Heteronormativity – Have you been ‘re-normed’ yet?

RAY: Who has the right to teach our children when it comes to issues of morality? Are we going to sit back and let the state assume this role? This is a letter hot off the press that was sent to me this morning. I recommend that if you live in Canada that you talk to your local MP about this matter. Write into your local newspaper. I must applaud those that are able to withdraw their children from the public education system and home school them when I read reports like this.

Jim Hnatiuk – Leader of the Christian Heritage Party   CHP Communiqué Vol 19, July 03, 2012

The New Norms  

“Have you been ‘re-normed’ yet?”

Maybe you haven’t, but the campaign to re-norm your children has already started—at school. 

 In January of this year, the managing editor of Vancouver’s homosexual newspaper made a startling declaration: “We will teach your kids the new norms!”  

That campaign is not really new; it’s been lurking in the woodwork for at least four years, probably longer.       In 2008, writing in the Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Catherine McGregor of the University of Victoria published an article entitled “Norming and forming: Challenging heteronormativity in educational policy discourses”.   

Who is Catherine McGregor? Dr. McGregor is an associate professor of Leadership Studies at the University of Victoria. Particularly interested in promoting the role of teachers, as leaders in schools and communities, on bringing about social and educational change, she says, she represents UVic as a member of the Educational Leadership Network, and is a member of the BC College of Teachers—that’s the organization that violated the free speech rights of BC teacher Chris Kempling, you may remember.      

She has clout in the field of public education. She’s also been a member of the NDP for more than 40 years. She is a doctrinaire socialist, so when she writes about “re-norming” the culture, we need to beware. She starts from the position that everything traditional is wrong, wrong, wrong!       Especially “heteronormativity”.       In her 38-page treatise in the Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy she clearly wants to re-shape the entire society that our children and grandchildren are going to grow up in. She wants to manipulate their minds and their attitudes, especially about “heteronormativity”.

What is “heteronormativity”?      

 It’s the assumption, universal in all human societies and cultures for millennia, that the normal or default setting for human sexuality is intimacy and dependence between two individuals, one male and one female.      

Under the “new norms” the radical sex activists want to teach to your children, “heteronormativity” is a no-no.      

In fact to them, everything “hetero” is a no-no.      

Can they “re-norm” the culture? They believe they can, and they’re determined that they will—and you will have no voice nor vote in the matter. Just shut up and let your betters, like Catherine McGregor, tell your children that you’re wrong, wrong, wrong!      

Moving from “normative”(that is to say, what has for millennia been regarded as “normal”) to “reformative” policy practices— the prescription favoured by Dr. McGregor and her cadre of revolutionaries prefer — means chucking out what has been normal and stable and replacing it with the acronyms, symbols and perversions of the LGBTTIQQ—regardless of the opinions of students, parents, pastors, priests and more traditional educators. Your betters (the sophisticated intelligentsia) will tell you what you ought to want.      

(Cick on the following link to read more of this and other similar articles)


Categories: All Blog Entries, heteronormativity, politics, sexual deviancy | Tags: , , , | 3 Comments

Post navigation

3 thoughts on “Heteronormativity – Have you been ‘re-normed’ yet?

  1. Paul

    What a bunch of hypocrites those who are so intolerant of heterosexuals. Forget about homo phobia, what about hetero phobia?

    • I was researching the origin of the word Homo Phobia. It is the fear of letting others know you have homosexual sodomite inclinations. It doesn’t make any sense that heterosexuals are branded as having that fear.

      Hetero Phobe would describe I would think a fear of letting others know that you have Hetero Sexual Inclinations. It also does not make sense that a Heterosexual person would be afraid of this either.

      I am led to the logical conclusion that the only Homo phobes and Hetero Phobes are those that have Homosexual Sodomites Inclinations.

      There is no fear (the meaning of Phobia) amoung heterosexuals except perhaps the fear that the Homo Sexual Sodomites might continue their seemingly relentless attack upon them.

      The Sodomites of Sodom were not content to keep to their own kind. They relentlessly pursued others that they could attempt to drag into their lifestyle.

      In a similar way there is almost an evangelistic zeal today among the social engineers that want to change all the norms of our society as well. They are using the education system, the political system and they also have set up and use the Human rights commission Kangaroo courts accross Canada to make a mockery of justice by taking up their causes against the citizenry of our country.

      • Ooh, analogy time! Actually, what fwlools is a whole bunch of how I personally approach pedagogy , so I’m not sure how useful it will be, but I think people have misunderstood why I’d think that it is heteronormative (and why that’s not a bad thing), so I’m going to give myself one chance to explain it.Calling a group of white people racist would be to me like calling sex is a reproductive strategy homophobic ; patently ridiculous unless there was additional context (like, say people of color who wanted to join but were socially shunned, or people who claim that any sex that isn’t about reproduction should be socially condemned.) Calling a group of white people members of a culture of Whiteness would be closer to calling sex is a reproductive strategy heteronormative . (I don’t know a single directly analogous word in race discussions, but this is how I’ve seen it described)This may be a value judgement: it excludes other perspectives! Which is, I expect, the way heteronormative was being used in this case. However, it could also be constructive, to better explain why that culture is the way it is, why it values what it values, in what ways people oppose it, subvert it, ignore it and do their own thing, ignore it while perfectly conforming to all the expectations of Whiteness, what parts of Whiteness offer rewards versus which simply let those people escape the sticks.When I see a group of people that is all white, I am inherently inquisitive. If there are 20 people and they are all White, chances are there is some dynamic at play that resulted in that outcome. It doesn’t have to ever involve explicit racism, or racism any member participated in, or even any racism at all, but in the US the odds of it happening purely by chance are 0.81%. There is more likely to be some structural reason, and I’m interested in those structural reasons.(This interest itself can become racist, if I think that studying Whiteness and how White people relate to it is more important than studying how it affects PoC, or other dynamics that predominantly affect PoC (like, say, Orientalism), but I don’t believe that talking about the cultural construction and institutions of Whiteness is inherently racist. Instead it is the only method I’ve seen of deconstructing emergent racism.)So I do see parts of the world through a heteronormative lens, because that is a significant piece of how sexual behavior came about. It’s not because it is awesome or how things should be . (I’ve spent a long time trying to convince people that evolutionarily successful’ doesn’t mean good’, or even something you shouldn’t fight against tooth and nail because it sucks’.) However, if we don’t name it and use it to understand the world, we will never understand why things are the way they are. We certainly won’t be able to successfully challenge those constructions (cultural and biological; biology is just as open to change as culture, and sometimes it’s easier. See also: school breakfast programs and improved test scores.)Is it oppressive? Only if we let it be. If what was sounds like what should be , what is isn’t framed as at the moment, or if we don’t tell stories of all the people who have resisted and subverted these dynamics from the beginning of recorded history and the awesome things they developed, it can feel oppressive. In context, though, it is just one more story among many that have brought us to where we are. In fact, naming those dynamics reveals and celebrates the people who have queered it up against them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: