I wrote:
"The classification alone means the group is defined by their
sexual preferences. Add that the main stereotype of gay men,
even now, but especially then, is that they act feminine and
the problem for Marlowe becomes that they are nothing more
than tarts in male drag."
Martha replied:
"i would guess that you'd get a LOT of argument from gay men
about your contention that they define themselves by their
sexuality. that strikes me as a rather offensive
generalization, but i'll leave it at that."
For the record, I did not say that any homosexuals define
themselves by their sexuality, alone or even mainly. I meant
the label, or classification, used from within or without,
defines them that way. Excuse me while I lapse into a
cultural studies outlook for a moment, but labeling tends to
unfairly reduce entire groups of people to single traits.
Those traits are usually the summary of how they are "other"
than the, often idealized or mythologized, majority, status
quo, hegemoonic view.
For instance, much of the recent discussion of female writers
revolved around the question of whether they could be lumped
into a single mindset other than the, once, majority male
view of hardboiled.
Martha went on to write:
"the issue of marlowe's homophobia is interesting to me,
particularly in light of his very odd relationship with red
in FAREWELL MY LOVELY."
Now this is an interesting observation. I've always thought
the bomb under the toilet scene in Lethal Weapon II was a
declaration of love scene that could be transferred to a
Julia Roberts romantic comedy with few, if any, changes. Of
course, they'd have to actually say the word instead of just
saying, "I know" as they gaze into each other's eyes.
Mark
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 30 Aug 2001 EDT