Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:43:44 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 266

In this issue:
                            Misc. Things...
                                 20/20
                                 20/20
                Relocation of Queer Nation Mailing List
           Australian of the Year criticises "gay/AIDS lobby"
                               Blue Jeans
                Vermont's new law - What is the status?
                   Christoper Street's Desperate Ploy
                               ROTC story

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:37:02 EST
From: Rob Lindley <RLINDLEY@ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Misc. Things...

gaynetters,
	In a recent discussion with other gay friends of mine, someone brought
up a rumor that Queer Nation had been planning to "out" some actors and
actresses at the oscars, something that I believe was alluded to in recent
gaynet posts.  This raises some personal questions for me.  First of all,
does QN (or ACT-UP) make it a practice to do this?  Second, What is their
justification for doing so (if they do)?  Do they think these people will
suddenly embrace the idea of becoming gay rights spokespersons?
	It would appear to me that "accusing" well-known personalities of
being gay or bisexual equates homosexuality or bisexuality with negative
images.  One does not "accuse" someone of doing something good, and although
"accuse" may not be the term used, I feel that is exactly what it is.  Also,
I would consider "outing" to be in violation of that person's privacy.  Isn't
violating their privacy when we are seeking our (and possibly their) right
to privacy (by trying to eliminate sodomy and other laws) rather hypocritical?

	On another note, I recently saw the play _M._Butterfly_, and wondered
if anyone had any information about it.  Is it based on a true story?  When
did it first show? (in chicago, wasn't it?)  any information would be
appreciated.

	Please send any comments or replies to me, so as not to "clog" the
net. :)  Thank you.

					Robert Lindley
  					Indiana University
					Internet: rlindley@ucs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:49:26 EST
From: Rob Lindley <RLINDLEY@ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: 20/20

Hello again Gaynetter,
	One more thing

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:57:38 EST
From: Rob Lindley <RLINDLEY@ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: 20/20

ARGH! messed that up. :(

This Friday night, 20/20 will (finally) be airing a segment on the Indianapolis
Youth Group (IYG).  IYG is a state-wide, under 21, social/support group for
gay teens (14-21).  This was originally supposed to air over a month ago, but
it is apparently being aired this friday.  I am a member of the local chapter,
and would be interested in recieving any comments, suggestions, etc. about
the group. I realize this isn't very specific, but I don't really know what
the interview covers (except that they go to the very homophobic high school
in my home town for interviews).
					Thanks in advance. :)
					Rob Lindley
					Internet Rlindley@ucs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

From: rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Relocation of Queer Nation Mailing List
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 23:17:23 MST

The Queer Nation Mailing list is now located at on this system.

Mail to the readers of the list should be addressed to:

	qn@queernet.org
	qn%queernet.org@mips.com (if you can't deal with MX records)
	<well-connected-site>!mips!unpc!qn

Mail for administrative purposes, including requests to be added or deleted
from the list, should be sent to:

	qn-request@queernet.org
	qn-request%queernet.org@mips.com (if you can't deal with MX records)
	<well-connected-site>!mips!unpc!qn-request

This message is being posted to the GAYNET digest, and to the Usenet soc.motss
and soc.bi newsgroups, in addition to the QN list itself.  If you can think of
any other important groups or lists to nitify, contact me at the qn-request
address.
---
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster

------------------------------

From: John Donald Collier <jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Subject: Australian of the Year criticises "gay/AIDS lobby"
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:42:07 EST

A famous Australian doctor, Fred Hollows, named Australian of the Year
for his work with blindness amon Aborigines and people in underdeveloped
countries caused a stir here when he used hi position to advocate
isolating Aboriginal HIV carriers in order to stop the spread of the
disease into the Aboriginal community. He pointed out that conditions in
the Aboriginal community are similar to those in African countries where
AIDS is a serious problem across the whole community. Hollows accused
the gay and AIDS lobby using AIDS to further their own programs. In
particular, Hollows argued that the educational approach favoured by the
gay community is inappropriate for the Aboriginal community. He used
such words as "queer" and "hijacked" in his intemperate critiques
(television reports show him to be quite emotional). Although Hollows
apologised for "dipping into the vernacular", he did not take back
anything he said. He repeated his remarks in perhaps even stronger terms
two weeks later, and spoke of a gay nephew with whom he had been on good
terms, but who had died of AIDS.

The Aboriginal community and gay community have both objected to
Hollows' remarks, and newspaper reports mentioned the Hollows is being
treated for cancer. General reaction among politicians and officials was
that Hollows was entitled to state his position, but that it was very
extreme. Jim Hyde, who represents the Victorian AIDS Council/ Gay Men's
Health Centre took exception to remarks by Hollows that could be
interpreted as saying that gay men were responsible for their own
plight. He has also rebutted claims that AIFS control was not working
with evidence that Australia has been more successful than any other
country in controlling HIV infection. Geoffrey Barker, a columnist for
the Melbourne _Age_ has supported Hollows claims in two columns, and has
taken them somewhat further. It is worth remarking that he is the only
journalist writing in the _Age_ to take this view. Barker certainly has
given the impression that he blames sex, gay sex especially, for the
spread of AIDS. He also pointed out certain less than desirable
characteristics of some Aborigines that might place them at higher risk.
Hyde pointed out that it unreasonable to expect people to stop having
sex, but that the safe sex campaign has been so successful that the
number of new cases of HIV infection is close to zero in the gay
community, and that there are indications of success with the
intravenous drug using community. Hyde suggests that education will be
equally successful with the Aboriginal community. Hollows, apparently,
thinks this is just part of the gay agenda to deal with control of the
disease at the individual level. Another aspect of reporting on the
debate is that aboriginal protests have been largely ignored by the
media, while both Hollows' speeches, political reponses, and responses
by gay leaders have been well reported.


In additional Australian news, Derek Jarman's _Caravaggio_ was shown
recently on the State Broadcasting System, _Oranges Are Not the Only
Fruit_ is currently being shown on The Australian Broadcasting Corp as
a serial, and there was a nice program of the making of Jarman's
Edward II, with many scenes, along with discussion of the political
import of the movie on SBS. Also, the gay oriented program _OUT_
continues. This week's program was about Queer nation and Outrage. I
thought it put our point of view well, though the anger expressed by
some of the interviewees scared me a bit. If I were that angry, I
would probably be lopping off heads.

-
John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052

------------------------------

From: rogers@epas.utoronto.ca (Henry Rogers)
Subject: Re: Blue Jeans
Date: 	Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:04:26 -0400

Last year during Gay Awareness Week at the University of Toronto, our
remarkable leader of the Committee on Homophobia, David Rayside, a
prof in Political Science, pulled off a considerable PR coup. He
managed to get a group photograph of about 40 supporters wearing blue
jeans. The group included the President of the University, the Provost
and other Vice-Presidents, assorted deans, including the Dean of
Engineering looking a bit dour (although not more so than usual), the
Principals of the Colleges, and assorted lesser souls such as myself.
The picture appeared in the official University newspaper.

I think the effect of such an activity is enormous. The University has
a policy against discrimination on sexual orientation. Policies,
however, have to be interpreted, and a lot of foot-dragging can occur
when the authorities are not supportive. I suspect that the President
was there from a desire to avoid the bad press that a refusal would
have entailed, rather than from a deeply held support of gay issues. Some
administrators were there, likely, because the President was. However, a
public event, like the photo session, changes things. Various
attendees may not have been there all that willingly, but having made
a public statement, they will find it much more difficult to create
obstructions in the future. Indeed, in my experience, such events tend
subtly to change people's internal views to correspond with their
external actions.

Henry Rogers			rogers@epas.utoronto.ca

Department of Linguistics
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1A1				vox:	(416)-978-1769
Canada				fax:	(416)-978-8821

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 09:12:30 EDT
From: dwoolwin@cc.gettysburg.edu
Subject: Vermont's new law - What is the status?

Since I am on the job market, and have applied to Castleton State in
Vermont I would appreciate being kept up to date on the new
anti-discrimination law in Vermont. Has it been signed? When does it go
into effect? ECT.
If you want anyone knowing about this can post directly to my personal
electronic address.
David E. Woolwine                         717-337-6187
Sociology and Anthropology Department     dwoolwin@cc.gettysburg.edu
Gettysburg College
Gettysburg, PA 17325

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 09:38:13 EDT
From: dwoolwin@cc.gettysburg.edu
Subject: Christoper Street's Desperate Ploy

I haven't gotten Christopher Street in years and never read it anymore. It
hasn't "spoken to my condition" (as the Quakers say) in a long time, but I
was in Philadelphia over the weekend and was in a gay/lesbian bookstore and
picked it up while there. I was truely upset by the article Ron Buckmire
mentions, and it seems to me there are probably three causes it is in that
mag. First, and I remember the earliest editions of C.S., at the beginning
(for about a year) Christopher Street made some attempts to include
lesbians and people of color, but this soon changed and it became, and has
been for most of its history, a mag for and about (some) middle class
identified white gay males. It has a very bad history on dealing with
lesbian issues - so I am not the least surprised at the article. Secondly,
I believe that the present editorship and publisher are just out of touch
with the gay/lesbian/bisexual communities (as are the ones at the New York
Native). As part of my own research I was in their office about a year and
a half back and was allowed to look at their sales figures for the last ten
years. Both mags' sales have fallen off dramatically during that period, I
suspect because few others feel that they speak to their condition either.
Finally, and relatedly, I suspect that the editors believe, mistakenly,
that the way to sale mags is to generate "controversy" - so that stupid
article may have been a sort of desperate promotion ploy, (to create a
controversy where there is no real controversy, to play on the worse
prejudices of some of their readers, and thereby increase the sales) and if
I am
correct, a pretty irresponsible one at that, creating unnecessary divisions
and groundless resentment in the communities in order to sale one's
magazine. By the way, I believe that Outweek did some of that as well
(creation of controversy) to sale itself  - so the ploy may be a problem in
the business of publishing mags, not a matter of whether the mag is
Right/Center (where C.S. is) or Left/Progressive, (where Outweek tried to
be.)
David E. Woolwine                         717-337-6187
Sociology and Anthropology Department     dwoolwin@cc.gettysburg.edu
Gettysburg College
Gettysburg, PA 17325

------------------------------

From: awerling@NMSU.Edu
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:43:21 MDT
Subject: ROTC story

OK, I got so many requests from people to see this story that I
decided to send it on over to gaynet.  The format is a total
wreck.  If anyone with better knowledge of UNIX/etc. might
have suggestions for fixing it, please email me and I can
try this again.  But I think it's readable enough for the
time being (I hope).  My apologies if it's TOO illegible.  I
*will* try again if it's worse than I think it will be.
Here goes:

- -----
~7 #+l"(((((()<))))%
)/
)9)9)Ux(e0*M *m***-?(Here's a copy of the ROTC story I wrote for THE
 PHOENIX, the magazine at New Mexico State University.
"As of January 16, 1981, the Pentagon has seven, official, articulated reasons
 for banning gays:
"The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces
 [1] to maintain discipline, good order and morale, [2] to foster mutual trust
 and confidence among servicemembers, [3] to insure the integrity of the system
 of rank and command, [4] to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of
 servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions
 affording minimal privacy, [5]  o recruit and maintain members of the armed
 forces, and [7] to prevent breaches of security."
(as provided in a gay and lesbian-related computer digest by Ed Lisowki, as
 quoted from GAY/JUSTICE, by Richard Mohr.)
The policy that forbids homosexuals from joining the military encompasses all
 areas of the military.  This includes campus ROTC's across the country, and
 NMSU ROTC department head, Colonel Michael Clark, expressed the importance of
 the fact that it is not a specifically ROTC policy.  He says it comes straight
 from the office of the Departmend of Defense (DoD).
A gay NMSU student, who wishes to remain anonymous, recently spent eight years
 in active duty in the navy, and the DoD policy is the exact reason he is no
 longer in the military.
"I was out to some really close friends," he says about life on a navy ship.
 "There was a group of family members (homosexuals of either gender) on the
 ship.  Everything was cool.  It was very secretive.  There were at least seven
 members who were high-ranking officers.  It was like a big closet.
"When we worked we did our jobs; we were very respected for our work, although
 nobody knew (that we were gay).   We had to follow rules because we were so
 scared of one getting caught, getting scared and spilling the beans on all of
 us."
That's what happened to him, however.  He lied about his sexuality in order to
 get security clearance required for commission, and someone, indeed, "spilled
 the beans."  He was given two options; either admit his homosexuality and
 receive an honorable discharge, or get court marshalled, and if he was found
 guilty, receive a dishonorable discharge.
"By this time I was fed up with hiding," he says.  "I went ahead and admitted to
 it.  I was discharged honorably a month later.  I have full V.A. benefits and
 all that."
He was a 4.0 sailor.  "The doctors I worked with were very cool about it.  The
 supported 100% my decision.  Even to this day I still keep in contact with
 them.
"If there's any changes in statues in the military after I get my degree (at
 NMSU) I could say I would join the active reserves.  I really enjoy the navy.
 They got a lot out of me; I really can't say anything bad about it.  Right now
 they're cutting down on military force and finding different means of cutting
 down."
He doesn't agree with the stated reasons for banning homosexuals.
"Security risk is not a threat because we're open now," he says.  "I feel it's
 very discriminatory.  There were 1500 personnel on that ship, and around 125
 were family, and that's semi-openly.  I'm sure there were more who were very
 closeted.  We all worked great together; we were all there on a mission and we
 all pulled together and did jobs great."
The close-quarters of the military did not pose a problem for him either.  "I
 lived with 160 personnel in one bearthing compartment.  It was all pure
 respect.  I'm gay and if there was another person looking at me with his tongue
 hanging out I would be very offended."
Nor was respect and discipline a problem  "On the ship, I was out with this
 commander.  If he gave me an order I'd do it.  This was for respect for the
 chain of command.  There were 250 women on board, including officers.  A lot of
 people looked down on that, but still it was respected."
Another homosexual, who was required to go through two years of ROTC when he
 went to school, agrees that the military is full of homosexuals.  "I work for
 the army as a civilian and lived in Germany," he says.  "The German gay bars
 were full of American GI's.  Also, bars near American bases are full of GI's."
Colonel Clark feels that because this is a DoD policy, national representative
 are the people to express complaints to.  "If there are folks who feel strongly
 about the DoD policy, NMSU ROTC can't change the policy.  It does very little
 to argue with this department.  The best thing to do is to call your
 congressional delegation."
Another thing to do, and what people have been doing across the country, is to
 deal directly with one's own university.  A sociology professor at Pitzer
 College in Claremont, California, says it was as easy as writing a
 recommendation and passing it at a faculty meeting.
"Since we already had a non-discrimination clause," he says, "we passed it under
 those conditions.  Make sure your campus includes sexual orientation in its
 non-discrimination statement, then use the statement to argue against ROTC."
The Pitzer decision has the effect of allowing nobody enrolled as an official
 student of Pitzer to earn credit in ROTC courses.  It's an odd case, though,
 because the Claremont facilities house many different colleges, and Pitzer is
 the only one affected by the decision.
At Chico State last May a similar Facutly Senate resolution was passed.  As
 reported by David Welton in CENTERSTONE, the newsmagazine of the Stonewall
 Alliance of Chico, there are three parts to the resolution: "eliminate ROTC
 credit for ROTC courses;...exclude advertisements, notices, listings and
 references to...the ROTC program;...and withdraw faculty status from ROTC
 instructors."  The Resolution was implemented by Chico State President Robin
 Wilson, and the policy will take effect Fall 1993, to allow current students to
 finish their course of the program and continue earning credit for their
 coursework.
At the University of Kansas, the University Council (a governing body comprised
 both of faculty members and students) passed a somewhat unusual resolution,
 which, according to a high-up UK official, "would require all ROTC cadets and
 instructors to undergo sensitivity training regarding gays and lesbians."  The
 rationale is that "the policy will change eventually, so start getting the
 military ready now."
At Carnegie Mellon University, the non-discrimination policy has included sexual
 orientation since 1988.  A contact at the university says that, "At CMU, ROTC
 is a financial aid program, not an academic program."  Students who join ROTC
 receive some money to help with college expenses.  The contact relates the
 following story:
"Last January, a freshman midshipman was outted to his commanding officer by a
 friend that he confided in.  The student's scholarship was frozen, and he was
 not allowed to attend ROTC activities (such as the summer cruise required of
 all Navy ROTC students).  The commander of Navy ROTC requested that the student
 get a psychiatric evaluation to prove he was gay, and then would be permitted
 to disenroll.  The student contacted the gay/lesbian/bisexual group on campus,
 which put him in touch with a lawyer on the faculty.  In September, the student
 was permitted to disenroll without having to undergo the psychiatric
 evaluation.
"The October issue of FOCUS, the faculty and staff newspaper, printed an article
 on this story, after which the student senate passed a resolution forbidding
 ROTC as an organization to participate in any student-funded activity, such as
 CMU's spring carnival."
All of these options are possible, though none have been attempted yet.
 According to Colonel Clark, nobody has expressed a problem with the policy to
 him or any one who currently works in the ROTC department.
"The military science curriculum is open to anyone enrolled in the university,"
 he says.  "When a student reaches their junior year, they have an option.  They
 can come and ask to contract with the U.S. Army.  I cannot contract anybody who
 says they are homosexual into advanced courses.  They can take the courses for
 universtiy credit as free electives, but we can't let them wear the army
 uniform.  We can't contract them because we can't commission them."
A bisexual woman who used to be enrolled in ROTC says that "women in the
 military, especially the navy, are expected to get pregnant immediately or be
 considered dykes.  They get harrassed until they prove otherwise by getting
 pregnant.  The men in the military MUST prove their manhood.  They feel
 threatened by homosexuals and women, so they retaliate in shame."
The policy as it stands creates problems in minds of those considering
 enrollment in ROTC.  One woman says that "homosexuals should be in the military
 and be openly homosexual, not in the closet.  I'll support the military if it
 will support me."







at New Mexico State University.

affording minimal privacy, [5] t
"-".###	#
~^!0g4D.>&?
8hT
!@4P!?!@4h!@4h
	!@4h!@4h!@4h!@4h!@4h
 !@4h
!@4h
!@hh'
^"@#T4'"PY@fGH?*]vT	~
^!
0g4D.>&?_
!"HHZ(abyFG(|HHZ(d'@=`/P   pPR@H
-:LaserWriter
(K~(5
-------

Andrew Werling  awerling@nmsu.edu

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU