From: vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: Gay Homophobia (was Re: Too straight looking to be gay???) (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:53:19 GMT

In <1992Aug20.002050.3426@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

[Warning: This is my attempt to be a voice of reason here.  I realize this
probably won't work at this stage.  8-)]

>/(adolphso)
>/for the self-loathing and internalized homophobia felt by closeted gay men.
>There's that word again:  homophobia.  What is it with you, Arne?
>Things you can't understand / don't agree with just get dumped into
>an all-inclusive category, "homophobe"?

And what's with you, Bob?  Why do *you* feel obliged to attack someone
else's form of self-expression--and for that matter, why do you feel
obliged to attack those of us who are out, making the presumption that
we're all super-queens?  Do you feel threatened or something?

I assure you, I don't act in what I call a "stereotypical" manner.  Ask my
friends.

>Are you sure that you're not a fundamentalist Xtian or something?
>You have this knack for avoiding thinking things through critically
>and a simultaneous desire to take things on faith.

And you're doing *so* much better, Bob?  Look at your own statements again,
like this one:

>Right.  And the only thing keeping rape victims from coming forward
>is themselves.  Not the bad media press, not the slanted judicial
>system, not the public humiliation, nosiree.  Nothing else; it's their 
>own fault, and what other people do doesn't impact their decision
>one whit.

Having never exactly been in a closet, I can't say as I have personal
experience with it.  But from what I've seen, the problem doesn't lie
strictly within the closeted people (as Arne suggested--sorry I blotted it
out); nor does it lie strictly within the campy atmosphere of the so-called
queens.  It seems you've missed one of the contributing factors: The media,
in general has a tendency to portray homosexuality--*all* of it--as a Bad
Thing(tm).  Most "queens" don't stare you in the faxe and say, "You have to
be like us if you're gay," and snap their fingers Madonna-style (Goddess, I
*hate* that!).  It's your own perception of these "queens"--influenced by
the attitudes prevalent in the media--that contributes to the dislike of
it, I think.

>Christ, what a moron.

Is he?  Though I've never met Arne, I get the impression he's a very
thoughtful man about these issues.

>Again:  if flamboyant gays didn't act so bizarre, it would be a 
>hell of a lot easier for people on the edge of the closet to step
>across that threshhold.  

That's like suggesting "punkers" make it impossible to like alternative
music.  I happen to like alternative music, and one my dearest friends in
the whole universe--no, make that *two* of my dearest friends in the whole
universe--introduced me to it.  Neither of those friends is the
stereotypical "punker," and none of us feel obliged to change the way we
act and/or the way we simply are.

Another example: I've been a little leery of Wicca, particularly after
reading _Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft_, to find myself
questioning whether I'd want to be around people who do such "weird" stuff.
Another good friend of mine introduced me to a witch, and after chatting
with her about her beliefs, and finding out more about Wicca, I've found
that I'm probably a lot more like most Wiccans than I believed.  If I'd
only bought into the image of witchcraft and Wicca, I would never have
dreamed of talking to a witch--and I would never have dreamed that our
worldviews would be so alike.

>It is simple human nature to avoid being
>associated with a group of people that stands out for socially 
>negative reasons.  Why do you resist such a basic conclusion 
>as this?

I don't consider myself as *resisting* that notion.  I gave my ex the old
heave-ho a couple nights ago (Boy, did it feel *good*!) because, among
other reasons, he played up the kind of stereotypical qualities I think
you're talking about--and made it a point to berate me for being
"straight-acting."  I know his behavior is, for him, natural; just as my
behavior is a product of who and what I am.

But to lock yourself in a closet, and then blame it on the people you find
"socially undesirable"--that's just not fair, Bob.  The "queens" aren't
trying to make you into something you don't want to be, and you shouldn't
attack "queens" for being the way they are.  If they make you uncomfortable
(and I freely admit the behavior I've encountered from some "queens" has
*definitely* made me as uncomfortable as some of the "butch" types), that's
*your* problem, not theirs.  If you really think that coming out means you
have to change what you are, then I'd really recommend thinking about it
some more.  If you really think that your friends will suddenly perceive
you as a "queen" and shun you, then maybe they're not worth having of
friends.

Being gay is just another part of what makes you up; being open about it
means people have to accept that along with the rest of you.  It's a
package deal, y'know.  8-)

>It all depends on what is more important to you:  the right
>to act in a bizarre fashion, or political progress & social
>acceptance.

*I'm* socially accepted here at Bradley University, and  don't make my
sexuality any secret.  I hang around primarily with a crowd composed of
undergraduates (I'm the only grad student in the bunch) who also happen to
enjoy role-playing games.  We do some truly strange stuff sometimes; does
that mean I've given up social acceptance by hanging out with these guys?
I don't think so.


The point here is that it sounds very much like you've got a major
self-identity problem, and a degree of uncomfortability when it comes to
dealing with "queens."  Don't cast aspersions on them because *you* have a
problem with it; and don't be afraid to admit it's just Something You Don't
Like(tm).  There's nothing wrong with having a preference for certain types
of people; just don't throw around a lot of hate to justify that
preference.

Okay, sermon's over.  You can unplug your ears now.
--
 ________________ Alan Williams  vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu ___________________
 \/ A hypothetical paradox: What would happen in a battle between an         \/
    _Enterprise_ security team, who always get killed soon after appearing,
    and a squad of Imperial Stormtroopers, who can't hit the broad side of
    a planet?                 	--Tom Galloway