From: la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90))
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: HEY, ETHAN, TAKE A LOOK! HOMOPHOBIA RULES!
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:54:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: winnie.3658
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne USA

ONCE AGAIN!

In article <3625@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90)) writes:
=>In article <3610@winnie.fit.edu> la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales) writes:
=>=>sexist.  However, what is wrong with this?  I'm sure some people will
=>=>say "exclusively male organizations are there primarily for the purpose of
=>=>subjugating and discriminating against women".  What nonsense.
=>
=>>Yep, it's nonsense alright.  So much so that recent court decisions
=>>have ruled that all-male social clubs discriminate against women.
=>
=>This is not true.

The two all-male eating clubs at Princeton were forced to admit women.
If I remember right, the all-male Olympic Club in San Francisco was
also forced to change its charter.  There have been quite a few cases
in this subject area; can anyone recall a case in which women *didn't*
have to be admitted?

Boy Scouts of America

=>>These rulings have forced the clubs to open their membership to women.
=>>Again, I ask why fraternities don't admit women.  I'll address your
=>>attempt at explanation later on.
=>
=>I'm going to assume that you're talking about the United States' Jaycees.
=>This was partly because "business meetings" would be held at the exclusively
=>male clubhouse.  A _very_ slick lawyer was able to convince the "court"
=> that, because this (the plaintiff) women was denied entrance to the
=>clubhouse, and subsequently denied the ability to be involved in the 
=>business activity, she was being "economically impeded".  Thus, open the
=>door to women.  Perhaps true, the real problem was the idiots having
=>their business meetings at a social hall rather than a board room.

>Oh, gee, it had to be a "very slick lawyer" that convinced the "court"
>that summarily excluding women from a business meeting was wrong.  So
>if the real problem was "having business meetings at a social hall,"
>you agree that women should be allowed access to social gatherings if
>such access will affect their ability to function in business.  Well,
>fraternity membership has such an effect.  Ever hear of the "old boy"
>network?  Women are denied entrance because they can't join most
>fraternities, where many connections are formed.  Sure, they can join
>sororities.  But how many women are there in this network?  A lot
>fewer than there should be, considering the ratio of men to women in
>business.

Of course a VSL was needed!  Do you know of any lawyers who will admit to
the existance of "easy" cases?  I don't think that it was cut-and-dry.

=>>Do you read newspapers?  There is increasing evidence that
=>>homosexuality has a genetic component.  Why else would there be so
=>>many closet gays?
=>
=>Well, considereing the *only* "research"" was done by a homosexual on
=>the brains of dead-from-AIDS homosexuals, I would have to consider
=>some bias in the case.  It's spurious at best.  Is Down's Syndrome
=>a genetic normality?  Marfan? Achondroplasia?  What then is genetically
=>normal?  I mean, if you're going to try to argue genetics, why not
=>include the whole "darwinian-natural-selection" thing?  Would homosexuals
=>procreate?  Do they strengthen the species by their activities?  No.

>Actually, they *would* strengthen the species by their activities.  Remember,
>the purpose of an animal is to insure that its genes survive.  Family
>members share genes with their siblings.  Homosexual males are much more
>likely to fight for the family rather than for just their own offspring,
>since they might not *have* any offspring.  While their own line might
>not continue, that of their siblings could be *more* likely to continue
>thanks to the help.  And the siblings would carry some or even all (if
>the genes are recessive) of the genes for homosexuality.

Pretty good circular reasoning, bud.  Not even a good try.  This is why
Stephan Jay Gould and Niles Eldrige stay away from this one! 
Don't you think that the "gene" for the desire to have offspring would
be dominant? After all, continuation of the species is kind of a priority. 
gEE whiz!  I had to stop and laugh!  What a crazy statement!
You moron!
 
>Incidentally, researchers have found evidence of homosexuality in animals
>other than primates.  Are you going to say that sheep *choose* to be gay?

Pull the other one!  No, sheep are forced into it by sick (and lonely)
shepherds!  You slay me!  Give this up, you dolt!


=>Anita Hill and Gloria Stienem think differently...  How does the world work,
=>oh knowledgable mentor?  Is the world sexually neutral?  I think that
=>the workplace should be.  Socially, though, sexual neutrality , i.e.,
=>being "on the make" all the time, etc...,  might be how some people think.
=>Certainly, some (maybe most) people think about sex all the time.

>And Clarence Thomas (deservedly) got a lot of flack for his sexual
>advances towards Anita Hill.  The world isn't sexually neutral.  But
>most people can hold back their sexual urges when it isn't
>appropriate.  It's not appropriate to hit on everything with two legs
>and no penis.

I would agree.

=>Who says they aren't?  They don't have to admit women to do it, though!

>If you're any judge of things, they aren't.  You can't seem to think
>of women as much other than potential lays.  So how do you respond to
>a married coworker?  What about one who's "sexually unappealing" to
>you?  How about one who's lesbian?

You asshole!  I never implied this at all!  I just don't understand your
thinking...  I don't see how you could "reason" that I am the type of
man who hits on women.  I'm trying to keep my religious beliefs out of
this, but you're trying...  I don't "hit" on women at all!  I'm waiting
for my boss, or the president of the company I'll work for as a top
engineer, to introduce me to his daughter, niece, etc or I'm waiting
to meet someone at Church! Get the picture?!?!?  I'd rather do the
mating game my way, which does not involve the bar scene!  I do not want
to get involved with a girl who gets trashed an allows herself to be 
picked up!  I practice ABSTINENCE!  I don't fuck and won't until I'm
married! HA HA!  Boy, did you misjudge me!  As far as the lesbian goes,
if she doesn't make an issue of her desires I couldn't care less!  
The workplace isn't an appropriate area for for making statements of
sexuality, it's a place to WORK!  

=>>So you think that gay men wear women's clothing?  Sure, some of them do,
=>>but so do some straight males.
=>
=>Not normal ones...

>Define "normal."  By my definition, members of all-male fraternities
>aren't normal.  Would you like to kill yourselves, or would you prefer
>help?  :-) :-) There's no such thing as "normal."  Is a Scot normal if
>he wears a kilt?  Even if it's called a dress in this country?

Normal means heterosexual.  How one controls this "normality" is up to
the individual.  Examples of bad control are Rock Hudson, Adolf Hitler
(a vegitarian and tee-totaler), Catherine the Great.  Plenty more.
Examples of Good control are Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Jesus, Martin
Luther King (prove he was a "tomcat"!), George Bush (I know, I know...)
Jimmy Carter, etc... Plenty more.
Jeff Dahmer did not exercise much control.  
Hey!  Kilts are not dresses!  I wear a kilt.  I don't consider you to 
have valid opinions on anything, so your definition of normality goes
out the window, along with rest of you pitiful "logic".  Suicide?
Geez, if the government forces you to get help, that's wrong, but
shouldn't you WANT the help?  Tough (begging the) questions.  I' never 
call Roddy Piper a fag.

=>>But if someone asks, you'll answer truthfully.  The same
=>>is true of an "open homosexual."  He won't go around saying "I'm gay!  I'm
=>>gay!"
=>
=>Oh yes he will!  He'll wear one of those pink "i'm a fag" triangles or
=>something similar.

>It sounds to me like you go around hitting on women left and right.
>That'd identify you as a heterosexual right away.  At least most gay
>men can control their sexual urges.

You're a real piece of work, ethan.  I tend to think that many of the
predatory males are actually latent homosexuals with plenty of mysogenist
to boot.   They just want to fuck everything in sight to get back at
the women they hate.  In fact, I personally believe that all this 
stuff about gay men being sensitive to women's issues is just a pose.
Hey the Rock said it best: "all women are dirty".  

=>>Did he ever act on that list?  Did he even try?
=>
=>We didn't give him a chance!  He did once say to his straight roommate that
=>he wanted to reem one of the brothers who was passed-out drunk on the floor
=>after a party.

>aND I'm sure no fraternity brother has ever wanted to "ream" a woman
>who was passed out drunk on the floor.  If you can truthfully say
>this, then I'll consider your complaint.

I don't know of any guy who has fucked a girl in the ass.  Of course,
I'll acknowledge that they exist.  I will say that any fraternity man
who allows a girl to pass out on the floor is irresponsible and should
know better, what with all the sensitivity training and advisement, etc.
I bet more gang rapes occur in pool halls and school buses than at 
fraternity houses!  


=>>Now let's see.  You don't want women in the fraternities because they'd
=>>only be viewed as sex objects.

=>I did not say this.  I don't want women in fraternities because the
=>fraternities are for men, sororities (and, yes, women's
=>fraternities" , too.) are for the women.

>No, you *did* say this.  You didn't want women in fraternities because
>there would be problems with dating other fraternity members, and
>because there would be sexual tensions.

Yes, I said that as an aside.  The real reason that I don't want women in
fraternities is in my last paragragh above.  Sexual tensions seems like a
good reason, though.  But it's not THE reason.  

=>No. I'm complaining about this guy sharing his base, intimate sick
=>desires with another man about men.  I never said that I condone
=>similar talk about women by men, however...

>But you clearly condone similar talk by men about women.  How do you
>justify this?  I, too, have no problem with men talking about which
>women they'd like to date/sleep with.  But I see anything wrong with
>gays doing the same thing wrt other men.  Have you ever considered how
>a lesbian woman might feel if she knew men wanted to screw her?

I do not.  How dare you make such false accusations!  Do you know any lesbians
who think men should exist?  I cringe when I hear guys comparing notes
on their weekend scores!  I get even more disturbed when women TALK 
about their conquests!  Tramps!  

=>>  You're as much of an "animal in heat"
=>>as he was, except that your idea of sex partner is in line with society's
=>>norm.

=>"Society's"? What society? The norm?  I don't get it.  The courts
=>are ruling in favor of same-sex marriges, churches are looked down
=>upon, pro-family is almost anathema.  At least that's what I see on
=>TV and in the newspapers.

>Heterosexuality is favored by about 90% of the population.  That makes
>it the most popular sexual preference in this country.  And remember
>that the courts have to *rule* in favor of same-sex marriages, while
>opposite-sex marriages are implicitly accepted.  Churches aren't
>looked down upon unless they themselves look down upon others.
>Pro-family is hardly anathema.  All the current media are saying is
>that alternative lifestyles are just as valid as the traditional ones.
>None of them say that the traditional ones are wrong, unless those
>traditions exclude the choices that others make.

You are wrong.  I am right.  You live a cloistered life devoid of morality,
ethics, or sprituality.  It must be filled with you and your gay
pals comparing snatch to colon.  You need a life.

=>I don't see how you rationalized this one at all.  How do you know I 
=>don't run a free abortion clinic?  How do you know I don't belong to NOW?
=>How do you know I don't work part-time as an editor for Ms.?  Huh?
=>I, don't do any of the above.  BTW.  But, nothing I ever said in the
=>previous post would imply that I am/was a predatory male out to nail
=>stray lambs at the local meet market.  Nor did I convey my feelings about
=>the place of women in society, the workplace, or the home.  In fact,
=>just because I believe in the sex-separatedness of college greeks implies
=>absolutely nothing about my attitudes towards women, you amoeba!

>Let's see.  You've told us that women in a fraternity would be viewed
>as sex objects.  You've said that a male's primary urge is to nail
>every attractive (for some definition of attractive) female.  Nah,
>nothing you said would indicate that you're a predatory male out to
>get laid.

Good, at least we agree.  Now, if you'd look in the mirror and recognize the 
idiot, the world would be a better place.




-- 
================================================================================
=	Who was the idiot who invented the vi editor?  This jerk should be     =
=       drawn and quartered, flayed, boiled in his own vomit, and flushed.     =
================================================================================
From: pphan@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Pham Phan)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:11:07 GMT
Subject: To: DEBRA AND UCI NETTERS
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA