Gunco Forums banner

Heteronormative Is Insensitive

2K views 35 replies 9 participants last post by  Custer 
#1 ·
Pinkett Smith?s Remarks Debated
BGLTSA calls comments ?heteronormative,? pledges to work with Foundation

By ANNA M. FRIEDMAN
Contributing Writer

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506104.html

After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith?s comments at Saturday?s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.
Students said that some of Pinkett Smith?s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA?and developed in coordination with the Foundation?the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue.

According to the Foundation?s Student Advisory Committee (SAC) Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus ?05, the two groups have already planned concrete ways to address the concerns that Pinkett Smith?s speech rose.

The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith?s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to ?take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,? according to the release.

Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation?s ?Artist of the Year? at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ?06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith?s speech was ?motivational,? some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

?Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,? he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females
.

?Our position is that the comments weren?t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,? Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ?06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

?I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship?a heterosexual relationship,? Barusch said. ?I don?t think she meant to be offensive but I just don?t think she was that thoughtful.?

In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn?t occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.

Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions.

According to Paulus, the letter will acknowledge that ?Pinkett Smith was just giving the story of her life. She just told things from her perspective, and her perspective was a heterosexual perspective. She wasn?t trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out.?

Barusch said the dialogue with the Foundation has been ?productive.?

?Both groups have really talked about issues of intercultural relationships and sexuality and the way that student groups can talk about these topics in sensitive ways,? she said.

Barusch also referred to a ?minor controversy? that occurred earlier this year, in which some members of SAC questioned the BGLTSA?s role in the Foundation.

?They weren?t sure how the BGLTSA would fit into the Foundation...There was some conversation about the relevance of queer issues,? she said.

But Barusch emphasized that the Foundation has been very supportive of the BGLTSA?s efforts to address this weekend?s comments, stressing that the two incidents are unrelated.

?We?re not blaming the Foundation. It?s not about blame. It?s about how we all need to think more about what we?re saying,? she said.

Ofole U. ?Fofie? Mgbako ?08, a performer in the Cultural Rhythms show who watched Pinkett Smith?s speech, said he thought the speech was ?insightful.?

?You can never appeal to every single group,? he said. ?You?ll always in some way be exclusive. I thought her message was clear. I thought it was sincere.?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
SHEEEEEESH... and the left thinks the right wants to be the thought police.

I wish folks would put this kind of energy and zeal into shit that really matters.

The world might actually be a better place.

It is highly depressing that this is the kind of namby pambly touchy feely bullshit is being taught on our college campuses... the kids actually think this shit really matters... that being "involved" or "active" in this kind of absolute horse-monkey bullshit is equivalent to being a civily patriotic contributing member of society.

The West is going to hand wring, regulate, PC, and lawyer itself into the damn ground.

Lynch
 
#4 ·
I hate when some of the groups get like this.. They need to STFU and not be so thin skinned. I know people that are offended at anything. I tell them if someone says something just flip them off. If they want to start something, well that's why I have a CHL.

But, really some of these people need to grow up.
 
#5 ·
".......the relevance of queer issues.".....now there is a "Core" dimokratic issue.
 
#6 ·
That's the problem SD... they are growing up... like this.

Habib can hack his little sister's head off in an "honor" "killing" (murder)... but I beter be sensitive to his cultural and religious upbringing when passing judgement on his actions.

Sorta like... you can muder ~3,000 Americans... but be careful when passing judgement on the murderers... they may have a cultural or socioeconomic grievance against the United States that warranted the "killings".

Long term, we are doomed... and when it's all over... we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

Lynch
 
#7 ·
No "thought police" issues so long as the government doesn't get involved. Interest groups will raise hell whenever a speaker says something they find offensive, that's OK: Conservative interest groups were very loudly raising hell a very short time ago about some of the stuff that (Wayne?) Churchill idiot said.

I wish they had cited some examples of what she said.

But, at any rate, if she addressed a group of college students with the presumption that they're all straight, that's pretty stupid.

If she addressed them saying that the only acceptable sexual pattern is heterosexuality, that may or may not be stupid - I'd actually put that more in the category of stirring up controversy and getting the students to think provided she gave a good intellectual defense to that position (which I don't happen to agree with, but that's not the point).

Anyway, wish I knew what she said. Until I know what she was talking about, neither I nor anyone else really knows what they're talking about on this issue.
 
#9 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
But, at any rate, if she addressed a group of college students with the presumption that they're all straight, that's pretty stupid.
FYI - If I'm addressing a group of 3,000 students... tring to impact their lives with some tidbits of truth I've gleened from my life's experience... I'm not going to be hung up on PC 'ifying my speech to be overtly inclusive of matching value from my life's experince to the 30 homosexuals in the crowd.

They're a MINORITY... there are certain empirical natural characteristics of being a MINORITY... one of many is the fact that not everyone or everything is going to relate to your minority status... deal with it!!!

Lynch
 
#10 ·
Now, I guess Harvard is a private school but they take government money. Most public colleges have exactly the same programs. All of these programs are funded by the colleges through mandatory student activity fees and other college resources such as meeting places and office and office support.

Clearly, the university is sponoring these activities so we have the appropriate nexus of government action and hence concerns about the "Thought Police".

By the way, I think one point of the article, written for the most prestigious college in the US is that these attendees are so nuts and flaky that even the college newspaper is incapable of communicating the problem to a normal readership.
 
#11 ·
God save us from this PC "diversity" BS....it will be the death of this country. Anytime you hear someone mention "diversity", or "sensitivity", its time to get the hell out of Dodge. Strong liberal message follows. Diversity and sensitivity training are two of the most heinous things forced down the throats of people today.

One of the reasons Rome fell was because it became too diverse. We are heading down the same path.
 
#14 ·
Lynch said:
FYI - If I'm addressing a group of 3,000 students... tring to impact their lives with some tidbits of truth I've gleened from my life's experience... I'm not going to be hung up on PC 'ifying my speech to be overtly inclusive of matching value from my life's experince to the 30 homosexuals in the crowd.

They're a MINORITY... there are certain empirical natural characteristics of being a MINORITY... one of many is the fact that not everyone or everything is going to relate to your minority status... deal with it!!!

Lynch
Lynch, if my take on you is accurate, I don't think you would have presumed that all the students were straight. But I do think you would have told them straight-up that you think that the only acceptable sexuality is heterosexuality and proceeded on from there. i.e. I think you'd have implemented the second of the two options I stated in my post, an option you may note that I view in a pretty favorable light.
 
#15 ·
Well, Custer, given that they're able to find both speakers to annoy the right and speakers to annoy the left, it seems to me this isn't a problem. Now, if they began limiting the speakers to those who didn't annoy anyone, that would be a problem. A big problem!
 
#17 ·
I say its total BS because these people just want to sqwuak and hear their voices, and appear to be taking a "stand".

Lets face it, it sounds like Pinkett-Smith was talking about HER life and HER marriage and relationship. Now how can she talk about that from anything else but a heterosexual point of view? UNLESS SHE WAS HOMOSEXUAL there is no way she can talk from experience and include any sort of homosexual point of view.

Are these people retarded? Stupid? or just so far gone down the liberal paradise path they just can't think straight. If they want to hear a life story or relationship story catering to a homosexual point of view....INVITE A FRIGGIN' GAY OR LESBIAN SPEAKER TO SPEAK. Otherwise STFU!!!

God, idiocy in the name of liberalism/diversity/sensitivity pisses me off....
 
#19 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Lynch, if my take on you is accurate, I don't think you would have presumed that all the students were straight. But I do think you would have told them straight-up that you think that the only acceptable sexuality is heterosexuality and proceeded on from there. i.e. I think you'd have implemented the second of the two options I stated in my post, an option you may note that I view in a pretty favorable light.
You are avoiding the government sponsorship issue.
 
#20 ·
pzjgr said:
...Lets face it, it sounds like Pinkett-Smith was talking about HER life and HER marriage and relationship. Now how can she talk about that from anything else but a heterosexual point of view? UNLESS SHE WAS HOMOSEXUAL there is no way she can talk from experience and include any sort of homosexual point of view....
Well, I'm back to noting that I can't have an informed opinion on what she said until I know what she said. But if it's what you're saying, pzjgr, I agree with you: It would be tantamount to responding to a speech by Jessie Jackson on his life with the criticism that he'd left out the White experience in America.

Note the "if".
 
#21 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Lynch, if my take on you is accurate, I don't think you would have presumed that all the students were straight. But I do think you would have told them straight-up that you think that the only acceptable sexuality is heterosexuality and proceeded on from there. i.e. I think you'd have implemented the second of the two options I stated in my post, an option you may note that I view in a pretty favorable light.
You're wrong... I woudl never have even thought to address the issue... there are quite simply bigger fish to fry in life.

Besides... that's one better left to a one on one discussion... If you really care about someone (them)... I've never seen anything good come from standing up and singling out a bunch of folks over their actions in front of a crowd of onlookers.

That kind of an action shows a lot of things... love is not one of them.

Lynch
 
#22 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Well, I'm back to noting that I can't have an informed opinion on what she said until I know what she said. But if it's what you're saying, pzjgr, I agree with you: It would be tantamount to responding to a speech by Jessie Jackson on his life with the criticism that he'd left out the White experience in America.

Note the "if".
I hear ya D....it would be nice to see a transcript of her speech. I am going with my understanding of the speech from these two statements....

According to Paulus, the letter will acknowledge that ?Pinkett Smith was just giving the story of her life. She just told things from her perspective, and her perspective was a heterosexual perspective. She wasn?t trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out.?


?I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship?a heterosexual relationship,? Barusch said. ?I don?t think she meant to be offensive but I just don?t think she was that thoughtful.?

That last statement makes no sense, except that it came from some sort of political activism with no thought. She (Pinkett-Smith) can't really comment on how to effectively be in a homosexual relationship...she is HETERO (as far as we know). What do these people want?
 
#24 ·
For god's sake, she's an actress! WHO CARES?
More of the "Celebrity opinions matter!" drivel. Like what Jada Pinkett-Smith, or Rob Lowe, or Sigorney Weaver think makes the least bit of difference. Most are lightweight thinkers at best. Others, like Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, are just muddle-headed fools with no more thought process than your average oyster.
 
#25 ·
cammobunker said:
For god's sake, she's an actress! WHO CARES?
More of the "Celebrity opinions matter!" drivel. Like what Jada Pinkett-Smith, or Rob Lowe, or Sigorney Weaver think makes the least bit of difference. Most are lightweight thinkers at best. Others, like Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, are just muddle-headed fools with no more thought process than your average oyster.
The man does have a point. I seem to recall several people bitching about celebrities trying to influence the election. They said who cares what these people think. Cammobunker is right!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top