Reply to comment

I have always wondered about the act of "reclaiming," chaning the meaning and connotations of language and terms that have been used as methods of oppression.  Susan Stryker comments that "words like 'creature,' 'monster,' and 'unnatural' need to be reclaimed by the transgendered.  By embracing and accepting them, even piling one on top of another, we may dispel their ability to harm us" (Stryker 246). My curiousity with reclaiming relates to the change in connotation that only seem to be prevelant and understood in that specific culture.  By adopting the terms that have been used to marginalize and then adapting them in an effort to unify, it seems as though the words would have lost all power.  Reclaiming also seems exclusive, as it does not attempt include outsiders, excluding those that may one day become insiders.   This idea is similar to the conversation we have had in class about the term "feminist" and whether or not it is possible to identify with a term you do not fully understand.

Jessy seems to be addressing the same issues with language in "see minotaur": "There aren't any words for what I am, not real words, that just anyone would understand....  I'm never what they have in mind" (Brody 2).  Jessy's situation seems to be a little different as it is an attempt to define the individual and not a group.

I am wondering how it is possible to define yourself within a group?  If you identify as female, you are not solely female; instead that characteristics makes up only one part of your personal identity.  I would what the role of language (and naming and reclaiming) has to do with the way in which we define ourselves as individuals and in groups.  By placing ourself in one group (female, male, transgendered), are we not thereby assuming that we understand that group and thus can define it?  How does the relate to the conversations we've been having  in class about identifying as a "feminist"?