Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Generating today's class discussion
To start class today, I would like you to reflect on the issues or questions that you think are the most significant from today’s reading. That is, what do you think we should talk about? Take a few minutes and describe what you found most interesting from our reading and pose a few questions to the rest of class that you think would generate a meaningful discussion. Post your reflection and your questions here as a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the readings for today were all very interesting and were very easy to follow and understand. I think one of the major things I walked away was from Within the Family. The point that stood out to me the most was the idea of sexuality separating different races specifically Anglo American from all different races.
ReplyDeleteIn the other reading I found it very interesting how there is no real way to come up with a time line for homosexual activity, because even the word homosexual can’t really be used to describe the people doing queer acts. I also found the passage about Oscar Wilde very eye opening as Oscar Wilde is one of my favorite writers, and how his own life allowed a type if model for gay men to pose themselves after even they may not of had the same type if personality it just allowed them to have an image.
Although I found both readings interesting, my comment is about the reading "A Brief, Slanted History of 'Homosexual' Activity". I find it interesting the disection of the general terms that are used to describe people, their sexual preferences and the sexual activities they participate in. This is most interesting to me because at the basis of all the different ideas that queer theory, gender studies...produce is the definitions behind the words used in association with the ideas. If we can change the way in which one thinks about a word, essentially you will be able to change the entire idea. It is interesting to see throughout time what these words have come to mean (gay, lesbian, homo/hetero sexual...) and how these words are time and culture bound in their meaning. Across different time periods and cultures the meanings differ, how will they change next?
ReplyDeleteWhat I thought was interesting: Well, first of all, I was not aware that there was a public discourse about the norms of sexuality during the 1800's. Perhaps this public dialogue, and private enforcement influenced the hostility that Anglo-Americans often felt towards races with different sexual practices. I was unfamiliar with the benefits of certain sexual practices in Native American and Mexican communities. These were misconstrued by people traveling westward. I am interested to know how the misconstruction of "queer" sexual practices developed into labels and terms that we use today, and are loaded with connotations and associations.
ReplyDeleteI really like looking into the classical past of the "slanted history of Homosexuality." Going from the time period of the ancient days when homosexuality was looked at as a norm or a common act in society as it moves into the time period of the church when it was looked at as a "crime against nature." The United States seems to be stuck in between these two notions stating in the declaration perusing "the pursuit of happiness" but this does not entail ones own sexuality. I kind of want to know with the examples of the what has happened in the past, where does expectance of homosexuality lie for the future. If the past often times repeats itself what will be the next to be repeated?
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most interesting things in the reading was the concept of female romantic friendships, even though they didn't really have action in a public space. I feel like this relates to issues in this time period in America, which is very interesting; however, it also connects with many cultures in the Middle East currently. I think this notion of the seperation of sexes continues to allow for these intereactions, until women enter the public arena.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is very interesting the biological and dominant role the medical feild plays in the development of homosexuality. At first it was biologically possible to explain why people of color were lower than whites. Previous to that there was medical literature explaining why women were lover than men. And after both of these exmaples, we see again, the dominant, masculine AMA coming in to define homosexuality in general, and then explain why they are lower than normal or heterosexuals.
I found the story about Eliza Grayson to be a most interesting construction of race and social standing in American history. The way that white society had to question her so intensely to see if she was eligible for her husband’s pension rights. I also noted that white society was using systems to define marriage that Eliza Grayson did not have access to like a priest or her own home while she was a slave. I thought it was strange that the pension officer asked about her first son from the slave owner’s son. I would think she would not want to mention that child. My question is how does race currently define what relationships are valid or not valid?
ReplyDelete