there was this time a man tried to explain myself to me
2/21/16
it's a sunday. i'm sipping my coffee while the kitten plays with a stray hershey's kiss that was sitting on one of the small tables in my living room. it's unseasonably warm, though i haven't yet opened a window or the blinds. i have some work to do today, but i can't stop thinking about a mini-conversation that i had with a coworker at the counseling center. i can't even remember what he was trying to demonstrate, or what point he was trying to make. i remember it had something to do with me making a comment that i wanted to see more queer people represented in television. it led to a back and forth that included him saying something about my cognitive dissonance and my desire to be normal. both of which i took issue with, but did not have the time to get into, mainly because he was already certain of his position (and of mine). so that's what this is for.
wanting to be represented comes from years of watching characters in shows who only represent the mainstream, acceptable, or conventional ways of being. it has to do with the media being skewed, and providing only a fraction of the types of characters that really exist in the real world. i wonder, if i were black, and said something about wanting to see more black people in television shows, would that also be because i wanted to be normal? to me, being marginalized and being normal are not opposites. while there are plenty of times i might fall into one side of a dichotomy, i'm a constructionist and a pluralist, which means that i recognize those categories are created by people and i also recognize that there are plenty of categories that remain either unrecognized or unheard. perhaps that's the heart of the matter for me--feeling like i have a voice in a society that silences so many people or disregards their perspective because they are not part of the majority. it isn't about validation from an external source; it's about knowing diverse identities ARE valid, and knowing that they deserve to be represented. and yes, we should be normalizing queerness, 100%. not because of some desire for normalcy, but again, because these things are normal, and they are disproportionately represented in the media.
let me set aside the feeling that this person was mansplaining my own sense of self for a minute. first, he said something about there being cognitive dissonance, which means an inconsistency in my thinking. i wish i could remember why he said this--i think it was because he said something about my wanting to be normal, and i said that i liked being weird. but the word "normal" was the word he chose--not the word i used. i used the word "represented." it had nothing to do with normalcy. the word "normal" is loaded. when it's broken down, "normal" seems to have more to do with the research that has been conducted regarding what is most common, or at least what is perceived to be most common. so the implication was that, in this case, to be bisexual was not normal. which is simply untrue. people who are not straight have existed since the beginning of people, and while their numbers may have not been in the majority, to imply that people who are not straight are not normal sounds an awful lot like archaic thinking and precisely something someone who is part of the majority would say. there was no cognitive dissonance. i recognize the things about myself that are both normal and abnormal, and my sexuality is not abnormal. but it is under-represented. granted, the characterization of many people, both marginalized and not, is not usually done very well. but television shows are about fantasy and escape and entertainment, not usually accurate in terms of representing what our lives are actually like. so i recognize that as well. but during a time when television shows are making more of an effort to cater to a diverse population, it is just frustrating when the storylines of marginalized people are excluded. and just as frustrating when those identities are exploited for the sake of entertainment, though perhaps at least in that case the majority folks are able to learn something.
wanting to be represented comes from years of watching characters in shows who only represent the mainstream, acceptable, or conventional ways of being. it has to do with the media being skewed, and providing only a fraction of the types of characters that really exist in the real world. i wonder, if i were black, and said something about wanting to see more black people in television shows, would that also be because i wanted to be normal? to me, being marginalized and being normal are not opposites. while there are plenty of times i might fall into one side of a dichotomy, i'm a constructionist and a pluralist, which means that i recognize those categories are created by people and i also recognize that there are plenty of categories that remain either unrecognized or unheard. perhaps that's the heart of the matter for me--feeling like i have a voice in a society that silences so many people or disregards their perspective because they are not part of the majority. it isn't about validation from an external source; it's about knowing diverse identities ARE valid, and knowing that they deserve to be represented. and yes, we should be normalizing queerness, 100%. not because of some desire for normalcy, but again, because these things are normal, and they are disproportionately represented in the media.
let me set aside the feeling that this person was mansplaining my own sense of self for a minute. first, he said something about there being cognitive dissonance, which means an inconsistency in my thinking. i wish i could remember why he said this--i think it was because he said something about my wanting to be normal, and i said that i liked being weird. but the word "normal" was the word he chose--not the word i used. i used the word "represented." it had nothing to do with normalcy. the word "normal" is loaded. when it's broken down, "normal" seems to have more to do with the research that has been conducted regarding what is most common, or at least what is perceived to be most common. so the implication was that, in this case, to be bisexual was not normal. which is simply untrue. people who are not straight have existed since the beginning of people, and while their numbers may have not been in the majority, to imply that people who are not straight are not normal sounds an awful lot like archaic thinking and precisely something someone who is part of the majority would say. there was no cognitive dissonance. i recognize the things about myself that are both normal and abnormal, and my sexuality is not abnormal. but it is under-represented. granted, the characterization of many people, both marginalized and not, is not usually done very well. but television shows are about fantasy and escape and entertainment, not usually accurate in terms of representing what our lives are actually like. so i recognize that as well. but during a time when television shows are making more of an effort to cater to a diverse population, it is just frustrating when the storylines of marginalized people are excluded. and just as frustrating when those identities are exploited for the sake of entertainment, though perhaps at least in that case the majority folks are able to learn something.
i also want to add that, as a queer person, i'm fucking tired of movies and shows that center characters who are straight--like that's normal? it's a lie, since there is a percentage of the population that is not straight, cis, white, etc, and frankly i'm sick of shows shoving their heternormative narratives down my throat. everywhere i go i'm confronted with straightness, and it's fucking annoying when there isn't an equal amount of representation for queer folks and families. insecure straight people are out here claiming there's a gay agenda without acknowledging the straight agenda that's been at work for fucking centuries. and the funny thing is, it's not even the straight agenda--it's the rightwing agenda to get people to make more babies to add to the workforce. that's all they really care about--not children being well cared-for and educated and having access to healthcare and support. they just want more people in the workforce, holding up the country for the rich.
so on one level, the conversation was frustrating because this guy was trying to tell me what i felt or wanted. but it was also frustrating because he was going against some of the principles or techniques i have come to appreciate about counseling. he did not use my language; he substituted a word for one that i had used, and acted as though they were the same thing. beyond that, it seemed as though he already had a conclusion about my perspective, which made it feel like he was not even really listening, but letting his own perspective override my position. he came at me from the position of knowing rather than a position of not-knowing or curiosity. he assumed he already knew the answers to the questions he was asking me. it was infuriating! maybe he had his own issues with feeling unrepresented. so far as i can tell, there are at least a couple things about him that would qualify as marginalized aspects of identity. this made it feel like, once again, a dominant white male was attempting to school a subordinate white female. that may not have been something i was conscious of at the time, but days later, here i am feeling angry that i did not have a chance to really be heard. and THAT instance of normal is simply unacceptable--it happens all the time and i'm fucking over it. if normal reinforces the power dynamic that allows certain perspectives to hold precedence while others are ignored or constantly challenged without challenging the dominant narratives, then i am not okay with normal.
people say things to me all the time that i take days to process. sometimes the littlest thing becomes stuck in my brain until i can think it all the way through--reach the point of feeling like i understand what happened, how i felt, and what i wish i could have said. and then the frustration lingers, because there aren't usually opportunities to revisit the original conversation. but i don't think people realize how much i think. and for someone to sit there and tell me what my own brain was doing was dismissive and insulting to my intelligence and self-awareness. i wish sometimes that i had a button i could wear that said something like "yes, i'm smart. i've thought about many issues deeply, and i have reached my own logical and valid conclusions. i will admit when i am ignorant. but don't assume i haven't taken the time to think about things before i state my position to you." well, that wouldn't fit well on a button, but the point remains. i have thought a lot about myself, i have reflected on my experiences. i was processing before i had the word processing in my vocabulary. i really hate when people treat me as though i am new to thinking deeply about myself and my place in the world. i've been doing it for years. my thinking continues to evolve, as it should. but many of the conclusions i've reached remain unchanged, because much of our society remains unchanged. and many of my frustrations stem from the fact that, again, views like mine, identities like mine, ideals like mine are not included in the narratives that the masses have access to. it is about being heard. it's about being recognized and respected. i love the parts of me that are weird, and i try to love the parts about me that are normal as well. but i've worked very hard to understand what about myself has been influenced by the illusions of normalcy that pervade our social narratives. most of which only encouraged me to hate myself because i did not fit in. many of which required deconstruction, and once they were deconstructed revealed other things about what is normal--like our desire to feel included, welcome, in the society we are born into. and if it is silly to want to live in a society that embraces the weird and the normal but questions them both, then once again, i am in the minority.
so on one level, the conversation was frustrating because this guy was trying to tell me what i felt or wanted. but it was also frustrating because he was going against some of the principles or techniques i have come to appreciate about counseling. he did not use my language; he substituted a word for one that i had used, and acted as though they were the same thing. beyond that, it seemed as though he already had a conclusion about my perspective, which made it feel like he was not even really listening, but letting his own perspective override my position. he came at me from the position of knowing rather than a position of not-knowing or curiosity. he assumed he already knew the answers to the questions he was asking me. it was infuriating! maybe he had his own issues with feeling unrepresented. so far as i can tell, there are at least a couple things about him that would qualify as marginalized aspects of identity. this made it feel like, once again, a dominant white male was attempting to school a subordinate white female. that may not have been something i was conscious of at the time, but days later, here i am feeling angry that i did not have a chance to really be heard. and THAT instance of normal is simply unacceptable--it happens all the time and i'm fucking over it. if normal reinforces the power dynamic that allows certain perspectives to hold precedence while others are ignored or constantly challenged without challenging the dominant narratives, then i am not okay with normal.
people say things to me all the time that i take days to process. sometimes the littlest thing becomes stuck in my brain until i can think it all the way through--reach the point of feeling like i understand what happened, how i felt, and what i wish i could have said. and then the frustration lingers, because there aren't usually opportunities to revisit the original conversation. but i don't think people realize how much i think. and for someone to sit there and tell me what my own brain was doing was dismissive and insulting to my intelligence and self-awareness. i wish sometimes that i had a button i could wear that said something like "yes, i'm smart. i've thought about many issues deeply, and i have reached my own logical and valid conclusions. i will admit when i am ignorant. but don't assume i haven't taken the time to think about things before i state my position to you." well, that wouldn't fit well on a button, but the point remains. i have thought a lot about myself, i have reflected on my experiences. i was processing before i had the word processing in my vocabulary. i really hate when people treat me as though i am new to thinking deeply about myself and my place in the world. i've been doing it for years. my thinking continues to evolve, as it should. but many of the conclusions i've reached remain unchanged, because much of our society remains unchanged. and many of my frustrations stem from the fact that, again, views like mine, identities like mine, ideals like mine are not included in the narratives that the masses have access to. it is about being heard. it's about being recognized and respected. i love the parts of me that are weird, and i try to love the parts about me that are normal as well. but i've worked very hard to understand what about myself has been influenced by the illusions of normalcy that pervade our social narratives. most of which only encouraged me to hate myself because i did not fit in. many of which required deconstruction, and once they were deconstructed revealed other things about what is normal--like our desire to feel included, welcome, in the society we are born into. and if it is silly to want to live in a society that embraces the weird and the normal but questions them both, then once again, i am in the minority.
11/12/25
Nearly ten years later, I have revisited this idea to point out that since most of television is propaganda, it will never normalize marginalized identities to the degree the scope of human personality would need to be accurately represented. We see more diversity in television now, not because our society is more accepting so much as our society will always attempt to exploit people. And with more folks coming to recognize how many queer, trans, black, non-white perspectives are also people working and contributing to the wealth of the ruling class, then they'll add characters to shows, and networks will welcome this programming because it is profitable.
As we move into the second year of Trump's second term in office, a sentence I never thought I'd be writing but here we are, I am thinking about the role that fascism plays in programming, and how the success of the dumbing down of United States citizens corresponds with a rise in authoritative and oppressive policies and narratives. It's all so predictable. The same patterns we're doomed to repeat because not enough people value having knowledge of history. I think back to the point that my colleague made, and I realize that what he should have been arguing was that we should never look to the narratives the state allows to reinforce the validity of our own experiences. That seeking validation for our identities from corporate media was a pointless task. But that representing the diversity of experiences in this country is important, because otherwise we're just helping the fucking nazis.
Comments
Post a Comment