This toxic cloud is called
Everyday Feminism is such good comic value.
One of its new roads on the Great Map of Intersections is aromantic, “an orientation comprised of a complete lack of romantic interest, behaviors, and relationships.”
Aromanticitude of course has its corresponding Enemy.
The truth is that we’ve all been living under a cloud – choking on it – and hardly anyone else seems to notice it. It’s insidious, and it’s made a complete mockery of friendship and other forms of intimacy outside of romantic entanglements.
It’s so bad that even in the non-monogamous community, aros (a shorter name for aromantic people) are looked at strangely.
This toxic cloud is called amatonormativity – and it’s terribly harmful.
Called by whom? According to whom? That’s one of EF’s best jokes, the way people who write for it always assume their claims are just obviously authoritative and decisive.
Amatonormativity is, essentially, “the assumption 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 the sense that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types,” according to Elizabeth Brake.
Oh good, an attribution. But why the assumption that because Elizabeth Brake said it, it therefore is true? Because it’s Everyday Feminism, that’s why.
Ironically, I have some sympathy with the ideas behind this, but the way they’re expressed makes it hard not to laugh.
The vast majority of information for non-monogamous populations is still heavily couple-centric, hetero- and cisnormative, ableist, and virtually completely romantically oriented.
Heteronormative, cisnormative, and amatonormative. No wonder Everyday Feminism has to do something about it. (And where does actual feminism come in? Don’t be silly, that’s so last century.)
4. Amatonormativity Leaves Aros, Asexuals, and Others More Vulnerable
I happen to be asexual, autistic, aromantic, and kinky – as well as left-handed. All of this leaves my brain wired extremely differently to most.
Asexual and kinky?
Ok that’s enough comedy for today.
I haven’t gotten halfway through and I need you to know I’m laughing so loudly it’s ringing off the walls. “An absolute mockery of friendship.”
“Value” doesn’t begin to describe the comedic value of EF.
“I’m asexual and kinky. I’m like so into flacidity, like hardcore.”
“OMG, being asexual is not at all like people think. It’s actually super fulfilling. Especially if you’re into kink, like me. Just the thought of sitting there in front of my boyfriend not having sex makes me so dry . Shivers.”
Hahahahahahaha
They should rename this site Untrue Confessions.
I’m still trying to work out why it’s so painful to be atypical that it can’t ever be mentioned. Maybe I’m ‘aromantic’–I haven’t had a romantic/sexual partner in a very long time, and I don’t miss it. But I’m well aware that the vast majority of humans prefer to have a romantic relationship…and I don’t have a problem with that, or with the fact that lots of cultural products address this, or that it’s the assumed norm. I don’t want to be pestered to couple up, or looked down on for not doing so, but that to me seems different from demanding that the universe validate my choice and stop blasting its amatonormativity in my face–I can acknowledge that most people aren’t like me and move on. Can anyone else express this in a clearer way? I feel like I’m floundering a bit here.
I think I’m narrowing down why this shit bugs me so much when I’m probably in the category they’re trying to create: they make it all so world-shatteringly important. And I think I see the solution as the opposite, that this stuff shouldn’t matter.
I’m not at all interested in the label, but I’d for sure fit in the “aromantic” category. And I do wish it were more widely accepted. But that’s not because it’s some big part of my identity, it’s because people don’t believe me. When I say, “I’m really just not interested in dating/marriage/etc.,” people tend to assume that I really mean that I don’t have self-confidence or my standards are too high or I think it’s too hard or I’ve given up. That’s pretty irritating, but it’s not some kind of oppression or intolerance; people simply have as hard a time understanding my disinterest as I have understanding why it’s such a big deal for them.
It seems like there’s a push to make simply being in the minority a form of oppression. If you don’t subscribe to the most popular view, then whoever holds that view must be denying your very existence. It’s bizarre.
‘there’s a push to make simply being in the minority a form of oppression’–that’s it, thanks :)
@guest #5 — I think you expressed it just fine.
More vulnerable to what, for fuck’s sake? To sappy commercials featuring couples? HORROR
Privileged romantic jerks. Stop making aromantics vulnerable to choke clouds.
So… What’s amatanorm?
(Beat…)
Nothin’… Whatsamattayou?
OMG! Looked at strangely! Call the crisis hotline!
I”e been looked at strangely all my life. Growing up poor in a rich town, growing up quiet in a loud family, growing up introvert in an extrovert world…I refuse to make names for all of these things and demand that my non-rich, non-loud, non-outgoing self be validated by the rest of the world. I can handle being looked at strangely.
What is the countdown toward when we hear how amatonormative people are causing genocide of aromantics, and Ophelia is to blame? Or at least complicit?
AJ Milne wins a shiny internet.
Personally, I would define aromantic as ‘attracted by aroma’.
Every time I see “aromantic” I read “aromatic”.
Will nobody think of the plight those of us who have aromas?
So what is the smell of an aromatic aromantic toxic cloud?
As sweet as the smell of one’s own farts.
Some asexuals do have sex… and I suppose they may prefer it kinky when they do. It’s the sort of thing that happens when they take a sexually active partner.
That said aromatic + asexual + kinky makes no sense whatsoever…
I have thought from the beginning that this site, Everyday Meninism, is one of the fake feminist site that the A Voice For Men crowd cooked up a few years ago. Does anyone else remember that clever plan?
@ZugTheMegasaurus I’m also single, uninterested in a relationship (though not totally averse to being in one if the opportunity were to arise), but yeah, slapping a label on that seems ridiculous.
“It seems like there’s a push to make simply being in the minority a form of oppression. If you don’t subscribe to the most popular view, then whoever holds that view must be denying your very existence. It’s bizarre.”
This is the problem, not just with what I call “vanity sexualities,” but with everything within certain factions of the left being dependent on “identity.” If you’re not oppressed, you must be an oppressor, and no one wants to be an oppressor.
Scratch my previous remarks; nonsexual BDSM is a thing.
I think I can see one significant negative effect of a combination of amatonormativity with heteronormativity – the rather common assumption that platonic friendships between women/girls and man/boys cannot exist, that any such relationship *must* have a romantic aspect or inevitably will develop one soon.
How is this lessening the oppression of females – based on being in the procreative class that is deemed to be “less than” males in a patriarchal culture, one that is maintained by male privilege via violence, sexual domination and exclusion – which, btw, is the goal of feminism? How, I ask? Can some one in the camp that writes this stuff for “Everyday Feminism” answer this? Why would this crap fall under feminism, exactly? (unless it’s just about “individual empowerment” -which isn’t feminism). Perhaps it fits under general social justice “this seems kinda unfair to me ’cause I’m special and “normative” things make me unhappy” category – but certainly not feminism.
Feminism is a political movement striking out against sexism, violence, patriarchal structures, gender stereotyping, and supportive of reproductive rights, bodily autonomy and economic and physical safety – on behalf of females. (I wish i could say on behalf of women… but far too many not only include males under that label, and then center feminism around them.)
Someday this burgeoning Identity politics will implode under the weight of this oppression competition ….. and i will laugh and laugh…..
I think Everyday Feminism is in that set of people who think feminism is about “equality for all genders” and similar bullshit – which means it’s fine to ignore women in order to talk about amatonormativity and aromantics instead.
BarbsWire, I am guessing the connection to feminism has to do with the stereotype of women being more interested in romance? Thus lacking such interests is perceived as more abnormal if the aromantic person is a woman?
[…] a couple of you asked on my latest post about Everyday Feminism, does this have to do with feminism, and why can’t they talk about feminism? It’s […]
Anat, that would make sense for other outlets, blogs, etc, but I doubt it in the case of Everyday Feminism, because they talk about a great many things that are nothing to do with feminism, and their interest in feminism is very limited. They have bigger ambitions. Why they call themselves Everyday Feminism I really don’t know.
Everyday Feminism’s use of this term seems to be a mile away from Elizabeth Brake’s (to my mind) excellent book. Brake wasn’t trying to designate a new category of a sexual/gender minority or whatever – she was trying to make an argument about marriage. Her point was, that marriage makes a bunch of amatonormative assumptions about where rights etc go – a whole bunch of rights are derived via marriage – such as a broad range of financial rights to decisions about who pulls the plug on your life support machine.
She points out that there’s no sense in bundling rights to one person like this. You might have a spouse who wouldn’t be able to pull the plug, or maybe you might think it would cause him/her too much grief to have that decision to make, so maybe you’d want to give that responsibility to a tough-minded friend or whatever. She’s saying that these various rights & responsibilities implied by marriage should be disbundled from an amatonormative framework so you can allocate each one seperately losing the assumption that the person you are married to is the best or only person who can receive all the rights and responsibilities conventionally implied by marriage.
So, Brake’s pulling up a problem with marriage, which itself comes from the history of marriage as a transaction in women… a structural, legal issue with ramifications for us all, and its being boiled down to the creation of yet another minority group.
@25 Thanks for that, that’s an interesting point and I will look up Brake’s work.
There has been a problem in “Social Justice” circles where SJWs are hostile to those of an asexual and/or autistic mentality. The worst episode was when Richard Carrier (PhD) used his blog to advertise for a booty call. Anyone even mildly displeased with this was accused of “oppressing Richard’s sexuality” etc etc.
Not much better was the behaviour of Oolon, who dismissed my asexuality as a pathetic loser who couldn’t get laid. So-called progressives are as intolerant as Trumpies imho.
You may mean (I’m not sure) “without genitals involved,” but I really don’t think there’s any such thing as “non-sexual” BDSM. It’s all about eroticizing power differentials. By its very definition.
What happens when the ‘aromantic kinky’ or the ‘asexual kinky’ become a THING of their own?
Then we’ll hear all about how they’re being horribly oppressed and massacred by the evil entitled, privileged Aromantics, who won’t kow-tow to the downtrodden AK’s demands for safety….
And then…
The odd thing is, to me, that this would be easier to take seriously if it didn’t try to be quite so dramatic about the situation, and it might fit in a site called Everyday Feminism if it made some effort to actually tie it back to women specifically.
The constant push for fictional characters to end up in monogamous relationships with their ‘one true love’ is annoying to folks who have no desire for such a relationship; this annoyance rises to the level of a micro-aggression when it’s accompanied by ‘proof’ in the narrative that anyone who claims to be happy alone (say, because their career is too important to them, or because they genuinely have no such attractions) is somehow completely deluded and just needs to meet the right Special Someone in order to learn true happiness.
It’s also trivially easy to prove that this microaggression (like a great many in the media) is directed principally at women; male leads can be focused on their jobs, with either a string of casual hook-ups or simply no romance at all, and it usually doesn’t so much as get pointed out that that’s what they are doing. From there, it’s certainly simple to point out how this plays into a greater narrative that teaches that men are ‘complete’ human beings in their own right, while women can only be made whole by the addition of a romantic relationship. Thus, one could make the case that killing this trope would, by and large, benefit women and advance feminism in one small way. It could thus fit quite well into, say, a course on sexism in media.
But this article doesn’t want to do any of that work; it just wants to point out the annoyance, and leave it as if that alone makes it the cause of a great crusade.
[…] a comment by Freemage on This toxic cloud is […]
Exactly.
A movie that brought that particular microaggression into sharp focus for me was Beyond Rangoon, whose female protagonist got involved in dissident politics in Burma…which had to be “explained” in the first few minutes, in which her husband and child were killed by intruders or some such shit. She couldn’t just be a woman in Burma on her own, there had to be a “reason” – which would never be seen as necessary with a male protagonist. So ridiculous.