College Course Disputes Idea That Hetersosexual Sex Is "Natural"

Authored by Toni Airaksinen via Campus Reform,

Eugene Lang College, part of The New School in Lower Manhattan, will offer a course next semester for students who wish to fight “heterosexist” explanations of animals and nature.

Taught by Heather Davis, “Queer Ecologies” is a four-credit course offered by the school’s Culture and Media department for students who wish to “disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature.”

According to the professor, these "heterosexist" explanations of sexuality and nature often involve referring to male/female animals.

According to the course description, students will be taught to “reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory” by drawing from research in fields such as feminist science studies and environmental justice. 

Students will also “draw important connections between the material and cultural dimensions of environmental issues, and examine the ways in which sex and nature are understood in light of multiple trajectories of power and matter,” the description adds. 

During an interview with Campus Reform, Davis explained that queer ecologies is an “interdisciplinary field that examines the relationship between sexuality and nature, thinking beyond the boundaries of assuming that heterosexuality is the norm or standard.

The field “inquires into the sexual lives of animals, plants, and bacteria—lives that are often much more strange, adaptable, and queer than anything humans do,” she elaborated. “It also seeks to critique how heterosexuality is presumed as natural.”

While it is not immediately apparent why the school’s Culture and Media department is offering the class, Davis explained that the course takes aim at how institutions like media outlets and schools often perpetuate myths about sex, gender, and the environment. 

Such institutions, Davis said, often promote the idea that “mammals only use sex for reproduction, and that this is always heterosexual sex,” for example. 

“We can see this in how queerness is often said to be ‘unnatural’...rather than thinking about how queer sex might actually be helpful to the survival of species,” Davis noted.

One example of this, Davis asserted, is how scientists often characterize plants using gender-specific language.

“We still tend to characterize plants that reproduce sexually in heterosexual terms where a male and female plant need to transfer gametes. Although this understanding of plant reproduction is not un-true, it misses the point that in order for these plants to fertilize they also rely on other species, such as bees and wasps,” she argued.

“In other words, reproduction here is about cross-species interaction, even pleasure, and reducing this description to purely an exchange of genes misses the opportunity to inquire into these relationships,” Davis elaborated. “Queer theory helps to broaden the picture, understanding the behaviours and companionships that exist in these ecologies.” 

Other upcoming classes offered by the New School Media and Culture department include “Foucault and His Legacy,” “Feminist, Queer Theory and The Arts,” and “How to Overthrow the U.S Government, Legally.”

Comments

IridiumRebel MonsterSchmuck Sun, 07/29/2018 - 00:42 Permalink

“reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory” by drawing from research in fields such as feminist science studies and environmental justice.”

These people believe that if they can use a lot of large words together in cunty word salad it means they have a cogent “theory”. 

 

No hun. You’re talking outta your ass in a “baffle them with bullshit” angle. Words like “anthropocene” sound cool but mean absolutely nothing, effectively. 

 

In reply to by MonsterSchmuck

Socratic Dog MasterPo Sat, 07/28/2018 - 23:49 Permalink

Question is, is professor a Jew?  She either is, or is a useful idiot.  This fits the cultural marxist agenda like a glove.

Without cultural marxism, we would not have arrived at this garbage.  This level of cultural degeneracy.  Question is, can we bounce back from this?  Hitler managed to crush the degeneracy of the Wiemar republic, that gives me hope.  What happened to Germany after they crushed the decadence of the jew within gives me pause.

In reply to by MasterPo

Infnordz MasterPo Sun, 07/29/2018 - 17:20 Permalink

The professor is a women...

Women can believe the most retarded shit, due to their hypergamy instinct solipsism, and easily influence by authorities, including corrupt ones like (((tribe))) members!

Women can also cynically make fake work because they are too lazy to do real work, which is harder than spouting BS like this!

In reply to by MasterPo

Omen IV TeamDepends Sat, 07/28/2018 - 21:16 Permalink

yea but --- "In other words, reproduction here is about cross-species interaction"

 

so cross species is the objective ----->think -  we are going beyond homos / transgender / transsexual / ..............to bestiality

 

well because it is a better world - such as - think Ebola and blacks fucking monkeys in Africa which end up as new diseases beyond description

 

which is why you should bring them into Europe

In reply to by TeamDepends

Adahy Omen IV Sun, 07/29/2018 - 04:16 Permalink

" we are going beyond homos / transgender / transsexual / ..............to bestiality "

Yes.  This has been their sick plan all along, their 'progression'.  And there is another step they will eventually take as well, the one that will 'break the camels back' for anyone with any morals.  Look for it being subtly slid into popular media, that's how it starts.  Like the bestiality angle:  First you make jokes (I know you've noticed more and more bestiality jokes in the media), then it gets a mention every now and again more seriously; before you know it, they have a character on a TV show diddling his dog and they will try to make you feel sympathy for them.  Seems to take about 10 or so years per behavior depending on how much normalization it takes to get everyone to fall in line and accept it.
Bernays would be proud.

In reply to by Omen IV

Snaffew CRM114 Sat, 07/28/2018 - 22:26 Permalink

there should be mandatory classes in grade school questioning whether democracy is essential to society....it certainly isn't in the United States as this hasn't been a functional republic since the early 1800's.  Today, it is just a maddening oligarchy and nobody "elected" will vote for anything the American people want, but they will certainly vote in favor of corporations and anything that expands the government financially, politically and powerfully.  This is not a country of the people, by the people, for the people---unless the people are defense contractors, wealthy elites, or military warlords.  The US of A'int!

In reply to by CRM114

nmewn powow Sat, 07/28/2018 - 22:11 Permalink

wtf do you mean by "yep" spammer? 

We were here when ZH posted so many articles in a row you didn't have time to process/adsorb that one before the next one was posted so bots like you couldn't jump that next one with a "yep" because on that next one you'd look like the screaming, panting-out-of-gas jerk you are.

That would be this one ;-)

In reply to by powow

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Croesus Sat, 07/28/2018 - 20:12 Permalink

I have a gay cousin. There are a lot of gay people out there that absolutely hate heterosexuals. I realized this 20 years ago. My cousin was a jerk and his husband was even worse. I stay away from faggots for a reason.

I was visiting him back in 2000, in the winter, and his husband basically threatened to throw me out into the snow because I didn't clean up after preparing my own (small) breakfast. The dude was mental. I left that day and have never been back to visit and never will. Where did they live? New Haven, CT.

In reply to by Croesus

bloofer HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Sat, 07/28/2018 - 23:26 Permalink

I've always had a special fondness for gay men, some of whom have been nearly lifelong friends (we're talking about 40 years of friendship here). Their kindness and generosity has been one of my life's greatest blessings.

Having said that, I have to add that the "gay community" has become radicalized in some extremely negative ways and bought into some extremely negative ideological views. Gays (gay men especially) have typically gone through some youthful phase of "hating straight people," as a fairly understandable reaction to the hatred that has been directed towards them. Most of them have experienced ridicule and harassment (usually in high school or college, and not so much elsewhere) and had a hard time coming to terms with who they are in a society that provides them no defined social role.

I think this is where our problems with gays lie. All societies have always had a certain small percentage of gays. Some societies have very sensibly assigned gays a definite social role, and sometimes a religious and ceremonial role. Many gay men are imminently suited to provide society with refinements and embellishments, perhaps doing some of the works along those lines that women, who are also sometimes well suited to this, usually have no time for. I also think that gay people perform a valuable service to society by virtue of being its  "outside the box" cohort--kind of like left-handed people (whose unusual thought processes make unusual contributions). Society needs its non-conformists. One reason that gays have meant so much to me in my own life is because, as a non-conformist myself, association with gay men was a refuge and support to me: "You don't have to be like other people; being who you are is an option." For many gay men, being compelled to affirm "who they are" to themselves--in defiance of social norms and beliefs--is character-building. (Most conservatives here will know all about this.)

But, having said all that in defense of gays, I find their radicalization very troubling. They really have embraced an anti-family, anti-children, even anti-life ideology--presumably because these liberal ideologies are willing to embrace them, so they embrace liberal ideologies because they perceive liberals as their allies against a hostile conservatism. Swallowing the liberal ideological camel will not, in my opinion, benefit them.

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0