男扮女装:同性婚姻、子女与对等政治

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q2 WOMENS STUDIES
J. Gerrard
{"title":"男扮女装:同性婚姻、子女与对等政治","authors":"J. Gerrard","doi":"10.1080/08164649.2020.1765312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This reflective article considers the ways in which children were symbolically deployed to configure the politics in both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns in the recent Australian same-sex marriage postal survey. I suggest that the politics of equivalence, whereby the equality of queer relationships was rhetorically argued by suggesting they were ‘the same’, enabled an associated discursive attachment to the nuclear family, centred on the possibility for reproduction and the potential existence of children. As a result, there was a troublesome convergence in both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns in the cry, ‘what about the children?’. While the concern was clearly levelled from very different political standpoints, the attachment of the politics of futurity to children, I suggest, is a key part of why the mainstream ‘Yes’ campaign focused so narrowly on the amendment to marriage legislation to the neglect of a broader queer politics and more diverse queer cultures and expressions.","PeriodicalId":46443,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Studies","volume":"35 1","pages":"70 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08164649.2020.1765312","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Boys in Dresses: Same-sex Marriage, Children and the Politics of Equivalence\",\"authors\":\"J. Gerrard\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08164649.2020.1765312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This reflective article considers the ways in which children were symbolically deployed to configure the politics in both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns in the recent Australian same-sex marriage postal survey. I suggest that the politics of equivalence, whereby the equality of queer relationships was rhetorically argued by suggesting they were ‘the same’, enabled an associated discursive attachment to the nuclear family, centred on the possibility for reproduction and the potential existence of children. As a result, there was a troublesome convergence in both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns in the cry, ‘what about the children?’. While the concern was clearly levelled from very different political standpoints, the attachment of the politics of futurity to children, I suggest, is a key part of why the mainstream ‘Yes’ campaign focused so narrowly on the amendment to marriage legislation to the neglect of a broader queer politics and more diverse queer cultures and expressions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Feminist Studies\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"70 - 80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08164649.2020.1765312\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Feminist Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1765312\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"WOMENS STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2020.1765312","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

这篇反思性的文章考虑了在最近的澳大利亚同性婚姻邮政调查中,儿童被象征性地部署在“是”和“否”运动中配置政治的方式。我认为对等政治,即酷儿关系的平等性通过暗示他们是“相同的”而在修辞上争论,使得与核心家庭相关的话语依恋,集中在繁殖的可能性和孩子的潜在存在上。结果,“赞成”和“反对”的阵营出现了令人不安的一致,他们都在喊:“孩子怎么办?”虽然这种关注显然来自不同的政治立场,但我认为,将未来的政治与儿童联系起来,是主流的“是”运动如此狭隘地关注婚姻法修正案,而忽视更广泛的酷儿政治和更多样化的酷儿文化和表达的关键部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Boys in Dresses: Same-sex Marriage, Children and the Politics of Equivalence
ABSTRACT This reflective article considers the ways in which children were symbolically deployed to configure the politics in both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns in the recent Australian same-sex marriage postal survey. I suggest that the politics of equivalence, whereby the equality of queer relationships was rhetorically argued by suggesting they were ‘the same’, enabled an associated discursive attachment to the nuclear family, centred on the possibility for reproduction and the potential existence of children. As a result, there was a troublesome convergence in both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns in the cry, ‘what about the children?’. While the concern was clearly levelled from very different political standpoints, the attachment of the politics of futurity to children, I suggest, is a key part of why the mainstream ‘Yes’ campaign focused so narrowly on the amendment to marriage legislation to the neglect of a broader queer politics and more diverse queer cultures and expressions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Feminist Studies
Australian Feminist Studies WOMENS STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Australian Feminist Studies was launched in the summer of 1985 by the Research Centre for Women"s Studies at the University of Adelaide. During the subsequent two decades it has become a leading journal of feminist studies. As an international, peer-reviewed journal, Australian Feminist Studies is proud to sustain a clear political commitment to feminist teaching, research and scholarship. The journal publishes articles of the highest calibre from all around the world, that contribute to current developments and issues across a spectrum of feminisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信