Queer Parents: Family Structures in Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab and The Argonauts

An old Chinese proverb states that, “A family in harmony will prosper in everything.” In the 21st century, harmony looks different in every household––especially queer households, which are not always conducive to the harmony of heteronormative family structures. In her essay “With friends like these: The liberalization of queer family policy, ” Angelia Ruth Wilson claims that in non-heterosexual relationships, “Individual choice becomes the indispensable conduit to intimacy: ‘Individual autonomy is about identity and space, but it is also about intimate involvement. Through that you can become free” (58). This statement summarizes Wilson’s claim that queer relationships free families from the heterosexist normativity that typically shapes family dynamics, since queer parents have the freedom to choose how they structure their families and raise their children. This individual choice appears in Shani Mootoo’s Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab when India chooses to let Sydney care for her son, as well as in Maggie Nelson’s The Argonauts when Nelson chooses to be the primary caretaker of both Harry’s biological son and her own: both of these choices reject traditional family structures and therefore challenge heteronormativity, but they do so quite differently. An examination of these two texts through the lens of Wilson’s “With friends like these: The liberalization of queer family policy” and Hannah Dyer’s “Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development” reveals an inherent dissatisfaction with the heteronormative family structure as well as a desire for its stability: the choices to conceive, birth, and parent a child in the midst of this non-heterosexual tension in these texts expose the different ways these couples successfully and unsuccessfully challenge heteronormative family dynamics.

Although both India in Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab and Nelson in The Argonauts choose to have a biological child, neither do so traditionally or heterosexually: both of these women choose to conceive via sperm donor. In her essay, Wilson says: ‘The result of using either donor insemination or self-insemination has meant almost endless permutations of family and parenting relationships, and structures which are being experimented with by many non-heterosexuals.’ These ‘parents of choice’ have presented society with a ‘perceived threat to the conventional order of things which continues to restrict the possibilities, [and] provide a spur to redefining the necessary practice of parenting (62).This statement suggests that while childbearing is traditionally a heterosexual act, the ability of non-heterosexual couples to conceive their own children challenges heteronormativity at its core: conception. Heterosexual intercourse is typically the beginning of the heteronormative family structure, but non-heterosexual sex and reproduction are separate from one another. In the introduction of Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab, Sydney asks himself, “in those months before he was born, when India would ask after our lovemaking, ‘How did you know to do that?’ Does he need to know that she gripped my shoulders and trembled? Or, should he know? I wonder if he would believe it” (2). Although Wilson argues that non-heterosexual couples are “oversexed” in literature and theory, by including a brief discussion of their sex life prior to becoming parents, Mootoo is confirming Wilson’s idea that “the ‘generic restructuring of intimacy’ has given rise to ‘a situation where a… relation is entered into for its own sake, for what can be derived by each person from a sustained association… which is continued only in so far as it is thought by both parties to deliver enough satisfaction for each individual to stay within it’” (54). Sydney and India’s early relationship emphasizes the importance of choice and pleasure in non-heterosexual relationships, since, as Wilson states, it is the only reason people enter them. While relationships are entered for their own sake, conceiving a child requires a much more conscious effort. When briefly describing the beginning of Sydney and India’s relationship, Jonathan says “sometime after meeting Sid, my mother decided to get herself pregnant through artificial insemination. After she became pregnant, Sid was at her side, and… she was grateful for… the help…” (Mootoo, 203). After the description of their sex life, this scene exemplifies Wilson’s idea that “the decision… to have… fertility treatment for a lesbian… is not a singular choice, or ‘an accident’. As a result, such children of lesbian and gay parents are intrinsically chosen ones” (63). Wilson also mentions that some theorists claim that in addition to being completely separate from sex, reproduction of non-heterosexual people is also completely separate from their relationships, because they can choose to do it without their partner’s consent. While Wilson argues that this certainly cannot be said of all relationships, it is true of India and Sydney: this excerpt about India’s choice to get pregnant clarifies for the reader that it is completely her own (63). In sharing this information, Jonathan specifically says his mother decided to do this herself: the choice was all hers and Sydney was merely present for it.

Meanwhile, in The Argonauts, Nelson and Dodge challenge heteronormative conception by making choosing to stabilize their family with marriage before having children. While the conception narrative that Jonathan shares is brief and apathetic, Nelson’s discussion of her experience with artificial insemination. She introduces the conception narrative by saying, “Insemination after insemination, wanting our baby to be…. You holding my hand month after month, in devotion, in perseverance. They’re probably shooting egg whites, I said, tears sprouting. Shhh, you whispered” (77). She goes on to describe the different processes and procedures and the ultimate decision she makes to ask a friend for sperm instead of receiving anonymous donations. However, most prominent is Harry’s involvement in Nelson’s choice to conceive a child: prior to this point, Nelson mentions several times their discussion of having a child, and although Harry is not physically involved, his emotional support is clear. This disproves Wilson’s suggestion that the reproduction of non-heterosexual people is also completely separate from their relationships, but confirms that it is completely separate from sex between those two people. Although this may seem to challenge heteronormativity less than India’s independent decision to get pregnant, Nelson is challenging traditional family structures by rejecting familial biological constraints. Wilson makes a point to say that “The emphasis on the biological perpetuates a heterosexist assumption of the nuclear family rather than acknowledging the ‘social’ parental role of the biological and nonbiological mothers and fathers” (68-69). Since the child that Nelson conceives will have been fathered by a stranger or friend, and he will not be biologically related to his father or his half brother. Like conception, there is an assumed heteronormativity with birth; however, the birth narratives in Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab and The Argonauts challenge this heteronormativity. A key difference between these two texts is the fact that the former is narrated by the child born, while the latter is narrated by the mother who gave birth, which contributes to the fact that Jonathan’s narrative is extremely undetailed in comparison to Nelson’s narrative.

Still, both of these texts reveal different ways the heteronormative birth narrative can be challenged. Jonathan says that, “When I was born, the attending nurse wrapped a towel around me and handed me to Sid. Sid brought me to my mother, who said she would wait to hold me until I had been cleaned up. I know this because India told me” (Mootoo, 204). India’s instant disinterest in her son is shocking to the reader, but is also a clear rejection of heteronormative family roles. At this point in the novel, India establishes herself as the distant mother despite the fact that she has just given birth to him. As with the conception narrative, the discussion of Jonathan’s birth is brief and to-the-point, and it deeply contrasts Nelson’s lengthy birth report. Nelson describes her birth experience for several pages, focussing so much and herself and the baby that at times it seems that no one else is present (and sometimes, no one else is present). However, concludes with a warm observation that “When his first son was born, Harry cried. Now he holds Iggy close, laughing sweetly into his little face” (133). Her narrative emphasizes togetherness between she and Iggy, but this switch in focus towards her husband and son perfectly contrasts Johnathan’s. Despite the fact that she has a clear interest in being a maternal figure, Nelson allows her partner to hold the child immediately postpartum. Although Sydney did not fall into a stereotypical parenting role for Jonathan, both he and Harry are challenging heteronormativity by noting on their children immediately after they are born.

Although pregnancy and birth narratives do convey some ways in which non-heterosexual couples challenge heteronormativity, it is ultimately their roles as parents that confirm their success or lack thereof as a non-heterosexual family. When considering Mootoo’s Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab, it is important to consider the role of the workforce in the character’s lives: both India and Sydney work unconventional jobs as writers and artists, they still have careers when Jonathan is born and when he is growing up. Because India is Jonathan’s biological mother, a heteronormative family structure would require her to be the most active parent in her son’s life. However, as a queer parent, India chooses her own family structure and rejects traditional motherhood to remain an active writer and lets Sydney take the wheel on raising her son. However, Jonathan claims that “Sydney had been like a father to [him] from the day [he] was born,” but by heteronormative standards, this statement contradicts other anecdotes (Mootoo, 116). When Jonathan says: Sid’s willingness to take care of me allowed India to immediately throw herself back into her writing. When her book was published three years later, it was a finalist for three major prizes. She became busy with one event after another, with interviews, with touring the width of the country, and with travel abroad, and Sid and I became a team (Mootoo, 204)Sydney was both butch and female-identifying when Jonathan was growing up: although she is not Jonathan’s biological mother, she had a more stereotypical maternal position and therefore did not fit the heteronormative role of mother or father. Hannah Dyer who uses the term queer to both “(a) classify sexuality and (b) reference deviance from cultural norms,” would say that Jonathan’s unique and somewhat traumatic upbringing “queered” him, and he carries that queerness into adulthood (4). This has a strong impact on his relationship with Sydney and India, who are also a queer individual. Dyer says:Adults, for example, sometimes find it difficult to bare the child’s aggression and negative emotional responses because these reactions are often in excess of narratives of childhood innocence. The homosexual adult, then, must return to childhood and rework his or her memory of childhood to clarify the appearance of inversion. In this schematic, what is at stake is the adult’s remembering of childhood, not the child’s present (5).These relationships challenge heteronormativity because all of the parties involved have been queered, albeit differently. Because Jonathan is narrating the story as an adult, he can reveal himself how the end of India and Sydney’s relationship impacted him, and his anger towards both of them can be explained by their queerness. As the product of artificial insemination and a lesbian, Jonathan’s chances at having a heteronormative father were slim. However, being abandoned by his queer father-figure to be raised by his queer mother is what ultimately makes him a queer individual: his “reactions…in excess of narratives of childhood innocence” are to the difficulty of being part of a family that challenges heteronormativity by rejecting anything close to a traditional family dynamic.

In her essay, Wilson emphasizes the fact that many issues are not addressed in feminist theory, claiming that “Giddens (a queer theorist) fails to consider the impact of institutionalized heterosexism/homophobia and the fluidity of gender, and sexual, identity.” (61). Institutionalized heterosexism and homophobia and the fluidity of gender and sexual identity are all present in The Argonauts. One scene that presents institutionalized heterosexism is when Nelson describes their experience at the restaurant where the waiter refers to the four of them as “ladies” even though Harry and his son identify as male. Harry says to his son that they are not all ladies, but does not explain further: he just says that girls are very cool. Nelson identifies as his stepmother, but her memoir clarifies that it is she who raised him––consequently, while Harry may say that no, they are not ladies, it falls on Nelson to at some point explain to Harry’s son that they have been the victims of heterosexism: the waiter is clearly discriminating against Nelson’s family because Harry is a trans individual. Although Nelson has the choice to reject heteronormative family structures as a queer woman, she chooses a to redefine the maternal role instead. As first a stepmother and then a mother, she is aware not only of the heterosexism she experiences outside of the home, but also the way that heterosexism impacts her choice and ability to be a parent. Wilson says that “The centrality given to biological parenting necessarily imposes heterosexist limitations on choices about parenting by prioritizing the ‘natural’ caring role of the birth mother” (69). The beginning of Nelson’s memoir introduces the issue of biology that is also prominent in Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab: Harry’s son, whose identity is kept a secret, has another parent deeply discontent with Nelson’s involvement in his life. At the time when Harry’s mother is first diagnosed with breast cancer, Nelson notes that “[Harry’s] son’s custody remained unsettled, and the specter of a homophobic or transphobic judge deciding his fate, our family’s fate, turned our days a tornado green” (30). As with Jonathan, this child is being queered by his relationship to his parents and stepparents, which “[deviates] from cultural norms (Dyer, 4). Harry’s son is perhaps too young for the full impact of this queerness to be visible, but by queering him, Nelson and Harry (and perhaps Harry’s ex) are challenging heteronormativity. Queer children, by either of Dyer’s definitions, challenge the traditional family dynamic that relies so heavily on heterosexuality and biological relations. Wilson claims notes the passivity involved in creating family structures after conception and birth, saying “it is less important whether we are in a family than whether we do family-type things . . . families are constructed through their enactment. We live family rather than dwell within it” (59). Although neither Sydney and India nor Nelson and Harry explicitly discuss how they would construct their families in the text, Nelson and Harry challenge heteronormativity by making numerous efforts to have a family including getting married, raising Harry’s stepson, and getting pregnant with and having Iggy, and ultimately queering their children in doing so. Meanwhile, India challenges heteronormativity by rejecting all remotely heteronormative family structures, including a masculine spouse, but she too queers her child in the process. While Nelson and Harry redefine family structures, India rejects entirely by becoming a distant single mother, which proves that there are multiple ways to challenge the heteronormativity of family structures.

Ultimately, the non-heterosexuality helps to disintegrate heterosexism at its roots, and over time, this will hopefully help to denormalize heteronormative family structures. However, while these theories help reveal the different ways non-heterosexual couples can challenge heteronormative family structures, they both fail to address sexism beyond queerness. It is possible that the reason India is reluctant to challenge heteronormativity by redefining family structures is because they are simply not favorable towards women. Likewise, these theories fail to address the struggles and sacrifices women such as Nelson might face in choosing to engage in any type of family dynamic, even if it has been redefined by her and her partner. As Nelson quotes, “The freedom to be happy restricts human freedom if you are not free to be not happy,” and heterosexual and non-heterosexual couples alike are unique in what makes them happy and what makes them miserable: the centrality of choice in relationships is a key ingredient in the establishment of one’s lifestyle, and only then can they be happy (17).

Works Cited

Dyer, Hannah. “Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development.” Global Studies of Childhood. London: SAGE Publications, 2016. Web.Nelson, Maggie. The Argonauts. London: Melville House UK, 2016. Print. Mootoo, Shani. Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab. Toronto: Akashic Books, 2004. Kindle Edition. Wilson, Angelia Ruth. “With friends like these: The liberalization of queer family policy.” Critical Policy, Vol. 27. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 50-76. Web.

Religion and Character Development in Moving Forward Sideways Like A Crab

According to the Dalai Lama, “all religions try to benefit people, with the same basic message of the need for love and compassion, for justice and honesty, for contentment.” The need for love, compassion, justice, honesty, and most of all contentment is emphasized in Shani Mootoo’s Moving Forward Sideways Like A Crab, and characters with a variety of religious beliefs affirm this. Several different religions are mentioned in this novel including Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, but the significance of the characters’ religious beliefs seems to lie beneath the surface (Mootoo, 36). One scene I found particularly striking is the scene in which Pundit and Anta are discussing Sydney’s funeral arrangements with Johnathan, and Pundit asks Johnathan, “He… didn’t bring you up as Hindu, eh?” (Mootoo, 246). Prior to reading this scene, I had not considered the significance of religious beliefs in character development, but as the novel concluded I found myself thinking more about the manifestation of Sydney’s Hindu upbringing in his character and the visible lack of spiritual development in Johnathan’s character. In this essay, I intend to examine the way religion shapes Sydney’s character and the way the lack thereof shapes Johnathan.

Sydney’s character is not overtly religious, but because Hinduism is frequently discussed after his death, the manifestation of his Hindu beliefs in his life become more obvious. When considering the significance of Sydney’s Hindu upbringing to his character, it is important to first consider the pillars of Hinduism. The four Purusārthas are the Hindu goals for human life: Dharma is morality, Artha is prosperity, Kama is fulfillment, and Moksha is liberation (Flood, 14-18). While some of these goals appear more important to Sydney, consciously or subconsciously, than others, all four of them appear in the novel. First, Sydney’s search for Dharma appears in his notebook, when he writes that “Johnathan himself… was at the heart of our tug-of-war, and soon I was no longer willing to put him through our struggle” (Mootoo, 5). Sydney’s choice to leave Johnathan when he left India is questioned throughout the novel, but this anecdote reveals that although his abandonment was hurtful to Johnathan, it was not selfish––to put a child through a custody battle and attempt to take him away from his biological mother would have been detrimental. Although each character in the novel is flawed, this commentary on his choices serves as a confirmation of his search for morality. His search for Artha is obscured by more overt parts his story, but it is still present: when he moves to Toronto, he allows himself to struggle as an artist in an attempt to find professional and prosperity free of his parents (40-41).

While Sydney’s search for financial freedom from his parents lays in the background of his story, his search for freedom from gender constraints is not. Sydney may not have been raised as a man, but he was, in fact, a man, and choice to live as a who he truly is can be considered his search for both Kama and Moksha. In order to be both content and liberated, Sydney must be able to live freely as a man, which is why he chooses to start living as a man after his parents have died. When discussing Sydney’s life, Johnathan says that “If he wasn’t telling me his tales about his high school friend Zain, who never left Trinidad, he would tell and retell the story of a walk he took one early and snowy morning from his apartment in Toronto’s East End to a clinic in the downtown core” (Mootoo, 30). This “center,” of course, is the Irene Samuel Health and Gender Centre, which is mentioned countless times throughout the novel. This walk is so significant to Sydney because despite being an adult, it was wear felt his story truly began. Although he may not have been thinking of his Hindu beliefs as he took that walk, this was the part of his journey in which he was finally able to achieve the slightest amount of contentment and liberation. “Hinduism prescribes the eternal duties, such as honesty, refraining from injuring living beings, patience, forbearance, self-restraint, and compassion, among others” (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). Although Sydney is not visibly a devout Hindu, his character confirms that his spirituality is unwavering. However, the same cannot be said about his son.

Like Sydney, Johnathan is a complicated character, but unlike Sydney, Johnathan’s questionable morals are never clarified. While Johnathan is not presented as unspiritual or emotionally unintelligent, he is quickly deemed unreligious by Pundit, the funeral director, when he notes that Johnathan was not raised Hindu (Mootoo, 246). He is, however, presented as being focused more on himself and the ways in which Sydney leaving impacted him than learning about Sydney’s life thereafter. As Sydney begins to discuss his transition with Johnathan, Johnathan angrily thinks to himself “All right; then tell me again if you must, but, for the love of God, please also tell me why you left our family” (32). Throughout the novel, his goal is not to find morality, prosperity, fulfillment, or liberation, but to find out why Sydney left him. Wondering this is not selfish in itself, but by focusing on finding answers rather than listening to Sydney’s story in his last days, he proves himself to be a selfish figure lacking guidance. Although Sydney struggled with his identity in a way that Johnathan did not, religion seems to be the clearest difference between the two, and Johnathan seems blinded by his abandonment because he lacks a strongly-defined moral compass.

Although it is essential to examine the differences in the spirituality of father-figure and son in this essay, of further interest is the role of Islam in Zain’s character development. While Sydney’s Hinduism is most prominent in death, Zain’s Islam is most prominent in her life, especially in her letters. It is possible that Sydney’s Hinduism is covert but his spirituality blinding because Zain frequently discussed her opposing religion but similar spirituality in her letters during her lifetime. Despite practicing different religions, both Zain and Sydney’s characters develop in a way that proves that “all religions try to benefit people, with the same basic message of the need for love and compassion, for justice and honesty, for contentment,” while Johnathan’s lack of religious beliefs and consequent lack of overt spirituality cause him to allow himself to wallow in self-pity and present himself as a selfish figure. Had the spiritual Zain and Sydney been his primary parental figures rather than India, his character would likely have developed very differently.

Works Cited

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Sanatana Dharma.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 18 June 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

Flood, Gavin. “The Meaning and Context of the Puruṣārthas.” The Bhagavadgītā for Our Times. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000. 11-27. Print.

Mootoo, Shani. Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab. N.p.: Doubleday Canada, 2004.