|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The term "role essentialism" was used in 2011 by [[Thomas M. Millar]]. [http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/domism-role-essentialism-and-sexism-intersectionality-in-the-bdsm-scene/]
| + | #redirect[[Role Essentialism]] |
| − | | + | |
| − | From that essay, the term is linked to the following pernicious and false ideas:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * The idea that a person has a certain innate, natural, or static [[BDSM]] [[Status Roles| role]].
| + | |
| − | * The idea that a certain bdsm role [[One true way|necessarily has certain features]].
| + | |
| − | * The idea that a person's BDSM role is determined by [[Gender| gender]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Role essentialism is upheld in scenes by [[role policing]]. | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Criticisms ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The idea that "role essentialism" is a bad thing is sometimes criticized {{By whom}} because while a message of avoiding [[one true way| one true wayism]] is present {{citation needed}} and important, that definitions often are stripped down or diluted to the point where much of the implied meaning, nuance and associated [[best practices]] with an aspect of BDSM may be lost. This view itself assumes that some levels of role essentialism can have a positive and educational effect.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | However, if, rather than "assuming" (with no motivation) that it has a positive effect, one actually looks at the evidence (Millar, 2011), one sees that it in fact has a negative effect.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Category:BDSM Theory]]
| + | |
