From: vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: Gay Homophobia (was Re: Too straight looking to be gay???) (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:57:46 GMT

In <1992Aug21.183803.45@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

>/And you're doing *so* much better, Bob?  Look at your own statements again,
>/like this one:

>(me)
>>Right.  And the only thing keeping rape victims from coming forward
>>is themselves.  Not the bad media press, not the slanted judicial
>>system, not the public humiliation, nosiree.  Nothing else; it's their 
>>own fault, and what other people do doesn't impact their decision
>>one whit.

>Christ, you missed it.  Zoom; over your head.

Oh, prithee, enlighten me, o guru. . . .  8-)

>I was trying to illustrate to Arne how other external factors can influence
>a person's choice to do a brave or unpopular act.  People tend to examine
>their actions, and assess the costs to them.  Sometimes those costs are
>imposed by such entities as the press, media, public, and family.
>Arne seems to think that someone who is in the closet is their own 
>problem; he "has no patience" for them.  
>I was trying to point out (unsuccessfully, I guess) how such an assumption 
>of every person being an island, uninfluenced by externals, is a total 
>fallacy and a deliberate abdication of personal responsibility.

I would definitely agree.  What I *don't* agree with is your presumption
that drag queens are anathema.

>(vanyel)
>/It seems you've missed one of the contributing factors: The media,
>/in general has a tendency to portray homosexuality--*all* of it--as a Bad
>/Thing(tm).  

>This is interesting.  I get a mixed signal from the media; sometimes they
>portray it as good, other times as bad.  Is your perception that it is
>always (or overwhelmingly) bad?

It was.  I've seen changes.

>Also:  if the media is giving a bad portrayal, do we do ourselves a
>service by playing right into their hands and acting out the negative
>things they say about us?

"Acting out"?  For Goddess' sake, Bob, these people are just being who and
what they are!  Just as much as you or I do!  Why do you insist on this
queens-bring-it-on-themselves attitude?


>>Again:  if flamboyant gays didn't act so bizarre, it would be a 
>>hell of a lot easier for people on the edge of the closet to step
>>across that threshhold.  

>(vanyel)
>/That's like suggesting "punkers" make it impossible to like alternative
>/music.  

>No it isn't.  It's like suggesting that if Mormons wore weird clothes and
>rolled around on the floor during church services, that said Mormons would
>not be perceived positively.

If you can't see the fallacy in this, you're beyond hope.

>(vanyel)
>/Another example: I've been a little leery of Wicca, particularly after
>/reading _Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft_, to find myself
>/questioning whether I'd want to be around people who do such "weird" stuff.
>I used this very same example.  This VERY SAME EXAMPLE.  Did you see
>that post?  If you can use this example, and understand how important
>it is for Wiccans to come across as nonthreatening, down-to-earth 
>folks, then what prevents you from extending that same principle to
>gays?  

Time out.  I happen to *know* Wiccans--even before reading Buckland's book.
Since I look at magick from a pragmatic standpoint and don't see the need
for all the mysticism, I didn't like Buckland.

I don't like *any* religion because of the groupthink involved--the same
kind of groupthink you advocate, only with a malicious slant, when you make
the statement that "stereotypical" gays should completely change
themselves.

And did I say anywhere that I was prepared to ostracize these people for
not being "normal"?

>Or to put it another way:  if your Wiccan friends had acted out the
>negative things that you read in Buckland's book, don't you think you
>would probably have backed off from Wicca in a real hurry?  How are
>gays who willingly follow negative stereotypes any different?

WHO THE FUCK SAYS QUEENS "FOLLOW" ANYTHING, YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS BASTARD?

CAN'T YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR OVER-THICK SKULL THAT YOU'RE ATTACKING PEOPLE
FOR THE WAY THEY *ARE*, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THOSE STEREOTYPES?

ARE YOU *REALLY* THIS DENSE?

--
 ________________ Alan Williams  vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu ___________________
 \/ A hypothetical paradox: What would happen in a battle between an         \/
    _Enterprise_ security team, who always get killed soon after appearing,
    and a squad of Imperial Stormtroopers, who can't hit the broad side of
    a planet?                 	--Tom Galloway
Newsgroups: soc.motss