Talk:Heteronormativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article milestones Date Process Result February 1, 2005 Peer review Reviewed June 24, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
PEER	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major traditions): Continental philosophy

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

Archives
Debates from 2003 Debate with Mr. Johnson, April 2004 Various Debates from Apr 2004, mostly Sam Spade More Debates from Apr 2004 Yet more debates from Apr 2004 Debates from Apr to 2nd June 2004 Debates from 30th Apr to Oct 2004 Discussions from Oct 2004 to July 2005 Discussions from August 2004 to Oct 2005

Contents 1 Comment on the debates here 2 Proposed new section for review: Normalized deviance 3 Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people 4 Popular culture 5 NPOV tag 6 Defense section 7 Roots still has terrible POV issues

[edit] Comment on the debates here

Wow. A lot of debate, and it looks like an interesting and informative article might get pulled because nobunny can agree. Not good.

Insofar as NPOV is a statistical concept (a "neutral" point of view is one shared by most people) then NPOV is going to be somewhat infected by heteronormativity, with the result that an article on the subject will be considered POV. This will silence LBTG people on wikipedia.

This will do so especially because (as it appears to me, without having the time to fully document the following claim) that a heteronormative approach is being used to normalize wikipedia AS A WHOLE, and to "clean up" articles. The motivation for this MAY be a drive by wikipedia insiders (who are probably mostly heterosexually oriented) to make wikipedia a paying commercial venture, thereby (please remember this is my personal POV and this is an edit page) making a bundle...from the unpaid labor of others, many of whom can be excluded after the self-defined normal have caused them to violate courtesy standards by deliberate bullying.

These comments relate directly to the conduct of editors who in most cases are self-proclaimed.

To my knowledge, NPOV hasn't been defined theoretically. This means at any time that any contributor, including contributors who in the past have contributed valuable material, can be voted outside the Pale when he or she does not adhere to a statistical norm...despite the fact that the statistical norm is commonly the consensus of very small groups, subject NOT to smoothing trends, but to the counterintuitive laws of small data sets!

Edward G. Nilges

[edit] Proposed new section for review: Normalized deviance

"Normalized deviance" is a concept developed by anthropologist Diane Vaughan (The Challenger Launch Disaster, University of Chicago Press 1997) to help analyze the culture of the USA's space programme in 1986, when the Challenger space shuttle exploded on take-off. This was Vaughan's means of describing a safety culture which was changing rapidly under pressure from the Reagan administration to show quick results.

Engineers, already in a culture that can be described as very "heteronormative", which has traditionally excluded feminine-identified men, were confronted, at NASA in the 1980s by a new development: the definition of a higher, more intense heteronormativity to which they needed to aspire in order to progress in their careers, or even, given the reality of cutbacks, survive.

Previously to the 1980s, as Vaughan documents, engineers were able to question management decisions based on scientific and engineering knowledge. This pseudo-right, known in IBM as "pushback", was rarely used against engineers prior to the 1980s to question their status as "good engineers", where the identity as engineer was closely bound to heteronormal self-identity.

But by the eve of the Challenger decision, managers, without having the scientific and technical knowledge of engineers but having line authority, had a new way to control their reports. This was to encode heteronormativity as the willingness to go along with deviant schedules that ignored technical realities.

During a video conference on the eve of the launch, managers exhorted resistant engineers to think like a "MANager" (emphasis of course the writer's) not like an "engineer", which placed the two titles in a superordinate/subordinate binary opposition based on a male-female dichotomy. To question decisions was re-encoded not as being a "rugged individualist" and therefore heteronormative, but as not being a team player, raising the possibility of disaffiliation from the large system which was the only place for the heterosexually normalized male to exercise his skills.

To celebrate this new form of heteronormativity, at the same time, many technology companies used "corporate culture" in the form of paintball outings and beer blasts which had the side-effects of excluding many women, many men not interested in playing paintball nor drinking to excess, and many older engineers who have typically discovered, in American society, that they are gradually excluded from the sources of their heterosexual identity as they get older.

By the 1990s, it had (despite Vaughan's analysis, and physicist Richard Feynman's postscript to the official Challenger report which accused NASA of trying to repeal the laws of nature) become "common knowledge" that complex systems demanded a willingness to cut corners in a macho register. It could have gone either way. Taking pains in some engineering cultures, even at the cost of not meeting a deadline, was encoded as masculine, whereas being "sloppy", feminine. But, in American culture, WWII models of speedup, notably the fast construction of "Liberty ships" and the "can do" attitude were used to create the perception that ANY form of excess care was "adding too many frills"...in the female mode, of course.

Perhaps as a result a second crash occured in 2003 when the Columbia space shuttle, having lost heat shielding of critical size on liftoff. In what Vaughan et al. continued to describe as a broken safety culture, the possibility that large enough chunks of heat shielding could be lost on liftoff had been dismissed because prior to the Columbia's launch, the chunks lost were small.

Independence of thought, and the willingness to speak truth to power, were by this process de-normalized and willingness to be a "team player" replaced it as the heteronormative ideal.

Edward G. Nilges

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.46.45 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people

"then the notion is said to be encouraged" Could this possibly be written in a more passive voice? yuck. Ace Frahm 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

Would a section of current examples in popular culture be a good addition? There's always several songs in the Top 40 that strongly convey heteronormative ideas. Herorev 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you think so? Can you give an example of a song you see as heteronormative? (I'm kind of out-of-touch with popular culture, but I haven't noticed any heteronormativity to speak of.) And secondly, please see WP:NPOV and WP:V, two of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies; do you think such a section could abide by them? —Ruakh_TALK 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh is correct. Examples of hetronormativity (or of any other concept) must not be original research. If some has published a reliable book about Heteronormativity in pop culture source that - otherwise such additions would fall under the category of original research--Cailil 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A large number of the songs I hear on the radio are about male-female relationships. But this is most likely simply a reflection of their own heterosexuality. Personally, I think the very idea of "heteronormativity" is silly. Of course people are going to assume a male/female dichotomy: In the vast majority of cases, it's true! DanBishop 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I have tagged this article as NPOV. There is no discussion of various views either throughout history or in the modern era with regards to biological sex, sex, gender, gender roles etc... the article simply asserts one particular outlook on these issues as though they were a universally agreed on fact. (RookZERO 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

This statement: "the article simply asserts one particular outlook on these issues as though they were a universally agreed on fact" seems wrong to me. Like, so wrong that I'm having difficulty assuming good faith on your part. It's true that the article doesn't do a great job discussing all the various viewpoints, but it seems to me that wherever it is discussing one, it makes it clear that it's discussing one viewpoint; for example, it constantly uses phrases like "those who subscribe to heteronormativity" (meaning "those who believe that heteronormativity exists"). Can you give an example where the article assumes one outlook as correct? —Ruakh_TALK 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. One reads "Transgender people often seek gender reassignment therapy, thereby violating the assumption that only unambiguous female or male bodies exist." Surely the authors realize that this is not universally agreed to? (RookZERO 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Oh, good call; my apologies for doubting you. Indeed, the entire first paragraph of the transgender section seems very unapologetically POV, now that I read it with an eye toward that. —Ruakh_TALK 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this part about "Defense of Heteronormativity" is pointless. It's a rant but not an article. Though I'm really interested into having other points of view mentioned and represented and won't deny that people feel a need of heteronormativity, it has to be presented clear and straight, wich this passage is not in the least. I can't really figure out what it should tell. I don't think this passage should be removed from the article completely, but it should not remain with this text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Defense section

I keep on deleting the defense section because it doesn't make any sense--what did Pinkett-Smith say? Why was it considered controversial? Reading the section raises more questions than it answers. It requires a large base of popular culture and historical knowledge about a specific event in order for the reader to understand it. Someone keeps replacing this section and has suggested that I am "vandalizing" the entry. I would be quite happy if this section was rewritten to include appropriate language, tone, and knowledge; but the section as it was written should not be included in this article.24.90.229.107 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)JS June 19 2007

I think we need consensus here prior to deleting such a large section. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly get how wiki works and ban my students from using it for just this reason---facts are not up for debate and bad writing is bad writing. Nevertheless, I'll play by the rules. Please let me know how one finds others to reach a consensus that the section in question makes very little sense. If you note above, someone else has said it should be removed and it has been flagged for POV issues. Since you appear to be some sort of administrator but do not list sociology, political science, or LGBT/gender as areas of expertise, have you referred this posting to an administrator who does have such an area of expertise? If not, would you please? Thank you.24.90.229.107 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to edit this section to have no POV, consider only facts, etc, but I found it very hard. I checked out related entries such as heterosexism, etc. have no "defense of" section. I really think this section is unnecessary and inappropriate. The title "defense of" suggests an opinion, not facts. All that said, this is the best I could come up with in such a short time for an entry:

Defenders of Heteronormative Structures

Religious and political groups opposed to same-sex relationships, divorce, feminism, and other changes to the current gender culture are all defenders of heteronormative structures. They often use arguments rooted in religious texts and their understanding of cultural traditions in their defense of existing structures. Since gender role expectations, sexual norms, and behaviors considered to be heteronormative differ across cultures the substance and tenor of the defense of such structures also differs. Jmsast 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well it took a couple tries but I think I agree with the Defense section however I believe it certainly needs a rewrite. I find it hard to imagine an audience, besides academics steeped in gender theory, who will readily follow that section as it is. I'm not saying dumb it down but sending people scrambling for a dictionary or thesaurus just to get through an article might be a roadblock to conveying thoughts and sharing information. I think adding references and quotes as well as reviewing some word choices might help as well as seeing the material from a newby reader who is trying to understand the concept. Benjiboi 18:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused. You agree with the section? As in you think it should be removed? Or you think it should be rewritten following the model above? Or you agree with the opinions currently causing the POV problems? Jmsast 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly please indent your comments as it makes dialog a bit easier. Second, I apologize if my comments weren't clear. I think the Defense section is probably valid but needs a rewrite to add references, quotes, clearer language and possibly examples while removing some of the "theory-speak" which makes the subjects explanation more confusing. Pretend our audience is reading at a grade-school level as many of them are. Benjiboi 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the indenting, I didn't mean to confuse you. I am concerned that the section has some serious POV issues and doesn't make any sense. It's not the "theory-speak" I studied a lot of gender/queer theory in college and am comfortable with it, even in this context, if it made sense. Even translated to the vernacular, this section makes no sense. I submitted this for peer review. Further, not all entries should be understandable to a 5th grader. Much in life is not understandable to a 5th grader, which is why I don't teach Kant to my 5th graders!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmsast (talk • contribs)

I am in agreement with User:Benjiboi here in that I think that the section makes very valid points about differing views regarding the construct of heteronormativity. The section may require some rewriting and certainly could use more references. I tried to help with that a bit after the revert of the blanking the other day. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think the section could use a better title. If I think of one, I will adjust it. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries as you didn't confuse me, however these conversations are archived and read by folks trying the understand where differing ideas are at as a part of making articles better. Perhaps another way of thinking about the language issues I reference is that if they were easier to understand for not only a 5th -grader but even non-native English users who are looking for more information. At the very least we can probably agree that it's better to break down barriers to learning. Benjiboi 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and inclusive thought. Nonetheless, this term is not exactly a 5th grade vocabulary term (in most schools, at least). At root, the term is more "intellectual" in nature when it comes to thinking about homophobia in society. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This Wiki is not meant for non-English speakers, nor is it meant for fifth graders. Instead, there is a Simple English Wikipedia for that - and numerous Wikipedias in other languages for those who do not have a mastery of English at all. 65.60.137.13 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roots still has terrible POV issues

All that section really boils down to is 'everyone in defense of heteronormativity is a Bible-thumping conservative', which certainly isn't true. It'd be really nice if someone who can keep a level head (and has more expertise than I) when writing could rewrite that, if possible. --Charibdis (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)