HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:20:26 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Nov17.160658.29988@osf.org> 
coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:
>In article <1e938tINNpgo@mizar.usc.edu>, 
> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> > Absolutely my feelings on the matter, too.  But I know one
> > of the principles in this case, and the facts that have been
> > presented so far are partial at best and do not take into
> > consideration a whole host of other issues having to do
> > with the change in adminstration that occured at the time 
> > and the unwillingness of a number of students to adjust
> > to a restructured program.
>
> This is extremely interesting. Either I missed something, or you've
> been holding out on us, Arne; this is the first indication *I've* seen
> that you knew anything about this case apart from what Scott posted
> here. 

Well, I did *hint* that I know about more than was posted 
about this, and from the other side.  (I did say that I've 
been connected tangentially to the UCLA theater department 
for the last 15 years and that I know a former CMU faculty 
member (who's now on the UCLA faculty, shaking up UCLA's
acting program the way he shook up CMU's 10 years ago).)

> Judging from the latter, it seemed to me at least plausible that
> there was something extra-curricular going on here, and that gay men
> had been singled out (in substantial numbers) as targets.

I still think it hightly unlikely that the mere fact they're 
gay is what did them in.

> Meanwhile,
> you seemed to be arguing from general principles about the role of a
> drama school and the actors enrolled in it, implying strongly that
> your view of what had happened was based on the evidence *as Scott had
> presented it*.

Even if I hadn't been a little familiar with the issue 
before it came up here, I would have argued the same way.

> If you actually knew that the facts were otherwise, or incomplete as
> presented, it might have saved a lot of mostly useless argument if you
> had said so much earlier.

Are you chiding me, Mr. Coren?  Well!  I was treading on
eggshells throughout the argument, particularly as I could
smell "I'm gonna sue!" in the air (even though the statute
of limitations has run out).  I still am surprised that 
people seem to think a highly specialized, professionally-
oriented college acting program is like a bachelor's degree
program in chemistry, or is like acting in the real world.
CMU's program is like the (infamous) Iowa writing program --
the people who come out of it are extremely polished and
employable, and they're just like everyone else who's come
out of the program.  Both seek to rub the rough edges off
students, and it is those rough edges that I, for one, am
interested in.  Besides, my idol, as I've written more
than once here, has always been Franklin Pangborn, the movie
sissy to end all movie sissies.

Arne
From: mickw@autodesk.com (Mick Washbrook)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Can anyone tell me about this TV show?
Keywords: Are You Being Served?
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:50:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.235857.16298@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> 
> Well, yes, but the character seems to be written with a fair amount of
> dignity, and he's usually portrayed as superior to the others.  I find the
> show lacking in overt homophobia, though his foibles and characteristics
> are lampooned as much as the others.  I think he's a rather endearing
> character, even if he is a caricature of a stereotype.

"Dignity"? DIGNITY??

At what point when the audience laughs at the silly little poofter does
his dignity reach its zenith? Are you sure we're watching the same program?
Still, the BBC has been known to scrape much deeper into the barrel for
its laughs: "It Ain't 'Alf Hot, Mum" thrusts itself into mind. Still,
it did have Windsor Davies in, with his thick, Welsh brogue.


--
Death to all fanatics!!

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Nov11.022035.7781@spdcc.com>
	<CORWIN+.92Nov11123735@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Nov11.225940.17254@spdcc.com>
	<14660.2b03ab43@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:37:39 GMT

In article <14660.2b03ab43@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> msp@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (Michael S. Pettersen) writes:

   In article <1992Nov11.225940.17254@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
   >
   >In article <CORWIN+.92Nov11123735@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
   >>And it is homophobia for the Drama Department to be
   >>sending the message to its students that their sexual orientation is
   >>something to be hidden.
   >
   >How someone pronounces their "s"es has little to do with sexual orientation,
   >and working on that or other effeminate mannerisms has nothing to do with
   >"hiding" a sexual orientation.  Sorry, you'll get no sympathy from me there.

   So Jimmy Stewart should have been thrown out of the CMU drama program?
   Would he have been, if he had been in it?  Is lishping acceptable but
   lithping not?  Why?

A better example is Renee Auberjenoui (I know I spelled that wrong),
who is a CMU alumnus and is a very effeminate man. 

The problem I have with Steve's comment is the implicit assumption
that lisping is a sterotypic gay behavior.  Steve and others seem to
be arguing that there are a core group of mannerisms, such as lisping,
swishing when you walk, etc which make you "effeminate" or "act gay."
It seems that they are arguing that gay actors must overcome being gay
in order to be real actors.

First, I don't beleive that there are a core group of behaviors which
all gay men have.  The Theater Week article mentions a number of times
examples when men were told they were acting too effeminate on stage.
Our college paper asked someone in Drama if an actor had ever been
told they are acting too butch.  This person mentioned a production of
Torch Song Trilogy where the actor playing Arnold was told he was
being too butch.  I believe this example to be homophobic.  It
perpetuates the stereotype that gay men are effeminate.  I believe
that just as African American's object to portrayal's such as Aunt
Jamima and Buckwheat, gays and lesbians should object to negative
stereotypes about our community.

I beleive this to be the issue which is occurring at CMU -- not
whether actors can act.

Scott


Xref: sparky soc.motss:47929 alt.politics.homosexuality:7304 co.politics:2113
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
	<1992Nov16.154610.652@wam.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:08:02 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov16.154610.652@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

   For some people it would not be the same. For some people being Gay is not
   an inborn thing but a disorder.

What information to you have to back this up?  Not the American
Psychiatric Association.  Not any respectable organization of
physicians that I know of.

Pretty big statement to make.

--

  - Ronald Hayden

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group                    |
   | Co-chair of Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group |
   | Writer, magician, and various other things                     |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47984 alt.politics.homosexuality:7311 co.politics:2126
From: pfohl@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Anne Pfohl)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:51:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov12.193724.22309@tc.cornell.edu>, 
	shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes...

>In article <1992Nov12.191913.8438@ncar.ucar.edu> 
	gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>  It does not deny homosexuals equal rights. It denies the the ability of the
>>  state to create quotas for gays, or give gays minority status, and it denies
>>  gays the use of the legal system to correct alleged cases of discrimination.
>>
>>  It does not permit gay-bashing.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

>The essence of it is that it legalizes discrimination.  It
>says that there is no legal recourse for gay men, lesbians,
>or bisexuals if we are fired from our jobs, thrown out of
>our housing, lose custody of our children, etc., simply for
>*being* gay.  It also has the effect of making local laws
>in Colorado which bar discrimination on the basis of sexual
>orientation provide coverage only to heterosexuals.  If that's
>not denial of equal rights, would you care to describe what
>is?

..and since, in fact, CO #2 *does* legalize discrimination, how 
would one go about prosecuting an incident of gay bashing in 
Colorado now?  Would it have to be tried as assault, with no 
reference to it being a hate crime, or motivated by hatred of 
gays?

If that's the case, gay bashing wouldn't exist in Colorado, 
because the crimes could not be identified as such in order to be 
prosecuted.

Sounds like gay bashers would have free reign to express their 
hatred.  Sure, they might get caught and have assault charges 
pressed, but there's no way for gays and lesbians in Colorado to 
fight the specific instance and intent of violence against them 
as gay men, lesbians and bisexuals now, is there?


Anne Pfohl
University at Buffalo
pfohl.offsys@osmail.buffalo.edu
pfohl@ubvmsb.buffalo.edu

FYI: Paul Harvey said today that hatred is on its way out.  Only 
one in five Americans today express antisemetic feelings, as 
opposed to one in three just a few decades ago.

Whew!  I feel better... (not)
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48566 soc.bi:15354
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Men Not Getting It (was Re: Twice Fucked)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 03:55:02 GMT


In article <RHAYDEN.92Nov15180010@hqsun2.oracle.com>
rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.165152.23276@tc.cornell.edu>
>shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>Good question.  I'm coming to believe that the people (not
>just men) who do get it are ones who have had some direct
>experience with institutionalized oppression.

>If you're confident of your own sexuality, you're less likely to be
>bothered by others.  If you're confident of your place in male/female
>interactions, you're less likely to have a problem with women.  And

Those two make a pretty strong case, I think.

>further, you're more likely to be sympathetic to the plight of others
>if you're confident of your place in the world.

This one I find less persuasive.  It's not that it couldn't
be exactly as you suggest; rather, it's that some of the
worst oppressors are uncommonly secure in and confident of
their places in the world.  For example, wrt homophobia, if
we want civil rights, we have a mighty large enemy to go up
against; those who don't want us to have civil rights have
quite a few more assets than we do in the struggle.  Wrt to
sexism, the absolute numbers are undoubtedly different, but
the weight or inertia of the long hegemony of patriarchy and
the pervasiveness of male privilege enable those who don't
"get it" to be fairly secure that their place in the world
will not be serously destabilized any time soon.

I don't think this undermines your general point too much,
because I agree that secure people are probably less likely
to interpret change as threatening to them personally, or at
least not to the same degree as less secure people would.
The exception I note, however, seems to me a bit like
another sharp edge of the same security.

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
From: jns@elea.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Bear Crap
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:14:14 GMT
Organization: Militant Homosexual Lobby, Gay Lifestyles, Inc.


Mike Hennahane (michaelh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
 
> ....  maybe it's not as true as it has been in the
> past (due to the bear list, or whatever), but i still think that bears
> have lots of representation here.  in fact, i would guess that the
> perceived over-representation of bears was the cause of a fair number
> of the anti-bear postings/threads.

You know, I think that there are *lots* of gay people
in society, in every walk of life, but you just don't
see them.  In fact, I would guess that the perceived
over-representation of people of flamboyance was the
cause of a fair number of fag bashings; they're the
ones keeping the normal ones in the closet.

Since anti-bear postings are a reasonable response to
'over-representation', could you tell us the correct 
amount of representation please so that we could avoid
future unpleasantness?  A list of bear topics and
affectations would be useful too, just to avoid confusion.

BBC asked:

> >	Now is it a BIG THING?  No, there are inclusivity issues
> >that greatly exceed the need to be more bear-sensitive.

And he lists some examples, all welcome.  But excuse me
if I care not to minimize bear visibility to the point
of invisibility.  I don't care to underestimate the 
potential increase in self-esteem of the reader who, not
looking like Marky Mark or Jason Priestly, discovers that
there are men who appreciate a mature figure and hirsute
aspect.

> ....  the point of my
> posting (and melinda's i think) is that i get crabby sometimes reading
> yet another GDM whiny evangelical hell-fire bears uber alles posting.
> he really alienates me (and others it would seem), and i think that
> some of this is what carries over when people make comments to *you*
> (bob) about liking anything that has a beard because you are a bear
> lover (cf. marky mark discussion).

Have you considered that it might be *important* to
some people, that it is something which they do not
take lightly?

Consider the parallels:

"Oh, hon, don't mind *him*--he's on the *rag*."

"Oh, BBC/GDM wouldn't like *him*--he's not fat and hairy."

--jns
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Not Enough Sucking on Keanu
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:53:31 GMT
Followup-To: soc.motss
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

The Wall Street Journal has BETRAYED me!  They said Keanu Reeves
spent 'most of the movie' trapped in a castle having the blood
sucked out of him by three nymphos.

He spent THREE MINUTES trapped in a castle having the blood
sucked out of him by three nymphos... (though the nymphos first
appear by rising up out of the sheets between his spread legs...)

*X*
(who remembers now that Keanu isn't a particularly gifted actor;
or, his voice is naturally 'over-actish.')
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Colorado Memory Systems & Non-Discrimination
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:36:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Nov18.173637.19358
Organization: insert anything here

may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com writes:
>Colorado Memory Systems, makers of the "Jumbo" tape backup system for PCs,
>was recently acquired by Hewlett-Packard.  CMS is located in Loveland,
>Colorado.  As part of the acquisition, CMS employees are being covered
>by HP's policies including HP's policy on discrimination based on sexual
>orientation which basically says you can't (discriminate).

	I'll ask this again.

	If someone feels they are discriminated against, what recourse does
[s]he have, in light of the anti-discrimination policy and Co:2?

	If X has homophobic manager Y who fires him/her in violation
of the anti-disc. policy, as near as I can tell X can't take Y
or Y's company to court in Colorado, since in the view of the state
no discrimnation took place.  IF Y's company feels that it was right
in firing X, that's it, end of story.

	While I'm sur the largest companies like HP would probably
not let this happen, at the smaller company level it seems pretty
obvious that CO:2 effectively places all private sector
anti-disc. plicies at the whim of the company itself.

	Which in any adverse cases is no protection at all.


	People fdefending or minimilizing CO:2's impact tend
to state that it only aplpies to state/local gov't employees.
I assert that since it affects the state judiciary branch, it
now affects EVERYONE in the state since any concept of justice
has gone right out the window.

	Now the other question is - it is poosible to start
court battles at the Federal level for something occuring at the state
level if the battle isn't allowed to be fought?  If so then we
have a way out that might make it easier to overturn CO:2.

	If not (and I expect that's the case hance the expression
"taking somethingf to a higher court" implying you start at the bottom),
then CO:2 has effectively wiped away all rights for GBLO*-people in CO
regardless of public/private situations.  We aren't allowed to
combat injustice, and injustice is now institutionalized.

BBC
Xref: sparky soc.motss:48814 soc.bi:15435
From: polly@iastate.edu (Y. B. Normal)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
Subject: Re: Oprah 11/19
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:52:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.By4pnC.5Gx
Organization: A very small place in a very big world

In article <1992Nov20.160848.27561@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE) writes:

>  Studies with mice have indicated that sexual orientation may be affected
>by hormone fluxuations in the in utero environment.  Mice aren't people,
>and the exact analogy between mice and men isn't exactly clear.
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

hmmm do you think the book _of Mice and Men_ would help on this one 

prepares for the large number of groans that will occur

*ear plugs into ears and smiles* silence blessed silence




paula 
polly@iastate.edu
who is in a slightly irreverant mood today
From: bcapps@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: ok, let me try this again
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:02:01 GMT
Organization: Open Communications Forum

spencer@shine.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

>Yes, I am trying to change things.  Yes, I am trying to exclude certain
>types of conversation from soc.motss.

>... what started this off was a message from John Dorrance. [...] 
>>What's the stupidest/lamest/strangest song lyric you know of?
>>('I feel drunk', 'let's look for the purple banana 'til they put
>>us in the truck')

>IMHO, soc.motss should be for gay-related conversations.  I interpret
>that to mean conversations which, in substance, are gay-related.  This
>article by Mr. Dorrance does not strike me as falling into this
>category.  

The day I read John's 'lyrics' posting I was feeling particularly depressed
about M9, and I really appreciated the opportunity to change the subject
with some campy fun.  So you can never tell what is, or is not, going
to be gay-related.  IMO the only thing that should be off-limits is
homophobic drivel crossposted by bullies reading from talk.politics.misc.

>I'd further like to point out that kill files are not an option here.
>Firstly, I refuse to put people in my kill file.  I only put subjects in
>it.  And secondly, there is no way to anticipate the subject of every
>message that I consider to be off-topic because there are an infinite
>number of them.

I suggest using nn instead of rn if your system supports it.  That way you 
read only what you want and can 'sample' threads in the middle to see if 
the subject agrees with the header and if it interests you.  I never use 
kill files out of principle, but those fun-loving Optilink guys sorely tempt 
me sometimes.
-- 
Brent Capps                          | Shackles and handcuffs 
bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff)    | and bullwhips that sting
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) | these are a few of my favorite things
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:24:43 GMT

Gregg Skinner (skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu) wrote:
 
: Most (all?) current English translations of Paul's letters contain
: references to homosexuality.  Once instance is in 1 Corinthians:
: 
:    Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
:    prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives, ..., will inherit
:    the kingdom of God.

Some English translations use the weaker "effeminate"; some use the more
specific "practicing homosexuals".

: I would be remiss if I did not mention that in some circles there is
: debate as to whether the Greek words have been translated correctly.

As I understand it, the discussion bears some resemblance to the following,
which I present based on third hand reports with no substantiating evidence
whatsoever:

In Corinth and other cities of the time, keeping of young men as personal
prostitutes was common.  The young men, by custom, were supposed to be
submissive, and be on the bottom during the activities.  They were thus called
"bottom men", while the masters were the "top men".  When the bottom men grew
up, they were expected to either stop having homosexual relations, or to become
top men and keep their own bottom men.  The actual phrase used as the source
of the English translations "effeminate", "practicing homosexuals", and
"homosexual offenders" supposedly is more accurately translated as "bottom men
who grew up and continued to be bottom men for others".

I'm sure I've butchered the details here badly, but this is, I believe, the
gist of it.  The really curious can probably call Rev. Mark Lee in Fort Collins
about it.

BTW, regarding the legality of defacing money - as one data point, I received
a Christmas gift last year consisting of a dollar bill with a drawing of Santa
Claus glued over George Washington's picture.  This came in a little envelope
claiming the bill was still legal tender.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: big changes
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:15:43 GMT

If the stuff I've seen at WPI recently is at all representative of society
the fundies are going to be giving birth to texas long horns soon.

Its only half way through the year and already quite a few freshmen have
already come out. When I went into WPI 7 years ago I didn't know of any
one being queer until I was a sophomore and that was someone who outed
himself accidentally as bi by revealing his purity score.


-- 
------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
 \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568        
Newsgroups: soc.motss