From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:46:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Aug28.144609.5229
Organization: insert anything here

csjgp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jim Pierson) writes:

>The thing that pains me about this thread is that everyone seems bent on
>beating the 'other guys' down rather than discussing any issue.  
>I wonder if anyone else reading the thread has read <After the Ball> by
>Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.  The book outlines a possible strategy
>for gays in the USA to help straight society "conquer its fear and
>hatred of Gays...".  Many of the actions they suggest make use of some
>of the same kind of thinking Mr. Sarver has been spewing forth.  
	
	Mr. Sarver is a Kirk/Madsen clone.

>The difference is that Kirk and Madsen present their ideas with little
>judgement, and stating full knowledge and sympathy for other positions.

	Oh, bullshit.  _AtB_ was the queer (no, wait, I mean "kwir")
version of _Animal Farm_.  It sought to achieve equality for
some by marginalizing all elements that weren't marketable. In
communities that are in any way like that (read: EL Paso TX)
the stagnation and loack of support within the GBLO* (really GL)
community is overwhelming.

	I suggest you go back and reread those "non-judgemental"
passages and see the internalized homophobia within.  

	And, why do these parts of the GBLO*-community need "sympathy"?
That in of itself displays quite clearly the non-equal equality rampant
within AtB.  "Sympathy" implies (using definition 4b in the dictionary),
pity or compassion felt another's suffering, etc.  That in turn suggests
to me that the sympathetic person feels that there should be something
different about the person he/she has sympathyy for.

	In short, a non-acceptance of them for who they are.

	This is the same problem we are supposedly fighting.

	How then, can the solution for this first problem be a
continuation of the *same* things within our own community?
Such an approach is illogical and fallacious.

>While I do not agree with everything they put forth, I feel they raise
>many interesting points to ponder and discuss.

	Yes, this is true - but most of them revolve around how
the idea that dividing our community into "presentable" and
"not presentable" (or alternatively, "good" and "bad") for the
sake of "gaining equality" represents the ultimate incongruity.
	
>Does anyone else know the book?  If so, I'd really like to hear your
>opinions of it (and it's relationship to the issues at the bottom of
>this thread's 'flamefest'.)

	I think you just got it.  The book is dreck.  If I sound
overly-forceful, please understand it is *not* directed at you,
but at the KMS crew.  In the 3 (?) years that book has been out,
it's come up several times here, and in "real-life".  IMHO that book
has set back gay rights, by misdirecting energy into labelling,
and judging each other as "worthy" instead of in the area it
is best put to use.

	For this thing to be "right" it would also imply that we
have all the people we need (since we can start excluding whole
bunches of people because they are different).  If that is
the case, then why hasn't anything been done already?  

	One doesn't have to think very long to realize that
people of the Sarver/Kirk/Madsen ilk (oh, there's that word again),
*talk* a lot about what's wrong about their gay community, but never
really get around to actually contributing anything.

	This is in great contrast to  things like Stonewall which
was initiated by the same people KMS et al. want to exclude.
Yet another blatant example of how AtB seeks to cut itself off
from what it needs most.  What AtB does allow is a way to "blend"
thereby giving the apolitical the ability to completely hide
from the mainstream and from their responsibility.  Eventually
though the covers will be ripped off in a witch-hunt and they'll
be able to rest on the support they've assembled (i.e. next to none,
since alienating most of the community gives little and the "status
quo of invisibility" is exactly what those who hate us want).

	AtB represents sociological insecurity: "We're here,
we're queer, but we're not *quite* proud enough to accept our
differences"...  

	Of course, you'll find that most people here will more-or-less
agree with this.  People like Mr. Sarver will just chalk it up to
"the great cabal"...  The weird thing is that a lof of us have moved
beyond the "I'd like *them* more if they were more like *us*" thing
but we don't feel like devolving to AtB's "standards".

	Again, I'm sorry to reply so forcefully against AtB,
but you *did* ask, and it *is* a sore point in the GBLO* community.
Some of the things you said up top implies that you don't buy 
some/most of what's in AtB... so I don't consider your posting to
be any kind of endorsement.  Like I said, my anger is directed to
those up there preaching this stuff really believing it - I'm flaming
the message, not the messenger...

Cheers, 
BBC