A big cheery hello to everyone
http://www.io.com/~wwwomen/queer/etiquette/intro.html
The webpage above refers to a "Straight Person's Guide to Gay Etiquette"
"What Emily Post never taught you" It does cover the conventions of inviting
gay men and lesbians to weddings. It also includes the ultimate faux pas -
inviting lesbian friends to a shower tea!!!!!! Whilst being slightly tongue
in cheek, the website is very thought provoking in terms of our ritualised
heterosexist responses that Mairian talks of.
I have found, as Mairian seemed to indicate, that we, those people affected
by heterosexist discourses can become inured. I sometimes just don't
recognise when its happening. But often I do. Must be context and intent?
Perhaps some years down the track, there will be charges of being speciest
(is that a neologism?) for writing in human discourse rather than discourse
inclusive of other species or forms of life. I am not trying to make light
of the discussion but pointing out that a transition from human to
non-zoophobic discourse would be difficult transition given the centuries of
tradition and ritual of human discourse. Allow me a few mistakes in my
transition and then a few slip-ups now and again.
Just one more point (as usual). I don't find that this list's propensity
for criticism aimed at particular named people is all that intimidating. I
understand that it could be seen that way but ultimately, it makes the list
more dynamic and challenging. It is oh so much worse when these feelings
are not aired and processed. We all know what Shelley's aim was in bringing
up the topic in this way - Shelley, it was to bring attention to the topic
wasn't it?
Best regards
Laurence Bathurst
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Sydney
PO Box 170
Lidcombe NSW 1825
Australia
Ph: 61 2 9351 9509
Fax: 61 2 9351 9509
Email: [log in to unmask]
Home Ph: 61 2 9818 2050
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
`````````````````````````````````
Lost : - My leisure. If found please return it to me -
it has great sentimental value and holds many fond memories.
Lost : - My self. Last seen within my leisure
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
````````````````````````````````.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mairian Corker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: GET THE HOMOPHOBIA OFF THE DRU WEB PAGES!]
> on 10/11/00 6:33 am, Shelley Tremain at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > First, let me clarify: I said the remark was "blatantly homophobic" and
> > asked that it be removed and an apology be forthcoming from the DRU. I
> > did not say that any individual the DRU, no the DRU in general was
> > homphobic. Oppressive and discriminatory remarks have a "life of their
> > own" separate from personal intentions of individual actors.
>
> For what it's worth, most people do not pay attention to the grammatical
> structure of sentences in email discussion, which, in any case, has its
own
> linguistic conventions. I agree with Shelley that "oppressive and
> discriminatory" remarks have a life of their own, because they are
> ritualised and institutionalised. But this signifies to me that people who
> do not intend to be oppressive often end up being so precisely because
> ritual exists independently of intent. Therefore, we have to be alert to
> intent, and so context is relevant - that is, the intention to wound *is*
> important (and certainly would be in a court of law). Because of the use
of
> the terms 'blatantly' and 'hideous' in Shelley's email, and its title,
which
> I felt were out of proportion in relation to what I saw to be the humorous
> intent of the original comment, there was a danger that some members of
this
> list, who did not know the individuals concerned, would construe that the
> DRU was homophobic. Thus, the various responses that leap to the defence
of
> the DRU - even though it is clearly not necessary - are also justified.
>
> Before I'm accused of sitting on the fence, I also mis-read the actual
> comment the first time because I read it in a hurry (and I am a
linguist!).
> My (humorous) response was "I think that Mark and Dan make a very nice
> couple!". On reflection, however, and on a more serious note, I would also
> point out that there are many lesbians and gays who are "married" - that
is,
> they live or have lived in loving 'heterosexual relationships', whilst
> knowing that they are 'lesbian' or "gay". Here the distinction between
being
> and doing is important. I find the exclusionary aspects of *both*
discourses
> problematic at times and not conducive to dialogue. Perhaps 'sex', like
> 'gender' is prone to stereotypes?
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Mairian
>
>
> --
> Mairian Corker
> Visiting Senior Research Fellow
> Language Group
> School of Education
> Kings College London
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|