For Monday’s ‘creative’ response I looked to “Gaga Feminism” for my topic and responded to various things concerning that and, I had meant to bring up a passage in class to look at but just never got around to actually saying it so what better time to do it than now? On page 84 there is a sentence that says, “…when a woman stops dating other female-bodied people and takes up with a biological male, people then refer to her as “going back to heterosexuality,” as if she had been on a short vacation, strayed away from her regular life but was now back on track.” And again, the sentence after; “…lesbianism can never be either an origin or a destination – in other words, it can never be a primary mode of identification, nor can it be the goal a woman might shoot for.” This suggests that lesbians only choose female partners because they have run out of options and must be desperate which is actually what various doctors, lawyers and priests thought about lesbianism in late 19th early 20th centuries. Although, for the masculine women they thought it was just something congenital or inherent. Because apparently, if a good-looking “normal” women chooses to go lesbian she is only doing it because of “certain dire circumstances”.
This is find highly interesting and wonder if the same thing was thought about men being gay. Do men only turn gay because they are unable to find someone that will love them? And what about the women that were mentioned earlier who, by the time they are in their 40’s and are still single end up choosing some undesirable older man because their pool of potential marriageable candidates has gone down. But, notice that they did not choose to go with a woman even though their situations would, under normal circumstances, be considered ‘dire’. People are always trying to define and find an origin to homosexuality like it’s a strange disease that has a cure if only we could find the cause of it all.
As for Duplerris’ “f-words” I can say that it is extremely dense and it took me half an hour just to get through half of it. Although I have to say I was actually able to somewhat read it this morning as opposed to before class on Monday when my brain was obviously at a low-functioning point. I won’t attempt to try to connect or find some revelation about the text but one thing that is obvious from it is that essay’s are a form of their own, completely separate from other literature and apparently unable to be categorized. It was interesting to see examples of the first few forms of essays (which didn’t seem like essays at all) transform into how the modern essay came to be. I never did think before just how complicated and complex the essay could be by just being a writing about a reading which is to say a wreading/writing text. Hopefully if I read the next half it will make more sense to me…hopefully, but doubtfully.
laurenrsblog 