Some reactionary fuck: Take the red pill and question the societal notions you grew up learning.
Leftist/feminist/anti-racist activist: *critiques society*
Reactionary fuck: shut up cuck, stop getting so offended, society is fine
You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it’s hard to say that when I’m 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish
what’s amatonormativity?
A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to “compulsory alloromanticism” but I’ve also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity
Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively.
Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:
the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)
Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.
Amatonormativity in practice is…
And much more…
Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)
Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.
Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.
It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.
How is this not just heteronormativity and patriarchal norms though? Heteronormativity doesn’t just mean heterosexuality in specific, but also norms associated with romantic relationships that are tied to normative values (such as coming of age milestones and the expectation to get married). Straight people are also negatively impacted by heteornormativity. But as other people brought up in the notes, this impacts women and queer people disproportionately.
Also I would argue that it’s important to frame these norms as stemming from the oppressive structures of patriarchy and heteronormativity because it’s not like they just randomly exist in isolation–they basically dictate gender and sexual power structures that frame queer people as abnormal and women’s role as subordinate and restricted. For instance, romantic relationships being centered furthers the nuclear family structure as well as men’s over-reliance on emotional and domestic labor from female romantic partners. It’s not that being in a romantic relationship grants you some sort of privilege in society–it’s that the inordinate focus on romance reinforces and furthers modes of dominance, such as misogyny and homophobia.
it seems to me this analysis specifies amatonormativity as an aspect and feature of heteronormativity, naming specifically one way in which it affects our life. it was coined by a feminist author in her feminst writings so i presume she must have seen it as a feature of patriarchy and not think it existed in isolation. but as well, amatonormativity can also very much permeate queer communities as queer people can internalize it and not always realize it is a feature of heteronormativity, but assume it is part of human nature (due to internalizing it), which is why it is valuable to name it and specify as a phenomenom to facilitate discussion and awareness of it. many of the points on this list of amatonormativity in practice can be found in queer communities replacing heterosexuality with queer sexualities. it is still very much a remnant of heteronormativity but by giving it its own name we can bring attention to this feature which sometimes goes unchallenged even as other parts of heteronormativity are. but of course it should very much not be misunderstood as separate and independent from heteronormativity or not caused by patriarchy.
Yeah, I think the problem is the framing of it in this post and on tumblr in general seems divorced from heteronormatiivty and patriarchy. That’s why, to me, the separate concept/term as it’s being used on tumblr is resulting in a lot of bad theory and inaccurate discourse. I’m not denying that the original use of the term kept this context in mind, but I think a lot of people are now thinking about it separate from that context or without a thorough understanding of heteronormativity and patriarchy and the power differences that normative romance reinforces. There’s also a danger of lumping social views on gay relationships with straight ones or single men with single women, which is a lot harder to do if you’re using language like heteronormativity or patriarchal norms.
To me, it’s perfectly possible to discuss the societal privileging of romance without this concept, and doing so is more likely to encourage the writer to specify the social context without implying some sort of “romantic privilege.” So though I respect the original intent (from what I can glean about it without having read the text myself), I personally don’t really see a lot of utility in it.
This discussion can include both of those perspectives though. It’s a dialectic 🙃
That’s true. I guess this is just my perspective lol. I just see it as bad theory with some negative impacts, but of course people will always have different opinions on issues like this.
People seem to have forgotten that “canceling” is SUPPOSED to serve a particular purpose. The problem with “cancel culture” is not that canceling someone is bad–it’s that people are doing it too often and to the wrong people–essentially over minor disagreements and small infractions.
Canceling someone means de-platforming them for being bigoted, abusive or otherwise actively harmful. You shouldn’t cancel someone for something they did or said years ago that no longer reflects their current views (barring truly irredeemable behavior, like sexual assault). You shouldn’t cancel someone for a minor difference of opinion. You shouldn’t cancel someone for failing to use the most “up-to-date” or politically correct terminology in every instance. You don’t cancel anyone who is mildly “problematic”–because honestly, that’s all of us! You cancel people with a pattern of shitty behaviors and actions.
If we just indiscriminately cancel people for the most trivial of reasons, that makes it impossible for people to learn and grow from mistakes. But it also creates a toxic environment that fosters witch hunts and harassment campaigns, essentially silencing marginalized progressives who do good, important work.
You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it’s hard to say that when I’m 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish
what’s amatonormativity?
A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to “compulsory alloromanticism” but I’ve also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity
Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively.
Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:
the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)
Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.
Amatonormativity in practice is…
And much more…
Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)
Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.
Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.
It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.
How is this not just heteronormativity and patriarchal norms though? Heteronormativity doesn’t just mean heterosexuality in specific, but also norms associated with romantic relationships that are tied to normative values (such as coming of age milestones and the expectation to get married). Straight people are also negatively impacted by heteornormativity. But as other people brought up in the notes, this impacts women and queer people disproportionately.
Also I would argue that it’s important to frame these norms as stemming from the oppressive structures of patriarchy and heteronormativity because it’s not like they just randomly exist in isolation–they basically dictate gender and sexual power structures that frame queer people as abnormal and women’s role as subordinate and restricted. For instance, romantic relationships being centered furthers the nuclear family structure as well as men’s over-reliance on emotional and domestic labor from female romantic partners. It’s not that being in a romantic relationship grants you some sort of privilege in society–it’s that the inordinate focus on romance reinforces and furthers modes of dominance, such as misogyny and homophobia.
it seems to me this analysis specifies amatonormativity as an aspect and feature of heteronormativity, naming specifically one way in which it affects our life. it was coined by a feminist author in her feminst writings so i presume she must have seen it as a feature of patriarchy and not think it existed in isolation. but as well, amatonormativity can also very much permeate queer communities as queer people can internalize it and not always realize it is a feature of heteronormativity, but assume it is part of human nature (due to internalizing it), which is why it is valuable to name it and specify as a phenomenom to facilitate discussion and awareness of it. many of the points on this list of amatonormativity in practice can be found in queer communities replacing heterosexuality with queer sexualities. it is still very much a remnant of heteronormativity but by giving it its own name we can bring attention to this feature which sometimes goes unchallenged even as other parts of heteronormativity are. but of course it should very much not be misunderstood as separate and independent from heteronormativity or not caused by patriarchy.
Yeah, I think the problem is the framing of it in this post and on tumblr in general seems divorced from heteronormatiivty and patriarchy. That’s why, to me, the separate concept/term as it’s being used on tumblr is resulting in a lot of bad theory and inaccurate discourse. I’m not denying that the original use of the term kept this context in mind, but I think a lot of people are now thinking about it separate from that context or without a thorough understanding of heteronormativity and patriarchy and the power differences that normative romance reinforces. There’s also a danger of lumping social views on gay relationships with straight ones or single men with single women, which is a lot harder to do if you’re using language like heteronormativity or patriarchal norms.
To me, it’s perfectly possible to discuss the societal privileging of romance without this concept, and doing so is more likely to encourage the writer to specify the social context without implying some sort of “romantic privilege.” So though I respect the original intent (from what I can glean about it without having read the text myself), I personally don’t really see a lot of utility in it.
You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it's hard to say that when I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish
what's amatonormativity?
A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to "compulsory alloromanticism" but I've also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity
Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively.
Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:
the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)
Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.
Amatonormativity in practice is…
And much more…
Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)
Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.
Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.
It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.
most of this is...just patriarchal heteronormativity but stripped of the very important context that it's not just about being single vs being in a relationship these norms are built entirely around enshrining heterosexual marriage, strict gender roles and the nuclear family as the only right way to be
like these societal standards are so obviously completely about heterosexuality otherwise we wouldnt have had conservatives freaking out about marriage equality specifically bc they viewed it as a threat to the kind of values listed above
#like the fact that this term was coined by a feminist academic should tell you immediately that the context of this theory is the patriarchy#and to remove it from that context strips it of all meaning#i obviously dont have the full text in front of me since i just heard of this#but i bet everything that if i read the book#which is literally a feminist writing about marriage#it would be made abundantly clear that shes talking about womens relationship w marriage as a patriarchal power structure#anyways gay people in relationships are not privileged over single people#this kind of theory removed from its context is how we get the most galaxy brain hot takes
That’s exactly what I was saying! They are removing the feminist and queer context of the concept. This is why people are taking issue with how tumblr is framing this concept.
Sometimes people become suspicious of certain modes of discourse not because they are new or come from a particular group of people, but because they can serve to co-opt certain struggles or occlude certain oppressive structures. Sometimes an issue is an expression of a deeper, underlying form of oppression, but people will analyze and dissect the symptom while ignoring the cause. For example, men’s rights activists who act like toxic masculinity or benevolent sexism oppresses men or privileges women miss the fact that these phenomena stem from patriarchy. If you look at these symptoms of patriarchy in isolation, it can look like men have it “worse than women,” but that ignores the structural realities that give rise to these instances in the first place.
So I think the negative reaction to tumblr’s framing of amatonormativity is reflective of that because queer people and feminists have already analyzed that phenomenon at length in the context of heteronormativity and patriarchy. So when people outside of those disciplines take the same concept and analyze it separate from that context, that can actually wind up minimizing oppression by missing the causes and power differences underlying the issue.
You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it’s hard to say that when I’m 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish
what’s amatonormativity?
A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to “compulsory alloromanticism” but I’ve also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity
Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively.
Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:
the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)
Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.
Amatonormativity in practice is…
And much more…
Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)
Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.
Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.
It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.
How is this not just heteronormativity and patriarchal norms though? Heteronormativity doesn’t just mean heterosexuality in specific, but also norms associated with romantic relationships that are tied to normative values (such as coming of age milestones and the expectation to get married). Straight people are also negatively impacted by heteornormativity. But as other people brought up in the notes, this impacts women and queer people disproportionately.
Also I would argue that it’s important to frame these norms as stemming from the oppressive structures of patriarchy and heteronormativity because it’s not like they just randomly exist in isolation–they basically dictate gender and sexual power structures that frame queer people as abnormal and women’s role as subordinate and restricted. For instance, romantic relationships being centered furthers the nuclear family structure as well as men’s over-reliance on emotional and domestic labor from female romantic partners. It’s not that being in a romantic relationship grants you some sort of privilege in society–it’s that the inordinate focus on romance reinforces and furthers modes of dominance, such as misogyny and homophobia.
You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it's hard to say that when I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish
what's amatonormativity?
A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to "compulsory alloromanticism" but I've also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity
Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively.
Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:
the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)
Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.
Amatonormativity in practice is…
And much more…
Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)
Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.
Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.
It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.
How is this not just heteronormativity and patriarchal norms though? Heteronormativity doesn’t just mean heterosexuality in specific, but also norms associated with romantic relationships that are tied to normative values (such as coming of age milestones and the expectation to get married). Straight people are also negatively impacted by heteornormativity. But as other people brought up in the notes, this impacts women and queer people disproportionately.
The "trans-trender" myth is so so so so fucking dangerous. Y'all are making it so hard for people to question and explore their identity. There is no such thing as an actual transtrender. They're just trans people you don't like, or they're cis people who questioned their gender identity and then decided they weren't trans.
Being trans has never, ever, ever been a "trendy" thing. Yes, trans people are becoming more well-known, but is almost always shown in a bad or misinformed light. Trans people are still getting abused, beaten, murdered, fired, kicked out, etc for being trans.
Trenders do not exist.
The trans trender myth has real material impacts on people. The fear of being fake is something nearly all trans people struggle with, and it can cost them years of mental well-being, as they either put off transitioning or take much longer to figure themselves out. There are even trans people who never, for their whole lives, live as who they really are because they internalize the idea they are not trans enough.
And cis people are running with this myth as an excuse to invalidate their trans children or to withhold medical transition from trans patients. Considering the high rates or suicide, homelessness, and substance abuse among trans people who either are prevented from transitioning or lack familial support for transition, these ideas DO have a body count.
Every so often I am reminded that most of the tumblr left is made up of just petty, toxic people. They don’t actually care about positive political change or progressivism, they just like to bitch and whine about things and get a false sense of importance or superiority out of it. You can tell because they RELISH any opportunity to attack and bring down anyone who actually brings about change for not being ideologically pure enough.
