Heterosexism

What is heterosexism? Why is it not used often? Is it just used to refer to the oppression faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community? Based on all of the works discussed in WGST 1000 and those referred to in this essay, one interpretation of heterosexism is a system that depends on the assumed “supremacy” of heterosexuality as the expected mode of sexual orientation to derive a sense of power or authority over all women, members of the LGTBQ+ community, and people of color. The term “heterosexism” may not be used commonly but its variations–– heterosexual tyranny, heterosexual oppression, heterosexual superiority, and heterosexual bias–– have been incorporated by authors in texts for several decades.

Heterosexism is a system of inequality that is derived from other institutions such as compulsory heterosexuality and heteropatriarchy. Adrianne Rich coined the term compulsory heterosexuality and stated that it is a “man-made institution” designed to keep women under control, and inherently legitimize heterosexuality as the conventional and “innate” mode of sexual orientation (637). By saying that heterosexuality is an aggressive, “political institution,” Rich emphasizes the idea that compulsory heterosexuality is a source of oppression which society has ingrained within women (637). And it is this internalized form of oppression “within which women have been convinced that marriage, and sexual orientation toward men, are inevitable” (Rich 640). Furthermore, Rich also writes that “despite profound emotional impulses and complementarities drawing women toward women,” compulsory heterosexuality forces women to hide their feelings and assume that they have a “mystical/ biological heterosexual inclination” (637). Referencing Rich in her essay, Leila Rupp describes compulsory heterosexuality as a system where men have the power to create “social pressures that ensure that women marry men and bear children” (851). Although there is an extensive history of texts that describe intimate and sexual relationships between women, even these writings and images were selfishly used for the man’s pleasure (Rupp 852-853).

Heteropatriarchy is another system of power in which “heterosexuality and patriarchy are perceived as normal and natural” and “other configurations are perceived as abnormal, aberrant, and abhorrent” (Arvin 13). Maile Arvin expresses the idea that heterosexuality and patriarchy work together to label the “male gender” as “strong, capable, wise, and composed” and the female gender as “weak, incompetent, naïve, and confused” (13). Through “the enforcement of ‘proper’ gender roles,” Arvin conveys that white men used heteropatriarchy as a way to colonize the Indigenous communities because, for them the “native women need to be heterosexualized” (26). On a similar note, Cheryl Clarke also exposes these corrupt yet widely accepted ideologies that are at the root of heterosexism and argues that it is these beliefs that led the white slave master to justify slavery. To be more specific, Clark writes that the white man was inspired by “the structure of heterosexual monogamy” where he classified black people as “slave” similar to how he “relates to a woman, viz as property, as a sexual commodity” (131).

In addition, Clarke also suggests that one of the “effects of the imperialist, heterosexist patriarchy” is that it led to divisions between white women and women of color because “they both fought each other for [the white man’s] approval and protection” (135). And, in relation to this very point, Audre Lorde claims that the very fact the roots of heterosexism can be traced to white patriarchy allows us to see why there is a “rejection of interdependence between women-identified women” and this very division can be “used in the service of men” (n.pag). Lorde further states that “heterosexual Black women often tend to ignore or discount the existence and work of Black lesbians.” Hence, through her powerful words, Lorde signifies that the divisions which exist between groups of women are intentionally created by heterosexual patriarchal systems to benefit all men. This is “beneficial” to men because the more differences there are between women, the less likely they are able to put up a waging battle against white men and men of color. Even Clarke adds that “Western heterosexuality, which advances male-supremacy, continues to be upheld by many black people” (131). By stating this, Clarke highlights the idea that heterosexuality benefits all men because it gives them an inherent power they can use to control women.

Therefore, heterosexism (which is built upon compulsory heterosexuality and heteropatriarchy) collectively represents a source of oppression that has been created to preserve the power differentials that exist in the context of gender, race, and sexuality. Audre Lorde states that due to the long history of heterosexism, a “piece of the oppressor is planted deep within each of us.” It is the forces of external and internalized oppression people must fight in order to move close to a future where heterosexuality is no longer the “expected, innate normality.”

---

Works Cited

Lorde, Audre. Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference (Reproduction from

Sister Outsider, 1984). https://www.colorado.edu/odece/sites/default/files/attached-files/rba09-sb4converted_8.pdf.

Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs, vol. 5, no. 4, 1980,

pp. 631–660. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3173834.

Rupp, Leila J. “Sexual Fluidity ‘Before Sex.’” Signs, vol. 37, no. 4, 2012, pp. 849–56. JSTOR,

doi:10.1086/664470.

Clarke, Cheryl. “Lesbianism: An Act of Resistance (1981).” Feminist Theory Reader: Local and

Global Perspectives. McCann, Carole R., and Seung-kyung Kim, editors, 2016, pp. 128-137.