> Julie wrote:
> > I don't think it's wrong for women to refer to =ourselves= by
> > any term we want. But it needs to be =us= refering to =us=,
> > and not someone else using a term we didn't create or we
> > don't control.
> >
> > -- Julie (just another femme grrl jock dyke ...).
>
To which Lothan replied:
> But if you refer to yourself as a femme grrl jock dyke, why is it
> derogatory if a male refers to you as the same thing? My point is
> that we have far too many double-edged words. It really strikes me
> funny that women can say "I'm going out with the chix tonight" and
> it's taken to be an endearment. Yet if a man were to say the same
> thing in the same context, he would be scolded (perhaps severely)
> for using a derogatory term.
It's All About the Context.
When the `majority' class creates terms that slur a `minority' class,
members of the minority fight back by co-opting the language of the
oppressor. Whether a term is being used in a disparaging sense
or an empowering one depends on the context in which it's used.
When gay men refer to each other as `homo', etc, it's pretty clear
that they're not insulting each other. Barring extenuating
circumstances, the same words spoken by a garden-variety heterosexual
take on their original abhorrent meaning. [n]
> I can think of lots of words that fit this same mold. Are we
> *really* making a stand for what is just, or are we simply further
> dividing ourselves from other races and genders?
I think that we need to accept diversity without divisiveness.
While it's nice to think that everyone is created `equal', we're
really not -- some of us get a leg up from various kinds of
privilege, and some of us don't. I think we need to respect
everyone's background and who we each are as individuals, while
at the same time ensuring that no one is disadvantaged or
discriminated against for not conforming to the `norms' of
society. [2^n] Even in a utopian future in which all issues of
discrimination have long since ceased to exist, being equal doesn't
necessarily entail being the same.
> Quite frankly, I think it's the latter.
I disagree, but your argument certainly has merit.
> If you draw the line at being called a femme grrl jock dyke by the
> male species, you should draw that same line from others as well.
I disagree here as well, for reasons made explicit above.
[n] I highly recommend _A Straight Person's Guide to Gay Etiquette_
to everyone for the humour value, and to those who are enlightened
but queer-challenged for (possibly a smidgeon of) instructional value.
http://www.io.com/~wwwomen/queer/etiquette/intro.html
[2^n] Masculine-male, white, straight, upper class, etc, etc,
yuckyuckyuck. They aren't actually `norms' in the `average' sense;
just the `normative' sense.
Rick, noting that the .sig below was in fact randomly generated
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
In the life of every man above the rank of moron, there are times when
the urge to go mildly gay in exclusively masculine company becomes too
strong to be withstood.
:W. Heath Robinson, "How to be a Perfect Husband"
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
