Dear Mairian,
thanks for your reply. I wanted to intervene on the matter, but I was unsure of
being able to find the right words! As a bisexual woman currently in a
relationship with a man, but who has decided not to re-marry because of the
reasons outlined in Anne's e-mail, I could not agree with you more. The older I
get and the less I find bi-polar discourses (gay/heterosexual;
disabled/non-disabled) useful. I am not too sure what the answer is but I like
to think that any discourse that strive for inclusion is at least a way of
getting there :-)
Best wishes,
Alessandra Iantaffi
Mairian Corker wrote:
> 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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|