Nick,
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.
Second, your argument with respect to the grammatical structure of the
remark is entirely unconvincing. The remark says that Mark and Dan
*both* got married (but not to each other!). I emphasize the "both"
because it already does the work of indicating that they didn't get
married to each other.
Consider two sentences:
1. Mark and Dan got married this summer.
2. Mark and Dan both got married this summer.
Can you see the difference between the two? Sentence 1 suggests or at
least does not preclude that that they got married to each other.
Sentence 2 (with the its use of the term "both") suggests they got
married separately. My point is that the parenthetical and
*exclamatory* remark "but not to each other" is meant as a seemingly
humourous way of putting distance between the individuals and same-sex
marriage.
FYI, Nick, I have copied a message which I received from Dan Goodley
yesterday morning. Apparently, not everyone is so defensive about this
matter.
FROM GOODLEY:
I'd not even noticed this news to be honest, however, I take
responsibility for this I accept your point and apologise.
Dan
nick watson wrote:
>
> Colin Mark and Danny and everyone at DRU are not homophobic, as anyone who
> knows them will realise. Lesbian gay and bisexual people have worked with
> and at DRU and I know of no complaints of prejudice or discrimination.
> Further the assumption that this trivial news item is homophobic not
> logical. After all if the post had read 'Janet and John got married this
> summer, (but not to each other!)' this would follow the same form but could
> not be accused of any offence. I think that it is irresponsible to use
> email to make such a serious claim on such flimsy grounds.
nick watson wrote:
>
> Colin Mark and Danny and everyone at DRU are not homophobic, as anyone who
> knows them will realise. Lesbian gay and bisexual people have worked with
> and at DRU and I know of no complaints of prejudice or discrimination.
> Further the assumption that this trivial news item is homophobic not
> logical. After all if the post had read 'Janet and John got married this
> summer, (but not to each other!)' this would follow the same form but could
> not be accused of any offence. I think that it is irresponsible to use
> email to make such a serious claim on such flimsy grounds.
>
> ----------
> >From: Shelley Tremain <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: GET THE HOMOPHOBIA OFF THE DRU WEB PAGES!
> >Date: Thu, Nov 9, 2000, 12:17 am
> >
>
> >On a recent visit to the DRU web pages, I noticed that the "What's New"
> >listing for August 2000 reads as follows:
> >
> >'Congratulations to Mark and Dan who both got married this summer (but
> >not to each other!)'
> >
> >The parenthetical and *exclamatory* remark is blatantly homophobic and a
> >kick in the face to the lesbians, gay men, transgendered people and
> >other queers worldwide who are in struggle to have their human and civil
> >rights upheld, and their relationships recognized and respected by the
> >state, employers, church, other family members, etc.
> >
> > >*>*>*>*>THINK<*<*<*<*<*<
> >
> >Since this hideous little remark has apparently been in the public
> >domain for a couple of months, I think *public acknowledgement* of this
> >grievous error and an apology are both warranted and appropriate.
> >
> >
> >Shelley Lynn Tremain
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|