From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Kirk&Madsen (was Re: Redefining masculinity)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 11:27:43 GMT


In article <1992Aug28.011515.2532@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>
csjgp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jim Pierson) writes:

This morning a good friend asked me in email why I respond
to Sarver.  There are many answers, but one reason is that
-- as you note -- Sarver relates.  He is to Kirk&Madsen
somewhat as Buchanan is to Bush, and both represent a broad
range of ideas that are at base regressive.  I think about
90% of my postings having anything to do with Sarver are in
opposition to those ideas.

In light of all this, I was especially interested to read
your remarks.

>I'm one of the many persons who read soc.motss on a regular
>basis, but seldom post.  I've been reading this thread for
>some time, however, and it really bothers me.

I think it's good you've come forward to say and to try to
explain what bothers you in a clear, calm way.

>I used to feel much as Mr. Sarver does.  This was ten or
>twelve years ago, when I was still very much coming to terms
>with myself.  I have in common with Mr. Sarver military
>service (mine was in the Army), and I think that was part of
>what contributed to those thoughts.

It seems to me a lot of queer people -- men predominantly, I
think -- feel something like Sarver does at some point in
their process of coming out.  As you say, when coming to
terms with themselves.  Having had a number of
ex-military-career people in my own direct experience as
intimate friends, I think it's very likely that's a
pertinent factor too.

>Needless to say, I no longer feel the same way Mr. Sarver
>does, (and I'm a much happier person.

Good news, of course.  In due course, maybe you'll tell us
and Sarver how you evolved in that regard.  It might help
him.  So far he's having a hard time with the help he's
getting already. :-)

>The thing that pains me about this thread is that everyone
>seems bent on beating the 'other guys' down rather than
>discussing any issue.  

In that regard, things are (as usual) not necessarily what
they seem to be, or, not *only* what they seem to be.  We
can have an extended disussion of that another day.  Here, I
note that Sarver sets his own tone, in a variety of ways,
and the tone of most of what you see derives some (only
some) of its character from that.

It seems to me (note the possibility for error) that there
is, in fact, considerable content, lots of real discussion,
in *most* of the responses to Sarver, even in the ones that
ridicule his more absurd postures and remarks (maybe
*especially* in those).

>I wonder if anyone else reading the
>thread has read <After the Ball> by Marshall Kirk and Hunter
>Madsen.

We've had, since the appearance of the book, at least two
major discussions of it here.  One was about as wild and
unruly as the Sarver thread (since I like wild and unruly
things, that aspect doesn't bother me, at least).  The other
was more relaxed, but both were -- overall -- intensely
negative about the main theses of the book and even more so
about the real implications of those theses.

Quite a number of people here have read the book, and quite
a few more have given it more than casual consideration,
whether they actually read it or not.  It has been
extensively reviewed (virtually all reviews have been
scathing) in the gay press.  (It's out in paper now, I
noticed this past weekend; when I bought the hard-cover
first printing, the clerk at the store (not a "gay book"
store, so I was surprised) showed me a review and asked me
to be sure I wanted it before I spent my money.  I have read
it, for what that's worth.)

>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.  

There are indeed a large number of parallels.

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

(Note, in passing, the ambiguity of "present their ideas
 with little judgment": lots of people would say, "Yeah, like
 none!" :-)

I believe you would get rather strong opposition on your
last point: K&M are notable *primarily* for the degree to
which, like Sarver, they discount and seek to marginalize
and exclude a very significant number of queer
constituencies.  At base, the book and its ideas are
extremely regressive, in the opinion of virtually all those
it excludes and of many of those it includes.  Contrary to
your impression, it doesn't seem very long on either
knowledge of or sympathy for other positions.

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

That they do.  They do so in much the same way as Sarver:
they present a focal point for a set of assimilationist,
accomodationist attitudes.  Those attitudes, when all is
said and done, are homophobic and sexist.  If the book had
been about race rather than sexuality, it would have been
denounced nearly universally as intensely racist, based on
its approach and underlying assumptions.

>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'.)

That book and its relationship to the present thread are key
to understanding much of what Sarver has been saying.  As a
general comment, I would say it makes sense to look past the
heat, for even in the flames there is considerable content.

Finally, it's also pertinent that in soc.motss we have a
wide variety of people (an amazing amount of variety,
actually).  The readership has been growing very rapidly for
several years, and there are a number of cyclic topics.
Those who've been around a year or two have seen most of
these topics multiple times.  A person who's new (many are)
might be rather taken back by how large a response they get
to an apparently innocuous question.  Moreover, most of the
newer posters have not, as you have, read the newsgroup for
a considerable while to get some feel for these things
before posting much.  Those who come on like Sarver get
singed pretty quickly usually, and like him they tend to
whine in the most baleful bleats.  For a self-styled butch
man, he's pretty wimpy in that regard, it seems.  Just this
morning, however, he does seem to be letting just the
tiniest crack of light to reach inside that fortress
mentality.  We shall see.

Please go on.

<> I really don't care what it [Serano's "Pisschrist"] looks
<> like.  I'm just *pissed* that I had to help pay for it.
<> -- Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM)
<> Yeah, well, I'm pissed that I had to pay for war, for
<> defense-related R&D, and lots of other bogosity, which is
<> far more "against my religion" than a reverent work like
<> Pisschrist could ever be against yours.  Paying for things
<> where you may not believe in every line item is part of
<> what living in a society is all about.
<> -- Roger Klorese (rogerk@queernet.org)
-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888