Mairian Corker wrote:
>
> on 10/11/00 12:33 pm, Shelley Tremain at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Mairian Corker wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 think this misses the point, Mairian, because the objectionable
> > sentence is not part of an email discussion, but is on a public web page
> > which presumably was not quickly assembled (in contrast to email
> > messages hurriedly sent off) and will not necessarily be quickly read.
> > Web pages too involve their own conventions and reading practices.
>
> Point of clarification. The 'offensive' comments were *extracted from* a web
> page and not all of those reading will have had access to that web page nor
> the history of it.
Actually, I don't regard this as a point of clarification at all. I
said above as well as in my initial post that the remark was on a web
page (not an email discussion as you suggested in your post); hence, it
is implied that it was "extracted from" that page. Similarly, if I say
that some remark is in a book it can be assumed that I am *extracting*
it from that book. When I quote from a book in order to make an
argument, I don't always (in fact, seldom) know the author's biography.
I don't think that means I can't make a criticism of an act or a remark
I regard as offensive until (if ever) I get that information. Indeed,
you insistence that one have that sort of information seems to conflict
with your own concern about "knowing" whether one is straight or gay,
etc.
>
> That's fine - we all make mistakes. I still found your language overly
> vehement, and I made it clear that that was my personal view, as was my
> humorous interpretation.
Actually, I didn't say it was a "mistake". I think I said something
like it 'probably wasn't a good decision.'
> This is where you and I differ in some respects, and again context is
> important. The statement about 'the heterosexism of the institution of
> marriage' is another totalizing statement that veils the fact that gay
> marriage is legal in some countries, and other countries are taking steps to
> eliminate the problem of unequal benefits that accrue from being in
> different kinds of committed relationships so that people don't have to
> "marry" if they want these benefits.
It is true that lesbian/gay marriage is legal in some countries, that
some have taken measures to equalize benefits, etc.; however, your
remark that my statement is "totalizing" is misdirected and is in fact
reductive. Although you have reduced my claim about benefits to one
which refers to those conferred by the state and its institutions, my
remark above also referred to *social* benefits. There are *social*
privileges to being in a heterosexual* relationship that do not accrue
to others, regardless of what governments say or do. Analogoously, the
fact that the government outlaws discriminatory hiring practices, etc.
does not mean that white skin privilege disappears.
I guess for me this matter does not require alot of debate. I
acknowledge that various interpretations of the sentence have been
advanced, that the remark is contestable, not everyone feels strongly
about this issue. However, a number of us have indicated our
displeasure/discomfort with it. That should be enough reason for the
DRU to do is remove it from its web page. To me, it's quite simply
resolved.
I sense that this discussion (like so many others on this list) is
dividing up into British vs. North American loyalties. Perhaps I'm
wrong and jumping to conclusions. Nevertheless, let me say that I am
not prone to participate in that sort of veiled nationalism and
imperialism. I think there is far too much of that sort of violence (in
seemingly non-toxic form) on this list.
Shelley Lynn Tremain, Ph.D.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|