From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: To Laura
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:31:51 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

In article <1992Sep03.193449.227@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>
>
>[NOTE]:  I started a new thread not to poke fun at you, Laura, but
>to avoid the load time on the other thread.

Fine by me.

>/ (laura)
>/ I keep wondering why it is that you think that this is the ``threatening
>/ Gay'' which invokes the not open-minded behaviour.  
>
>Because that has been my experience, and the experience of many friends.
>And because I see this same principle played out in other minority groups.
>People accept small differences more quickly than they do huge differences.
>(Now if the difference is genuine, as in black vs. white, I don't expect
>blacks to try to lighten their skin or whites to darken theirs; that's
>not what I mean).

I believe that you say that Blacks cannot get ``in'' on thse non-threatening
behaviours because of the colour of their skins.  Black Gaypeople, because
they are double-damed have no hope in this world.  They can't pass as
white, they can't pass as straight, so hell is theirs.

I have to tell you that here in San Francisco there are Black Lesbians who
would resent the living hell out of what you have said.  What they
would say is that you have experienced prejudice (no shit, everybody does),
but the idea that Black vs White is clear cut makes no sense unless you
believe that it is the right of society to beat the living hell  out
of those who are different.

I know black lesbians who live with black lesbians.  I know more black
lesbians who live with white lesbians.  I know black lesbians who live 
with Asian lesbians.

I call these people ``friends''.  All of them have jobs.  If it turned out
that they were unemployed, we their friends would try to take care of them.
(it's happened once).  Somewhere I want a report to figure out how
burdensome lesbians, as a class, are on the economy.  It never happens.
Julie was out of a job, was stuck, we her freinds all put in $100, she
paid her rent, and auto insurance, and a bunch of other stuff .. got a new
job and paid me back 24$ as an not-necessary, I was doing fine.

six years later she is still doing fine.
Nicest investment for 100$ I ever made.

You may find ``gay'' as a ``white thing'', but that does nothing
for those not-white Gaypeople.  Having several Black lesbian
friends and one Hispanic out Lesbian friend, I know the dreaded
``not be heterosexual'' happens among American minorities too.

these people are not accepted, by society at large, by the asian 
grouping , by the black grouping.  They stay together, despite
enormous pressure on the part of thier families and commuinities.
Good for them!


>
>The Arab student going to college gets more acceptance than the militant
>pan-Arab socialist.  Once you get to know an Arab student, it becomes
>very hard to crack "camel jockey" or "sand nigger" jokes; the cognitive
>dissonance in your mind prevents you.

Yes. But when ``Desert Storm'' happened, I happened to be at the local
corner store, which happened to be run by a Syrian.  And we who shopped
there told the mob with bricks to go home, rather than smash the place.
I wasn't there for the glory, and I am certain that very few of the
others who stood and blocked the place wanted to be on CNN tomorrow.

With the expense of one window, we dispersed them.
Later they hit other Arab stores.

I'm not all that worrieds about the jerks who go to 
college and learn that all Arabs are not Iraqui possums.
Its the American students who  decide to through rocks where
I am buying milk that bother me.  I shouted themn down, with
the help of my neighbourhood, and went home.  Later I was shown
on CNN.  I missed it. I was too busy sleepng at time.  All I tried to do
was not have my good supplier's business trashed.   Soundss right by me,
but very wrong that ``by acting American'' Arab people can 

escape stupity.

>
>The middle-class black family gets more acceptance than the radical 
>black Muslim.  In fact, when TV portrays blacks in stereotypical roles 
>(shoeshine, watermelon, etc.) the reaction from the black community is 
>very negative--rightly so.  Even though there is nothing inherently
>wrong with shoeshining or eating watermelon.

There is something dire and wrong in the expression ``Black Muslim''.
I know 3 sorts, only 2 of which are radical.  Given that it
is ``muslim'' that you use I can think of three other non-radical
sects.  And if i care to try and follow this I would get the
names of pleanty -- these are just the different groups I find
in my life.

Don't talk of ``Black Muslims''.
All they have in common is that they are proud to be Black and that
Islam is Great.  Beyond that the differences split    ...

ah well

>
>Imagine what would happen if Asian Americans were all portrayed as 
>laundry owners, Chinese restaurant owners, or bespectacled engineering
>students.  There is inherently nothing wrong with laundry, restaurants,
>or engineering, yet the Asian community feels it is being done a disservice
>when these stereotypes are presented.
>
>I do not see a corresponding desire in the gay community to distance 
>ourselves from negative stereotypes of gays (other than the child molester 
>stereotype that Clayton would have us all buy into).  
>
>Let me ask you this:  do you believe that negative gay stereotypes even 
>exist?  What are some examples?

I think that gay stereotypes exist.
The ``negative'' part I find largely in somebody  else's mind.
-
If you are asking whether the average troglodyte is more likely to
club you if you are wearinf a dress and fish net stockings at
the SF opera GALA, than if you were not wearing the same, then,
yes, I'd agree with you.

But the problem is with the troglodyte, not with you.


>
>
>
>
>/ (laura)
>/ I may be understanding
>/ you wrong, but I keep reading things which leads me to believe that you
>/ think that the straights will accept you, just fine, as long as they don't
>/ think that you are `weird' -- and that straights have a stereotype
>/ of Gays as `weird' and that you think it is just dandy that they have
>/ problems with the `weird' -- but you are not `weird', so they accept
>/ you  -- and if the rest of us would all stop being `weird' we could
>/ all nicely be accepted, end of problem.
>
>/ I know that I am putting words and conclusions in your mouth, but
>/ can you tell me whether this is an innacurate reading of what you
>/ have said?  And if not, where it varies?
>
>
>By "negative stereotypes", I do not mean a man who is naturally
>soft-spoken, gentle, or effeminate.   And I don't mean a woman
>who is confident, outgoing, or masculine.
>
>I am not really concerned about the degree to which a person is
>_naturally_ feminine or masculine.  As has been correctly point out, those
>are probably fixed traits, and there is not much we (as people)
>can do to change what God has given us - - nor should we try.
>
>I don't personally find  feminine men attractive, but as long as I
>perceive that it is their natural personality which I see, I respect them
>for being genuine and real.
>
>Masculinity and femininity are on a broad spectrum, and it would
>be a boring and dull world indeed if all the men were supermasculine,
>and all the women were superfeminine.  That is not what I am
>objecting to.  No one should have to apologize for what and who
>they are.
>
>What I am talking about is the rehearsed, practiced campy acts that
>many gays seem to thrive on.  This is _not_ a personality trait; it is 
>practiced, and rehearsed.  By definition, personality is not practiced--it
>is natural, needing no practice.  
>Some of them spend hours getting the lines right, working on the facial 
>expressions - - the way someone would work at developing a good 
>British accent, for example.
>
>This behavior has a lot of comic value in the gay world; the more
>outrageous the action, the more "points" that one scores with
>friends.  I should also point out that the overbearing, 'butch'
>swaggering 'macho' type is also pretty phony; often done for sexual
>attraction reasons.
>
>They are both (in my opinion) attention-getting mechanisms,
>which unfortunately don't do the gay movement any good.
>
>
>
>(laura)
>/ I believe that you lack a sense of history.  These days, coming out,
>/ is, while still a traumatic process, *much easier*.  Most people you
>/ will come out to have glimmered, from the popular media, that this
>/ thing, called ``coming out'' happens.  20 years ago it was unknown.
>/ 10 years ago it was rarely known -- at least in the popular press.
>
>/ Now, even the most evangelical of Christians knows what ``coming out''
>/ is. 
>
>/ This is progress.
>
>
>I disagree.  It is progress in the absolute sense of the word; you are
>of course correct on that.  But when I compare it to other similar
>movements (racial equality for blacks, women's rights & equality
>movement) a huge disparity appears.  The gay movement is decades
>behind the rest of the similar freedom movements.
>
>
>
>(laura)
>/ Do you realy find it reasonable to love queers in a certain
>/ sense but still decry those more flamboyant, or `weird' than you?
>/ Are they really hurting anybody?  If they are not hurting you,
>/ can you find justification  for condemning them?  
>
>Someone pointed out to me regarding a statement that Arne made about
>me, that Arne was not judging me, but only the statement I made.
>That is , it is OK to condemn the action without condemning the person 
>doing the act.  If you accept this principle, then you see the difference
>between my condemnation of the act and condemning the person doing it.
>
>
>
>
>(laura)
>/ If they are
>/ hurting you, can you find any moral ground between wishing that they 
>/ were not there and wishing that all Gaypeople were not there?
>
>Well, this gets back to the question of:  is it possible for individual
>members of a group to act in ways that defeat group goals?  
>
>If "no", explain how this is impossible.
>
>If "yes", describe how such an event could be identified; what are its
>characteristic qualities?
>
>
>
>(laura)
>/ The world is full of people who do stupid, foolish, wasteful,
>/ idiotic, things.  If you choose to group `weird' Gaypeople in that
>/ list, then, we disagree, but so be it.  I let those whom I fathom
>/ as idiotic and foolish waste on their merry way.  Why do you
>/ follow different rules?  And what rules are they?
>
>
>I thought this was a discussion group for issues such as this.  Am I wrong?


-- 
	C unions never strike; they only work to rule.

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Xref: sparky soc.motss:39131 soc.bi:12325