What do you think?
Rate this book
Queer: A Graphic History
Activist-academic Meg-John Barker and cartoonist Jules Scheele illuminate the histories of queer thought and LGBTQ+ action in this groundbreaking non-fiction graphic novel.
From identity politics and gender roles to privilege and exclusion, Queer explores how we came to view sex, gender and sexuality in the ways that we do; how these ideas get tangled up with our culture and our understanding of biology, psychology and sexology; and how these views have been disputed and challenged.
Along the way we look at key landmarks which shift our perspective of what’s ‘normal’ – Alfred Kinsey’s view of sexuality as a spectrum, Judith Butler’s view of gendered behaviour as a performance, the play Wicked, or moments in Casino Royale when we’re invited to view James Bond with the kind of desiring gaze usually directed at female bodies in mainstream media.
Presented in a brilliantly engaging and witty style, this is a unique portrait of the universe of queer thinking.
From identity politics and gender roles to privilege and exclusion, Queer explores how we came to view sex, gender and sexuality in the ways that we do; how these ideas get tangled up with our culture and our understanding of biology, psychology and sexology; and how these views have been disputed and challenged.
Along the way we look at key landmarks which shift our perspective of what’s ‘normal’ – Alfred Kinsey’s view of sexuality as a spectrum, Judith Butler’s view of gendered behaviour as a performance, the play Wicked, or moments in Casino Royale when we’re invited to view James Bond with the kind of desiring gaze usually directed at female bodies in mainstream media.
Presented in a brilliantly engaging and witty style, this is a unique portrait of the universe of queer thinking.
175 pages, Paperback
First published September 8, 2016
About the author
Meg-John Barker
32 books297 followersDr. Meg-John Barker is a writer, therapist, and activist-academic specialising in sex, gender and relationships. Their popular books include the (anti-)self-help relationship book Rewriting the Rules, The Secrets of Enduring Love (with Jacqui Gabb), Queer: A Graphic History (with Julia Scheele), and Enjoy Sex, How, When and If You Want To (with Justin Hancock). Meg-John is a senior lecturer in psychology at the Open University and has published many academic books and papers on topics including non-monogamous relationships, sadomasochism, counselling, and mindfulness, as well as co-founding the journal Psychology & Sexuality and the activist-research organisation BiUK. They were the lead author of The Bisexuality Report – which has informed UK policy and practice around bisexuality – and are currently co-editing a book on non-binary gender with similar aims in that area. They are involved in running many public events on sexuality and relationships, including Sense about Sex and Critical Sexology. Meg-John is a UKCP accredited psychotherapist working with gender, sexually, and relationship diverse (GSRD) clients.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,201 reviews
August 8, 2017
Maybe I should write a review that explains why this book is such utter garbage.
1. Queer theory is a plot (modification of Adrian Piper stating that post-structuralism is a plot). Queer is a meaningless word that is unresponsive to the realities faced by LGBT people, namely homophobia and transphobia. In using queer to mean anyone who is kewl and performative instead of using it to refer to people grouped together on the basis of shared oppression, you miss why LGBT people experience discrimination. You miss why we've organized and what our goals are. You get statements like: "As with same-sex attraction, from a queer perspective, it's important to point out that neither kink practices nor openly non-monogamous relationships are transgressive per se." You heard that? Being gay isn't necessarily transgressive! Just like being into age play!
Calling straight people queer because they enjoy having sex in the park/use strap ons/are kinksters does nothing to help us understand why LGBT people in our society discriminated against. It just brings people under the umbrella who face none of the problems that we do, though some of them would like to think that they do.
Funnily enough, this book does make a token attempt at acknowledging that criticism, spending a single page stating that queer theory might possibly obscure material conditions such as poverty, violence, and unemployment and that it may be too focused on cultural representations and acts of transgressions. (Note that it doesn't acknowledge how it obscures and furthers homophobic attitudes). The book also states that de Lauretis defected from queer theory, but never really explains why. Instead, the book states: "Some have endeavored to fix [queer theory] as something stable, and others have resisted such fixing", seeming to imply that de Lauretis was Just Not Progressive Enough for Queer Theory despite being a founding figure. Meanwhile, explaining how BBC's Sherlock, one scene in a James Bond film where Daniel Craig gets his shirt off, Harry/Draco fanfic, and Finding Nemo are queer gets a total of five pages. Look at your priorities.
2. There is no discussion whatsoever on why the reclamation of a slur may not be greeted by all with open arms. No discussion of why we need specific terms to refer to the problems we encounter and tackle. And indeed, this author criticizes Adrienne Rich, writing an essay called 'on compulsory heterosexuality and LESBIAN existence' for not considering how compulsory heterosexuality affects other 'marginalized sexualities.' That problematic lesbian Adrienne Rich, focusing her essay on lesbian existence on lesbian existence instead of say, straight kinksters.
3. Page 83 is hilarious. Flip there to see Miley Cyrus ("I don't feel the name to label my gender or sexuality"), Ruby Rose (I'm somewhere in the middle of the spectrum"), and Kristen Stewart ("I don't think it's necessary to figure out if you're 'gay' or 'straight') being lauded as examples of Foucauldian-Butlerian Resistance. I guess we gays are Just Gays. So passe compared to these women, all of whom are rich, white, bisexual cis women, incidentally.
4. I think it's really funny that they quote Sartre saying that it's 'bad faith' for gay people to say that they're immutably gay, and the commentary goes: well, maybe it would be better to use heterosexual people as an example, but we agree. Nice to know there's an agreement with the underlying homophobic sentiment that is still used to harass and abuse gay children today.
5. It's always fun when people imply that gay people are just as much oppressors of bi people as straight people, or that somehow, ~monosexuals~ are a class and have better mental health because they're ~monosexuals~
6. Positing that people upset about online pornography = a "moral panic"? Demonic.
7. It's really cute that the only actual examination of gender is when they spend a page condemning TERFs. Weirdly enough, the author seems to believe that women who believe that gender is a hierarchy and socially constructed are following Judith Butler? When? Where? Why? This lack of awareness that women have been criticizing gender for centuries if not in those words... and it's incredible given that the book does quote from Simone De Beauvoir, as well as black and lesbian feminists who have discussed gender socialization in detail. But the writer only wants to use a line or two of their works to establish the queer theory continuum, who cares about the rest, right.
8. Also cute how asian just refers to east asian. Also cute how the writer identifies the queer theorists vs feminists conflict, and then identifies CAMILLE PAGLIA of all people as one of the two examples of feminists. Also "femmephobia"... what a world we live in.
9. My queer theory will be intersectional or it will be bullshit? You mean: my queer theory will necessarily be bullshit, right.
10. How embarrassing. I'm embarrassed.
1. Queer theory is a plot (modification of Adrian Piper stating that post-structuralism is a plot). Queer is a meaningless word that is unresponsive to the realities faced by LGBT people, namely homophobia and transphobia. In using queer to mean anyone who is kewl and performative instead of using it to refer to people grouped together on the basis of shared oppression, you miss why LGBT people experience discrimination. You miss why we've organized and what our goals are. You get statements like: "As with same-sex attraction, from a queer perspective, it's important to point out that neither kink practices nor openly non-monogamous relationships are transgressive per se." You heard that? Being gay isn't necessarily transgressive! Just like being into age play!
Calling straight people queer because they enjoy having sex in the park/use strap ons/are kinksters does nothing to help us understand why LGBT people in our society discriminated against. It just brings people under the umbrella who face none of the problems that we do, though some of them would like to think that they do.
Funnily enough, this book does make a token attempt at acknowledging that criticism, spending a single page stating that queer theory might possibly obscure material conditions such as poverty, violence, and unemployment and that it may be too focused on cultural representations and acts of transgressions. (Note that it doesn't acknowledge how it obscures and furthers homophobic attitudes). The book also states that de Lauretis defected from queer theory, but never really explains why. Instead, the book states: "Some have endeavored to fix [queer theory] as something stable, and others have resisted such fixing", seeming to imply that de Lauretis was Just Not Progressive Enough for Queer Theory despite being a founding figure. Meanwhile, explaining how BBC's Sherlock, one scene in a James Bond film where Daniel Craig gets his shirt off, Harry/Draco fanfic, and Finding Nemo are queer gets a total of five pages. Look at your priorities.
2. There is no discussion whatsoever on why the reclamation of a slur may not be greeted by all with open arms. No discussion of why we need specific terms to refer to the problems we encounter and tackle. And indeed, this author criticizes Adrienne Rich, writing an essay called 'on compulsory heterosexuality and LESBIAN existence' for not considering how compulsory heterosexuality affects other 'marginalized sexualities.' That problematic lesbian Adrienne Rich, focusing her essay on lesbian existence on lesbian existence instead of say, straight kinksters.
3. Page 83 is hilarious. Flip there to see Miley Cyrus ("I don't feel the name to label my gender or sexuality"), Ruby Rose (I'm somewhere in the middle of the spectrum"), and Kristen Stewart ("I don't think it's necessary to figure out if you're 'gay' or 'straight') being lauded as examples of Foucauldian-Butlerian Resistance. I guess we gays are Just Gays. So passe compared to these women, all of whom are rich, white, bisexual cis women, incidentally.
4. I think it's really funny that they quote Sartre saying that it's 'bad faith' for gay people to say that they're immutably gay, and the commentary goes: well, maybe it would be better to use heterosexual people as an example, but we agree. Nice to know there's an agreement with the underlying homophobic sentiment that is still used to harass and abuse gay children today.
5. It's always fun when people imply that gay people are just as much oppressors of bi people as straight people, or that somehow, ~monosexuals~ are a class and have better mental health because they're ~monosexuals~
6. Positing that people upset about online pornography = a "moral panic"? Demonic.
7. It's really cute that the only actual examination of gender is when they spend a page condemning TERFs. Weirdly enough, the author seems to believe that women who believe that gender is a hierarchy and socially constructed are following Judith Butler? When? Where? Why? This lack of awareness that women have been criticizing gender for centuries if not in those words... and it's incredible given that the book does quote from Simone De Beauvoir, as well as black and lesbian feminists who have discussed gender socialization in detail. But the writer only wants to use a line or two of their works to establish the queer theory continuum, who cares about the rest, right.
8. Also cute how asian just refers to east asian. Also cute how the writer identifies the queer theorists vs feminists conflict, and then identifies CAMILLE PAGLIA of all people as one of the two examples of feminists. Also "femmephobia"... what a world we live in.
9. My queer theory will be intersectional or it will be bullshit? You mean: my queer theory will necessarily be bullshit, right.
10. How embarrassing. I'm embarrassed.
February 22, 2019
I appreciate the information this little book holds, but man it was boring. It was somewhat of a slog. It did a great job of educating, but it was not entertaining really. There was so much they could have done in a graphic novel format. They could have told a story, or even just make each page more of a graphic novel. Instead, we get a picture that goes with the lecture.
I learned quite a bit from this book and even new ways to think about and see things. My only critique and it's a big one, is that its so dry. Dry, Dry, Dry. Man, I really expected more. I'm sure there would be a way to tell this better, but at least this is out in the world and I'm sure it can be very helpful to many kids struggling out there and needing to feel a connection with someone. Just about everyone is mentioned in this book as far as the outcasts of society go. There are also some quotable lines in here.
That's all.
I learned quite a bit from this book and even new ways to think about and see things. My only critique and it's a big one, is that its so dry. Dry, Dry, Dry. Man, I really expected more. I'm sure there would be a way to tell this better, but at least this is out in the world and I'm sure it can be very helpful to many kids struggling out there and needing to feel a connection with someone. Just about everyone is mentioned in this book as far as the outcasts of society go. There are also some quotable lines in here.
That's all.
March 13, 2017
I wasn't expecting this to be queer /theory/! This is also more of a highly illustrated book than a graphic novel/graphic history. So basically, this was more intellectual than I was expecting. But that was great! Although sometimes it got a little intimidating, I think overall it did a great job in introducing a very dense, complex, sometimes incomprehensible subject.
I took a Queer Theory class in university, so I was familiar with some of this, but it was a great refresher for those and introduced me to more. It is just an introduction, so a lot of things are just touched on (like asexuality and crip studies), but I think it managed to be pretty thorough for the restrictions.
I'm happy there's a good introduction to queer theory(/activism/studies) out there now!
I took a Queer Theory class in university, so I was familiar with some of this, but it was a great refresher for those and introduced me to more. It is just an introduction, so a lot of things are just touched on (like asexuality and crip studies), but I think it managed to be pretty thorough for the restrictions.
I'm happy there's a good introduction to queer theory(/activism/studies) out there now!
Read
March 16, 2022Don’t let the fun graphics and pop culture references fool you: this very much reads like a textbook. It’s very confusing in parts and it’s dense to get through. It also is less of a history of the queer community and more of a history of queer theory (which is sort of like a philosophical theory). Since this reads like a textbook and I had to read it for school, I’m not leaving a rating, but before you pick up this book, remember that this isn’t an easy to understand queer history book and it definitely isn’t for everyone.
May 20, 2017
This book is missing an important word on the cover, THEORY. This isn't the graphic history of the queer community, but a short, illustrated introduction into queer theory. Anyone who has studied queer issues already knows the basics, and anyone wanting to know the basics needs more than the book offers.
December 4, 2021
2
This is less history of queer people and movements (like I thought) and more history of queer academia and theories. The first half was confusing and felt like it didn't know what it wanted to be. It was very quick tidbits or something that didn't explain enough initially and left me scratching my head, even giving me a headache. Some of it angered me (though stuff that did was later addressed and made more sense) and I really wanted to DNF. I am glad I didn't though because the second half went into more detail and made stuff make more sense, though it is still very academic. I really enjoyed the second half but due to it saying it's trying to be accessible and still managing to confuse my bisexual and nonbinary trans self and wanting to DNF it, I can't give it a really high rating. I do however think it was a worthwhile read.
This review is confusing.
And some of it, I still didn't agree with or like. Yes, i'm very confused where I stand on this book. And I don't know how to go into it.
Added a little later: Continuing to think about it makes me more angry but I don't want to go into it, but will a little. They mention that academics don't bother with lived queer experiences, where stuff is really needed, instead focusing on pop culture. Important stuff is barely mentioned, but Finding Nemo (which I do love) gets 5 pages (and imho completely misses how Finding Nemo also talks about disability). Queer is apparently something you do, not something you are. Than where does that leave me? I'm bi and nonbinary trans but also disabled and lack privileges most aren't aware of so i'm very limited in what I can do but every day is impacted by the fact I am queer. I can understand queer can be a verb, but it is something that I AM, and this made me constantly feel, due to lacked privilege's, that I am not queer enough. And this completely misses so much nuance and also admits it's mostly been focused on the L and G. Academics, please speak to the lived experiences of queer people for once.
This is less history of queer people and movements (like I thought) and more history of queer academia and theories. The first half was confusing and felt like it didn't know what it wanted to be. It was very quick tidbits or something that didn't explain enough initially and left me scratching my head, even giving me a headache. Some of it angered me (though stuff that did was later addressed and made more sense) and I really wanted to DNF. I am glad I didn't though because the second half went into more detail and made stuff make more sense, though it is still very academic. I really enjoyed the second half but due to it saying it's trying to be accessible and still managing to confuse my bisexual and nonbinary trans self and wanting to DNF it, I can't give it a really high rating. I do however think it was a worthwhile read.
This review is confusing.
And some of it, I still didn't agree with or like. Yes, i'm very confused where I stand on this book. And I don't know how to go into it.
Added a little later: Continuing to think about it makes me more angry but I don't want to go into it, but will a little. They mention that academics don't bother with lived queer experiences, where stuff is really needed, instead focusing on pop culture. Important stuff is barely mentioned, but Finding Nemo (which I do love) gets 5 pages (and imho completely misses how Finding Nemo also talks about disability). Queer is apparently something you do, not something you are. Than where does that leave me? I'm bi and nonbinary trans but also disabled and lack privileges most aren't aware of so i'm very limited in what I can do but every day is impacted by the fact I am queer. I can understand queer can be a verb, but it is something that I AM, and this made me constantly feel, due to lacked privilege's, that I am not queer enough. And this completely misses so much nuance and also admits it's mostly been focused on the L and G. Academics, please speak to the lived experiences of queer people for once.
December 11, 2018
A fun foray back into academia for a night! I think I'm not really the intended audience for this book, which is a graphic introduction to queer theory (the term history in the subtitle is a bit of a misnomer-- it'd be better if the cover and title made it clear it's about queer theory specifically). I've read fair number of the primary texts they refer to by Foucault, Butler, etc, so I doubt myself a bit when I say I think the concepts are well and clearly explained and that this book is pretty accessible. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of readers who jumped into this without prior knowledge!
I especially liked how they addressed the lack of attention to race and bisexuality in most queer theory. I also appreciate that this is in graphic format; the topic doesn't really lend itself to graphic adaptation and I thought they did a good job with the visuals. It was fun to see pictures of the theorists I've read but never knew what they looked like!
Besides the misleading title, my only complaint is a kinda weird use of the word trans as a noun on its own (for example "writing about trans"). To be fair, some queer theorists also use the word queer in the same way and I find it similarly baffling. Oh and I wish the section on how to apply the concepts and ways of thinking to your everyday life were longer.
I especially liked how they addressed the lack of attention to race and bisexuality in most queer theory. I also appreciate that this is in graphic format; the topic doesn't really lend itself to graphic adaptation and I thought they did a good job with the visuals. It was fun to see pictures of the theorists I've read but never knew what they looked like!
Besides the misleading title, my only complaint is a kinda weird use of the word trans as a noun on its own (for example "writing about trans"). To be fair, some queer theorists also use the word queer in the same way and I find it similarly baffling. Oh and I wish the section on how to apply the concepts and ways of thinking to your everyday life were longer.
July 20, 2022
this was disappointing. i didnt find it boring like many others did but it is dry, and it feels more like a wikipedia-style summary of a bunch of significant actors in queer theory than it does “a graphic history.” my main criticisms are as follows:
- on literally page ten, they use the n-word as an example of reclaimed slurs. neither the author or illustrator are black. comparing slurs is a dangerous path in general, but it is certainly unacceptable for a nonblack author to fully write the n-word as an ‘example.’ it makes sense to me to compare reclamation of fag/dyke to reclamation of queer, especially as they are frequently reclaimed in the same circles, but…. the use of the n-word on literally page ten put a really awful taste in my mouth at the very beginning of this book.
- there is very minimal non-white history or theory discussed. audre lorde and bell hooks are both drawn and mentioned, but not given pages in the way that any of the white theorists are. the book even mentions that a common critique of queer theory/studies is that it’s white and eurocentric, but this book itself contributes to that problem.
- there’s an odd page that implies queer theory invented nonbinaryness in a way??
- very minimal mention of trans studies which was disappointing to me
i’m also unsure how effective this is as an introduction. the marketing makes you think it’s a book about queer history, but it’s literally only about queer theory. i didn’t learn anything, but i was able to easily understand the whole book. but for someone who’s using this as an introduction, I don’t know how easy it would be to read, as it tries to introduce you to dozens of theorists without any visual structure to really break it up.
- on literally page ten, they use the n-word as an example of reclaimed slurs. neither the author or illustrator are black. comparing slurs is a dangerous path in general, but it is certainly unacceptable for a nonblack author to fully write the n-word as an ‘example.’ it makes sense to me to compare reclamation of fag/dyke to reclamation of queer, especially as they are frequently reclaimed in the same circles, but…. the use of the n-word on literally page ten put a really awful taste in my mouth at the very beginning of this book.
- there is very minimal non-white history or theory discussed. audre lorde and bell hooks are both drawn and mentioned, but not given pages in the way that any of the white theorists are. the book even mentions that a common critique of queer theory/studies is that it’s white and eurocentric, but this book itself contributes to that problem.
- there’s an odd page that implies queer theory invented nonbinaryness in a way??
- very minimal mention of trans studies which was disappointing to me
i’m also unsure how effective this is as an introduction. the marketing makes you think it’s a book about queer history, but it’s literally only about queer theory. i didn’t learn anything, but i was able to easily understand the whole book. but for someone who’s using this as an introduction, I don’t know how easy it would be to read, as it tries to introduce you to dozens of theorists without any visual structure to really break it up.
February 5, 2017
4.5 Stars.
This is such a great overview of queer theory. This book at least touched on almost every concept I've studied in almost 2 years of university gender and queer studies and explains everything in a clear, concise way that makes some of the notoriously confusing concepts easy to understand. Seriously, I've never understood Foucault more clearly. Every idea is accompanies by pictures that both help with the explanations and also keep things interesting (let's be real, a lot of queer theory texts can be really long, really dense, and really dry).
Overall I think this is a fantastic intro to queer theory. I would definitely recommend doing further reading beyond this but it's a great starting point!
This is such a great overview of queer theory. This book at least touched on almost every concept I've studied in almost 2 years of university gender and queer studies and explains everything in a clear, concise way that makes some of the notoriously confusing concepts easy to understand. Seriously, I've never understood Foucault more clearly. Every idea is accompanies by pictures that both help with the explanations and also keep things interesting (let's be real, a lot of queer theory texts can be really long, really dense, and really dry).
Overall I think this is a fantastic intro to queer theory. I would definitely recommend doing further reading beyond this but it's a great starting point!
February 18, 2020
First of all, this should be called Queer: a graphic theory not 'history'.
I’m not sure how I feel about this book, because I felt like I read an extensive Wikipedia article; meaning, that all the information was quite short but the sources were helpful in case you want to know more about the theories.
I do want to give credit to the illustrator because it made it more bearable but I wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone who wants to know about queer activism or queer identity or even the fact that not all LGBTQ+ folks want to use the word queer to identify themselves. I must admit I am new to some subjects but this wasn’t as helpful as I thought it would be.
I’m not sure how I feel about this book, because I felt like I read an extensive Wikipedia article; meaning, that all the information was quite short but the sources were helpful in case you want to know more about the theories.
I do want to give credit to the illustrator because it made it more bearable but I wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone who wants to know about queer activism or queer identity or even the fact that not all LGBTQ+ folks want to use the word queer to identify themselves. I must admit I am new to some subjects but this wasn’t as helpful as I thought it would be.
February 7, 2017
Book blurb: From identity politics and gender roles to privilege and exclusion, Queer explores how we came to view sex, gender and sexuality in the ways that we do; how these ideas get tangled up with our culture and our understanding of biology, psychology and sexology; and how these views have been disputed and challenged.
I was at a gathering recently where people were asked to introduce themselves, and identify which pronouns they prefer. Huh? There are times I feel so dang old. Sigh.
This nonfiction graphic novel is a historical overview of queer theory. There were things I knew, much I did not, much I learned, and though I'm not sure I understood everything being covered, this is one I will certainly be reading again. Lots to ponder and highly recommended.
I was at a gathering recently where people were asked to introduce themselves, and identify which pronouns they prefer. Huh? There are times I feel so dang old. Sigh.
This nonfiction graphic novel is a historical overview of queer theory. There were things I knew, much I did not, much I learned, and though I'm not sure I understood everything being covered, this is one I will certainly be reading again. Lots to ponder and highly recommended.
June 25, 2017
I sought out this work because of the subtitle, "A Graphic History." I was hoping for a graphic novel and instead received a pretty dull PowerPoint presentation. Basically a droning lecture is typeset in big blocks of text that float over bland illustrations that exhibit little continuity or flow. The most amusing part of the book for me was the several minutes I spent afterward using Google Images to search for the various real people whose images appear in the book and counting how many times the illustrator used the very first picture to appear in the search as her direct photo reference. And then I spent more time registering how many times that single portrait was simply copied and pasted, tweaked or flipped as the person reappeared throughout the book. That seems like a pretty lazy and uninspired technique for an artist.
Speaking of lazy and uninspired, I always like to find my own thoughts on a work summarized within it: "Perhaps the most well-known criticism of queer theory is that it is inaccessible....There's a serious point here that if a theory is too abstract, complex, and opaque it will exclude those outside academia from engaging with it. It may also be regarded as elitist and class-biased." I did not engage with this work, but I do appreciate the exposure to ideas that are new to me even if the presentation is lacking.
Speaking of lazy and uninspired, I always like to find my own thoughts on a work summarized within it: "Perhaps the most well-known criticism of queer theory is that it is inaccessible....There's a serious point here that if a theory is too abstract, complex, and opaque it will exclude those outside academia from engaging with it. It may also be regarded as elitist and class-biased." I did not engage with this work, but I do appreciate the exposure to ideas that are new to me even if the presentation is lacking.
July 3, 2022
This graphic novel covers the history of queer academic theory, which means it's a LOT of information in not a lot of pages. It's interesting and is sort of like a crash course, but isn't able to give a lot of detail or nuance and I wish it had narrowed its scope a bit.
January 24, 2018
El título es engañoso, debería llamarse "Queer: A Graphic History of Queer THEORY". Si estáis buscando una cronología de hechos importantes en la historia del activismo LGBT no es vuestro libro. Los conceptos son complejos y en muchas ocasiones no he llegado a captarlos estando tan resumidos, por lo que no podría recomendar el libro a nadie que no supiera algo de teoría queer de antemano (vamos, un user de twitter/tumblr :P). Tampoco se lo recomendaría a alguien versade en teoría queer. Se pasa de introducción, pero no llega a aportar nada nuevo.
El libro resume (MUCHO, DEMASIADO) los diferentes aportes a la teoría queer de filósofes, psicólogues, sexólogues, médicos, biólogues y psiquiatras con sus experimentos e investigaciones. Estamos hablan de remontarnos muy atrás en el tiempo, así que, naturalmente, muchas de las teorías expuestas chocan con las actuales tienen tintes LGBTófobos, pero son necesarias para explicar las teorías posteriores. Esto, aunque he pillado la mitad por la escasa información (y eso que tiene dibujos...) ha sido inesperado e interesante, y puede que busque textos de algunes de les autores para asimilar sus teorías con más calma.
Entrando en detalles toda la narración se centra en la palabra "queer", pero no como nombre, sino como verbo: queering. Deja a un lado su significado de "paraguas" para los géneros y sexualidades no cisheteronormativas y lo usa para definir actitudes y comportamientos en contra de la heteronorma. Probablemente la parte más polémica de todo este asunto es que considera que una persona cishetero participa en lo queer en el momento en el que desafía los roles de género (un niño jugando con muñecas) y practica sexo no normativo (BDSM, peggin...). Aún estoy asimilando este concepto y no sé si estoy del todo a gusto con ello. Veremos.
También introduce el concepto de homonorma como la aceptación de los gays y las lesbianas cis (y generalmente blancas y de clase alta) dentro de la burbuja normativa, pero bajo unas reglas estrictas que suelen implicar la réplica de actitudes heteropatriarcales, clasistas, racistas y capacitistas entre sus integrantes, además de la práctica de lo que se consideraría sexo normativo en esos colectivos.
Y es que la novela expone que hay un binarismo discriminatorio con dos tipos de sexo, el normativo y bueno: PIV (penis in vagina) y prácticas asimiladas de les cisLG; y el no normativo y malo: sexualidad trans, la sexualidad de les discapacitades, BDSM, sexo no penetrativo, roleplaying, etc). Eso podría explicar la dificultad que tiene algún feminismo en aceptar que el BDSM no es necesariamente patriarcal si se practica desde una perspectiva queer, porque es una desviación de la homonorma y de la heteronorma que se ha asimilado.
Otro ejemplo de asimilación sería el matrimonio igualitario en EEUU. Allí casarse supone muchos beneficios fiscales, beneficios como poder usar el seguro médico de tu pareja, facilidades para la adopción y, en general, una seguridad que no se tiene como unidad unifamiliar. El caso es que poder acceder a una configuración así supone una mejor calidad de vida, pero esto solo lo pueden alcanzar unos pocos. La gente arromántica, inmigrantes, personas que por algún motivo no han encontrado pareja (mala suerte, desinterés, enfermedad...), relaciones poly... no pueden acceder a ese contrato y, por tanto, pierden el acceso a esos beneficios sociales y fiscales.
Lo que propone la teoría queer en este aspecto (recordemos que hablamos de EEUU) es no asimilar estructuras heteronormativas como el matrimonio y, en contraposición, buscar la forma de que esos beneficios que se obtienen al casarse sean universales a todas las personas independientemente de su situación de pareja.
La asimilación de lo masculino como normativo dentro de lo LGBT también sería otro ejemplo de asimilación. Los grupos se dividen entre gente más masculina y más femenina replicando la categorización heteronormativa en la que las personas más femeninas (gays con pluma, mujeres trans, NB transfemenines) tienen peor aceptación y son oprimides por la gente con expresión de género más masculina (butch, NB transmasc, hombres trans, gays masculinos).
Como se puede apreciar, el libro aboga por la interseccionalidad del feminismo y de la teoría queer porque muches no están exclusivamente oprimides por una única identidad, y luchar por los derechos de la gente no heterosexual generalmente solo beneficia a los gays blancos, dejando a las mujeres racializades LBT, por ejemplo, en un segundo, tercer y hasta cuarto plano.
Mi conclusión:
-Lo que hay: una burbuja en la que lo normal es la cisheteronorma.
-Lo que creemos que estamos haciendo: incluir otras sexualidades y géneros no normativos dentro de la burbuja de lo normal.
-Lo que en realidad estamos haciendo: Incluir solo a les cisLG dentro de la burbuja de lo normal y volverlos normativos mientras se siguen discriminando otras sexualidades y expresiones de género.
-Deberíamos hacer: romper la burbuja de lo "normal".
El libro resume (MUCHO, DEMASIADO) los diferentes aportes a la teoría queer de filósofes, psicólogues, sexólogues, médicos, biólogues y psiquiatras con sus experimentos e investigaciones. Estamos hablan de remontarnos muy atrás en el tiempo, así que, naturalmente, muchas de las teorías expuestas chocan con las actuales tienen tintes LGBTófobos, pero son necesarias para explicar las teorías posteriores. Esto, aunque he pillado la mitad por la escasa información (y eso que tiene dibujos...) ha sido inesperado e interesante, y puede que busque textos de algunes de les autores para asimilar sus teorías con más calma.
Entrando en detalles toda la narración se centra en la palabra "queer", pero no como nombre, sino como verbo: queering. Deja a un lado su significado de "paraguas" para los géneros y sexualidades no cisheteronormativas y lo usa para definir actitudes y comportamientos en contra de la heteronorma. Probablemente la parte más polémica de todo este asunto es que considera que una persona cishetero participa en lo queer en el momento en el que desafía los roles de género (un niño jugando con muñecas) y practica sexo no normativo (BDSM, peggin...). Aún estoy asimilando este concepto y no sé si estoy del todo a gusto con ello. Veremos.
También introduce el concepto de homonorma como la aceptación de los gays y las lesbianas cis (y generalmente blancas y de clase alta) dentro de la burbuja normativa, pero bajo unas reglas estrictas que suelen implicar la réplica de actitudes heteropatriarcales, clasistas, racistas y capacitistas entre sus integrantes, además de la práctica de lo que se consideraría sexo normativo en esos colectivos.
Y es que la novela expone que hay un binarismo discriminatorio con dos tipos de sexo, el normativo y bueno: PIV (penis in vagina) y prácticas asimiladas de les cisLG; y el no normativo y malo: sexualidad trans, la sexualidad de les discapacitades, BDSM, sexo no penetrativo, roleplaying, etc). Eso podría explicar la dificultad que tiene algún feminismo en aceptar que el BDSM no es necesariamente patriarcal si se practica desde una perspectiva queer, porque es una desviación de la homonorma y de la heteronorma que se ha asimilado.
Otro ejemplo de asimilación sería el matrimonio igualitario en EEUU. Allí casarse supone muchos beneficios fiscales, beneficios como poder usar el seguro médico de tu pareja, facilidades para la adopción y, en general, una seguridad que no se tiene como unidad unifamiliar. El caso es que poder acceder a una configuración así supone una mejor calidad de vida, pero esto solo lo pueden alcanzar unos pocos. La gente arromántica, inmigrantes, personas que por algún motivo no han encontrado pareja (mala suerte, desinterés, enfermedad...), relaciones poly... no pueden acceder a ese contrato y, por tanto, pierden el acceso a esos beneficios sociales y fiscales.
Lo que propone la teoría queer en este aspecto (recordemos que hablamos de EEUU) es no asimilar estructuras heteronormativas como el matrimonio y, en contraposición, buscar la forma de que esos beneficios que se obtienen al casarse sean universales a todas las personas independientemente de su situación de pareja.
La asimilación de lo masculino como normativo dentro de lo LGBT también sería otro ejemplo de asimilación. Los grupos se dividen entre gente más masculina y más femenina replicando la categorización heteronormativa en la que las personas más femeninas (gays con pluma, mujeres trans, NB transfemenines) tienen peor aceptación y son oprimides por la gente con expresión de género más masculina (butch, NB transmasc, hombres trans, gays masculinos).
Como se puede apreciar, el libro aboga por la interseccionalidad del feminismo y de la teoría queer porque muches no están exclusivamente oprimides por una única identidad, y luchar por los derechos de la gente no heterosexual generalmente solo beneficia a los gays blancos, dejando a las mujeres racializades LBT, por ejemplo, en un segundo, tercer y hasta cuarto plano.
Mi conclusión:
-Lo que hay: una burbuja en la que lo normal es la cisheteronorma.
-Lo que creemos que estamos haciendo: incluir otras sexualidades y géneros no normativos dentro de la burbuja de lo normal.
-Lo que en realidad estamos haciendo: Incluir solo a les cisLG dentro de la burbuja de lo normal y volverlos normativos mientras se siguen discriminando otras sexualidades y expresiones de género.
-Deberíamos hacer: romper la burbuja de lo "normal".
April 10, 2020
Kitap çok hızlı. Hap gibi, bir kitap içinde her şeyi vermeye çalışmış. Dolayısıyla biraz kafa karıştırıcı olmuş. Örneğin bir sayfada bir teoriyi öğrenirken arka sayfada o teorinin neden zayıf ve eksik olduğunu anlatan ve yeni bir bakış açısı üreten başka bir teori okuyoruz ve bu sayfalarca gidiyor. Ben biraz yoruldum okurken. Çok aydınlatıcı, çizimler harika.
November 27, 2018
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ stars
Fascinating, articulate and intelligent.
Fascinating, articulate and intelligent.
January 2, 2022
DNF around 75%.
This book is an insult to the reader and to the various intelligent, multifaceted and controversial figures it draws upon. Barker does not trust the reader to think critically and make their own interpretations. Instead, a wide variety of theorists (Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Sigmund Freud, Michel Foucault, Alfred Kinsey, Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Judith Butler, you name it) are reduced to a few choice, out-of-context quotes intended to spoon feed us a very specific interpretation of their legacies. The problem is not the format or brevity of the book, which could work in the right hands; it is the personal biases of the author. So much for challenging false binaries and black-and-white thinking!
This book is an insult to the reader and to the various intelligent, multifaceted and controversial figures it draws upon. Barker does not trust the reader to think critically and make their own interpretations. Instead, a wide variety of theorists (Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Sigmund Freud, Michel Foucault, Alfred Kinsey, Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Judith Butler, you name it) are reduced to a few choice, out-of-context quotes intended to spoon feed us a very specific interpretation of their legacies. The problem is not the format or brevity of the book, which could work in the right hands; it is the personal biases of the author. So much for challenging false binaries and black-and-white thinking!
October 5, 2016
This book is full of oversimplifications, overt biases, and outright lies. Radical Feminists (called by an actual slur in this crap book) aren't "using" Butler's theories "to advance an agenda." They are practicing real feminism, which has nothing to do with Butler's neoliberal, PoMo, faux-academic garbage. There's a reason that Walmart carries this pile of shit in paper form. It's mainstream neoliberal propaganda.
September 15, 2018
I was expecting a graphic novel about the history of "queer" the word or about notable queer figures in history. This was actually more of an illustrated introduction to academic queer theory. Even with the illustrations it was dense reading and there were parts I'm not entirely sure I understood. Perhaps this might be a little too dense for those who aren't familiar with feminist studies or reading other academic works but it might be a nice introduction for those who have.
December 21, 2017
Here’s the thing: I’m queer in a number of ways. I’ve known I was attracted to multiple genders for a long time, but good old childhood shaming and being called “Lizzie the Lesbo” was enough for me to squash that side of me until I reached adulthood and eventually felt safe enough to think about it. I’ve known I was not a girl and not a boy either for my whole life, existing in the in-between and struggling with intermittent social and physical dysphoria. It was only in my late twenties that I started to find the words for this, having finally met other genderqueer, trans and nonbinary people.
Part of my own coming out was through learning about queer politics, and in turn theory. But I’m going to be really honest with you here — I did not understand a lot of it. When I say understand, I don’t mean politically align with. I mean the language was so often complex, so very different from the English I speak or have heard throughout my life, that I would be thrown off entirely.
There’s been discussions around this on Twitter, quite rightly pointing out that academic language can be alienating for people, particularly working class people who haven’t studied humanities. The amount of times I’ve had to google words like “hegemony” and “praxis” in order to understand a sentence are innumerable.
The same thing has happened to me with feminist theory. I have tried quite a few times to read works by Nancy Fraser, or sections of Judith Butler’s writing, or even try and access philosophy through a beginner’s course, and I never managed to get very far. Until today.
A few weeks ago, myself and Alice were walking through Soho, talking about the DIVA book conference she’d recently been to and how revelatory it was that an event devoted to queer female literature was not protested any more. We got onto the topic of Section 8, the problems of a discourse centring around “always knowing” about your own queer identity, and a few other connected topics. She mentioned Queer, A Graphic History to me, and I decided there in the rain in Soho that we would march to the bookshop and I’d buy it.
I’m really pleased to say that having read Queer, A Graphic History I actually think I have a handle on theory! Barker takes the reader through the evolution of queer theory and the main contributors, right up to the present day and the futures directions of study that are developing. Thanks to Scheele’s wonderful illustrations, concepts are broken down simply, faces given to mysterious names and summarised quotes attributed to those faces.
As I suspected, I knew a lot of these fundamentals of queer theory — intersectionality, gender perfomativity, the black feminists who correctly challenged much of the original white thinkers — but I didn’t have the faces, the names, the language behind the concepts. Never again will I shrink when I hear someone attribute a concept to Lacan or Foucault, because I now have a loose understanding of their positions and a Scheele portrait to put their name to.
Barker has also provided a resources section at the back with accessible further reading on sexuality and gender, and queer theory, which is incredibly useful as so often I pick up a book and fall into the inaccessible language pit.
Queer, A Graphic History is an informative, affirming, hopeful and essential read for anyone who wants to know more about queer theory, politics and activism. However, irrespective of your own identity, Queer is also a great introduction to examining binaries and biases in our daily lives and media. This is a thoughtful and powerful book to spend an afternoon reading and a lifetime acting upon.
What to read next:
Trans Like Me by C N Lester
Queer, There and Everywhere by Sarah Prager
Fun Home by Alison Bechdel
Dr MEG-JOHN BARKER is a writer, therapist, and activist-academic specialising in sex, gender and relationships. Meg-John is a senior lecturer in psychology at the Open University and a UKCP accredited psychotherapist, and has over a decade of experience researching and publishing on these topics including the popular book Rewriting the Rules. @megjohnbarker
JULIA SCHEELE is an illustrator, graphic facilitator and comic book artist. She runs One Beat Zines, a feminist zine collective and distributor. @juliascheele
Part of my own coming out was through learning about queer politics, and in turn theory. But I’m going to be really honest with you here — I did not understand a lot of it. When I say understand, I don’t mean politically align with. I mean the language was so often complex, so very different from the English I speak or have heard throughout my life, that I would be thrown off entirely.
There’s been discussions around this on Twitter, quite rightly pointing out that academic language can be alienating for people, particularly working class people who haven’t studied humanities. The amount of times I’ve had to google words like “hegemony” and “praxis” in order to understand a sentence are innumerable.
The same thing has happened to me with feminist theory. I have tried quite a few times to read works by Nancy Fraser, or sections of Judith Butler’s writing, or even try and access philosophy through a beginner’s course, and I never managed to get very far. Until today.
A few weeks ago, myself and Alice were walking through Soho, talking about the DIVA book conference she’d recently been to and how revelatory it was that an event devoted to queer female literature was not protested any more. We got onto the topic of Section 8, the problems of a discourse centring around “always knowing” about your own queer identity, and a few other connected topics. She mentioned Queer, A Graphic History to me, and I decided there in the rain in Soho that we would march to the bookshop and I’d buy it.
I’m really pleased to say that having read Queer, A Graphic History I actually think I have a handle on theory! Barker takes the reader through the evolution of queer theory and the main contributors, right up to the present day and the futures directions of study that are developing. Thanks to Scheele’s wonderful illustrations, concepts are broken down simply, faces given to mysterious names and summarised quotes attributed to those faces.
As I suspected, I knew a lot of these fundamentals of queer theory — intersectionality, gender perfomativity, the black feminists who correctly challenged much of the original white thinkers — but I didn’t have the faces, the names, the language behind the concepts. Never again will I shrink when I hear someone attribute a concept to Lacan or Foucault, because I now have a loose understanding of their positions and a Scheele portrait to put their name to.
Barker has also provided a resources section at the back with accessible further reading on sexuality and gender, and queer theory, which is incredibly useful as so often I pick up a book and fall into the inaccessible language pit.
Queer, A Graphic History is an informative, affirming, hopeful and essential read for anyone who wants to know more about queer theory, politics and activism. However, irrespective of your own identity, Queer is also a great introduction to examining binaries and biases in our daily lives and media. This is a thoughtful and powerful book to spend an afternoon reading and a lifetime acting upon.
What to read next:
Trans Like Me by C N Lester
Queer, There and Everywhere by Sarah Prager
Fun Home by Alison Bechdel
Dr MEG-JOHN BARKER is a writer, therapist, and activist-academic specialising in sex, gender and relationships. Meg-John is a senior lecturer in psychology at the Open University and a UKCP accredited psychotherapist, and has over a decade of experience researching and publishing on these topics including the popular book Rewriting the Rules. @megjohnbarker
JULIA SCHEELE is an illustrator, graphic facilitator and comic book artist. She runs One Beat Zines, a feminist zine collective and distributor. @juliascheele
June 1, 2020
2.5 stars
Well this was definitely not what I expected. Like a lot of people, I think I expected something about queer history, not about the history of queer theory. So I had to review my expectations for this. It definitely was informative, I was interested in learning about the origin of words I use a lot in my activism. The general history of queer theory was interesting but got easily confusing. Like, it was as if this book was both too simplified and too complicated. I understand that introducing a whole academic area isn't simple but oh boy was it hard to follow sometimes, jumping from one thing to another.
It didn't quite work as a graphic novel either, because the drawings weren't super well integrated in the work, they just highlighted some of the text or put emphasis on something. It wasn't bad, but at some point I considered skipping reading the graphics parts because they didn't bring much that wasn't already in the text.
There's a few wonky phrasing like "be mindful when talking about trans". Trans what? Trans experiences? Trans people??? Also a whole chapter on explaining fluidity in biological sex without mentinoning intersex people, that was weird. There's barely any mention of asexuality, none of aromanticism. I know the queer theory field itself focuses a lot on LG stuff rather than the whole queer spectrum, but idk you can't put drawings including "asexual pride" and then not talk about asexuality at all.
I appreciated the sections toward the end about thinking more queerly. It was nice and it made me question how my activist work could be improved by queer theory. BUT there was a lot of other stuff where I just scrunched up my nose like "really???". I haven't highlighted anything in the book so I can't quote the few things that weirded me out, but it happened a few time.
Overall, I don't even know how I feel. Glad I learned stuff! Interested to see that several names and works quoted in this were also mentionned in Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race. I also feel like I barely retained anything because, well, queer theory isn't super accessible and it mentions A LOT of different people and works. I just have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but I'm still glad I read it.
Well this was definitely not what I expected. Like a lot of people, I think I expected something about queer history, not about the history of queer theory. So I had to review my expectations for this. It definitely was informative, I was interested in learning about the origin of words I use a lot in my activism. The general history of queer theory was interesting but got easily confusing. Like, it was as if this book was both too simplified and too complicated. I understand that introducing a whole academic area isn't simple but oh boy was it hard to follow sometimes, jumping from one thing to another.
It didn't quite work as a graphic novel either, because the drawings weren't super well integrated in the work, they just highlighted some of the text or put emphasis on something. It wasn't bad, but at some point I considered skipping reading the graphics parts because they didn't bring much that wasn't already in the text.
There's a few wonky phrasing like "be mindful when talking about trans". Trans what? Trans experiences? Trans people??? Also a whole chapter on explaining fluidity in biological sex without mentinoning intersex people, that was weird. There's barely any mention of asexuality, none of aromanticism. I know the queer theory field itself focuses a lot on LG stuff rather than the whole queer spectrum, but idk you can't put drawings including "asexual pride" and then not talk about asexuality at all.
I appreciated the sections toward the end about thinking more queerly. It was nice and it made me question how my activist work could be improved by queer theory. BUT there was a lot of other stuff where I just scrunched up my nose like "really???". I haven't highlighted anything in the book so I can't quote the few things that weirded me out, but it happened a few time.
Overall, I don't even know how I feel. Glad I learned stuff! Interested to see that several names and works quoted in this were also mentionned in Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race. I also feel like I barely retained anything because, well, queer theory isn't super accessible and it mentions A LOT of different people and works. I just have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but I'm still glad I read it.
November 16, 2021
I first heard the term queer when I moved to Malta in 1992 and remembered telling a classmate that I liked eating crisps in hamburgers. To that she said ‘you’re really queer’. Then another classmate told her not use that word because it means you’re calling someone gay.
I’m mentioning this anecdote because Queer: a graphic history opens up with the many definitions of the word queer – it’s now a term with positive connotations.
The does exactly what it says on the tin : we readers are presented with queer theory, from it’s roots with Havelock Ellis, Freud, Simone de Beauvoir , Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, Audre Lorde all the way to Jack Halberstam. As one may expect there are a lot of theories about many topics ranging from gender fluidity to queer attitudes in cinema (which were my favorite sections) it even goes into post queer theory.
The information is presented clearly and the illustrations complement the topics, since I know nothing about queer theory, I had some insight and basic knowledge. It also dispelled some myths and surprised me in a couple of places. I don’t know any other beginner guides on this topic so, for me, this is a good one.
I’m mentioning this anecdote because Queer: a graphic history opens up with the many definitions of the word queer – it’s now a term with positive connotations.
The does exactly what it says on the tin : we readers are presented with queer theory, from it’s roots with Havelock Ellis, Freud, Simone de Beauvoir , Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, Audre Lorde all the way to Jack Halberstam. As one may expect there are a lot of theories about many topics ranging from gender fluidity to queer attitudes in cinema (which were my favorite sections) it even goes into post queer theory.
The information is presented clearly and the illustrations complement the topics, since I know nothing about queer theory, I had some insight and basic knowledge. It also dispelled some myths and surprised me in a couple of places. I don’t know any other beginner guides on this topic so, for me, this is a good one.
September 10, 2020
Introducción a la teoría queer muy amena, muy accesible y que recomiendo a todo el mundo!
Read
January 2, 2017For some reason I'd expected this to be a sort of Alice in Sunderland if Sunderland were the chosen name of one of Alice's non-binary partners. Whereas really it's much more an illustrated introduction in the manner of those old beginner's guides (I say that like I read more than one, when in fact it was just Rius on Marx at an early age while bored at a family friend's). Still, it deals admirably with the difficulty of introducing and summarising theories whose very essence is to disputatiously refuse summary. Anyone bar a real devotee will learn something here (it's particularly good on the way even a project founded on questioning binaries will tend to find itself getting tangled in new ones), but really it's best suited for being pressed on absolute newbies - ideally at an impressionable age when a) they'll find it especially helpful and b) the splenetic forces of reaction will find the intervention even more upsetting than usual.
November 5, 2020
This is not just an LGBT+ history -- rather, it is a history of queerness. It is centered around queer theory, but also talks about queer culture and queer activism. It is very accessible and it makes me want to get back into reading more queer theory! A lot of conversations happening about the LGBT community would be a lot more easy to get through if people at least had this base knowledge (regardless of their perspective on it). It certainly does not cover everything in detail (how could you in a short, quick history?) but it is a great start and accessible for those who aren't super familiar with academic jargon. I'd like to look at it more closely once I look more into the theory it discusses to see what parts it decided to hilight vs what is glossed over (I do have some background but not nearly as much as I would like). I borrowed this from the library but I will definitely be purchasing my own copy.
January 7, 2017
Clever, accessible and comprehensive introduction to queer theory. And the authors don't shy away from critique - they're quick to point out when they themselves fall into binaries, they notice lack of intersectionality, and list the issues of this developing academic field. A good read, even if you know your Foucault and Butler. I wanted to write that it puts things in place, but no. It sets them in unending, erratic motion, as queer theory should.
June 16, 2019
An enlightening and informative read, and more scholarly and theoretical than I was expecting. For me, this was a good thing. Only downside for me was the reliance on pop cultural persons as references/examples - these will date the text quickly and be lost on some readers within a few years.
April 7, 2022
Excellent, and even more importantly: accessible, primer on Queer theory. My mom wants a copy, not because one of her kids is gay. No, mom wants a copy, because even at 81, she wants to learn all she can so she can treat everyone more respectfully. This makes me very happy.
I previously read a book by the same authors who wrote a book on gender. This project focused on the academic study of Queer Theory, which I'd heard of but never understood. It was really informative.
The authors explained that we have, as a society, over a very long time, imposed ideas about identity so strongly, that we have accepted these ideas as reflective as our natural state. But, our identity needs to be fluid, so that a person doesn't lose agency. Otherwise, they may not only feel constrained by an identity that doesn't fit, but also stressed by the fixed cultural expectations of any particular identity. Either is too stringent. The authors want us to think beyond binaries altogether and let people be whoever they need to be, even if that changes frequently. I like that.
It's good not to be fenced in. We need a rejection of bio-essentialism (the idea that my assigned sex at birth determines my gender) and also social-essentialism (culture dictates how I may act, imposes a legion of rules and morés, and even restricts which jobs I can have).
This is a text rich with academic concepts, but also helpful for laypeople who aren't in academic settings.
I previously read a book by the same authors who wrote a book on gender. This project focused on the academic study of Queer Theory, which I'd heard of but never understood. It was really informative.
The authors explained that we have, as a society, over a very long time, imposed ideas about identity so strongly, that we have accepted these ideas as reflective as our natural state. But, our identity needs to be fluid, so that a person doesn't lose agency. Otherwise, they may not only feel constrained by an identity that doesn't fit, but also stressed by the fixed cultural expectations of any particular identity. Either is too stringent. The authors want us to think beyond binaries altogether and let people be whoever they need to be, even if that changes frequently. I like that.
It's good not to be fenced in. We need a rejection of bio-essentialism (the idea that my assigned sex at birth determines my gender) and also social-essentialism (culture dictates how I may act, imposes a legion of rules and morés, and even restricts which jobs I can have).
This is a text rich with academic concepts, but also helpful for laypeople who aren't in academic settings.
July 1, 2023
I read Gender: A Graphic Guide last year, and enjoyed it deeply, it managed to explain complex concepts in an engaging way, while giving background information and resources to expand the knowledge if needed. This book turned out to be a little different experience for me.
Though in the title says "Graphic History" the focus lays on Queer theory, and the brevity of the chapters make the explanations too shallow and confusing (again, this is my opinion, as someone who hasn't read too much about queer theory, so it felt overwhelming)
On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily call it a graphic novel either since the illustrations don't add much to the written descriptions.
Though in the title says "Graphic History" the focus lays on Queer theory, and the brevity of the chapters make the explanations too shallow and confusing (again, this is my opinion, as someone who hasn't read too much about queer theory, so it felt overwhelming)
On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily call it a graphic novel either since the illustrations don't add much to the written descriptions.
April 1, 2019
l's review is all you need to know about how I feel, honestly. The older I get, the further away from college campuses where this sort of theory abounds, and the more I live my life as a woman, in a relationship with another woman, the less time I have for this sort of navel-gazing, identity-above-reality nonsense.
In a culture where saying something like "humans are a sexual dimorphic species" carries an increasing risk that you'll be labeled a TERF (and where same-sex attraction is "problematic"), where I've seen with my own two eyes the phrase "women and femmes" presented as progressive and inclusive, I'm pretty done with queer theory.
Rough guess on when I read this. I had to sit on it for a few months.
In a culture where saying something like "humans are a sexual dimorphic species" carries an increasing risk that you'll be labeled a TERF (and where same-sex attraction is "problematic"), where I've seen with my own two eyes the phrase "women and femmes" presented as progressive and inclusive, I'm pretty done with queer theory.
Rough guess on when I read this. I had to sit on it for a few months.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,201 reviews