[KS] Re: homosexuality thread and list participation

michael Robinson mrobinso at indiana.edu
Wed Oct 18 12:07:46 EDT 2000


REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

Dear List:

I respond briefly to Young Rae Oum's clarification on the earlier
posting.  I appreciate the attempt to diversify as well as to clarify
the complexity of participation in different communities of practice. 
But in the midst of deconstructing for clarity purposes the stereotypes
and essentialized useages about such groups why does the use of the
common and undifferentiated sobriquet "white males" remain in use?  As a
"white male" I've developed a pretty thick skin (particularly living and
working as I do in a university setting) to the routine and unexplained
deployment of this essentialized category.  I can't even begin to
describe the horrors I am complicit in for the fact of my maleness and
skin color.  Is what is good for the goose never OK for the gander?  Or
is this phrase as well overly gendered or in some other way
unacceptable.  My apologies in advance.

Mike Robinson

----- Original Message -----
From: Young Rae Oum <youngrae at ma.ultranet.com>
To: <korean-studies at iic.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 3:03 AM
Subject: homosexuality thread and list participation


> Dear listers,
>
> I would like to respond to the two posts regarding my message.  Both
> messages focused on how I misinterpreted the term "boys."  I do not
> agree
> that "boys"  ALWAYS means adult gay men, and the context the term was
> used
> in the original message does not support this hypothesis, either.  I am
> also troubled by the underlying assumption that non-gays cannot quite
> understand "gay languages" (note the plural form, please), or cannot
> have a
> say in gay practices or politics, because gays are such different people
> than non-gays.
>
> Also, both missed my point on the racialized sexual exploitation.  Now,
> even if these white males who traveled to Korea and found Korean boys so
> available were not pedophiles (or "chicken hawks," in "gay languages"),
> they are still part of the exploitive sex tourism; exploitation of "the
> south"/ third world people by the first world white males.
>
> As I wrote already, put words like "women" or "men" in place of the
> "boys.": Korean men/women/people/lesbian women/gay men are very
> available.
> They are very open to sexual exploration with foreign travelers.  How
> does
> this sound?  Is it possible to overlook the violence and harm this
> statement carries?
>
> Finally, I do not agree with the moderator's comment on top of my
> message
> (and the personal message to me off-list) that my message is
> "inflammable"
> (verbatim) or dangerous (implied) or disrespectful (implied) or
> ungrateful
> (implied).  Quite contrary, I think the list needs to be diversified in
> terms of the authors and ideas and perspectives in order to thrive and
> even
> to survive.  I think the list must be open to self-deconstruction to be
> able to serve the cause the moderators are devoted to.
>
> What is the most destructive (thus really dangerous) is suffocation of
> different voices.  I do NOT mean that moderators did that singlehandedly
> nor even that they are capable of doing so.  I mean that the current
> list
> dynamics needs to be changed by broader participation and lively
> exchanges.
> A few people wrote me off list a sympathetic note but they did not feel
> comfortable enough to write on the list.  This shows how silencing can
> occur subtly and insidiously.
>
> With due respect and in all sincerity, I ask list moderators to open up
> the
> debate and invite people who have not yet responded to the thread, and
> perhaps never wrote on the list, write and contribute their
> perspectives.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Young Rae Om
>





More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list