On War Against Turks

Heterosexism and Reproductive Privilege

The theme that I noticed across these readings was one of tolerance, particularly as it relates to lesbianism. I really did not learn too much that I had not previously been aware of in analyzing the readings for this week. Prior to the readings I was aware that there are people who consider themselves oppressed because they are homosexual, and that some of these people are women. However, I was surprised at the degree of romanticism and poetry that the author of "Accidents," Everhart, ascribes to her desire to have children. I liken Everhart's work of poetry about her inability to produce children with another woman to a pair of trees (or even a single tree) lamenting over the fact that they cannot produce jet planes or human beings. Two women producing children simply does not occur in nature. That is a basic fact that everyone knows. I found it a little curious that the author romanticizes and hyperbolizes her feelings with another woman to attempt to procreate when everyone knows that such things do not occur in nature -- and are merely the figment of perverse Westernized practices and imprudent applications of technology.

I actually did have an emotional reaction to the material, particularly to Everhart's poem. While reading the first couple of stanzas I was thinking that this was a fairly mediocre -- if not outright cliche -- attempt at a love poem. In all honesty, however, when I came to the part in which the author (2012) clarifies the fact that both lovers are "two women" (Everhart), I felt more than a little disgust. I am fairly certain that there are some people who would correlate this disgust to the concepts of sexism and multiple issues discussed in Bell's "Theoretical foundations" (p. 25-26). However, it simply is not. I do not begrudge the author or any two women their desire to have "sex" with one another -- whatever that might means in this case. I simply do not want to view it, read about it, or remotely experience it in any other way. Again though, the main thing that I got from this work of literature was a feeling of perverseness. The author appears to be trying to romanticize something that is not possible, not logical and, in my humble opinion, something that is not desirable. There are certainly a lot of unpleasant things that have historically occurred when women have had to be in relationships with men. But removing procreation from the time honored, natural means of the relationship between a man and a woman should not be changed, and it is a little weird to hear the author so fervently wish for something that I regard as perverse.