Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Martina

....Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples....

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....

If it's a "normal way of thinking", and research verifies it, what's the problem?

What you're sayng, here, is simply not logical or accurate. It's a false conflation. Defining oneself differently is not oppositional. It does not equate to a disavowal.

If I say: I am me, you are you, that's not disavowing you (or anyone else). It's simply saying You're not me. When did it become NOT okay to say You're not me?

ANSWER: When objectivity (demonstrable fact) caved to subjectivity (feelings), that's when. Yes, some "facts" are proven wrong over time, but proving them wrong never makes feelings facts.

(BTW, there hasn't been even a whiff of anybody disavowing anyone/or group in this thread. It's simply been lesbians saying: As a lesbian I feel marginalized in the community . Yes, that means someone or some group has been doing the marginalizing. That isn't a disavowal - it's a call for reflection.)

Originally Posted by Martina

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.

EXCEPT when straight women ARE, demonstrably, "less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity" as they strive to fit a patriarchal paradigm.

Originally Posted by Martina

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.

What, then, are you calling the lesbians in this thread who do feel marginalized? "Dangerous" discoursers???? If so, I'm down with it.

Originally Posted by Kobi

"The rheotoric of oppression. Poor me stuff. SOUND like victims."

Wow powerful stuff. Sends a big message. In the midst of what is going on here, it is plain and simple deflection. And, it is further evidence of misogyny, sexism, and homophobia being alive and well in our own community.

Maybe about the "misogyny, sexism, and homophobia" stuff, maybe.... Then again, maybe it's just post-modern/gender theory hermeneutics. You know, the discourse of it's okay when I do it, you, not so much because everything is relative and subjective until I say it's not.

Really Kobi , ya gotta get down with the post-modern semiotics or you're not going to see the big picture, or be welcome in the big tent.

Originally Posted by Kobi

.....Funny things those semantics huh?

I'll say.

[Kobi]

Per wikipedia:


Semiotics, also called semiotic studies or (in the Saussurean tradition) semiology, is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which, for its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. Semiotics is often divided into three branches:

Semantics: Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata, or meaning
Syntactics: Relations among signs in formal structures
Pragmatics: Relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication.[citation needed] However, some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science. They examine areas belonging also to the natural sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics or zoosemiosis.

Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[1] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences."[2] Charles Morris adds that semantics deals with the relation of signs to their designata and the objects which they may or do denote; and, pragmatics deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, that is, with all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning of signs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

My "wtf does this mean/now I have to figure it out dont I?" chore of the day. Thanks Chazz LOL.

[Chazz]

Sorry, Kobi.

It's just that a misspoken word, a poor turn of phrase, can result in page after page of gender warfare.

My use of the term "Semiotics" was me balancing on one toe as I walked on eggshells. Successful or not, I strive for clarity. I also try and show that words have meaning and that some words are more meaningful than others.