From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Case study (was Re: Redefining masculinity)
Organization: Stanford University
	<1992Aug15.022946.4971@spdcc.com><1992Aug14.004858.29347@microsoft.com><1992Aug14.172347.3647@microsoft.com><1992Aug17.181137.2755@microsoft.com>
	<1992Aug20.201115.13111@microsoft.com>
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:08:34

    [Sarver's blather deleted]

Hmm.  Maybe I should try the clinical approach.  This is long, so hit
'n' now if remedial education bores you.

Consider the case of a gay man who is uncomfortable with certain kinds
of behavior of other gay men (e.g. acting nelly, appearing in drag,
S&M, etc., etc.  In the following I use 'acting nelly' as an example
[for convenience], rather than repeat the long and necessarily
incomplete list each time.).  

He says "Even though discrimination against anyone (including the
nelly) is wrong, out gay people have some kind of obligation to avoid
being negative role models, in order to aid our acceptance by the
majority and since fear of associating with said negative role models
is keeping people in the closet."

On what principled basis is acting nelly labeled negative?  None.

Of course, general society thinks acting nelly is a negative trait,
but general society thinks homosexuality is a negative trait also.
Why reject one stupid opinion of the hoi polloi, and then turn around
and accept an equally stupid opinion on a different issue?  It is most
difficult to understand.

Perhaps it is thought, on the theory that you catch more flies with
sugar than with vinegar, that being "nice" will be politically useful.
A venerable sage has asked the logical question --- "Who would *want*
to catch flies?"  Or, doing without the Zen entertainment, we aren't
asking for favors.  We are demanding our rights.

When you ask for a favor, you are hoping for an indulgent response.
Being nice, and polite, and nonthreatening, and all that good stuff is
helpful.  After all, nobody owes you a favor, so demanding one is
rather presumptuous.  

When you are demanding human rights, you are pointing out to the
empowered majority that they are supporting (actively or by
indifferent support of the status quo) evil in the form of invidious
discrimination.  It isn't a nice message, and being nice isn't going
to help deliver it.  

Furthermore, the pill cannot be sweetened by compromise.  Once you
concede to the majority the right to oppress *any* indentifiable class
of people, you are in favor asking mode, begging Master Majority to
oppress anyone but you.  Needless to say, this contemptible position
is ethically indefensible.

So the argument that nelly behavior should be avoided in order to aid
our acceptance is fallacious --- the only acceptance which can be
gained in that manner is the worthless "acceptance" offered to those
who sell out.

The last argument can be dealt with succinctly.  Anyone who attributes
their coming out difficulties to the flamboyance of some out gays,
lesbians and bisexuals is being foolish.  That foolishness, and other
neuroses of the closet, are unfortunate facts of life.  Heterosexism
induced mental illness is hardly a reason to disapprove of nelly
behavior. 

- Bob

P.S.  Although the goal isn't subject to compromise or debate, there
are many possible means that may be tried (outing, civil disobediance,
marches, working withing the system, etc.).  It is far from clear
which ones should be used in various circumstances, and intelligent
differences of opinion are not at all unusual.

*However*, disapproval of nelly behavior, or anything else the
straights find too threatening, isn't simply another means to the end
--- it is a subversion of that end and must be rejected for that
reason.