|  | 
|  08-08-2011, 01:27 AM | #11 | ||
| Senior Member How Do You Identify?: *** Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: *** 
					Posts: 4,999
				 Thanks: 13,409 
		
			
				Thanked 18,283 Times in 4,166 Posts
			
		
	Rep Power: 21474854            |   Quote: 
 It does not. Of course. Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples. Let's look at this quote -- from Kobi, whom i did not mean to offend by not using her name. Quote: 
 There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking. But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore. My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples. But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else. So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context. 
				__________________ "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up" - Lily Tomlin | ||
|   |   | 
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Martina For This Useful Post: | 
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| 
 | 
 |