Queer theory - origins of the madness.

[TurboTeddy]

I've seen many references to queer theory on threads here and despite googling I never really felt I'd grasped it. If you've ever wondered how trans ideology managed to gain so much tranction then this interview explains. It's a great antidote if you are questioning your own sanity in response to the relentless gaslighting by politicians and the media. You are not mad, queer theory is.

The interview is about 50 minutes long.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3645050-BBC-on-the-problem-of-the-lack-of-lapdancing-clubs

I'm posting this link here because the interview with a woman who lap dances for a living made some very "queer theory" comments about the nature of her work. Susan Cox makes reference to queering the exploitative nature of sex "work" by comparing it to acting.

Isn't it odd how it is usually exploitative practices which are always queered to indulge and benefit men?

It makes me think of this brilliant article (Content Warning, porn and violence): medium.com/@jessicamasterson_6828/the-third-wave-dream-girl-begs-to-be-broken-9eb0bb717f29

What if history is littered with ideologies that, at the time of their creation no sensible person took seriously as they believed it would never gain traction, it was just laughable nonsense.

This is scary, but an important insight I think. Because once you realise this you have to look at all the ideas you take for granted as obviously true in a new way. Not to break them down like a deconstructionist, but to make sure they actually rest on firm foundations.

One of the reasons I think queer theory has taken hold is people in general don't want to admit that they don't understand it.

I suspect many don't realise they don't understand it. Quite a few seem to think it means letting go of bad ideas and embracing the good future ideas.

The Reality Report with Jane Claire Jones is brilliant - "sex, gender and the social/cultural/political influence of "superstar academic" Judith Butler's more extreme claims regarding these subjects."

It's 3 hrs long but well worth it.

All of those interviews and links look great (and I will read and watch properly) but if I wanted to share a very basic definition or resource to cover the headlines of queer theory, so to speak, can anyone recommend something here?

I get that it's complex and so breaking it down isn't that easy, but for my mum and others who are trans-peaking all other the place I want to give them the background or give them something to explain where it all came from, where it's roots go and why it's got its claws into universities (my main bugbear atm). Very grateful for anything that can be shared onwards.

I had been looking for some easy to understand explanations of queer theory as well. They seem notoriously difficult to find. A lot of the language used in queer theory is gobbledygook and intentionally designed to sound intellectual and profound but actually makes little sense when you try to understand it.

That's my problem too Nonny, I happily do the ground work and wade through it and try to sum it up so to be able to explain to others.

(I explained what Woke meant to a friend in Singapore the other day who didn't know what it meant and if you haven't come across this stuff before it is pretty hard to grasp.)

I explained Queer Theory as questioning the establishment or questioning societal norms but then it sounds like a good thing and I got into a discussion about how questioning family structures in society in the past meant gay people came out people could now be openly gay (of course I agreed this was a good thing) and it went off on a tangent. I need to crystallise my argument or try a different phrase or approach.

OhHolyJesus
Have you read ThatDoctorEM's essays that she linked to earlier in the thread? First one here:

medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-queer-theory-and-paedophilia-part-i-a0cf30ef7bfa

The first paragraph covers why going against societal norms isn't always a good thing.

When I see the term ‘queer feminist’ or ‘queer feminism’ I suspect, maybe hope, that those using these descriptors have not done the reading. As the old proverb states ‘the road to hell is lined with good intentions’. I do not believe that all these young woke people, charities, institutions and arts festivals are supportive of rape and paedophilia, of ‘queering’ and transgressing boundaries feminists have worked tirelessly to establish. Nevertheless, this is what queer theory aims at. As Sarah Beresford has analysed, ‘The term “Queer”… is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant, and aims to destabilize dominant ideas of identity, whether that identity is sexual, gendered, ethnic, national, and political and so forth’. This sounds liberating and progressive until we remember that ‘the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant’ include the idea that adults should not sexually abuse children. Unnervingly, the reframing of child sexual abuse and liberating of paedophilia from the margins of society is a dominant idea within queer theory.

terryleather
That clip is 3 hours long?

So much to understand
So little time.

Sigh

They were fab OldCrone and I read all 4 (think it was 4) with my jaw on the floor given the history of some of the dodgy characters involved. I have shared them around as I managed to digest them and I'm no intellectual, but I don't think my mum or some of my friends would take the time to read them and really 'get it'.

The subversive nature and deliberate redirection of queer theory, I don't know, it's pretty dark and I have a suspicious mind but most mums I speak to just think that broadly speaking it's not dangerous and the T belongs with the LGB.

These are bright women and not particularly woke, just not tuned into these conversations and in an ideal world I would have some pithy 'hook' to make them questions things and begin to think critically.

I'm actually thinking a point made in the video in the OP might be it: example - a girl who likes cars, is by feminist views a girl who likes cars and girls can like cars and be girls, QT would suggest she wasn't a girl at all.

I guess I'm looking for similar examples that induce that lightbulb moment.

is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant, and aims to destabilize dominant ideas of identity, whether that identity is sexual, gendered, ethnic, national, and political and so forth’. This sounds liberating and progressive

I think we really need to ask ourselves why we implicitly tend to think this makes sense. Because even without any examples, it's pretty illogical. How has it become an unspoken part of our thought process? How do we root it out?

I baulked over the length of it too Wrath but JCJ is very good at explaining it all...have to admit I watched in 1hr blocks!

I think we really need to ask ourselves why we implicitly tend to think this makes sense.

As far as sex is concerned, I think it's because the more liberal attitudes that we have now compared to the past are seen as positive by most people. That idea is extended to future changes, so that everything which is more 'liberated' or permissive is automatically seen as progressive.

In general it seems to be the idea that all change which superficially gives people more freedom must be 'progressive', without any thought of where the changes might lead us.

Bit of a tangent but I hadn’t realised how this rubbish spreads its tentacles: www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/kids-with-adhd-are-being-denied-help-by-radical-postmodernists-dr-john-j-marshall-1-4961716

I also notice the term ‘lived experience’; I am sure I have seen this in the context of Scottish Government grants or perhaps a scheme to get input from those with ‘lived experience’ in the context that those with ‘lived experience’ have a more valid voice than anyone else but especially academic; anecdote over objective evidence.

In general it seems to be the idea that all change which superficially gives people more freedom must be 'progressive', without any thought of where the changes might lead us.

There is a tendency to assume that it won't, yes. People tend to say that suggesting it might is a slippery slope argument.

Freedom is something in itself that we tend to take for granted, isn't it? What really makes us free? Is more freedom always good?

Is more freedom always good?

What seems to be happening is that there is an idea that more liberated = progressive = positive for society. Very little thought seems to be given about what this really means, and whether there is a point at which "more liberated" will actually have a negative effect on society and cause harm to some members of society, rather than just making us more free and more civilised and tolerant.

In the early part of the 20th century, homosexuality was illegal, sex outside of marriage was something that respectable people didn't do (or at least didn't talk about), and a woman becoming pregnant outside of marriage was seen as shameful. Most people think our move away from these views is positive, but this can result in a view that it follows that becoming more tolerant and liberal about sex and sexuality must always be positive.

So we have drag queens reading stories to small children, and the liberal-minded say how progressive and inclusive that is. We have the rubber-clad fetishist at the NSPCC and his liberal-minded employers protect him. We see the rubber-clad 'pups' at the pride parades playing with unsuspecting children, and the liberal-minded see no problem with that.

It's the no boundaries and no limits aspect which is the problem. At what point should we draw the line? At what point does 'progressive' start to go backwards and people's behaviour becomes less civilised? If we remove all restrictions and inhibitions about sex, we revert to being animals. Is that the logical end point of queer theory?

What seems to be happening is that there is an idea that more liberated = progressive = positive for society. Very little thought seems to be given about what this really means, and whether there is a point at which "more liberated" will actually have a negative effect on society and cause harm

Yes! And, the danger is the Thermidorian swing. There was a thread last year on Kaufman's: The End of Traditional Civil Rights

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3448119-Excellent-Essay-The-End-of-Traditional-Civil-Rights-Kaufman

Thanks everyone for all the different links, I'm working my way through them. Making a start on getting to grips with Queer Theory has been an eye opener.

What seems to be happening is that there is an idea that more liberated = progressive = positive for society. Very little thought seems to be given about what this really means, and whether there is a point at which "more liberated" will actually have a negative effect on society and cause harm to some members of society, rather than just making us more free and more civilised and tolerant.

People make some interesting assumptions, and I think this link is one of them. A similar example is I've seen people assume that "real" human rights can't conflict with each other, which leads to some real errors in reasoning. I don't think they are being disingenuous at all, they really think their logic is sound.
The idea of "progress" is itself rather a problem. Progress to what? Is this supposed to be some kind of movement of the World Spirit?

Freedom is also always conceived in terms of more choices which isn't particularly obvious unless you've been trained to think of it that way. An older view says that when you give people the change to make untrue choices you are actually curtailing their freedom, because you create bad habits and neglect the development of virtue which allows real choice. It's a language many don't find natural now but it dovetails into the idea that too much freedom can create a society where people are damaged by it, like an addiction. There is also some interesting research on choice fatigue that might be relevant.

What seems to be happening is that there is an idea that more liberated = progressive = positive for society. Very little thought seems to be given about what this really means, and whether there is a point at which "more liberated" will actually have a negative effect on society and cause harm to some members of society, rather than just making us more free and more civilised and tolerant.

More liberated over time has seen some benefits for women and other marginalised and/or oppressed groups but mostly it seems to benefit the usual subject - white, middle class men - and can have unintended negative consequences for more vulnerable members of society.

I feel the ideas espoused by Queer Theory as I understand them are very masculine in nature and really do centre the cock and whatever it wants at the expense of everyone else who happens to be in the non-men category.

Ideas around progress are interesting - are we always going forward in a straight line or can gains be lost. I saw the philosopher John Gray speak about this years ago and it really made me think.

He seemed to be arguing that it was only really science that could progress in the linear way we usually understand the word.

He used the example of torture to illustrate how progress could be lost. Torture in the West has been almost universally condemned as beyond the pale for the decades since WWII but returned with the advent of the Iraq war and the use of torture techniques like water boarding and the atrocities at Abu Ghraib - all conducted by the so called "good guys".

Have any of you listeded to the speech Selina Todd gave at WPUK meeting? it is (as someone else said) a socialist feminist historian accurately describing what radical feminisms were saying as it happened that queer theory is part of the male backlash against women's liberation.

It is about trying to say that there is no shared experience of women as a sex class at the hand of men as a sex class. It tries to say that we all have personal choice and so aren't oppressed (ie making Margaret "there is no such thing as society" Thatcher a queer activists!). ie it enable's men to say we are equally victims and have the right to demand to be acknowledged as such.

The speech is about 20 minutes, and talks about how women's activism over the past few hundred years show that queer theory (bourgoise individualism / neo liberalism) only benefits those with actually power ie the real world not what we pretend it is. ie it benefits men. Queer theory is a tool of MRAs.

On the video link page there is also a link to the transcribed speech.

That's interesting, I wonder if the prominence of science has tended to make people extrapolate to other areas. It has obviously in terms of things like social Darwinism, but maybe in the wider sense too. I find John Gray interesting, it's maybe notable here that many would consider him to be a conservative philosopher.

What I find particularly surprising about the emphasis many today put on the idea of progress is how many of them are materialist atheists, which seems quite compatible. You really can't have progress without an end, you have to be getting to something. Nature itself can't progress, it's like saying evolution has an end, it just changes.

Just to add that what is important in her speech is she is saying that this is the dominant culture in universities and so over the past 30 / 40 years those educated / influenced by this theory are now those in positions of power in the media, politics and schools.

I wonder how much longer we will be allowed to talk about sexism / sex discrimination.

I went to see John Gray speak because I read his book Straw Dogs and it made me really angry (I actually can't remember why now!) so I wanted to see what else he had to say. I enjoyed the talk and it did make me think, which is always a good thing.

I wonder if the prominence of science has tended to make people extrapolate to other areas.

I think there's a lot of truth in this.

You really can't have progress without an end, you have to be getting to something.

I wonder about this too...is the end point some kind of Utopia, and if so what will it look like, or more importantly whose vision will prevail...?

That's interesting stumbledin, I'll check out the link.

PoMo/Queer Theory was what I remember being taught in art school at the end of the 80s - I was often to be found mindlessly intoning "There is no such thing as absolute truth", and thinking I was so smart (what a wanker!) so it's certainly had time to percolate into all our institutions.

As you say the lack of any critique of power and who actually has it is one of my main problems with QT and it is why it's an absolute joke that all the so called queering is so ground breaking and radical when it never challenges power.

No wonder the great and the good in all our institutions love the ideology - change yourself and don't bother challenging those with power at the top.