[KS] Re: homosexuality thread and list participation

[Robert Armstrong]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

Is this still a subject that we are discussing?  Having been away for 
several days I have fallen behind on the discussions.  I have found some 
stuff relating to  "Korean gays" in history and would like to post it up
for 
those who are interested.  I too, remember going to Yonsei and being
told by 
my teacher that before the United States military came to Korea,there
were 
no gays.  Seems that the U.S. military has always been a convenient 
scape-goat.

Robert


>From: "michael Robinson" <mrobinso at indiana.edu>
>Reply-To: korean-studies at iic.edu
>To: <korean-studies at iic.edu>
>Subject: Re: homosexuality thread and list participation
>Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:07:46 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from [198.144.198.161] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id 
>MHotMailBBB719620042D820F3D4C690C6A105C20; Wed Oct 18 09:23:00 2000
>Received: (from root at localhost)by koreanctr.KoreanNet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id 
>JAA07904for korean-studies-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
>From korean-studies-owner at koreanctr.KoreanNet.org Wed Oct 18 09:27:15 2000
>Message-Id: <200010181600.JAA07904 at koreanctr.KoreanNet.org>
>References: <200010181451.HAA07668 at koreanctr.KoreanNet.org>
>Sender: owner-korean-studies at iic.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>
>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
> >

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.