>>>>>>>>Innocence by association is your take on it.
I have made it clear that I don't know what Prof. Giovanni meant and I still don't know. Do you know what the poet meant? In 1968 and on Moyers show? I still don't.
I have said here, repeatedly, that I wish Moyers would have asked her when she was on the show and reading that poem.
Rationalize and understand are two different things.
I also said, that the use of the “f” word has a downside and gave an example of why:
"On the downside, if you google Giovanni and "faggoty" you find a lot of contemporary sites picking up this term, which is not good, as it perpetuates a slur."-bd12
That is not claiming “innocence by association,” that is pointing out the downside of setting loose a term such as “faggoty” in 1968 and finding that it has life in 2009 on MySpace. I said, that such a thing was not good.
"Sounds like you're coming close to saying that 'cause some in the gay community are "reclaiming" the word ( it was never a gay word to begin with so there's really no question of reclaiming anything..." - Smarmie Doofus>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.....on one or two points ( significant enough to bring them to your attention) , do I really have to go thru a litany of every thing you say with which I agree before I ask you to address the ... in this case, ONE... point with which I take issue? I hope not. You're not on trial and this is a message board and not a courtroom.
Yes. You prefaced you're remarks (responsibly, I might add) with multiple caveats and qualifications. It goes without saying that you would do so as this is your style and it is one of the reasons people here take you seriously. ( I myself have duly noted the thoroughnness of your research in the past and commented on it. True?) I even imitate it.
On to specifics:
1. no I do not "know" what Ms. Giovanni meant by her use of the word and said as much in another reply upthread.( no I don't know which one, but it's there.)That said: "faggoty" generally means "faggoty". Ms. Giovanni knows what its generally shared meaning is in the vernacular as do I, as do you. She alone knows what she meant to convey by its use and the rest of us are free... or compelled... to apply common sense as we read the poem.
2. If you aren't trying to mitigate the opprobrium attached to the use of a a blatantly homophobic term why bother including the reference to the gay band, "The Faggoty... whatevers" in the first place?
I'm not saying that's the ONLY thing you're doing or trying to do ( you'll likely say you're establishing perspective, context etc. etc.etc.). I'm saying that still doesn't hold up. The fact that some gay people ( idiotically in my view) wish to appropriate, or.... ugh! "reclaim"... "faggot" does not make a sound foundation for an argument, or even speculation, that it might now be "ok" for a non-gay academic to use it... even obscurely.
More later... if I can hold up. You've got evertything below but the proverbial kitchen sink. Suffice it to say you demonstrate a " youth and vigor of which I retain but a dim memory." ( It's a line from a movie.)
You'll excuse any typos; writing uncomfortably from my son's laptop. Shhh... I I must now re-reply to the OP.
I did find the actual word “faggoty” in contemporary use, from a gay band. I speculated, meaning "I wondered," if they thought they were “reclaiming” the word? I didn't say they were.
Can one claim something that is not one’s to start with? That’s an interesting question.
Pejorative terms belong to society and when the victim of a pejorative term seeks to “reclaim it” my understanding is they are reclaiming the term because it is found in common public usage, in an attempt to change it from a negative to a positive meaning. I could be wrong. If so, please show me why.
Let’s look at the concept of reclaiming slurs.
You can draw your own conclusions as to what a gay band calling themselves “Faggoty attention” meant, if anything, but I did include the band’s explanation, in addition to the further question about reclaiming, that I raised. Here’s what they said about why they used it:
"And he wasn't worried that using the word faggoty was offensive, “because in my circle of friends in New York, we use that term all of the time, and it's definitely not < said > to offend people."
This is an interesting finding in use in 2009, but no where did I say that because the gay band used the term, I did or did not agree with the term's use in a poem in 1968. I can’t say more about the poem because, as I said, I don’t know what the poet meant.
So I wondered, if the gay band thought that perhaps they were reclaiming the word? Speculation on my part.
Is it politically relevant to point out that gays cannot reclaim words they don’t use, but are the subject/target of? An interesting semantic distinction but is it missing the point?
Should the term be something like: desensitize it, defuse the negative context of, rather than, reclaim? Maybe demagnitize is a better word?
While we pick lint from our navels here, the world spins onward. Indeed, the issue of the reclamation of slurs does have a political genesis and intent.
For example:
.........
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=10704 "Faggot linguistic friend or foe? 2007
When you go around names of groups like ‘Queers and Allies’ and ‘Dykes on Bikes,’” agrees Sherman, “straight people – society as a whole – is going to be uncomfortable engaging you in dialogue, because from the very outset they have trouble with the words. They know they have a history of negative use, and so they are put in this sort of dilemma where they don’t know where to start.”
Need for education
In the final analysis, Kircheck argues, using the term “queer” does one of two things: It “radicalizes the demands of the gay rights movement or promotes the marginalization of gay people.”
“When people are so used to hearing the words ‘fag’ and ‘faggot,’ then it becomes almost acceptable for the general population to take in,” Mallory adds.
... If we are going to take on the rights to use words, and give ourselves the privilege of demagnetizing those words, then we also have to take on the responsibility that comes along with it. We have to educate on the hateful nature of
words.”
.......
Maybe these semantic discussions are a nit picking distinction without a difference?
Maybe gays just want “special rights” and maybe this is the “new left thought police” and we are taking “PC too far?”
To belabor the obvious, I have put those terms in quotes in case someone had the notion that those were my words. They are not. That was a straw man predicate to my question, using the language of the rabid right.
To answer the hypothetical rightwing voice, these words do matter. I think they do personally, that’s why I said the “f” word is still too much in use today as a negative to reclaim it, That's just MHO.
On the other hand, maybe that’s just me? well, not really, there was a pretty lengthy discussion on the inter net at a blog site that I like and a blogger whom I admire and often quote here on GLBT, from Pam’s House Blend.
Words hurt. Nuances are important and even gays and allies are prone to committing some offenses when using certain terms. It’s a matter of education first, not condemnation, that’s my opinion. Oh, in case that is misunderstood, education first and not condemnation, unless the subject is recalitrant and refuses to understand the nature of the hurtful pejoratives.
Here is what the Pam’s House Blend discussion looked like:
.....
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9316 “Nuance Lost On Some LGBT Journalists Using The Term "Tranny"
by: Autumn Sandeen
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM EST
There are three gay men and a lesbian at a bar. Gay Man A calls Gay Man B a "faggot" in the course of the conversation. Gay Man B says to Gay Man A:
"Please don't call me a 'faggot'; I believe the term 'faggot' is derogatory. My friend was beaten up recently, and his attackers screamed 'faggot' at him while they were beating him up. I find the term offensive.
Gay Man A replies:
Gay Man C and I read in an interview that a bisexual who starred on the L Word said that gay people are reclaiming the word 'faggot.' So, we think it's identifying gay men as 'faggots' is fine because the actress said it was fine.
Hey, we're going to keep calling us all 'faggots,' and we think you're overreacting in objecting to being called 'faggot.' We're reclaiming the word for our community, and you should too.
Lesbian A chimes in:
Oh, okay. Since gays are now reclaiming the term 'faggot' for their community members, I'll start calling all gay men 'faggots' too.”
...............
How about reclaiming the word, “queer?”
Was that ever a gay word? Not when I was growing up. It was a slur and coming from certain non-gay quarters today, it still is.
Yet, the word queer has been considered as a term that may be politically “reclaimed” or ripe for political reclamation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer “Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities, by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight, and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender." It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer" identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" ("straight-acting") homosexuals.”
................
Thats was fun, Paul. Got me thinking.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
