I realize that the above reference might fall on deaf ears so before I get into this I have to explain myself. The reference is to the game Skyrim and this is the message that pops up when the character gains a new "Word of Power" from a dragon. Words of power are abilities that help the main character in combat, with effects such as freezing time or launching enemies away from them. In this context, however, I want to relate this phrase to an question that doesn't yet, and may not soon, have a clear answer. The question at hand being 'do words have power?' I think David Sedaris would probably respond in the affirmative in his work "I Like Guys" because of his experience with the word 'faggot.' At multiple points throughout the narrative Sedaris finds himself tickled by the words use, or, at least, that's what he knows you are supposed to do when that word is said. There is a scene in the narrative in which Sedaris finds himself at a Greek summer camp with counselors that throw the word around with a clear disregard for its meaning with phrases like "What are you, a bunch of goddamned faggots who can't make your beds?" Sedaris and another character, Jason both laugh and even start using the word together as part of their shenanigans "when the others weren't looking." They use the word in a purely mocking way but Sedaris acknowledges the fact that "We couldn't protest the word, as that would have meant acknowledging the truth." As if protesting the word bestows power on the word and that to throw the word around keeps it from meaning anything or gaining any personal value.
This brings up an interesting point about the argument of words as powerful versus words as subjective. Today, there is a lot of talk about political correctness and I think the argument has started to lean toward the side of words as powerful. This movement, however, has met its fair share of resistance as there are, probably, an equal number of people who believe the old adage "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Could this be true? As I stated previously there is no clear answer to this question. In favor of the words as powerful argument, there are many contexts in which words have very explicit and direct power over a person. Most notably in the courtroom, where, when used by the appropriate person at the appropriate time, 'sentence' carries much more than a denotation. Now that word holds debt, future time, relationships, and lives in the balance. Is this the case for 'faggot' though? One cannot say, some might say that its real and it hurts, while others would say "my rights don't end where your feelings begin." As for David Sedaris, I think the argument is made very clearly that, to some, a word is much more than a word. A word is power, and if sociology is right that power is 'the ability to make binding decisions for yourself or others,' than we know that words carries much more than a meaning.
Showing posts with label gender studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender studies. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Yes, I'd like to cash in on this relationship, please.
Dowry is a concept that both boggles my mind and makes perfect sense. From medieval times and even up to today in some cultures it was and is customary for one or both parties of a marriage to make some sort of material settlement to pay for the union of two people, in love or otherwise. Jimmy Zizmo stood to make a substantial amount of money for his marriage to Sourmelina and as we saw later in the text with lines like, "No dowry!...Why did you get married, then?..." and "If you don't get paid, don't get married,"it also seems to be the main selling point (pun intended) for him. Clearly he does not care very deeply for Sourmelina; in fact he does not really seem to care at all about her happiness. Because of this and his focus on the monetary gains of marrying a foreign girl he ends up treating his wife "more like a daughter than a wife... howling over the price and necklines of her outfits," generally being more concerned with the cost and behavior of his marriage than any other facet.
We also see issues of inheritance in Silence, obviously, since it is, in fact, one of the key points of the story. Firstly, Queen Eufeme herself used as an object with which the Norwegian king uses to end the war with King Evan. Secondly, Silence is raised his whole life as a boy and is only told of the fact that he was born a girl when he became a preteen. This was, presumably, hard for Silence to understand at first but it becomes clear that he will in fact keep the secret for his own sake and that of his parents when he says "Don't worry the least little bit/ So help me God, I will do it/ I will conceal myself from everyone." It is an issue that continually arises in the story as Silence must work hard to conceal his secret, especially when Queen Eufeme begins to desire him sexually and the struggle becomes not only to conceal himself, but also to stay on the queen's good side so that she doesn't have him killed for being a heretic as the French seems to imply.
The reason that these concepts seem somewhat logical to me comes about differently in each story. In the case of Middlesex the dowry paid by Sourmelina's family is to ensure that the man they are giving her to will keep her and at least minimally care for her. In the case of Silence, specifically that of Eufeme, the king of Norway must weigh which is more important; the marriage of his daughter, or the lives of his people.
These circumstances are however, very objectifying for the women involved and a clear statement of the role of women beyond that of wife and caretaker in the far, and not so far past.
We also see issues of inheritance in Silence, obviously, since it is, in fact, one of the key points of the story. Firstly, Queen Eufeme herself used as an object with which the Norwegian king uses to end the war with King Evan. Secondly, Silence is raised his whole life as a boy and is only told of the fact that he was born a girl when he became a preteen. This was, presumably, hard for Silence to understand at first but it becomes clear that he will in fact keep the secret for his own sake and that of his parents when he says "Don't worry the least little bit/ So help me God, I will do it/ I will conceal myself from everyone." It is an issue that continually arises in the story as Silence must work hard to conceal his secret, especially when Queen Eufeme begins to desire him sexually and the struggle becomes not only to conceal himself, but also to stay on the queen's good side so that she doesn't have him killed for being a heretic as the French seems to imply.
The reason that these concepts seem somewhat logical to me comes about differently in each story. In the case of Middlesex the dowry paid by Sourmelina's family is to ensure that the man they are giving her to will keep her and at least minimally care for her. In the case of Silence, specifically that of Eufeme, the king of Norway must weigh which is more important; the marriage of his daughter, or the lives of his people.
These circumstances are however, very objectifying for the women involved and a clear statement of the role of women beyond that of wife and caretaker in the far, and not so far past.
Gender St[what]ies?
As a student of gender studies, the academic readings assigned to
me by professors and passed along to me by friends have been saturated by
overcomplicated language and theories that would only make sense to a scholar
of feminist thought. The inaccessibility of much of what I have read during my
time in academia has made it difficult for me to describe in layman’s terms
what the heck I have learned at Austin College, causing my family to be
extremely confused as to what the connotations of being a gender studies major
are. When I read Julia Serrano’s “Performance Piece” in Gender Outlaws,
the statement she made, “…when we make judgments about other people’s genders,
we’re typically basing it on our own assumptions…” (87) was all too real in
connection with my family’s understanding of my identity based on my focus of
study.
Last semester I took time off halfway through my senior year and
moved to my native El Paso and spent, what was for the first time in my adult
life, an extended amount of time with my grandparents who are both well into
their nineties. Belonging to a generation predating the Baby Boomers, their
gender identities have been shaped by and perpetuate separate sphere
ideologies. Needless to say, my interests and the way I present myself are
confusing to them; I remember being 19, sitting in a diner with my grandmother
after I decided on a major and having her ask me pointedly if I were gay:
Three years and a couple of heterosexual relationships later, I am
driving my grandfather to the doctor just days after the Orlando shooting when
the car conversation turns to homosexuality. I mentally prepare myself for my
grandfather to reveal some disappointing truths about himself, but he surprises
me:
“You know,
homosexuality is not for me—it makes me really sad, but I have
never
thought that anyone chooses to be gay
when they wake up in the morning.
Why would
anyone choose that for themselves? No, I think they were born that
way and it
makes me sad but I can’t do anything about that at my age except
love them.
That’s what they are in need of right now, more love. You know, if
you told me now
you were a lesbian I wouldn’t do anything except love you
more. What
do you think about that?”
Stunned by my grandfather’s admission of love, which in some ways
shattered my assumptions about his generation’s bigoted thinking, all I could
say was, “That’s really great Opa, but I have a boyfriend.”
Serrano’s piece nailed it, assumptions make an ass out of
everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
