Negotiating heteronormativity: Exploring South African bisexual women’s constructions of marriage and family

Abstract

Although heteronormativity remains firmly in place in many contexts, challenges to a construction of heterosexuality as natural and superior increasingly emerge. However, despite increasing visibility of such challenges, bisexuality remains largely absent from such debates. Bisexual women occupy a potentially interesting position in discourses around heteronormativity and this paper explores how heteronormativity functions in the accounts of 13 South African bisexual women. Through a discourse analysis of interview data, a discourse of heterosexual marriage as normative and socially valued is identified as exerting a powerful influence on participants’ constructions of relationships and families. The findings further explore ways in which bisexuality is complicated by such a heteronormative marriage discourse and indicate a lack of integration of a bisexual identity in participants’ accounts. We suggest that drawing bisexuality into debates around heteronormativity can contribute to increased positions from which to challenge the coercive effects of heteronormativity.

Similar and equal relationships? Negotiating bisexuality in an enduring relationship

“…If I had run right into Max the first time, I wouldn't have needed to try straight or lesbian relationships.'' If a bisexual woman were to choose a (cisgendered) man as her partner, or even talk openly about her desire for men in the manner in which the present bisexual women with male partners fantasized about women, she would be acting in a way that would have been ''expected'' somewhere down the line, given the heterosexist cultural idea of the bisexual woman as ''actually'' heterosexual (Hemmings, 2002; see also Lynch & Maree, 2013). In the homo/hetero hierarchy, this would painfully question the worth of a bisexual woman's female or trans partner.…”

Hegemonic Heteronormativity: Toward a New Era of Queer Family Theory

“…Most of these scholarly works (78%) cited Oswald et al (2005) only to define key constructs (e.g., heteronormativity, queering; Dietert & Dentice, 2013;Goldberg & Scheib, 2015;Kuvalanka, Weiner, & Russell, 2013;Lynch & Maree, 2013;Richardson & Goldberg, 2010;Suter & Daas, 2007) or to describe characteristics of the environment in which the study was conducted (e.g., heteronormativity in U.S. society ;Cao, Mills-Koonce, Wood, & Fine, 2016;Sharp & Ganong, 2011;Suter & Toller, 2006;Toomey, Card, & Casper, 2014) or the field of family science more broadly (Allen, 2016;Few-Demo, 2014;Sharp, Zvonkovic, Humble, & Radina, 2014). Importantly, many of these pieces provide empirical evidence supporting the queering processes proposed by Oswald and colleagues (e.g., Berkowitz, 2013;Cohen & Kuvalanka, 2011;Goldberg, 2007b;Goldberg & Allen, 2007;Goldberg, Downing, & Sauck, 2008;Goldberg & Smith, 2015;Hickey & Grafsky, 2016;Oswald & Masciadrelli, 2008;Toomey, McGuire, & Russell, 2012).…”

Making visible the invisible: Bisexual parents ponder coming out to their kids

“…Drew was aware that others would not perceive them as bisexual—rather, they would be misclassified as heterosexual unless they chose to come out (Ross and Dobinson, 2013; Ulrich, 2011). Whereas many parents often feel forced to “choose” between bisexuality and parenthood (Lynch and Maree, 2013; Tasker and Delvoye, 2015), parents in my sample like Drew were insistent that bisexuality was a valid identity for a parent to occupy. Hannah, a 42-year-old, White, cisgender, bisexual mother who already came out, echoed this sentiment.…”