From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Progress (was Phyllis Schaffly's son comes out)
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:46:04 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

blech, i am not going to debate this since the original author has
proven himself to be intellectually, emotionally, and, i think,
morally immature, but in light of brent capps recent posting about
redemption and a few recent discussions about jesse helms with people
here in NC, i feel compelled to address this apathetic (and simply
pathetic) boredom which renders many gay people, especially republican
gay people, powerless and inevitably alone.

> Perhaps you
> should consider that your 'legislative mandate' is a revocable
> largesse.  Indeed, all rights are a revocable largesse.  You are
> more than welcome to run around in circles, worrying about
> when the other shoe is going to drop, and it most certainly will.
> Who know when?  Nobody.  But I very seriously doubt we are at the
> end of history, or anything thereabouts, and society will continue
> to go through transformations.  Many for the worse.  

and that's it.  simply put: don't affect change because change is
revocable and what you want is bound to come along *sometime*.
[actually, more precisely, what you *don't* want is bound to come
along sometime.]  the irony most assuredly sickens me since the
approach consciously ignores the process it's describing: change, and
the individual who espouses this brand of pragmatism foresees no
progress, only regress.  is it any wonder?  is it any wonder we have
morons who characterize politics, an area entirely by and about
people, as an oversimplified eco-system of vegetation which is
singularly rooted in either good or bad trees?

barring beaurocracy, one aspect of the political system in the united
states is that government requires dialogue.  legislation is not the
task of simply writing a law on a piece of paper; before the
government can infringe on the rights of the people it's supposed to
protect, people must talk, must interact with the issues and the
people before them.  this dialogue is a process of change and
identification.

identification is a very important part of dialogue, and, i think, a
significant aspect of change.  we come from different backgrounds,
economically, socially, politically, culturally, religiously, etc.
it's easy to become engrained.  it's easy to lose sight of the
alternatives.  it's easy to turn *people* into ideas which
consequently are easier to manipulate and to forget.  it's easy not to
think through an idea to the people who are affected.  when you
identify with someone, you re-establish that link between the concept
and the person behind it.

the weakness here is that dialogue requires people to stand up and
identify themselves.  the process is not automatic; it requires
motivation to break barriers of communication, and it requires
openness and honesty.  it requires the desire to seek and listen to
new ideas and new people, and the confidence not to lose sight of
goals.

one of the main differences, i think, between the democratic and the
republican parties is that the democrats have been and are advertising
*to* people.  the democratic party has addressed the minority
communities, telling them, in effect, "we recognize you, and we will
help you."  in contrast, the republican party has addressed what it
perceives to be the mainstream and excluded alternatives.  the
republicans have not only eliminated dialogue but discouraged it from
the very beginning, and its vocal members do this consistently.
george bush, dan quayle, pat buchanan, william dannemeyer, jesse
helms, and william buckley have all used racism, sexism, and
homophobia as tools against minorities.

all of these -isms and -phobias have finally wormed themselves into
our social psyche so that they operate unconsciously and affect us
politically and economically.  as examples, a racist interviewer gives
a poor report on a qualified black man, and the interviewer might not
even suspect that his judgement has been impaired by hidden prejudice.
or, a sexist interviewer demands better response and more
qualifications from a female applicant.  the interviewer rarely
recognizes or feels their bigotry.  time and time again, it's the
burden (not necessarily the responsibility) of the oppressed to
identify the prejudice of the oppressor so it is the oppressed who
need safe fora to address bigotry.  the fora for dialogue need to be
established, and these fora and the underlying people need to be
protected and respected.

as gay people, *we* need to identify our fora.  we need to stand up
and demand that sexual orientation be added to civil rights.
otherwise, we have no fora for dialogue, no rights, and ultimately, no
change.  if you don't stand up, you don't have anything to complain
about, and it's hard for me to take your concerns very seriously.
-- 
Queer Without A Cause!
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Newsgroups: soc.motss