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. Thus the 'offensive' remarks were removed from their
constitutive history. How do people know whether they are representative?
How do we know whether or not the author was making a joke at their own
expense? Do we know whether or not the author was themself gay or lesbian?
We don't know any of these things, which is why John Davis' comments about
reflexivity are important. That is why I think my comments about the textual
conventions and context of email discussion are relevant.
>
> I think it is important to ask why a response might have been humourous
> in this context. Is it because the suggestion of such a
> (socially/legally recognized) marriage is impossible, somewhat silly,
> embarrassing, etc.? Would the response have been a humourous one if, as
> Nick has suggested, the remark had read "Jane and Mark got married this
> summer".
Doesn't the answer to all of these questions depend on knowledges of the
individuals in question? But I do have to say that I wonder why you need to
clarify that you 'know' a certain individual is straight in your comments
below? It seems to me that that comment is no different from the comment
that Nick made.
>
> I don't think my use of terms was out of proportion, though the title
> might have seemed a bit over the top. Actually, I was going to put
> "PLEASE REMOVE THE HOMOPHOBIA.." but wanted to get everything in one
> subject-line in people's mailboxes! Probably not a good decision
> (especially since it didn't come through intact anyway!)
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.
>
> For the record, I'm opposed to the institution of marriage ... we should
>think
> about Anne and Sharon's remarks about the
> heterosexism of the institution of marriage, which only a sector of the
> population can engage in. Alot of benefits accrue to people in
> heterosexual marriages that others don't have the advantages of. I think
> straight people need to be alive to this fact. (Incidentally, I know
> that Dan Goodley is.) Furthermore, despite the fact that I'm opposed to
> marriage personally, I am in solidarity with those lesbians, gay men,
> and others who are struggling to change the exclusionary dimensions of
> that institution.
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. I'm also conscious that for many,
"marriage" is more of a religious institution, albeit a very powerful one,
and for yet others, "marriage" is a symbol of commitment. I don't think I
have any choice but to join with those queers among us and further afield
who wish to be a part of it if we are not to perpetrate other forms of
oppression. These are ways in which the institution of marriage can be
broken down and de-homogenised.
For those people who think that this issue is irrelevant to this list, it is
perhaps worth pointing out that disabled people are subject to many of the
institutionalised strictures with respect to personal and sexual
relationships that queers are. I think it's very useful to explore the
intersections of the two accounts both in terms of theory and in terms of
practice.
Best wishes
Mairian
--
Mairian Corker
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Language Group
School of Education
Kings College London
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|