Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Would someone like to start a Hetero 101 thread?

Page: (1)2

Goodness Gracious Meme

12:47 / 08.05.06

I'd like to see it, I think (for a variety of reasons, which I'm happy to enlarge on) but although I was/thought I was/identified asetc,dependent on your viewpoint, hetero, for the first period of my sexuality-active adult life, I don't I don't feel remotely qualified to start it.

My reasons:

* I think there's alot about heterosexuality I don't really understand anymore and would like space to ask dumb questions. I also suspect I'm not the only one who probably has some icky judgements about heterosexuality, and I'd like space to examine them. There are plenty of dumb assumptions in non-het spaces about het people, quel shock.
* Without one, the 101 threads='here are where us weirdos explain ourselves' which I'm finding uncondusive to the laudable projecto of 'low snark', and also= way unneccessary and annoying reifying of heterosexuality as 'normal'/'common sense', whereas I think Barbelith could, at its best, provide a v.useful space for the rarely-undertaken project of querying heterosexuality.
* on which, a quick mention of a london-based seminar on just this subject on 21st June, which I'm hoping to make, based in a seminar series entitled 'Critical Sexology'. Details here

13:34 / 08.05.06

I'm interested in the het 101 thread idea, but also do not feel like I'm the best person to initiate it... And am not sure how else to answer this call or what more to say. It seems like it should be someone who is quite comfortable with the label and feels it reasonably suits (at least most of) hir history and current inclinations. Surely someone like that is out there and game?

For a variety of reasons, I'm more comfortable and feel more suited to starting a feminism 101.2 now with low snark content! thread, but have kind of wanted to give these other threads some space. Conversation as a forum seems to work best with a balance between serious threads and silly, etc.--and I, for one, am feeling like I want some breathing space... and some time for the last "semester's" course on feminism to sink in awhile and simmer before we try for, I hope, something at less of a fever pitch, this time 'round.

14:09 / 08.05.06

OK, I'm heterosexual and I don't feel hugely motivated to start a hetero 101 thread. I'm not sure I see that there are burning issues which I need to address, particularly. I suppose there might be a case to be made that heterosexuality can be treated as a monolithic whole and/or as something which is subject to "icky judgements", but I can't say that I'm repeatedly finding myself in a position where that is something I need to confront. Thats heteronormativity, if you want, but it stands in contrast to Ganesh's opening post in the homo 101 thread.

So I can't see I'd have anything to say in an opening post of a het 101 thread, though if anyone wants to start I'll be happy to disagree with it. This is not to say that interesting things can't be said about heterosexuality, just that in the absence of some kind of motivating pressure - being subject to prejudice, for instance - there isn't an obvious unifying theme, nor any sense of a common identity. So the best you can go for, in starting such a thread, is the anecdotal with pretensions towards the anthropological.

I'm certainly happy for someone non-het to start the thread and ask whatever questions they feel need asking. The authenticity that I assume you are after, GGM, is something you are trying to impose rather than something you can really encourage...whenever someone starts speaking about heterosexual experience, I usually expect that very little of what is said will apply to me, for instance.

All Acting Regiment

14:15 / 08.05.06

I second Lurid on a lot of points, but shall I start the thread, just so it's there?

14:17 / 08.05.06

Yes, likewise. I'd be more than happy to answer q's, been enjoying the other 101's, even if I've not asked anything (I had some questions re: Deva's first post, I think, but it's moved well beyond that, in Homo 101, so...)

I do think there's less of a shared culture, regardless of the patently self-evident fact that there's enormous diversity in Homo/Trans/Bi lifestyles, because of the normative status hetero enjoys. But, you know, yeah low-snark questions, whatever. I'd do my best.

14:18 / 08.05.06

x-postin'. Just go then, legs.

14:19 / 08.05.06

Go on, that is.

14:24 / 08.05.06

there's less of a shared culture, regardless of the patently self-evident fact that there's enormous diversity in Homo/Trans/Bi lifestyles, because of the normative status hetero enjoys

That's exactly what I'd be interested in asking about, to some extent: the thing that is shared by all(?) hetero people, surely, is a different relationship to that normativity. So what's it like negotiating a relationship to normativity from within? What's it like being overdetermined rather than underrepresented?

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:29 / 08.05.06

I'd love to discuss some of these issues, but I cannot in all good conscience start any thread with "low-snark" in the title or summary.

Goodness Gracious Meme

14:31 / 08.05.06

Thanks deva, for explaining further one of my reasons for wanting to see it.

As I see it, the motivation for the 101 threads is to provide space in which questions which might have phobic implications arising from lack of awareness rather than intended offensive can be asked. Which applies to heterosexuality and or straightness and/or heteronormativity... First person to mention 'breeders' gets a cigar.

I also don't see the threads as started by people with a pressing need to explain themselves or a feeling of pressure but as a way of furthering discussion.

15:24 / 08.05.06

Sure, GGM, furthering discussion is fine. Though don't you see something a touch absurd about you asking for a het 101 thread to be started by a het, rather than starting it yourself, and legba then obliging you? Its a pretence that the *real* desire for the thread comes from a het, or am I missing something?

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:29 / 08.05.06

I also sort of think that there are some discussions which could happen in one thread that are now happening across these '101' threads - the question of identifying v. being, for example. I think it's important not to lose sight of why there was a Feminism 101 thread in the first place - because some posters felt that a significant portion of the Barbelith population were not up to speed on the entry level basics of feminism, to the point where that was making discussion of certain issues across the board frustrating and difficult. Is the same really true of heterosexuality? Maybe it is, maybe there's a case to be made for that. But I think it's a good idea to establish the need for a specific thread of this type, and thinking about whether some of the interesting questions that might seem to relate to heterosexuality but could be applied across all sexualities could in fact do with a thread of their own instead...

*

15:29 / 08.05.06

With the trans 101 thread, to me, the point of starting the thread myself as a trans person was affirming that I had made a real committment to answer questions if I could, and to keep things low-snark. I would prefer that the primary motivation in 101 threads is that people actually have questions to ask, but that the people who are "answering" or whose identity is the topic have the control over how the thread starts. So it seems like this one went perfectly—so long as it doesn't become a "interrogate the straight ppl" thread or something.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

15:36 / 08.05.06

I would suggest that if people want to restart the Feminism 101 thread they do so holding the ideal of low-snark in their hearts rather than starting a fresh thread.

I'm not sure why people would want high-snark in the 101 threads. Seems to be counter to their purpose no?

Goodness Gracious Meme

15:40 / 08.05.06

Ooh, interesting. Lots I want to come back to, but for now, a question:

Do 101 thread (have to) have the same impetus behind them?

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:41 / 08.05.06

It's not about wanting "high-snark", obviously. It's more about not accepting that there is a thing called snark that we all know when we see, or that it is possible or even useful to keep what might be called snark out of threads. I have been accused of being mean to and by the likes of Mathlete when I thought I was bending over backwards to play the ball not the other player, so I almost don't see the point anymore.

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:47 / 08.05.06

That last to Flowers, obviously.

GGM: no, they don't, but I think they ought to have some impetus. Which is not to say that your reasons listed in the first post above aren't valid, I'm just wary of more of these being started than can be sustained, at the expense of other potentially interesting discussions which might benefit from being located in a different structure.

*

15:50 / 08.05.06

I actually think framing the thread as low-snark can help people not misinterpret things as snark when they weren't intended to be, provided it's followed by an actual committment from people to not post things that they intend as snark.

Goodness Gracious Meme

15:52 / 08.05.06

A couple of responses.

Lurid: Actually, I see the dynamic of the difference in starting threads as quite usefully indicative of some possible differences in dynamics/asymmetry between normative and non-normative identities within a culture.

Namely, that the normative identity may well not consider that there is any discussion/questioning to be had around it, because it is the 'neutral', and that the impetus for questioning may well come from outside it.

Whereas with a non-normative identity, the impetus to try and make space for questions to be discussed with a level of trust in their benignness/foundation in ignorance-wishing-to-discuss-and-examine rather than ignorance-wishing-to-enforce characterised here as non-snark is potentially a reaction to this being very difficult in the context of the asymmetry in the asking being done by a member of a contastingly normative group.

Fly: I've given some of my reasons above for why I thought a hetero 101 was worth trying; As far as I'm concerned these threads are experiments.

I do understand your worry about discussion being spread too thin/us as a community limiting ourselves to one structure, but for reasons given (and the thread thus far I feel justifies this) I do still feel that there's sufficient impetus/reason for a hetero-specific 101 thread. I think the operation and impetus of that thread might be quite different, but that this in itself might be pretty interesting.

The being/identity qu, which is already appearing, for eg, could be given a thread of its own, wihout enormously taking away from any of the current crop of 101 threads, I think.

16:21 / 08.05.06

Namely, that the normative identity may well not consider that there is any discussion/questioning to be had around it, because it is the 'neutral', and that the impetus for questioning may well come from outside it.

Its possible, certainly (quite why one would need to pretend that the questioning didn't come from outside escapes me), though I think that assuming this explains the difference in the way the threads have been set up seems, to me at least, premature.

17:30 / 08.05.06

Legba latest post, and some of Dead Meg's responses, bring out a problem I've got with this thread. Is it a considered, Headshop style deconstructive(?) look at het identity? Or is it just a series of quite obvious and mundane "locker room" type discussions about hetrosxuality experience? In the latter case, it becomes far less interesting, IMO.

18:05 / 08.05.06

I actually think framing the thread as low-snark can help people not misinterpret things as snark when they weren't intended to be, provided it's followed by an actual committment from people to not post things that they intend as snark.

I agree, and this was one of my central aims in using (coining?) the phrase in the Homo 101 thread: it was, to a large extent, me making a committment to extend the benefit of the doubt, to attempt not to let my hackles rise in response to possibly 'stupid' questions. A resolution on my part to devote more time to communicating information rather than communicating my own anger.

I'll probably write more about this in the other thread.

18:23 / 08.05.06

Legba latest post, and some of Dead Meg's responses, bring out a problem I've got with this thread. Is it a considered, Headshop style deconstructive(?) look at het identity? Or is it just a series of quite obvious and mundane "locker room" type discussions about hetreosxual experience? In the latter case, it becomes far less interesting, IMO.

I regret if my post sounded "locker-room" type, diminishing or generalising in any way. I was talking about my own experience, which sadly does fall in that bad stereotype (maybe it's the environment, I don't know)

But, if we're having a Hetero 101 thread, we must be prepared to get through some "locker-room" bulshit, because, unfornutately as it may be, in many instances, it is a basic feature of het culture (both with men and women) and it needs to be adressed. After all, we are talking about people who have sex with people who do not share many of their life experiences and/or views (not a general rule, though, of course), unlike, I imagine, happen with many gay people (again, not a general rule of course). We hets would appreciate any inputs from non-het people. And Hetero 101 is a great place to do it. Not only for non-hets to know about hets, but also for hets to know about themselves.

If we can manage to keep a low snark-level - as has been the case in the Homo, Bi, and Trans 101 threads* - we will all come out of it better for it.

* and, if we can't, would it not fall in that old "is Barbelith anti-het?" argument we had a couple of months back?

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:33 / 08.05.06

Actually, the "is Barbelith anti-het" thread produced a lot of really interesting discussion, some of which required probably a bit of passion, engendered by some potentially offensive comments and statements. I think we're back on the issue of what people mean by "snark", and also what people find useful in a thread.

18:40 / 08.05.06

I'd hope we could adapt different styles of posting to different discussions in different threads. A "bit of passion" is, as you say, a great driver of discussion. In the Homo 101 thread, however, I very specifically didn't want the spectre of 'offensiveness' to intrude (in a personalised way) - because the 'behind the scenes' conversations I'd had suggested to me that the more impassioned discussions tended to put some people off asking questions. I wanted to consciously try a different sort of approach to include those turned off by the feistier to-and-fro debates.

18:40 / 08.05.06

Agreed. In fact, I have to say, all those "101" threads are being very useful to me to review my opinions about myself*. Barbelith does have that affect on me.

*not so much about the snark though, for I already know I don't like and find it really not useful

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:42 / 08.05.06

But, and this is quite a big question, what do you mean by snark?

18:44 / 08.05.06

The above post in response to Haus

18:51 / 08.05.06

But, and this is quite a big question, what do you mean by snark?

The defition used by Legba in the "Hunt for the Snark" is one i agree with:

I see snarkiness as being agressive, usually righteously, where one could have been softer and gently picked someone up on something.

The problem wiht snark is that, even when the "snarker" is right in hir complaint (which happens more often than not), it puts the "snarkee" in a defensive position that prevents hir from learning from hir mistakes. And ze then responds with equal snark, and we end up with a complete fruitless discussion, Shadowsax-style.

*

18:54 / 08.05.06

Or maybe, on the assumption that you knows snark when you sees it, what about it don't you like? That can be a roundabout way of getting at what exactly it is.

For example, I suppose I don't like snark because it causes the thread to disintegrate into a round of angry personal attacks. So maybe one of the criteria for determining when I think someone else's post is snarky is whether it derails the thread because people (more than one person; plural) feel obligated to respond angrily or defensively.

*

18:55 / 08.05.06

(crossposted)

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:06 / 08.05.06

Hmmm. Except that the "Is Barbelith pro-gay and anti-het?" thread didn't descend into angry personal attacks; it descended into a lot of useful factual information and thought exercises, which some bitching. Also, there is always a softer and gentler way of putting something, which is why I don't think Legba's definition, or the supplemental that one knows it when one sees it, is much more useful, in practical terms, than Mathlete's "I can't describe what unacceptable behaviour would be, but I'd know it when I'd see it and this isn't it".

I think that to blame snark for Shadowsax is unwise, also. He came looking for snark, but he found a boojum.

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:09 / 08.05.06

(Mind you, this would all be better placed in the snark thread)

19:09 / 08.05.06

I'm not blaming the snark on Shadowsax, only using him as an example of snark.

And the anti-het thread did end up being very useful. Despite the snark.

What is a boojum, anyway?

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:16 / 08.05.06

But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your snark be a boojum, for then
You shall softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again.

Page: (1)2