I always look out for stories about gay families. Though I’ve found more that I didn’t like than the ones I did, since I started reading m/m romance, those few gems that I have found are some of my very favorite romances. It seems to be a less popular relationship configuration found in our genre, man + man + child(ren), or any other variations. I want to welcome SL Armstrong to TAR today to talk about heteronormativity and her latest novel written with K Piet.
I offer the floor to Saundra, and after I’ll give you a little more of my thoughts 
Here’s a story synopsis for you: a pair of young lovers strive to make a life together while raising a young daughter. Now, what can you tell me about the genders of the lovers? If you said a boy and a girl… well, you’re wrong for one thing, but for another, you’ve demonstrated heteronormativity.
Heteronormativity is the term erroneously given to those things which are assumed to be desired only (and universally) by heterosexuals. These include things like marriage, family, and the ubiquitous “white picket fence”. There are only two problems with that assignment: not all heterosexuals want those things, and many homosexuals do.
In our new book, Making Ends Meet, K. Piet and I explore the life of 17-year-old Zach, a gay single father who starts dating Wil, a pharmacy student from an affluent family. All that Zach wants is a stable relationship with someone he loves and a home of his own where he can give his little girl the life he thinks she deserves. But our dev editor worried about the portrayal of Zach and his desires. One of her biggest notes on the story was that the entire thing seemed too heteronormative, as though being gay automatically means that Zach couldn’t possibly desire these things.
But here’s the thing. Not every gay man wants to be Brian Kinney, going out to a club every night and banging the first guy who catches his eye with no strings and no commitments. For plenty of gay people, that isn’t the life they want. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I can immediately come up with a dozen gay couples who married―or want to be married―and who have children. That doesn’t make them less gay. It doesn’t make them posers, falling into the heterosexual patterns foisted upon them by the world, and thus, bad gay people. It makes them a couple who wants to be together, a couple who wants to raise children together, nothing more or less.
But, that’s what I mean when I say heteronormativity isn’t bad. Not that the assumptions that gay and straight people are inherently different in their desires aren’t ill-founded, because they are. But when you define heteronormativity as a set of desires to have what is traditionally considered to be sought by heterosexual persons, it is not wrong or bad for non-heterosexual persons to seek those same things. People are people, and each person’s desire is valid and individual. No one should judge anyone else’s happiness or how they gained that happiness based on sexual orientation or societal labels. Why should it matter that it makes Zach happy to raise his daughter with his boyfriend? Does it make their lives less? Does it make their identification as gay men suspect? No. It makes them a two income household with a precocious daughter to raise, just like so many other households in America.
Writing characters with those desires is not an erasure of the ‘homosexual experience’ (what is that, anyway? A ride at Gay EPCOT or something?), because there is no such thing as a singular experience. People are diverse, and regardless of their sexuality or gender expression, some people will always want that long-term relationship with partner and family. Telling their stories is not being heteronormative; it’s showing the diversity of human desire.
S.L. Armstrong is the co-author of Making Ends Meet and Other Side of Night: Bastian & Riley. She can be found at SLArmstrong.net or on Twitter @_slarmstrong.
The beautiful thing about the m/m romance community is the diversity and acceptance of a plethora of ideals. Of course, the indie e-publishing market is the real superstar here, because I’m specifically talking about the diversity in publishing. As I said above, I love books about gay families, and it has only been recently, in the past couple of years that I really understand why. While I’ve not really thought seriously about kids (nor would I at this point in my life), it’s something that I don’t think I’ve ever specifically decided against. I never had the feeling that since I was gay I couldn’t have them, maybe because I’m fairly young and at the time I came out, gay adoption had been seen mostly as a positive move in American culture (I’m being optimistic here, lol).
The truth is, it took me a long time, as a gay man, to realize that the way I wanted to live my life was just fine. I was pretty self-consious about this issue in college. Almost all of my gay friends were having casual sex and loving it and.. it really just wasn’t for me (after a few failed attempts). I thought I was screwed up, honestly. I thought, growing up in the bible belt had made me feel that something was wrong with having a healthy gay sex life, or feeling guilty about my sexuality period. I never really felt that way, but what if I wasn’t really sure?
Saundra makes a really great point with this post. I like reading about gay families because it grounds the relationship into reality for me, when reading about so many gay men falling in love tends to roll together into a mish-mash of romance-land happiness.
Thanks, Saundra, for stopping by today and giving us some insight into her new book!
Tam
Great post. I wonder if the negativity surrounding the concept comes from other people’s suspicions that a gay couple only do X because they think they have to in order to fit in and be accepted? But again, that works for everyone, not matter your sexuality. There are women who have children because it’s expected of them, not because they really want them. Or women who give up careers because that’s their role, or perhaps gay men who follow the party hardy lifestyle because they think that is the way to fit into their world, when really, they just want 2 kids and a dog and to change poopy diapers.
There are so many expectations set on people. Straight men work and bring home the bacon, straight women stay home and raise children, gay men party and sleep around and lesbians go to Home Depot.
Wouldn’t the world be a neat and tidy space if everyone just fit neatly in their box and LIKED being in their box? When my daughter was born, my ex did not work and stayed home and raised her, I was the full-time wage earner in my family. Believe me, it was looked at askance more than once by people who didn’t know us. But it worked for us.
There are a million life boxes, I think people should be free to choose anyone they want, my only goal for my daughter is that she WANT to be in that box, that she loves it there and it makes her happy and fulfilled. If that’s the white picket fence, 2.5 kids and a husband box, great. If it’s the single girl with 8 cats who travels the world box, that’s great too. Or the lesbian threesome in a commune box.
Just DON’T climb in a box because you believe others think you should be there. And better still? Don’t judge anyone for the box they climbed into, just because it’s different than the one you chose.
Cole
Well said, Tam
I think it is something that you learn with age. Some people get a step up earlier from supportive parents and communities, and some are held back by unrealistic expectations and extreme pressure. I was sortof in the middle. I don’t talk about my family much, but I’m the baby of the family and a lot of attention was given to my older sister (5 years ahead) who was a bit of a hellion at times, though not all of it was her fault (she was a popular girl in high school and you know how high school girls can be). So I had to admit since I’ve grown up that I did get less attention and I know now that since I’m the kind of person who doesn’t like to muddy the waters, I tend to sit back and not speak up.
So a lot of it comes with age. You also have to at some point learn that your life is yours. That’s harder for some than others and everything is different for everyone. (the ladies on the view actually talked about this this morning — funny how things work, huh?
).
thabomophiring
heteronormativity is bad, not because it is wrong to want those things but because society uses it to norm people into those categories. Hence, you hear many homosexuals wanting to prove that they are normal and disown the non-homonormatives.
So wanting something, but imposing it – not so cool. The very terming normatives indicates the norming – the social process – so nope.
Will
Thank you for this. The idea “we should be willing to make room for a variety of different desires” is a good idea, but this post is using the term “heteronormativity” without understanding what it actually means.
S.L. Armstrong
I’m glad you appreciate the sentiment behind my post, but I disagree that I don’t understand what ‘heteronormativity’ means.
I think I did a good job of explaining in my post the way I was using the terminology and distinguishing between ‘the set of desires that are traditionally labeled heteronormative’ and ‘the use of the term “heteronormativity” to impose unfair limitations on non-heterosexual people’. The phrasing I used may have been a little muddled, the sentiment we are both expressing is the same.
Will
Given your response to Ger below, I still don’t think you know what the word means. The idea that you can just “feel” a word has some other meaning than the commonly accepted one is ridiculous.
“Heteronormativity” is the idea that we culturally privilege the male/female relationship and the family unit that’s expected to go with it. People who don’t perform that standard are penalized for it, and penalized more the further they fall outside of it. (If you’re actually interested in educating yourself here, try looking at some of the radical queer movement’s critiques of the gay marriage movement: the theme of assimilation-via-aping-heterosexuality comes up a lot there.)
You would be in a much stronger position for making the rest of your point if you weren’t trying to do it by championing a term that in fact describes something harmful.
S.L. Armstrong
I think we’re all saying the same thing. Having the desire for a situation or life experience that is typically labeled as ‘heteronormative’ is not a bad thing in and of itself. Using the term ‘heteronormativity’ as a catch-all for those situations/life experiences and subsequently using that definition to unfairly impose expectations and limitations onto non-heterosexual people is bad. We all seem to agree on these points, regardless of how we individually phrased it. My point of view was prompted by my editor’s statement that she felt that my characters were, perhaps, being overly heteronormative, and I disagreed that this was a bad thing simply because they’re a gay male couple.
therealtbaggins
Great discussion. Worth the entire read for the line about “a ride at Gay EPCOT.”
S.L. Armstrong
S.L. Armstrong
Thank you for having me on here today, Cole!
It was a pleasure. This topic is something near and dear to my heart. It drives me crazy when people say things like gay men should want to be married or lesbian woman shouldn’t raise children or women should stay home with the kids or any number of silly 1950s-esque comments about a person’s place in society and relationships. 
When I first got married, I thought my goal was to have babies and raise them while my husband went to work. When nature decided that wasn’t going to be the case, I was really directionless for a long time trying to figure out just what I was supposed to do if not be a mother. XD Now I’m thankful that things worked out as they did, and I realized that no one should be shoved into a box they don’t want to be in.
Ger
I’m really not sure how you could have phrased this more poorly. It seems like you’re not really aware of what heteronormativity IS, so defending what you *think* it is results in a really queasy disconnect.
Heteronormativity is bad, because it’s coercive. I get that what you’re actually trying to say is that people shouldn’t be subject to gender-based coercion, especially regarding their part in the domestic experience, but trying to re-define the word on the fly and then defend its shiny new non-bad meaning is not a good call.
Domestic fluff that also addresses issues of gender and orientation is a good thing, and you’re right that there’s not much of it. It’s just that I’m having a hard time appreciating your other salient points because I’m preoccupied by how really troublesome your choice of words is.
S.L. Armstrong
If you got what I was trying to day, then I don’t think I phrased it that poorly.
We’re saying the same thing, and you can refer to my earlier comments for my response to this knee-jerk response to–what I honestly believe–is the title of this post rather than it’s contents (as the contents fully defined/outlined my definitions and conclusions).
I feel there are two meanings to the term ‘heteronormativity’, and I don’t feel I’ve given it a ‘shiny new meaning’ at all. I feel those two definitions have always existed, and my opinion is that those definitions are often conflated. I’ve not introduced something new or made something bad good.
I’m sorry if you believe that, but it’s simply not the truth of the post.
Ger
Given that words are your business, I’d like to encourage you to consider thoughtfully what you’ve just said.
There are not two definitions of “heteronormativity”. There’s one, both in the dictionary and in the usage of informed people, and it doesn’t match with the way you’re using it. It’s not unforgivable to misuse a word. Misusing a word in a way that bothers people, and subsequently insisting that your usage is correct, justified, and that they’re a jerk for being bothered? The opposite of cool. The opposite of addressing the subject with sensitivity and sympathy. Not buying it.
Since we’re in agreement on the basic premise of what you’re saying, i.e. that pressure to act a certain way because of your gender or orientation sucks, I’m going to give you credit for meaning well. Meaning well is no substitute for actually trying to get it right, however.
Mark
Developing a new definition of a negative term (and concept) doesn’t actually change what it is. That’s just trying to force a term that’s not appropriate for the situation into the dialog for .. well, I’m not really sure why that’s considered a good thing at all, especially since there’s nothing really in this review about “reclaiming” the term like one would reclaim other negative words. Reclaiming the idea of or just the word “heteronormativity” seems better suited to an essay just on that instead of promoting a book.
That said, I also get what you were trying to say, and I think that a lot of what you were trying to get across is a good idea and something that literature needs more of in representation. I just really wish that you had gone about it differently to be less borderline offensive.
Maralei
I am just a little skeptical of this internet attitude that every single word must be closely policed and everything is ‘offensive’ or ‘borderline offensive’ because people choose to interpret things according to their own bias, instead of actually paying attention to what the person saying/writing those things meant.
It seems to be a typical American attitude. I can only say I’m glad my culture is different, because I find it very aggravating, needlessly nitpicky. Actual practical issues are a lot more important than obsessing over every single word choice on the internet – intentions matter, not an endless useless maze of ‘political correctness’ rules that end up suffocating and burying completely the actual topics of discussions.
What matters are the concepts you express, and shifting the focus on how you should express them – about which everyone has different opinions, and no one is ever going to get it right anyway, if American internet has taught me anything – seems simply an excuse to avoid talking about the actual concepts and issues, instead remaining stuck in a quicksand of form without any substance.
Cole
Hey everyone! Sorry for not being around today — I’m going to reply to all of your comments now — but, I woke up this morning feeling pretty crappy and have been in bed all day. But while I’m speaking to everyone, I just want to say that I glanced through the comments so far and am really happy to see so many responses! Thanks for stopping by, everyone
Cole
Actually, now that I’ve read through most of the comments, I’d just like to make a general statement. First, I think it’s great that the internet be used for progressive discourse, and thanks to everyone who commented here. Whether you took issue with the title, post itself, definition of heteronormative, or just plain don’t care — the point is that we can have a healthy discussion and agree, disagree, or agree to disagree separately. I’m not saying this because I feel this got out of hand in anyway, I think for the most part people were pretty good about stating their objections, or otherwise and moving on.
I’m not a queer theorist. My personal opinion is that we all have a different language we use to relate to the world and different views, and that for the most part we’re all on the same page here. I know some people feel differently, that definitions matter, and to some extent they do. But at times the discussion felt a little reactionary to me, and to me, the point got lost in there somewhere in the middle — that everyone is really holding a similar opinion. How you choose to phrase it and if you feel others did it eloquently enough is your own opinion.
So thanks for everyone stopping by and adding their thoughts! I appreciate all of them and wish I’d been around more today, like usual, to take part before the discussion died down.