From: b.scott@csuohio.edu
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:49:08 +1200, Zeborah
wrote in
in
rec.arts.sf.misc:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:06:52 +1200, Zeborah
>> wrote in
>> in
>> rec.arts.sf.misc:
>>> I'd feel happier if the intent of "gutless wonder [etc]"
>>> were represented by the words "gutless wonder [etc]" (or
>>> similar) rather than by words that, particularly in this
>>> context, unwittingly reinforce a stereotype that
>>> 'effeminate' or homosexual men are gutless wonders.
>> In my neck of the woods the words are to a large extent
>> divorced from that stereotype.
> So divorced that people don't know where they come from?
Not for me, and not for many others, but that's the wrong
question. You should be asking whether the origin comes to
mind when the phrases are used. That varies by person and
context; at least with 'pansy-ass' it frequently does not,
and I have the impression that some may in fact not even
know its origin.
> Okay. In mine they're very much not, and are quite
> offensive. As rasfc includes many necks of the wood, I
> think people are best to be aware of the fact.
That cuts both ways, however.
>> More important, I've very
>> little doubt that the quotation marks, like those around 'to
>> the pain', are there for a reason. Perhaps they're another
>> quotation; perhaps they're merely intended to indicate that
>> someone other than Wasp is speaking, to make the point that
>> a character can be good and still appeal to those who would
>> naturally use such language to condemn a too-wimpish
>> character.
> I took them as the quotation marks one tends to put around
> definitions. Your interpretation feels strained to me,
> though I'd be prepared to accept it if Sea Wasp were to
> say that's how he intended it.
It seems entirely natural to me, especially when we
know that the other set of quotation marks in the post do
indicate a quotation.
> But even if they were intended to indicate that the insult
> was someone else's, the offensiveness of the words
> deserves, I think, a clearer disclaimer.
And I think that you're overreacting.
> If he didn't know that a clearer disclaimer would be
> useful, because he didn't know the words were offensive,
> then, well, that's why I posted: so that he would know.
Your initial response doesn't make that point. Even if it
had, he didn't see it; true, you didn't know that at the
time, but you chose not to enlighten him after you found
out. And yes, I do think that it could have been done in
rasfc.
>>One might ask instead of condemning out of hand.
> I have a) pointed out how his words might be easily
> interpreted as offensive, and b) stated a personal
> preference on how one might avoid giving such offense. I
> do not believe I have anywhere condemned, and I am rather
> taken aback that you accuse me of it.
The mere fact that you refuse to discuss it in rasfc implies
some degree of condemnation, as does your unwillingness to
entertain eminently reasonable hypotheses about his intent.
It seems to me that you are assuming that the problem is on
the writer's end and refusing to consider the possibility
that it might be on the reader's end. Perhaps it *is* on
the writer's end -- I don't claim to know for sure what Sea
Wasp actually had in mind -- but it seems a bit ungenerous
to assume so when one can ask.
By the way, just in case it's not clear, I'm much more
bemused than upset or annoyed.
Brian
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
