Subject: Re: bananafish-digest V1 #216
gauthier@SLU.EDU
Date: Thu Feb 27 1997 - 05:09:17 GMT
AK said:
>
> Uhhhhh, you think I did or would want to do "research" on you? HAHAHA!
> That's even sorta freaky. Whoa.
>
Well, AK, I've done some research on you. All of your former teachers
commented on your inability to grasp sarcasm.
>
> Ummmm, when did I ever say or insinuate that society didn't believe it was
> liberal? So the fuck what society believes. Fuck that. I guess because
> Nazism viewed killing Jews as being acceptable, well then, that must have
> made it acceptable, right? WRONG. And that's YOUR logic buddy. Ew.
>
AK, breathe deeply, work on getting some oxygen to your brain here. You
say "fuck what society believes." The problem with that, of course, is
that society (right or wrong) makes the policies. The only way to change
policies is by changing society's opinions. I NEVER said that not
allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a good idea. Your "fuck" society
attitute, however, won't change the law though. The point that I made is
that we must live in society. We had to live in a society inwhich the
Nazis extirminated over 6 million Jews. Saying "fuck society" wouldn't
change that. It ended up taking an act of war; in a better world, we
would have changed society's opinions before the holocaust.
> > >
>
> > Now, round 4:
> >
> >
> > In "Down at the Dingy" the servants make comments about Lionel's fathers
> > nose (he's Jewish). In this case, the character being bashed through
> > stereotypes (like I've argued in "Eskimos") is meant to be received with
> > compassion--a point that the namecallers seem to ignore.
> >
>
> First of all, uh, by calling people namecallers you're being a namecaller
> yourself, you god damned hypocrite. Secondly, how does anyone ignore
> this? What the hell?
>
Well, when in Rome . . .
More importantly, though, you ignore part of this passage. The servants
make fun of Lionel suggesting that he'll have the misfortune of receiving
his father's nose. Now there are two possibilities here.
1) Lionel's father is Jewish and has a stereotypically Jewish nose.
or
2) Lionel's father is Jewish but actually has a quite normal nose. The
servants evidently have such poor vision they could never check for
themselves.
Also, by suggesting repeatedly that I am homophobic, I believe you must
be ignoring my suggestion that Eric is a figure who Salinger believes
deserving of compassion. You see, a homophobe would believe that Eric
deserves imprisonment or something far worse.
> In "For Esme" Esme uses stereotypes: she says most Americans act like
> > animals. Sergeant X takes her to task for making such a suggestion, but if
> > you read these stories at all carefully, we see that most Americans (adults
> > in particular) do behave like animals.
> >
>
> Uhhh, ok, so Salinger had one of his characters state a stereotype
> directly. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo the fuck what? What the hell is the
> point here? I thought we were talking about Salinger's supposed
> deliberate attempt to indicate to his readers that Eric was gay through
> stereotypical characteristics, not about whether or not JDS characters
> state stereotypes in dialogue.
>
I believe what I am setting up here is that Salinger does in fact USE
stereotypes. The most prevalent one, actually, is one we have not
discussed. The WASP. Clearly there are a number of characters fulfilling
the expected stereotypes of a WASP.
> > I might also suggest we look at Eric's characteristics in another (more
> > theoretical light) than simply "stereotype." We should talk about gender
> > codes. One's sex is biologically determined. You are either male or
> > female.
>
> WRONG! What about hermaphrodites (sp?)? BUSTED, d00d! haha
Right. There are rare cases where an individual is XXY or XXXY, etc.
Unless you think this applies to Eric, it's irrelevant to the point.
> > >
> > Why is this important? Well, as everyone has so astutely noticed.
> > Thinking that a man is gay because he crosses his legs, likes women's
> > fashion, speaks with a high voice, etc., are all stereotypes. The thing
> > is, men in the late 1940's would NOT want to be thought of as being gay.
> > So men consciously would choose not to cross their legs like women, talk
> > about women's fashion, use a high-pitched voice, etc. And Salinger makes
> > it fairly clear that doing such things are choices--yes, even the high
> > voice. Remember, Eric speaks through his layrnx rather than his
> > diagragm. That is something that he can control. Just as the leg
> > crossing, etc. So, what this shows us is that Eric is choosing to gender
> > himself as a female in society. A society that was homophobic (openly
> > gay men were court marshalled during WWII). Why would he do this? Just
> > because he enjoyed risking being beat up on the street?
> >
> > I think not.
> >
>
> Under this logic, I think that we should all assume that my good friend
> Malcolm Lawerence is gay, because he has stereotypically female gender
> traits. After all, why in the world would Malcolm want to be considered
> gay IN THE 1990'S when gays are still oppressed? He *chooses* to act the
> way he does, right? And so, because Malcolm CHOOSES these stereotypically
> female gender traits, HE MUST BE GAY, because as I said, gays are STILL
> OPPRESSED in the 1990's, so my good friend Malcolm MUST BE GAY. Right
> d00d? Right? Right? *WRONG*.
I left my initial paragraph in full because my argument was based upon
the story taking place in 1940. Read slowly if you must. Read twice if
necessary. Obviously, in my paradigm (and actually I'm borrowing it from
one developed in a Female Modernisms seminar) the 1990's are far more
androgynous than the 1940's were. Plenty of men cross their legs now;
plenty of men have long hair; plenty of women have short hair; plenty of
women wear pants; plenty of men wear earrings.
I went to a university in the South, and I still remember my sociology
professor telling me the story about how the professors used to bet on
how long it would take for the new students who had long hair to cut it
off. At the time, pre-Beatles I would guess, it never took over a
month. What does this show? Society norms behaviors. Just as the
students at the university didn't want to be out of place because they
had long hair, men in the 1940's would not want to exhibit
characteristics that would gender them as female. To do so would suggest
to 1940's society that one was gay.
>
> Yes Paul, I'm sure that "queer theorists" would be very happy with your
> justifying literary analysis through the use of stereotypical assumptions
> about homosexual. Mm hmmmm, they'd be very happy, yup. Pffft.
>
Reread my post until you can grasp the concept. Men in the 1940's would
repress homosexual stereotypes to a much greater extent than is necessary
today. Clearly, gays and lesbians are still marginalized in our society,
but their position is improving. I could point to any number of recent
polls that suggest society (and reread my post if you don't understand
why society matter) is more accepting of homosexuality. The percentage
of people, for example, who approve of gay/lesbian marriages has
increased significantly in the last two decades. It's still not at the
50% or so they'll need for a change in law (accomplished by politicians
or judges).
Paul, who has long hair and is crossing his legs as he types.
p.s. C O U L D Y O U D I M T H E H I G H B E A M S ?
Shouting the loudest doesn't mean you win the argument.
-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:59:01 GMT