The myth of monogamy

My first term has ended, and I've been meandering about the Northwest ever since. One night in Seattle, my partner and I were feeling a bit under the weather. We made a delicious pot of soup, and settled in for the evening. We discovered a movie on Netflix that we had both watched and enjoyed in high school - Never Been Kissed.

In Never Been Kissed , '25 year old' Drew Barrymore finds true, everlasting, heterosexual love. Prior to her fantastical discovery, she has never kissed anyone, been in love, or had a relationship. Yet she has no doubts that she is totally emotionally and sexually prepared to enter into a relationship that will be forever (with a man she has misled and betrayed!). Why does she think this? Because it's her destiny!

From the very beginning of the movie, Barrymore's character lectures the audience on the process of true love. First, you share a kiss similar to a fireworks display. Second, you get married and live happily ever after.

Now, it doesn't really matter if you haven't seen this movie. It could have been any movie. The specifics of the plots may differ, but the message remains constant. Growing up in North America, it's difficult to wonder at what the 'appropriate' path for development is. However, if one were to have doubts, they could just have a little movie night.

The relationships portrayed in these movies are not just overwhelmingly white and heterosexual, they are monogamous. They are unquestionably monogamous. Barrymore's character believes that she will share her life with the first person she kisses. In fact, she saves her first kiss for this person. The audience is supposed to support this idea. Further, we are supposed to cheer when the 'happy' couple share their much-anticipated kiss.

Realistically, it is far more likely that their partnership will not work out than that they will triumph in heterosexual monogamous bliss. Divorce rates alone would suggest this; however, what about something way more basic? Monogamy is not simply natural for people. Monogamy must be worked at. It is something that we as North Americans learn to view as natural. And talk about a construction that is heavily promoted! The promotion of monogamy basically engulfs us from birth. Never Been Kissed is one measly example of a movie that reinforces the myth of monogamy.

I wrote this (in a little notebook) while on a plane to Austin, TX. My partner sat next to me, reading the Ethical Slut, a practical guide to polyamory (a book that should have seriously rethought the white privilege of their title), and the man across the aisle kept eyeing us and the book. It is not a coincidence that non-monogamous relationships are more common in the queer community. As queers, we have already failed to fit the bill. We will never be able to live up to society's standard for appropriate, hegemonic relationships. This failure opens up a lot of possibilities. One of them is polyamory. Of course, this isn't just about queerness. This is about all types of relationships that are non-normative: ones that cross racial lines, span age differences, cross religions and cultures. Any failure to fit the mold creates new spaces for exploration. Let's fail in style.

Point of clarification: I do not mean to suggest that people cannot choose to be in monogamous relationships. But that's what they are doing - choosing. Monogamous relationships are not the natural form of relating to each other as in they are social constructions - just like so much of our worlds. They should not be privileged over other types of relationships. People should be able to choose whatever types of relationships fulfill them; no relationship model is inherently more 'natural' than any other in this way.

The assumption game

Welcome back. Today we're going to play a game inspired by my latest trip to the gynecologist. It's called 'find all the assumptions'! It's pretty self-explanatory. I'm going to recount the major verbal interaction in the visit, and we're all going to see how many assumptions we can find 'buried' within the conversation. Ready? Okay, let's play!

Today I went to the gynecologist. After a (very) brief chat about why I was there, the doctor dug into some important basic, background questions. We were discussing sexual activity and partners, when she asked/stated: you're heterosexual, yeah?

L: No, I'm not.

Dr: Oh, then who are your sexual partners?

L: I sleep with women.

At this point, the doctor is getting ready to do a pelvic exam. She asks me if I have ever had sex with a man. This seems entirely irrelevant to my visit and, well, my life, but I responded in the affirmative.

She was relieved! The fact that I had slept with a man meant that she would be able to perform a pelvic exam on me. This seemed like strange logic to me. Luckily, she explained.

L: You know, you could use a speculum even if I had only been with females.

Dr: Many lesbians (her term) can't have a speculum inside.

L: I find that hard to believe. You know females who have sex with females also have penetration, right?

Dr: Some do. Many don't.

Our conversation went on, but that was real gist of the interaction. Let's discuss, shall we?

First, clearly, is the assumption of heterosexuality. Not only did the doctor assume that I was heterosexual, but the way she asked the question implied that it would be offensive to suggest otherwise. I present as queer. There are many reasons for this. One of the reasons is that I want to be read as queer. I am certainly not offended when someone assumes I'm queer. In North American society, you are assumed straight until proven queer. From her question, tone, and inflection, it's clear that my doctor really wanted to give me the benefit of the doubt and the 'chance' to be straight.

While not an assumption, I'm going to go ahead and say her question about my experience with men is inappropriate and, again, offensive. But oh, did it get better! Assumption: queer women can't fuck each other. This is, obviously, false. Unfortunately, my (ex)doctor still labors under the misapprehension that sex is a penis-in-the-vagina game. That's too bad for her. It's also too bad for every one of her queer patients. There are many issues with power dynamics involved in doctor-patient relationships. These can be exacerbated in a gynecological setting because of the vulnerability of the set-up. When a doctor systematically disregards or pathologizes your identity, it doesn't exactly neutralize those concerns.

Moreover, not only is it entirely offensive to suggest that I would not be able to receive a pelvic exam because I don't sleep with men, but it's also just bad medicine. I'm a 25 year old, sexually active female. You are a gynecologist. You need to find a way to give me an exam. That is your job.

I spoke to a pretty rad medical student recently. She told me about the training on GLBTQ issues they were receiving at her school. It makes me hopeful that ultimately there will be some shift in language and care. However, the basic assumptions my doctor made (of heterosexuality and that queer women don't have 'real' sex) are not just part of the medical community. Those assumptions exist everywhere. They are constantly reinforced.

Where do you see them in your life? How do they affect you?

Performing heterosexiness on the main stage

The interwebs are pulsing: Jenelle Hutcherson is Long Beach's first openly gay pageant contestant!

Beauty pageants have a lot of notoriety, famous in feminist discourse for reifying a very strict standard of femininity. What then does it mean when a lesbian enters a beauty pageant?

I think this question is interesting because it cuts at the core of what femininity really is and who is able to achieve/possess it. Already the discourse around Hutcherson's participation in the pageant affirms the heterosexual core of femininity.

I have already read two different versions of the statement with which I started this post. One depicts Hutcherson as simply the first openly gay pageant contestant. The other, however, posits her as the first openly gay pageant contestant to wear a tux, insinuating that there have been other openly gay contestants but they did not perform gender deviance as Hutcherson plans to by presenting in the formalwear associated with the male gender.

This distinction necessitates the question: What is the difference between the participation of a lesbian (I'm using the words Hutcherson uses to label herself) who performs normative gender and the participation of a lesbian who does not?

Femininity is a hegemonic category. Basically, femininity is seen as a given category. Femininity is seen as natural, not constructed. The naturalness of femininity makes all the ways in which it is constructed invisible. It also makes invisible the assumption that there is an understood natural category of the ideal feminine. Hegemonic femininity is inextricably linked with white heterosexuality. It is not possible to be appropriately feminine without being a white heterosexual. 'Real' femininity is constructed in relation to men within the context of heterosexuality.

A critical analysis of the behaviors and actions that a female must engage in to construct femininity further emphasizes this point. Many of the behaviors are centered around sexual desirability. But sexual desirability for whom? The intended, implied, or assumed audience is not queer. It's white heterosexual men. The aim is to be heterosexy.

Okay, let's apply this lens back to Hutcherson. Hutcherson is always already marked as not a real woman because she does not engage in heterosexuality. Further, however, she presents a non-normative gender. She cannot 'pass' as heterosexual because of her gender identity. In North American society there is a strong association between gender identity and sexual identity. It is not always accurate, far from it. It is a product of the heteronormativity of society. If heterosexuality is the norm, then females will behave in order to be sexually desirable to males. Intentionally bunking socially accepted and expected norms around gender presentation implies that a person is not interested in taking part in heterosexuality.

Of course, that may or may not be accurate. What is important is that such behavior is read that way. A person who presents a non-normative gender is coded as queer.

So, Hutcherson, with her non-normative gender presentation, would not be able to 'pass' as heterosexual in the competition. Would she want to? Probably not. She seems pretty loud and proud about her position in the gay community. She is running specifically as an other in the pageant. However, as an other, she doesn't really have an option. Her status as a contestant will always be qualified by lesbian.

And what do people think about her entrance into an event that preserves, embraces, and defines femininity?

Well, it really hasn't been that long since she announced her participation. However, she is not just any other contestant. Clearly. She is the gay contestant. Hey, did you know Hutcherson is gay? That means she is not like all the other contestants. Hutcherson cannot compete in the same way as the other contestants because, well, you know. She's gay.

All comments that I have read so far, whether positive or negative, affirm this otherness.

I want to highlight a few themes I have noticed so far in the comments: appearance.

Oh, did I say few? I meant ONE. Yes, about that. The main theme, not surprisingly, is about Hutcherson's appearance. She is "ugly", "butch", and "gross". People wonder why she won't just find a lesbian contest she could enter - I mean, you don't find straight women trying to enter lesbian contests so clearly lesbians shouldn't try to enter straight contests. Fair is fair, mos.

I won't go through all the comments (I know this post is getting long), but I want to check out one in particular: "I don't care that she is a lesbian but she is really ugly!"

I think this comment nicely sums up some of the points that I was trying to get at in this post. Hutcherson is an attractive person. Really though, Hutcherson is an attractive lesbian. She is certainly not heterosexy. So, in terms of that comment, it does matter that she is a lesbian because that is constructing the frame through which the speaker is defining beauty. The speaker is referring to heterosexual attractiveness, or hegemonic beauty. That is why Hutcherson, who does not perform normative gender or sexuality, is not viewed as possessing it or able to achieve it.

I'm interested to see how the discourse around her participation will develop.

What if this is how it worked

Okay, full disclaimer: this is not a well thought out plan. This plan was hatched by my housemate and me during an evolving rant in our kitchen this past Saturday night. It is not a 'real' idea. It is mostly for fun that I share it.

This past week I read the latest (and most conservative) estimate on the current gender gap in wages. This estimate put women earning an average of 86 cents on the man's dollar.

My housemate and I were discussing equity in rent/utility bills. You can probably see where this is going now. If 'women' (I am using quotes because what is this monolithic 'women' category?) make an average of 86 cents to the dollar, is it really equitable to charge them the same amount as 'men'? Further breakdowns along race, gender identity, sexual identity, class, education level, and so on would clearly be necessary to approach that ever fleeting equity.

Think about it though. If you take two people who have the same job and account for education, professional experience, all the necessary qualifications, part-time status, children in the household, and race - the woman in the dyad will still make 86 cents on that man's dollar. So, in that case, when that fictional woman goes to buy groceries, shouldn't she be able to pay 86 cents to the dollar? Why should she pay the same amount for amenities etc when she is underpaid her wage?

Just wait for it

Last weekend a gay teenager in Ottawa committed suicide. In his suicide note, he referenced the 'It Gets Better' campaign, saying that he just couldn't wait.

I think his comment points to one of the biggest failures of the 'It Gets Better' campaign. Its central message is:

Hey, we know high school is tough - we've been there! But hold on because after you graduate life is going to get a whole lot better. Look, you could have partners and cool jobs and live around other queers. Just wait out that difficult high school period and it will get better!

Certainly, the notion that life gets better after high school, especially for those who are bullied, is an important part of the message. However, especially for those who are bullied, that cannot be the whole message.

Focusing on the idea of 'it gets better' is neglecting the very concrete concerns of the present. Right now there are queer teenagers who are dealing with real hatred, hostility, and violence. Why should they wait for it to get better? They've done nothing wrong. They need it better now. We need to make it better now.

Moreover, when a whole litany of successful queer people say 'yeah, high school was hard for me too, but look at me now!' it unintentionally sends the message that if they can do it, you should be able to do it. No one's high school experience is the same. No one experiences bullying the same way. No queer teenager who is dealing with bullying needs to worry, what's wrong with me? All those queer adults were able to handle it, why can't I? That is an unproductive discourse for a struggling teenager.

The 'It Gets Better' campaign may have been a good way to start having a national conversation about bullying, but the campaign itself is neglecting core issues in favor of having teenagers 'wait it out'. Where does bullying come from? This is about gender, sexism, sexuality, racism, classism. This is about hatred and violence. Real change needs to happen now to address how kids learn about difference. No one should have to wait for there to be less violence in their life.

Check out this video from a group in Seattle called Reteaching Gender and Sexuality. They posted this in response to the 'It Gets Better' campaign when it first started.

And now for something a bit different

I haven't posted in a bit. Apparently grad school requires a bit of work. Also I've had several visitors up here in Canada. This is just a tiny post on a topic that I end up thinking about pretty much daily - bicycling!

I'm a bicycle commuter. I love my bike ride! It's about 16 km to campus. The ride gives me time to unwind, debrief, make little plans in my head, and just think to myself about whatever I want! I really covet that time. It helps me feel balanced.

Vancouver has a pretty developed infrastructure for cyclists - bike lanes, greenways, traffic light buttons specially located for cyclists. They seem to know what they're doing. I take greenways for the majority of my ride to campus. These are non-arterial streets that have been designated as routes for cyclists instead of the busier streets they parallel. They are heavily trafficked by cyclists. I have mixed feelings about them.

On the one hand, it feels safer, and probably is, to travel in large packs of cyclists. Safety in numbers? I like biking with other cyclists. I like the camaraderie. I like when cyclists take over the road and cars just have to wait.

Here's the flip side. These streets are low-car-traffic areas. When drivers use them, they are not expecting to run into other cars. They should be expecting to see cyclists, but, hey, cyclist-awareness is not at the level it could/should be yet. When drivers are not concerned with the possibility of other drivers, they drive differently. Here are the three biggest issues I have observed so far:

Often drivers do the 'rolling stop', briefly looking side to side for cars as they roll part way into the intersection - a notoriously dangerous move for cyclists.

Drivers will approach the small roundabouts, which serve as intersections for many streets, really fast - again, not expecting other drivers so not worried about slowing.

Drivers really want to pass cyclists because they are using this route to bypass the traffic on the busier, arterial street. They pull up real close behind and pass dangerously, driving way too quickly for a small side street that is heavily traveled by cyclists.

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is that it is not enough to create these paths through the city, although they are a nice start. Real safety for cyclists is in awareness. Greenways would work really well if drivers who used those roads only used them for local traffic and then with the extra caution necessary, highly aware that those roads are predominantly utilized by cyclists. Drivers need to care half as much about a cyclist's life as they about getting where they are going as fast as possible. They need to take the extra time to look twice or three times for a cyclist.

Safety is not just the responsibility of a the cyclist. It cannot be.

Do you bike? How is it where you live? Any great ideas?

I didn't realize you were in Sociology

Last night I was joking around with my housemates about this recurring situation, but it's something that I've been thinking about, and I think it's worth sharing.

Many of us in the Sociology department have just finished a 3 week TA training program. Since the Women and Gender Studies Department is fairly small, their students came to our training. A few facts must be stated at the onset: I met many graduate students for the first time at the TA training; my only interaction with many of the grad students was at the TA training; the Sociology graduate population is mostly female and fairly straight.

I've been starting to get my footing more and more at school. I'm on top of my work, I'm understanding what I'm learning, and I'm engaged. I'm beginning to feel like a grad student in Sociology. At the last few training sessions, I was having conversations with other soci students. During these conversations, I figured out that everyone thought I was a Women and Gender Studies student. This is despite introducing myself as a Sociology student. Hm.

In total I was asked 3 times last week if I was in Women and Gender Studies. That's 3 people out of about twenty (including around seven who are in my cohort and know for certain what department I am in and thus would certainly not ask). Well, that's just plain interesting. The trainings were predominantly Sociology students, so it was usually a safer bet to assume someone was in soci. I always said I was in soci. Why, then, would someone think I was in Women and Gender Studies?

Of course, everyone I tell this too immediately knows. Look at me, I just look like the type of person who would study gender. And I do study gender. I study it through the Sociology department, but I study gender and sexuality and feminism and all that super gay stuff.

I think this is super interesting because people see me, take in my identity, and then immediately create ideas about what I must be interested in and concerned with. Now, I happen to study gender; however, there are many queermos out there who do not and that's totally great. Just because someone cannot walk down the street without everyone noticing the salience of their gender identity or their sexuality, does not mean that those concepts have to make up the primary focus of their lives.

I mean, what would be the comparable response in a given situation - when a heterosexual, white woman is surprised to learn that I am not in the Women and Gender Studies program? Oh, you're in Sociology? I thought you were studying...what? What is the stereotypical subject for a straight, white woman to study? Maybe it is Sociology. Maybe that's why there are so many straight, white women and, if it's possible that I could have another affiliation, they assume it's so.

I'm not offended by an affiliation with Women and Gender Studies, clearly. I hail from a Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies background. I study gender. I am in the Sociology department to study gender and sexuality in a way that will provide me with more opportunities.

I do not, however, like being reduced to my identity in that way. Also, shout out to all queer and genderqueer folks out there doing non-gender work and breaking down those barriers.