[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
re:tuna and ellignson part 2
tuna wrote:
>>>>>>
Glenn says we should consider using argumentatively valid
constructs, not name-calling fallacies, and this is your response.
"yes, we should all conduct ourselves like white upper class males and only
use the language used for centuries to exclude womyn and persons of color
for centuries. I applaud your elitist sentiments."
Straw person. This is not Glenn's argument. You do not show why or how a more
polite discourse is connected to this agenda in any way. To say that women
and people of color are empowered by the sort of rhetoric you seem to be
championing here is a profound insult to them. In fact, substantial evidence
exists to show that the use of profanity in discourse is directly connected
to the expression of male power. Rodger Biles was showing me some very
interesting material on this last year at Emporia.
>>>>>>
i partially agree with tuna's sentiments and his partial representation of
the language of profanity. there are certain language choices striken from
my vocabulary for the sexist and racist connotations conveyed, but the use
is context driven at several levels. i believe that it is appropriate and
cooptive for members of oppressed groups to steal language from oppressors,
and my use of certain profane words and phrases in opposite gender roles is
also an attempt to alter the meaning of that language. this, however, is
mischaracterized as a straw person. although i have not discussed with
professor biles the specific studies to which you refer, using these studies
to indict all profanity is unwarrented. in any case, many language studies
point to the exclusionary nature of upper crust english and the
"professional" usage to exclude womyn and persons of color.
david
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page