Queer theory - and what it means in extremis

[deepwatersolo]

I have signed up again after a long pause, particularly because I wanted to share this in the light of current events, and because questions about Queer theory were asked (I lurked on here), and I just saw a revelatory talk about it on you tube.

Derrick Jepsen boils it down to:
violating social norms, in order to subvert power structures.

You could argue that how the Soufragettes acted was 'not normal' at the time, same for Gays&Lesbians with their Parades, and it indeed worked and freed them. You could make the same point for people who defy gender norms (trans umbrella), to subvert the prison of gender expectations. (Of course, most would argue that this is fine, as long as women's rights are respected. Queer theorists might however argue that the fact that women's rights are a social norm now means, women now are the oppressors).

However, Queer theorists basically say every social norm is an expression of oppression and must be subverted - which also leads to the rationalization of paedophilia. Here is an interesting summary of Queer theory's position on paedophilia in form of a quiz at a uni lecture by Jepsen:

(I recommend the whole lecture, also about anarchy and mysogyny. the paedophilia section as a whole starts at 1:51:30: .

I found that quite enlightening and thought, I'll share it on here.

Came to post the same vid as Gulags
It's really worth the listen. Jane Clare Jones is amazing!

Is this a university lecture? I'm trying to watch but getting very frustrated and confused by the background noise. I don't understand why they're being so rude

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I may not have explained it very well. But I was more making the point that the structure of the meeting, ie a panel (of experts?!) lecturing an audience that is supposed to passively sit and accept what they are being told.

If it had been a genuine radical feminist meeting ie a workshop or round table discussion where everyone has the same level of importance this wouldn't have happened. If one women dropped a comment about how they thought Foucault was important it might have just passed without comment or someone just responding with how or why.

But the hierarch structure that women now seem to accept as "feminist" instantly turned someone challenging the comment as being aggressive. ie an audience member who was assigned the role of sitting passively "broke the rules".

It is really disturbing how so many women have accepted this style of meeting as being feminist, but the practice of it is anti feminist. It perpetuates the notion that women (apart from a few special ones) are just passive recipients of other people's idea. The whole point of radical feminism and the grass roots structure of small groups was to help women feel equally empowered, equally entitled to have a view point and to take action.

ie if FiLia was genuine feminist (let alone women's liberationist) it would be a series of small workshops focusing on issues and actions that women are currently active in. Not a curated event of "known" speakers. Feminism isn't about being a fan and signing up to be near someone you have a political crush on.

I'm sure everyone will have a good time, but will it actually generate action. Judging by past conferences not likely.

Ah, I do see what you mean. There's a definite culture clash in terms of how people think organizing should happen, in addition to that between those who went to university during the years where you weren't given much of a choice about at least appearing to support postmodernism and those who think it's a bunch of bollocks and aren't afraid to say so.