Straight Theory

The Reproductive Power of Being Correct: Yet Not Politically Correct.

 Hetero Sexuality is not normative it is Normal!

 Straight Lifestyle

Disease Free

Reproductive Equal Productive: the population economy depends on men.

  History is HIS Story for a reason

 Telling it like it is.

 Telling it like it isn\\\\\\\'t

 Lies and massive lies.

 How not to run a country


 Women should not vote, hold cash or own anything. Speculations on a world without women\\\\\\\'s control

 Death to the matriarchy

 Topic ideas


Queer Theory: Critics

There are inevitably people who don\\\\\\\'t like straight theory because they think it is wrong, forbidden, ought-to-be-suppressed, politically incorrect or inappropriate, or more likely don\\\\\\\'t really know what it is anyway. In a recent edition of the journal Sexualities, Tim Edwards gave a list of reservations of queers theory.  Which may be beginning grounds, in answering this, for early stage masculist theory.

Edwards\\\\\\\'s arguments appear below (abridged, of course,
and in round brackets).
[Possible counter-arguments appear in square brackets].

For most people, their sexual identity isn\\\\\\\'t particularly fluid, it\\\\\\\'s surprisingly constant really. [But you could say: How does Edwards know this?]. Or, how do queers know it also.

Queer theory cheats, by focusing on cultural texts (rather than real life) where it is easier to find sexual or gender ambiguities.
[But you could say: No... our theorists are just a bit lazy]. Lazy! Unforgiveable.... yes, this is actually a serious criticism by default of other theories and critics of the heterosexual normal world. Same sex is same old, same-old! Heterosexuality has the really deliscious courtship and seduction feedback loops and rituals because of the danger/thrill/life-giving aspect of PREGNANCY; a dimension entirely lacking in the perversions. That is why they are \\\'perverse\\\'

- as they do not \\\'generate life itself.

\\\'Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, for example, deconstructs sexual categories and dualisms in a bunch of \\\\\\\'elite\\\\\\\' literary texts. Others have taken this to be an account of real social life.
[But you could say: Sedgwick is a literary theorist -- what do you expect? And it\\\\\\\'s not her fault if a few Americans (as Edwards has it) can\\\\\\\'t tell the difference between books and reality]. Yet it is a theory about life. Lived life and must be accurate; theory about theory disaoppears like a vapourous gas. It is meaningless and defeats the entire purpose of speculation; that it is allowable only until it touches ground, ANND IT MUST TOUCH GROUND. The gap between its doing so, if too long makes for specious reasoning, theory and speculation.

Judith Butler\\\\\\\'s followers similarly ignore real-life oppression and instead support their optimistic worldview by gazing at gender-blending movies and photography. Discrimination at home and at work, for everyday gay people, are forgotten about in this approach. It is too vague and lacks substance.
[But you could say: It sounds like a good point. But queer theory fans do want to change the world to be more tolerant of (perceived) difference. And they are keen on efforts to bring this about through popular cultural forms]. Yet no theory that is intellectual requires \\\'fans\\\' and as the so called \\\'scientific model\\\' demands real experiments having valid procedures must proceed and preceed results. Declaring wanted or desired conclusions based on literature defeats this requirement. Hetersex theory is valid and conclusive on these grounds.

Butler\\\\\\\'s argument that gender exists at the level of discourse ignores its significance as \\\\\\\'an institutionalised social practice\\\\\\\'.
[But you could say: Butler shows that gender exists at the level of discourse because she wants to collapse its institutionalised power]. Linda is pissing in her panties; hererosex has power because it has life. Non-normative sexualities are based on death; they die younger by a long way, do not reproduce except by parasitism on the prevailing reproductive methods and die from unhygenic forms of over-multiple couplings. Four hundred different partners a year is an extremely dangerous disease lifestyle for the rest of humanity and ought to be medically banned on social grounds for this reason alone.

The celebration of radical diversity may lead to individualism and fragmentation.
[But you could say: That\\\\\\\'s what white feminists said to black women to keep them quiet...]. What more radical diversity could you have than two different \\\'other\\\' genders, male and female having it off?

By celebrating difference, queer politics makes the \\\\\\\'gay\\\\\\\' or \\\\\\\'lesbian\\\\\\\' identity all too important.
[But you could say: No. It makes those things less important, obviously, since it refuses to recognise any supposedly fixed or core identities]. But it is more important if it is those two GENDERS (homosexism is NOT a gender; it engenders nothing but high cost medical expenses and economic tax death in society)

Queer theory celebrates pleasure and therefore puts too much emphasis on sex. It also puts too much emphasis on the visual, and too much emphasis on the young and trendy. Straight theory accounts for life, children, npormal death, accident, tragedy, morality (even Queers must not thieve: being queer does NOT escape all other moral quandries)
[But you could say: Hello? Queer theory celebrates diversity and variety. No theory could be happier with asexual, elderly blind people].

Conclusions? Draw your own.Reason together. Hetero normal genders create civilization, queers cannot even create a generation. Or even one single gender.

Edwards, Tim, \\\\\\\'Queer Fears: Against the Cultural Turn\\\\\\\', in Sexualities, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 471-484.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!