I went back and briefly checked my blog posts and found out I never actually announced myself as a heterosexual white male in any of my posts, although I explicitly remember typing a similar sentence. I most likely erased it before posting on the blog.
From a personal level, I feel the reason why I tend to announce myself in that way is because often times I will present my thoughts and ideas in a blunt and honest matter which may offend people. Sexuality is not the only topic. Feminism, and racial issues can have similar responses. I remember in high school expressing general opinions on feminist topics, can cause people to sometimes react with comments such as "you wouldn't understand" or "you can't relate to the issues presented." By including my background information I explain how I may not relate to the issues, and therefore my argument and thoughts may lack substantial pathos. It becomes a common habit because the white heterosexual male is not directly affected by common social issues. Or perhaps 'persecuted' by social issues
Although I still justify my reasons, after thinking about the topic after class, I agree including the background also serves as a 'defense mechanism' at least on the subconscious level. Why guys tend to do this and girls don't probably originates from childhood. I believe In elementary school common games/pranks between boys helped influence this defense. One game/prank that was prevalent in schools in my area revolved around one student placing his hand on a peers shoulder. For however long the hand was left on the kids shoulder determined how 'gay' the person was. The game may seem harmless at the time, b/c it becomes a competition to remove the person's hand from the shoulder as soon as possible. But when the punishment for being slow or not reacting determines 'gayness' probably stimulates the crazed out defense mechanism that probably follows kids into adolescence.
And furthermore, I sent this page to Diego and here is his response and other output:
Firstly, I hope you know that when bringing up the notion of self-disclosure of the unmarked becoming marked ("as a (heterosexual) white male...") I meant to discuss the idea, not the person -- whether you or whoever may have utilized this strategy. Although it wasn't personal, I appreciate your very personal anecdote about this very perverse game in which 'male' children try to guess who is "gay" by touching another 'male' child -- an act which seems more homoerotic (or even homo-sexual) than whatever supposed "gayness" may be "hiding inside" this potential gay child who would allow the touch on the shoulder go on for "too long." This is a fascinating anecdote that reveals much more about these supposedly heterosexual male children than anyone else involved. Based on this story alone I would have to disagree when you say "because the white heterosexual male is not directly affected by common social issues." Although they may like to think this way (the delusional privilege of the unmarked passing for "nature"?) "the white heterosexual male" is very much affected (as agent and object) by social issues in all sorts of ways, perhaps less visible ways. One of your/our jobs as critical thinkers is to bring these insidious ways to the fore, to render these structures visible. Because whether we are aware of them or not they still govern us. Wouldn't it be "healthier" to be aware of that which moves us, constitutes us, enables our existence? And it's never anything less than a violent affair. You can be sure that the supposedly mere touch has left a long-lasting wound on many a child's shoulder (and touching hand). We can't ever be completely aware of these structures that pass for nature, but the little bit that we can, we perhaps should. This very homo-sexual touch of the shoulders between children, disguised as a test to claim the homosexuality of the Other (what about the initial Desire of the Self to touch this Other?), reveals so much about how heterosexuality is constructed -- and how its maintenance requires constant tending to, a daily panic to be managed and projected onto others. No?
As for claims such as "you wouldn't understand" or "you can't relate to the issues presented," these seem like a defense mechanism on the part of this hypothetical person who would like discount your arguments not on the basis of the arguments themselves, but their source?
No comments:
Post a Comment