"Jessa Duggar creates quite a stir with her latest comments," the headline reads. You know Jessa, right? Okay, maybe not. She is one of nine girls and ten boys in the Jim and Michelle Duggar family. These wack jobs think that the Bible provides guidance and insight into marriage and family living and live that way. So of course if a young Christian woman opens her mouth in agreement with Christian values (like keeping chaste until marriage), then it raises a stir.
Of course, that is not what raised a stir in this case. Jessa said that she is the only one of the four twenty-something sisters who is courting (not dating). She assured listeners that they "have a natural physical desire toward men" and thanked God for making them "normal". Oh, yeah. Now you can see it coming. "Normal." As in "not having physical desire toward the opposite sex and having it for the same sex is not normal." Oh, yeah, now that will cause a stir. Even when she said, "We're not telling them that's how they have to live. I think that every family has their principles, their values, the things that they live by ... and there will be some things that we don't agree with." Nope ... not good enough. Take back your "normal" or face the consequences.
Now, maybe you can help me out here. Since "normal" means "conforming to the common type" or "average" and self-identified homosexuals constitute less than 5% of the population, it is unavoidable that statistically a group constituting that small of a percentage of the whole would fall outside the classification of "normal". It's just math. Indeed, doesn't the younger generation love to ask blithely, "Why be normal?" Don't they embrace "not normal" and disdain "one of the crowd"? And, look, it wasn't the heterosexual community that decided to call themselves "straight" and the homosexuals "queer". What is this "stir" all about?
There is, in medicine, a use for the term "normal" -- "free from infection; occurring naturally" -- but I'm pretty sure that Jessa Duggar wasn't using her vast medical background (you know ... the one she doesn't have) when she used the term. Since statistically she is right and since she even said they should live as they please, I can only come to one conclusion. Those who are not in this statistical classification of "normal" and "heterosexual" understand that it's not normal -- that it is indeed queer -- and don't like to be reminded of it. That's all I can conclude. But maybe it's just because I'm normal.
4 comments:
I'm told "normal" is not the right word (3 guesses who told me, and the 1st 2 don't count), but that "normative" is proper. Such equivocation is typical.
I wonder who. But, let's consider it. "Normative" is defined as "Of, relating to, or prescribing a norm or standard." The instant you use that one you'll be accused of using an obscure, unkind, hateful, out of date, incorrect standard by which you are measuring. "Normative" is a word built around standardizing. It would work for us in this conversation, but not for them.
Maybe "regular"? Regular is "happening frequently", "usual", "normal" ... oh, wait, no, that won't work, will it? It includes both the objectionable "normal" term as well as the suggestion that a population of less than 5% of the whole is irregular.
Oh, oh, I know! "Deviant" -- "different from traditional norm". Oh, wait, no ... we can be quite sure that won't work, can't we?
No, the problem isn't the word. The problem is the emotional impact. Saying "That's not normal" carries with it the "ick" factor, the sense that there's something different (which, by definition, there is), that there's something wrong. It doesn't matter that the word itself does not require "something wrong". No one would be offended if you said, "Superman did not have normal strength." And the homosexual community itself embraces "queer" (which, by the way, is defined as "deviating from the normal"-- go ahead, try using "deviant"). But you better not use the term. They can enjoy Queer Eye for the Straight Guy shows, but you better not use that insulting term. They can say you're "straight", but you had better not assume from that that they are not.
No, it's all a matter of trying to control perceptions by messing with the language. Normative isn't better. The only acceptable term is "They're wonderful folk and we'll kick anyone's tail that says otherwise!"
I've always thought of normative as more of a verb.
There is never going to be a "safe" word. They can call themselves queer, but we can't. Black people can call themselves nigger, but we can't. There will always be words that are safe for one person to use and for others to not use.
Then there's the problem that the whole argument of the homosexual community that they should have the same rights at straight people (ei to "marry" each other) is based on an emotional argument. They have no rational for their position. There is no scientific, religious, logical, or moral argument they can make, only the emotional. But seeing as we're emotional beings, that seems to be the most persuasive argument.
No safe word indeed. Some time ago the term "moron" was used to denote people with diminished intellectual capacity. People whose IQ was between 0-25 would be classified as idiots, people with an IQ between 25 and 50 would be imbeciles and those with an IQ between 50 and 75 would be classified as morons. Of course, the term became offensive because it pointed out a difference, so it was changed to a kinder term, "retarded", suggesting that the person was simply slower than others, not bad. Today, of course, "retarded" is no longer acceptable and we can be quite sure that whatever term we come up today to replace it will soon be no longer "kinder and gentler" ... because it points out a difference.
"Normal" means something that is, in this case, perfectly accurate, but the current mode of society is to shift meanings (e.g., "gay" or "marriage") and then castigate those who don't agree. It's the way it is. I can't change it; I just try to point it out.
Post a Comment