as more important than personal relationships. I was comparing this approach to yours, as described in your posts.

Just as there is white skin privilege, whether we whites wish to acknowledge it or not

Yes, well we could start another argument there. I'm a white, male Southerner, and I'm growing weary of the "white privilege" charge. So I just tune it out. I expect that's what most heterosexuals will do when you start telling them they're privileged.