Recently in Rejection/Refusal Category

Final Blog - Rejection/Refusal

| 1 Comment

Rejection and refusal, in my own words. I began the blog assignment by outlining the different meanings I had pertaining to rejection and refusal before I came to class and what definitions I could find in resource materials, this blog is entitled "Rejection/Refusal within Queer Theory and Existence" and was written on October 22. Rejection comes from the Latin term meaning "to throw back"; it is a refusal to accept, to grant, to discard as useless or unsatisfactory, to cast out (eject), to vomit, the state of being rejected. Refusal also originates from Latin, from a word that meant to pour back, outcast, trash. It is defined in dictionaries as to deny, to decline to accept, to express a determination not to do something, to decline acceptance/consent/compliance, and to decline to submit.

In the blog and in my presentation of Judith Butler's "Undiagnosing Gender" I tried to explain to my classmates a theory of existence in a queer world maintained by a balance between rejection and refusal that divides "queers" from "non-queers". I described how I interpreted these terms pertaining to queer theory. Both of these terms are social actions. First is rejection; a pro-heteronormative and often anti-queer idea that reinforces the normative by preserving existing practices. This is a traditional and conservative perspective that closes itself to the development of new ideas and existences in favor of what is most familiar. The actions taken by this group publically express their rejection of non-heteronormative subjects thought violence, humiliation, or ignorance and separate them from so-called "normal" society.

The second action is refusal, an anti-heteronormative and often pro-queer ideology that aims to redefine, reconstruct, or make anew of social existences that are opposed by the rejecters. There are many ways to existence in refusal of accepting normative society, this can be done by hiding from it, being outspoken in the society to draw attention to the diversity of existents, to refuse submission to the normative, to contradict current mores and practices, and by voluntarily separating oneself from the typical.

It was from these definitions that I began to explore their meaning as pertaining to queer. In my blog "Thoughts pertaining to Munoz's article: Rejection of the Freak" I quotes Munoz: "Disidentification is meant to be descriptive of the survival strategies the minority subject practices in order to negotiate a phobic majoritarian public sphere that continuously elides or punishes the existence of subjects who do not conform to the phantasm of normative citizenship" (4). I wrote in an effort to summarize, "Normative society creates freaks, people who are rejected by the norm, to reinforce what defines the normal." I think it is this concept that envelopes rejection and refusal because it simply defines how queers or "freaks" are rejected by society so that society can maintain a utopian existence. What queers should do is create a more accepting existence by creating a new utopian in which that is queer now can become acceptable in politics, society, and culture.

Queering. What is queering? This is a difficult concept for me as I have had little experience or example to follow. There is hardly a good definition of what "queer" is and that makes it even more difficult to put it into terms of action, as a verb. From what I have seen my classmate do in attempts to create this action of queering I have formulated a fuzzy idea of what queering is and a few questions that I tried to use to put things into terms of queering or queer:

"To queer" is to look at ones surroundings and contemplate the strangeness of its being and to doubt is supposed "normal" or "abnormal" state. Why should it be defined as queer? What aspect, if any, makes it queer? How can it represent or exemplify queerness? What of queerness could actually be normal if standards of heteronormativity were removed (such as the free thought and action of children when not supervised and disciplined by elders as Chloe questioned during her presentation on Youth)? Should a queer thing be normal, but then, what is normal? How even, has normality come to be defined and what has its evolution been throughout our cultural history?

It is the questioning and doubting of the existence of society and material culture that we are exposed to and most familiar with that is queering. It causes us to think about what has created these definitions of what is acceptable and of what is unacceptable in our society. It causes us to ask whether these definitions are legitimate according to the diverse experiences of human existence and realize there are prejudices that have not been addressed that are contrary to the natural right of human being.

Tracking Rejection and Refusal. Tracking rejection and refusal in a queering theory class was not difficult. Many of the articles specifically addressed some particular matter of discrimination pertaining to queers; generally, queers were being rejected by a heteronormative standard or queers were refusing to participate in a heteronormative existence by capitalizing upon some queer trait. By learning from the experiences from other queers through the readings or from what I myself have seen, I concluded that the most important action a queer could take when fighting for queer rights is to refuse the state of heteronormativity. To ignore those who reject queerness and dictate what is "normal" and show them that queerness is a legitimate and feasible state of existence. It is not detrimental or harmful to the well-being of oneself or of those around them. It is important to refuse heteronormativity and display this refusal boldly so that other people may experience what queerness is, even in secondhand, so that it does not remain a fearful existence, but a familiar existence. It is the unfamiliar that is the most frightening to a person and familiarity can destroy that fear, making the world a safer place for queers. Queering theory is a methodology of familiarity that those refusing to remain in a heteronormative society that, when taken out of a queer environment, can open the eyes of people outside of queerdom to realize that they already live in a very queer place, even if it should be a subtle queerness.

What I learned in class came from the readings and conversations I had in and outside of class. The blogs were not my primary venue of interaction because I did not get the discussion I needed for developing my thoughts pertaining to queer theory, I did not get the quick interaction and capitalization of thought I needed from an intelligent conversation. The blog was helpful in that I had to develop and write about my thoughts, but that did not guarantee I would have any sort of response that would lead to any further consideration or development of these thoughts. Any sort of constructive criticism did not come until we handed our blogs in. Considering that many of us did not complete our blogs until a few days before the assignment was due, I fear that a lot of the conversation that could have happened with the blogs was absent.

For future students, I advise that they interact with the blog at least every two days so that they can be aware of what ideas are being written about. They should, after reading a blog, comment on it, regardless of how they feel the comment might be valued by other students. A large part of what hindered my comments was self editing because I feared that what I would have to say would be deemed valueless by teacher and student, especially in consideration that the majority of our comments and blogs had to be constructed by pre-conceived requirements. Do not let this hinder your writing. For the more that is said, the more people can connect and develop their ideas.

The blog was useful in that it allowed not only for the students of the class to comment about queering theory, but allowed for anyone who was looking for, or stumbled upon, a blog about queerness. This opens up the blog so that we would be able to learn from people of various experiences in queerness.


ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY THREE

We have done quite an extensive study of queer culture within the United States, yet I have always been extraordinarily interested in how GLBTQ issues are handled in other areas of the world, such as Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, and Australia. I want to know what cultural aspects allow for a more open or closed acceptance of queers a society. What types of interactions between people of the same sex are acceptable and unacceptable? What gradations of transsexuality are welcomed? Politically, what acceptance or oppression is legalized? How are queers rejected in various cultures around the world? How do they reject their oppression? What strategies have been used to gain acceptance and protection? The following resources were found in the libraries at the University of Minnesota.

01.jpg

Baird, Vanessa. No-Nonsense Guide to Sexual Diversity. Oxford: New Internationalist Publications Ltd, 2007.

This book is not found at the University of Minnesota library system, but I found it while looking up Sex, Love & Homophobia, which is also by Baird. This book includes chapters about history, homophobia, politics, religion, science and transgender and intersex. It also has an appendix entitled "Sexual minorities and the law: A world survey" which I thought would be appropriately conducive to international queer studies.


02.jpg

Baird, Vanessa. Sex, Love & Homophobia : Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Lives. London: Amnesty International, 2004.

This book is a brief introduction to international concerns of GLBTQ studies inside and outside the United States. It discusses issues pertaining to the human rights and explores sexuality across time and culture. It includes a forward by Archbishop Desmond Tutu .



03.jpg

Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, The. Ed. Robert T. Francoeur and Raymond J. Noonan. New York, NY: Continuum, 2004.

Francoeur and Noonan have compiled a reference that gives a snapshot of the sexual practices, culture, and laws within many nations. Each country is written about by sexologies from that respective country and they write about many topics from contraceptives to SDIs to sex and the mentally challenged to heterosexuality and sexual dysfunctions. This work won the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASET) Annual Book Award in 2005. Francouer and Noonan are revered sexologists and educators. Together, they are also editing Sex in North America which will be released in 2011. Both have published works independently.


04.jpg

Routledge International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture. Ed. David A. Gerstner. London: Routledge, 2006.

Gerstner gathered about 1,000 entries that analyze culture, politics, and arts of various countries including China, Israel, and South Africa since 1945 from the perspectives of many professionals, activists, artists, and scholars. It covers many important topics for our era such as marriage & civil unions and AIDS, and has an appendix concerning international anti-queer laws. Even though it is covers many nations, it does concentrate on North America and Western Europe. David A. Gerstner is an Associate Professor of Cinema Studies at City University of New York: College of Staten Island. The majority of his published works concern media studies including Manly Arts: Masculinity and Nation in Early American Cinema.

Reflection: "The Future is Kid Stuff"

The Child: a cherubic figure that is pure, clean, impressionable, easily violated, and faultless. This figure has been abused by popular politics as a symbol of a bright, new, and united future based on a utopic past that never existed. Society expects the child to persevere to create this idyllic future by correcting the mistakes of the previous generation. This expectation transcends every generation so that each does not take responsibility for there actions but expects their children to do better then themselves, but they too will expect their own children to take on their burdens. Nothing gets done this way.

This political ideology has resulted in a fantasy of reality in which are perceived value is measured by the current organization of our existence and experience. "...politics may function as the register within which we experience social reality...it compels us to experience that reality in the form of a fantasy:..an organization, assuring the stability of our identities as subjects and the consistency of the cultural structures through which those identities are reflected back to us in recognizable form" (19). What this means for queers is that they are rejected by this fantasy organization for not assuming the standard of heterosexuality; they are not recognized in the future utopia.

The Child, as the future, must be protected from all things queer or strange for the future to exist. One of the great fears of homosexuality is that it will result in the moral dissolution of society and its apocalyptic end should sex be only lustful and children be rejected as the inheritors of the future. However, Edelman points out that this dissolution is not the true fear, but the fear that there would be a redefinition of society and social order as we know it.

Edelman also points out that queers have not been purposely trying to degrade society and have made many efforts to conform to heteronormative standards by creating relationships and adopting children to form families so that they too may have the ability to reproduce and contribute to the future. However, society still has not legitimized queer families and push them to the outer limits.

What is forgotten is that every adult was child at some point and their own child-like innocence was lost at some point, it happens to straight and queer people alike, but the resulting straight person is not rejected by the majority, while the queer becomes a threat to the identity of that majority. Queerness becomes the symbolic death of the child figure.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY TWO

This annotated bibliography is a collection of things intersecting my path that I thought could pertain to the idea of rejection and refusal. I find applying this term to my life interesting because it demonstrates to me how I interact with these ideas and conflicts on a daily basis, whether or not it should be brought to my immediate attention.


boys-dont-cry.jpgBoys Don't Cry
. Dir. Kimberly Peirce. Perf. Hiliary Swank, Chloe Sevigny, Peter Sarsgaard, Brendan Sexton III, Alicia Goranson, Alison Follan, and Jeanetta Arnette. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 1999. Film.

This is a movie about Brandon Teena, a young transman who is trying to build a stable existence for himself as a man, while trying to escape his history as a deviant female. He wants a normal life but is challenged by fear of being revealed as a biological female. In the course of the film, he is discovered and the people Brandon called friends retort by humiliating, raping, and killing him. This is a violent example of how inexperience with gender deviants and other queer realities can result in a violent rejection of those who refuse to conform to the heterosexual existence bestowed upon one because of their biological sex. Brandon never felt he was a female and therefore would not live as one. He was successful until his untimely demise. What I hope can be derived from this movie is the horror of discrimination and the education that is necessary to prevent such violent reactions from occurring. It was a pointless display of how easily the heteronormative matrix is threatened by deviancy and makes one ask, how stable is it to begin with should it be so unstable? Why should refusal to conform to this matrix result in the immediate expulsion from society? And what can be done to prevent senseless violence because of queerness?


hist sex.jpgFoucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, vol. 1. Vintage Books, New York. 1990.

We read only one chapter, "Method", from this book, but having read it in its entirety; I know that the theme of rejection and refusal is prominent throughout. the History of Sexuality looks at the development of sexuality, the idea of which is relatively new to human history. The term sexuality was developed in the 1800s, and since its creation, Foucault has noted that there has been a war of context and definition pertaining to how to interpret sexuality, its implications, its consequences, and its revelations. Rejection of what is considered deviant sexuality, based on social and/or scientific interpretation, creates a certain heteronormativity to which one must conform. Yet there are always those who refuse to conform to these standards and it is through these people that the interpretation and definition of acceptable sexuality is changed.


the_average_american_male_a_novel.large.jpg.pngKultgen, Chad. The Average American Male. Harper Perennial, New York. 2007.

The Average American Male is not a book about rejection and refusal; what caught my attention is the reactions of rejection and refusal that are derived from reading it. Several of my roommates have read this book and I have seen their shocked reactions: their nervous and stunned laughs, their outraged outbursts, and the awkward readjustment of their bodies while they read. It is a satirical book journaling the thoughts of a male, chauvinist pig (and that is putting it politely!) whose only thought is about the objectivity of women (putting it lightly). This is an image of man that many men refuse to partake in and that is rejected by women, yet somehow remains the idolized image of a hyper-masculine man. Why is it this image exists and why is it emulated in the stories we read, the shows we watch, and the personalities we encounter? This book made me think about how this violent imagery is directed not only at women, but also at any other non-hyper-masculine male forms. Anything outside of this epitome of being is considered feminine and therefore, lesser and unimportant. How is it this behavior and thought process is learned? And how can it be reversed or prevented to avoid violent and abjective interactions with the feminine and with the queer?

Undiagonsing Gender

Autonomy - independence/freedom as of one's actions, the condition of being autonomous; self-government of the right of self government. Synonyms: freedom, liberty, self-determination, self-government, self-rule, sovereignty

"autonomy." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 11 Nov. 2009. .


Gender Identity Disorder


Paternal control; fixation on gender binary - society's reversion to strict divisions between men and women heterosexuality


A theme throughout Butler's chapter "Undiagnosing Gender" is autonomy, what it is and how it is attained. While she never defines it, autonomy is to be understood as the freedom one has to express self in matters of gender identity, and that "...no one achieves autonomy without the assistance or support of a community..." (76). She argues this point in consideration of gender identity disorder (GID) as defined in the (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) and the transsexual community; should GID be kept as a diagnosis because ..."it offers certification for a condition and facilitates access to a variety of medical and technological means for transitioning." or should it be eliminated because "transexuality is not a disorder and ought not to be conceived of as one, and that trans people ought to be understood as engaged in a practice of self-determination, an exercise of autonomy" (75-76).

If autonomy is dependent on community, then what is an individual's identity? Can we be recognized without approval? How rebellious is ones refusal to conform if we need permission? This policing of identity does not come into view until it is taken up by gender deviants who blur the lines of heteronormativity; in response, society tries to find some way to normalize the deviation. Butler considers the GID diagnosis as "...language of correction, adaptation, and normalization" ( 77) meaning that transsexuals are born in the wrong body, but can undergo efforts to live as the other gender and be considered normal by society; it rejects any blurring of gender, but will accept an entity that resembles one or the other gender.

This is a round-about way for society to accept its previous rejection for gender deviation based on the idea that it is a disorder that must be corrected, but the condition of acceptance is that the transperson must conform to the confines of the specific gender of transition. If a man becomes a woman he must transform as close to female anatomy as possible, conduct themselves in a feminine manner, and love as a woman would love (meaning she would have male partners). "One has to submit to labels and names to incursions, to invasions; one has to be gauged against measures of normalcy, and one has to pass the test" (91). Essentially, a transperson is expected to conform to the heterosexual matrix to be accepted.

However, conformity is not reality; there are people who refuse to conform to the matrix because it is not the reality of a person's existence. One is not confined to the realms of femininity or masculinity because of their born or transformed sex; one is free to practice a unique form of gender that refuses to assimilate to male or female characteristics or practices because that is the expression of their self. Perhaps "other genders" might be realized despite society's continuation to reject abnormality, to whatever degree it is accepted. Can autonomy be accomplished without society's approval?

"Disidentification is meant to be descriptive of the survival strategies the minority subjects practices in order to negotiate a phobic majoritarian public sphere that continuously elides or punishes the existence of subjects who do not conform to the phantasm of normative citizenship" - page 4(48)

Moving away from cultural self for easy passage into another culture, it is a form of survival.


Normative society creates freaks, people who are rejected by the norm, to reinforce what defines the normal.

Because of rejection these so called freak develop a sense of identity that is different from the norm, which essentially normalizes their "freakhood" into the context of a subculture. This subcultural development leads to the development of stereotypes and generalizations of what is normal for a subculture. For example, there is a development of lesbian community and society due to rejection by typical heteronormative society. The lesbian is typified as white, middle to lower-class female. Munoz describes this sort of characterization as normativizing protocols. He states that these protocols keep subjects from accessing identities, as in our example there are lesbians who obviously do not fit these norms. Women of color are alienated from the typical lesbian description and cannot assimilate into the lesbian identity. Their identity as a person of color hinders their sexual identity.

Rejection and refusal within queer society perpetuates not only as a refusal to assimilate to normative community, but perpetuates in the rejection and alienation felt within queerdom so that a hierarchy develops that prevents the unification of queer groups or a comprehensible queer identity. There are freaks within queerness and a hierarchy of culture and subcultures has developed. At the top of layering is the acceptable white gay, followed by white lesbians, men of color, women of color, and further subcultural divisions according to culture, gender, and sexuality. This hierarchy is reinforced by queer theory which speaks in contexts of white gay men and white lesbian women.

How can we as white students studying at a privileged academic institution really discuss what queer matters when we are exposed to a limited and biased view of queer existence? We have developed our own queer community that lacks great diversity and perpetuates its own rejection of queer freaks, such as religious queers or people experimenting with one's gender and sexuality. How can we consider queerness not only in terms of the accepted white gay/lesbian definition and consider race, religion, varied sexuality and gender, and culture as areas rejected and pushed into subcultural contexts, should they exist, within queer communities?

The more I learn about Judith Butler the more I find myself admiring her strength and perseverance in her quest for gender and sexuality equality. She battles stereotyping, discrimination, and misunderstanding in her role of the queer and feminist movements. Her philosophical discussions refuse to believe that the present social structure will be perpetuated to preserve conservative and traditionalist beliefs about gender and sexuality. She challenges individuals to push themselves with philosophy and logic to be able to critic information, its value, its meaning, and its rationality.

Her challenge is often ignored because people maintain their values and moral beliefs because they never questioned what was taught; they simply maintain arguments not on fact, but an emotional defensiveness frustrated by an inability to debate due to a lack of communication. "...Butler remains committed to challenging the frames of reference within which people speak, think and live subject-categories" (46).

It is important to doubt that which one hears and to explore a topic indepthly to acquire and effective argument. Is the argument fully developed and supported by a logical progression of thought and fact? How does one react to information they learn, emotionally or logically? What information is relevant and irrelevant to the current situation? Butler would most likely agree with Edward Said when "...he claims that criticism matters as a necessarily incomplete and preparatory movement towards judgment and evaluation..." (49). Through critical critique can one fully understand and support an argument in a debate and work to refute the rejection and refusal faced in culture by a heteronormative initiative to maintain polar existence between the genders and sexual practice.

Rejection and refusal works in two directions when it comes to queer living: queers reject what is heteronormative to express their identified sexuality and gender, this often mean that they must reject social norms, mores, expectations, and etiquette and refuse to practice traditional hetero-society practices to enable self-expression. From the heterosexual community queers face rejection of their self-identification and face refusal for admission to that ever sacred heteronormative society where a perfect world is defined in black and white terms and everyone is happy with the gender and sexuality bestowed upon them by a society with roots in Puritan morality and Victorian behavior. The continuous cycle of rejection and refusal has push a heated, emotional, and illogical wedge between queers and heteronormatives so that a tug of war evolved concerning the validity of queer existence in a predominantly heteronormative world.

I realize that the previous paragraph was highly American-centric, but looking upon articles from the beginning of class such as "Queer Blogging in Indian Digital Diasporas" I began to think of the privilege Americans have in openly expressing dissatisfaction with their position in society, while many people in the world are oppressed by strict government regulations concerning the expression of queerness in private and public. Many people experience turmoil at the juxtaposition of personal and public identities, for example, a gay man in the Middle East is required to present himself as a traditional, conservative, and straight man to pass in society and avoid violent reactions against his homosexuality. People around the world are living lives similarly cloaked in falsehood to maintain peace in their lives.

Some find small ways to rebuff their culture and reveal their cloaked identities. Online forums have become a place where people around the world can converge to tell stories of the rejection they face in culture, to discuss the difficulties they may face because of their sexuality or gender presentation, to confess the inner turmoil the face split between identities, and to find a community consisting of "others" like themselves. Here they acquire a bit a freedom and take a first step into refusing the abuse a culture imposes upon those it rejects.

Rejection/Refusal Annotated Bibliography 1

FtF: Female to Femme. Dir. Kami Chisholm, Dir. Elizabeth Stark. Frameline Distribution. 2006. Film.

This is a documentary about lesbian and bisexual women who do not identify themselves with the typified image of lesbian, which they would describe with words such as butch, plaid, dyke, short haircut, make-up less, non-materialistic, anti-patriarchy, and rejects femininity. In contrast, these women prefer to be very feminine with extreme concentration on the feminine ideal; they prefer to wear dresses, frills, and laces; dress sexy; wear make-up; conduct themselves in a confident feminine manner, and identify themselves as a "femme" lesbian in contrast to the typical image of a "butch" lesbian.

These women reject the masculine lesbian identity that developed in the uprising of gay rights in the 1980s and 1990s at which time lesbians and feminist developed an image that rejected all that was feminine, not necessarily in favor of the masculine, but in an effort to remove the implications of feminine beauty, conduct, and ritual that supported patriarchy and the inferiority of women. In contrast, the women in FtF do not feel that their sexuality and gender should determine their presence nor do they feels that being feminine automatically makes them and inferior to society. They identify a power in the confidence of femininity that they could not experience as butch lesbians.

The main point the movie makes is that femmes are the counter-reaction to butch lesbians, which were a reaction to the image of the heterosexual and oppressed female. This documentary is useful to the topic of rejection and refusal because it demonstrates how queer identity is not strictly in opposition to heteronormativity, but also experiences conflicting ideas within the queer community resulting in the rejection of particular queer practices and the refusal to conform to these ideas and practices.


Halperin, David M. "Is There a History of Sexuality?" History and Theory, vol. 28, no. 3. 257-274. Blackwell Publishing: Wesleyan University, 1989. Print.

"Is There a History of Sexuality?" is an article that discusses the newness of the idea of sexuality. Halperin describes sexuality as "...a cultural production; it represents the appropriation of the human body and of its physiological capacities by an ideological discourse." Sexuality is a modern idea that one's sexual behavior reflexes one's sexual desire and drive. This was not always the case; the example Halperin gives is of the ancient Greeks who viewed sexual behavior not as an essential part of one's identity, but as a venue through which power is played in the roles of superior and inferior or as the penetrator and the penetrated. The hierarchy that existed was of men as the dominant and superior being while young men (boys), all women, foreigners, and slaves beneath him ranked in the order they were listed. Anyone in Greek society who digressed from these practices equating sex with a display of hierarchic power was considered a deviant.

Since ancient antiquity, the idea of sex has changed dramatically from a power structure, to a religious morality, to a concern of purity and propriety, and again to a form of identification and gender expression. Throughout every one of these phases, sexuality has faced rejection and refusal of ideas concerning sex in morality, medicine, society, power, and private practice. Deviants challenged the standard practices from that time to revolutionize sex and sexuality it one way or another, whether more or less in favor of free sexual practice and gender expression.


That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation.
Ed. Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore. Brooklyn: Softskull Press, CA. 2008. Print.

That's Revolting! is a collection of essays from various queer activists; it includes anecdotes about their experiences, summaries of their transformation into a fully realized queer person, and their theories about how to combat heteronormativity to create awareness of the diversity of sexuality and gender. The book covers many topics that concern queers: gay marriage, adoption, AIDS, unisex bathrooms, racism within sexuality and gender, conservative resistance, rights, citizenship, etc.

Mattilda describes the controversies, perspectives, and appearances of queers outside of queer culture and the resistance effort queers must make to combat assimilation into mainstream, often heteronormative culture. She also addresses the controversies within the boundaries of queer especially of queers of color and people who do not fall neatly into gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual identities. She writes about her anthology saying:

"Don't be surprised if you don't agree with everything - hello, that's what creating an oppositional culture is about!..That's Revolting! explores and critiques specific struggles to challenge the monster of assimilation and proposes new ways to oppose homogenization, globalization, and all the other evils of this ravaging world."

This anthology provides insight and encouragement to the efforts of queers to revolutionize society through rejection of standard practices and refusing to allow themselves to be melted back into normativity. Rejection and refusal become tools through which sexuality and gender are expressed and instated; the more persistent resistance is made in face of heteronormativity and assimilation, the stronger the establishment of queers in society will be as an essential element of it.

Rejection/Refusal within Queer Theory and Existence

The following is a brainstorm of the terms rejection and refusal. I plan on returning to this thought process to see where it is applicable to queer theory and to learn of how these thoughts can be expanded.
a. Rejection
i. Origin/Etymology: Latin - to throw back
ii. Dictionary Definitions:
1. To refuse to accept 2. To refuse to grant 3. Discard as useless/unsatisfactory 4. To cast out/to eject 5. To vomit 6. The act/process of rejection 7. State of being rejected; something that is rejected
iii. Synonyms: refusal, dismissal, spurning, elimination iv. Antonyms: accept, allow, admit,
b. Refusal
i. Origin/etymology: Latin - to pour back, outcast, trash
ii. Dictionary definitions
1. To deny 2. To decline to accept 3. To express a determination not to do something 4. To decline acceptance, consent, or compliance 5. To decline to submit to
iii. Synonyms: decline, reject, spurn, rebuff iv. Antonyms: accept, welcome
c. Reaction
i. Pro-heteronormative/often anti-queer
1. Choice to reinforce normative; insistent reinforcement of existing practices 2. Conservative, preservation 3. Traditional 4. Actions
a. Ignore existence b. Humiliate, publically express rejection c. Violence d. Separate them from "normal" society
ii. Anti-heteronormative/often pro-queer
1. Liberal 2. Redefine, reconstruct, new 3. Actions
a. Hide b. Be outspoken/flamboyant c. Refuse submission to the normative d. Contradict current mores, practices e. Voluntary separate from the typical