From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:27:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Aug18.142723.4931
Organization: insert anything here

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>(icky faggots don't get anywhere)

>>Got news for you bud:  if we don't get at least some respect, the 
>>rights will never come.  That's why it all boils down to what you
>>want:  what is the most effective way to get from Point A to Point B?

>You are right, of course - we have to pander to the conservative
>family values set out there, because many of them hold the power. This
>is not news. We've been trying for years.

	this of course represents the faallacy to end all fallacies:
THIS IS A CLUE: The people who hate us don't give a FLYING FROG'S ASS
what we look like, how we present ourselves, and whether we can ape
the GBLO*-equivalent of Ozzie and Harriet - they have no intention
of giving us our rights.  Pandering to them is a waste of time, energy,
and lives.  (This doesn't apply to the mainstream who can be reasoned
with...)  The fact that we are homosexual precludes gaining any respect 
from those who hate us.

	GBLO*-rights will never come under thge "Animal Farm"
sceneario: some GBLO*-people are "better" than others.  We are
after GBLO*-rights, not GBLO*-but-only-the-ones-who-most-ape-heterosexuals-
in-our-current-phase-of-sociological-development-rights.

	Nelson talks about power - the only way to shift things back to
"normal" is for us to get involved.  This is obivous, and has examples
inclusive of probably the most important event in US GBLO*-history:
Stonewall.

	To clue the poster from Washington in: Stonewall wasn't
done by "the nice homosexuals who don't give Joe Sixpack tghe fits".
It was done by the fringe: the drag queens, etc.  IT's also not
surprising to the clued (and hon, you've demonstrated many times over
that you are not one of them) that most of the community service
done in the GBLO* community comes out of the fringe elements.
(This is sort of a customized statement since "fringe" can be
defined as almost anything and since quite a few "normal" GBLO*-folk
can be and are in fact fringe-folk in one or more of their activies...)

	The fact that the concept of "gay (really GBLO*) rights"
began to a large degree as a result of Stonewall pretty much deflates
the assimilationalist argument.   

	It would be a bad thing to divide us (that is of course what
those who hate want - since it makes their work all that much easier),
partly because there's no sound basis for it, but mostly because
the "presentable" homosexuals would be hard pressed to find people
that would actually *do* very much.  Persumably if they did lift
a finger now and then at the present, they wouldn't feel so insecure
about the GBLO*-community to worry that they weren't presented
enough. (Oooooh nasty pot shot.  Sorry - but I have more "respect"
for a person who is in the closet and doing their best to come out 
than I do for "out" homosexuals who try to force some of us back "in"
because *they* can't get over their internalized homophobia.)

>But I only want to get to Point B if Point B is a useful place to be.
>And the way you are arguing, it's not really that good for me.

>I don't want "gay rights" if "gay rights" means that I have to act
>straight. I'm *not* straight. I can't pass for straight. I don't want
>to pass for straight.

	It won't matter.  If every GBLO*-person became 102% visibly
straight tomorrow, the RNC wouldn't change their platform, the OCA
wouldn't shrug their Neanderthalic shoulders and go away, and
GBLO*-rights laws wouldn't spontaneously sprout up overnight.
It is completely ridiculous to think that we'd become more "visible"
and likable to the mainstream through our invisibility.

>In marginalizing our own people -- the drag queens, the "fem gays"
>(meaningless term alert), the leather dykes, the gay people who want
>to kiss in public -- we lose sight of what we are really fighting for.

	Of course, but the "we" you use is different from your
context and Mr. Sarver/Kirk/Madsen's context.  What "they" are
fighting for doesn't include you (or me).

>We shouldn't have to comprise ourselves to get our rights. It's a
>harder fight, fighting for what you truly believe, but it is the right
>thing to fight for.

	It's the only thing.   The whole idea of basic rights
is that you don't have to compromise for the things you believe
are "rights".

>>As I said, this application doesn't permit attribution.  
>[insert generic snide comment about Microsoft software]
>>Other than to manually clip it in, that is.

	So... then do it.  Are we responsible for your poor choice
of software?  You seem to want ewveryone else to fix your broken wagon.
"Don't complicate what *I* want for rights", "Don't extend the
meaning of masculine futher than *I* can handle", "Don't be 
inclusive of the parts of the GBLO*-community that *I* don't care for",
"Don't inconvenience me to post with the contextual courtesies that
makes working in a large forum useful".

	Gads.... get off the selfish trip already...

>As it is, it'd be easier if we just read After the Ball instead of
>trying to follow your postings.

	Been there.  Done that.  Hated it.

	Actually - maybe Roger could track down Kirk/Madsen for
this guy and get him a date...  I'm sure they could all use as
much help as they can get.