From: vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Too straight looking
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:57:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Aug30.164606.28201@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>I think the issue of who you hang out with is a canard.

I disagree.  I declare that a certain type of person isn't someone I'd like
to hang around with, but that I don't think they have to change to suit me.
You call that prejudice, I believe.

>Preferences and prejudices are quite different animals, I
>think.  What we're really talking about is how to make useful
>distinctions and then to do something about the prejudices,
>especially where the prejudices clearly injure others or
>ourselves.

I generally deal with people on an individual-by-individual basis.  I don't
consider it prejudice if I decide not to spend a lot of time with
fraternity guys who are more interested in talking about last night's
party than about, say, comic books.  Do you?

>>Well, I don't generally hang around with "nelly" or "butch"
>>types, either, but that doesn't mean I refuse to speak with
>>them if they ask me a question--and that also doesn't mean I
>>refuse to stand up for their rights to be who they are.  I
>>don't consider that discrimination.
>I think that needs to be examined more deeply.

Okay, here's your examination--and further clarification, while I'm at it.

First of all, my definition of "nelly" equates with a stereotypical
sorority-girl mentality--concerned with clothes, gossip, makeup, and little
else.  I know people who fit this particular situation, male and female.  I
also know a lot of people who don't.  I don't think they're "all the same"
because I know better.

I don't like "macho" types, either; I equate the attitudes behind "macho"
with the traditional high school "jock."  I knew a lot of guys in high
school who were involved in athletics who didn't fit that "model"; to me,
they weren't jocks.

(I think definitions may be one of the sticking points here; I don't know
for sure what your definitions are wrt the above types; they may be
considerably different.)

I have, in my time, met a few effeminate types.  Most of the ones I've met
were "nelly"--their interests, quite frankly, bored me.  So I didn't
associate with them anymore.  No biggie.  That's called "dealing with
individuals."  The effeminate types who weren't "nelly" (remember, this
uses my definition of the word, which is apparently far narrower than a lot
of people's) didn't make a show of walking through the door, and they
didn't go around insisting that I be like them, either--which is what the
"nelly" ones did.

Frankly, I think it's stupid to insist that someone else conform to a
certain set of standards.  I don't like conformity in general.  Why on
Earth would I want to make someone else conform to me?

>Prejudice, however, is about something else, isn't it?  It's
>about whether we think drug users as a class are low-life.
>It's about whether we think psychopaths are beyond all hope
>of being helped.  It's about whether queens and
>leatherpeople are (as Sarver claims) "outrageous."

It's also about whether you feel a certain group of people has no rights.
I maintain that said groups *do* have rights.  I just don't encounter too
many of them whom I find compatible enough with me to maintain contact with
them.  I call that "choosing my friends."

>>What you see as "prejudice," Jess, I see as a part of my
>>personal set of likes and dislikes.
>...  I can't let that one pass.  I don't think I've mixed up
>your prejudices with your dislikes, but there's some
>evidence you have.  I admit this is not a completely fair
>statement, but I say it to scrub out the line so it can be
>redrawn more nearly where it probably should be.

I disagree.  I think you're misreading my statement of "I don't
particularly like a certain type of behavior" as "I think this should be
eradicated from the face of Earth."  There's a big difference between
deciding that someone isn't compatible/attractive/interesting (add
whatever else you find apropos) and finding their very character an
abomination to humanity.  

When I say I don't like something, I mean I wouldn't personally do it
myself.  I continue to point out that my likes and dislikes on various
matters are changeable, because they're based on *my personal experience*.
I consider the question of whether I like or dislike a person's
behaviorisms (which I use here because "behavior" sounds too much like
something that's easily changeable--much of this is just the nature of
someone's personality) to be akin to whether I like or dislike cooked
broccoli.  (I happen to like it raw, but not cooked).  I base my likes and
dislikes on the things that have happened to me, keeping an open mind to
the possibility that something will change.  I can't tell you how many
times I've tried to eat someone else's potato salad and found that I just
didn't like the ingredients.  I also can't tell you how many times I've
tried to keep an open mind about people who generally have rubbed me in the
wrong way, only to find that I simply can't get along with them.

You, on the other hand, seem bent on proving that my personal dislikes are
little more than prejudice.  I consider that an attempt to force me to
think like you.

>Prejudice is forming a class judgment on the basis of
>instances.  You can dislike Joe, who did you dirt on some
>occasion, but it's prejudice for you to use Joe's incidental
>nelliness as the basis for being "not especially fond of
>'nelly' behavior."

Who says I do?  You?  And how much of your response is a prejudgement on
*your* part?  Attempts to clarify myself are called "backtracking" and
thrust into a category that defines them as mere attempts to separate
myself from everyone else.  And, of course, statements like this are called
"whining" because I actually bring up a point like the previous.

I call *that* prejudice.  You call it "you should know better."

And who said I disliked "nelly" behavior because of Joe?  What if I
disliked Joe, in part, because of his "nelly" behavior?  Why are you so
insistent that my dislike (which you call a "prejudice") of said
behaviorisms is tied up with a single incident?

>So you'll have to do better than you have to divorce the
>association between your prejudices and Sarver's, I think.
>And "I don't like <x>" isn't going to cut it in the
>overwhelming majority of cases.

And you'll have to do better to convince me that this isn't an attempt to
control what people think.  I've seen nothing here to convince me that you
aren't simply calling "prejudice" a dislike of mine with which you don't
agree.

--

 ________________ Alan Williams | vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu _________________
 \/ "Are you afraid I'm jeopardizing my secret identity, Ned?  I don't     \/
     *have* one, remember?"  --The Black Condor, _Black Condor_ #5