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.
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).
I certainly think we have to attend to context. Context preceeds and
outruns personal intent. And this is one reason why it is oftenn
difficult to "prove" discrimination or other oppressive bevahiour in a
court of law (which, by the way, I don't think we should really take as
a yardstick in this regard, not that this is what you are suggesting).
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!".
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".
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!)
For the record, I'm opposed to the institution of marriage. And I think
that 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.
Shelley
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
