From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:13:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.010019.12395@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan04.053120.7082@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan4.000601.10282@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>"Mutually exclusive"? What makes you think that I meant that? I draw very
>>few absolutes, and it seems you have a tendency to interpret what I write
>>as black & white, all or none, mutually exclusive, etc... What gives?
>
>Rich, you stated that a [het] male pyschologist would be more likely than
>a lesbian to give good relationship advice to a het woman than a lesbian
>woman.  

I absolutely did -not- make any such claim. I did state that a lesbian
might have motivations to give bad advice however. Can you see the difference?

And you did not answer for interpreting what I say as absolute, black & white,
all or none. Why do you do this? It is not based upon what I post.

>           The reasons you have for thinking that were not clear to me, so
>I used paraphrasing to try to find out.

I suggest that when you take a statement about the possible motivations of
lesbians and change it into the ability of phychologists, that you have not
paraphrased properly. You have changed the group under discussion.
 
>[rich:]How can one advise about something one knows little about,
>[muffy:]Why do you think that lesbians know "little" about relationships?  Why
>[muffy:]should they know any less than anyone else?
>[rich:]Do lesbians know anything about HETERO relationships? [...]
>[rich:]And when I use the word lesbian, I am excluding bi-females, [...]
>>>
>>>Why are you assuming that all people who have ever had hetero experience
>>                           ----------
>>>are BI or het?  
>>
>>Whatever are you talking about, and again you use ABSOLUTES. 
>
>You specifically exclude bisexual women from "lesbians" (so do I.)

Sorry, you used "all people", and drew conclusions which I disagree with,
then ask me why --I-- am making assumptions. I want to know where your
assumptions come from.

>You asked Muffy what lesbians know about hetero relationships, which
>implied to me that you assume lesbians have not had hetero experience.

False, that is not the only conclusion. Do not attribute to me any assumptions
you may make, or any conclusions -you- draw from my text which you have not
verified.
 
>My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
>exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
>in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.

This was never at question, despite your assumptions.
 
>>Do you think that [lesbians] are able to -define- what is right and proper
>>in the het world? I do not.
>
>Of course not. But then, I don't think that any one person is able
>to -define- what is right and proper for the entire het world. 

Do you think that the heterosexual population in general, through
laws, mores and social pressure, have a right to define what is right
and proper for the heterosexual world?

Why do you go from the general to "one person"? It looks more and more
like communication is failing. Why?

>                                                            I think
>that each person can -define- what is right and proper -for-them-,
>and may do so with input from others. 
>
>[Society as a group sometimes defines what is right and proper for
>society - ie, rape is illegal, marriage laws, etc, etc - ideally
>these should reflect the input of society as a whole, is this what
>you mean, you see het-hating lesbians trying to make these definitions?]

This is the point that Robert Shaeffer brought up, and I am asking if
there is any reason to dismiss it out of hand with excessive theatrics,
as Diane had done. 

And I have NEVER, EVER used the words "het-hating lesbians". You need to
take that argument elsewhere. And pay some small attention to the text that
you are responding too.

You are too prejuciced to discuss this issue I think. All assumption, and
all -bad- assumptions. What are the chances that you will take any corrections
at odds with your prejudice? I wonder.
 
>>>Most of the women I know who self-identify as lesbians have had het
>>>relationships. Not necessarily relationships that they considered
>>>"bad", just het relationships.
>>And the lesbians who have not had het relationships, or bad het relationships?
>>Do they have their act together?
>
>The ones I know, [I am only talking from my own experience] yes.
>In fact I owe my last relationship to the matchmaking and encouragement
>of one of them [she set me up with one of the guys she worked with].

Matchmaking is different from giving advice, but I will assume similar
motivations, unless an obviously bad match was proposed (which I do not 
assume, wonder what you will assume?).
 
>>>I would be very surprised if a het asked such a person for relationship
>>>advice.  Assuming, of course, that the homosexual in question became
>>>friends with a het DESPITE their anti-het bigotry...from what you 
>>>describe, that's nearly impossible.
>>
>>This is the part Robert Shaeffer brought up, if many of the leaders of the
>>feminst movement and publishers of feminist magazines are lesbians, then this
>>is exactly the situation that may exist. 
>
>IE, you see that if many of the leaders of the feminist movement and 
>publishers of feminist magazines are lesbians who happen to hate hets,
>then these lesbians will preach anti-het hate?

No, they are not so crass and simple as you think me. But there are more
subtle ways to accomplish such goals. I found it interesting that the
article from _Ms._ magazine which rini posted (about the women trying to
do their fair share in fixing things) recieved responses from women who
considered, what was it, that _Ms._ had been bought out by the other
side, or changed sides, or something similar. _Ms._ may just reinforce
such attitudes, which may already be held by many of their readership. 
 
>>And I do not think that this point is invalid, 

I do not think your simplification is valid either.
 
>No, neither do I. 
>
>I also think that the typical het reaction to such anti-het hate
>[is it Dworkin who declared all het intercourse is rape?] is
>total, hilarious laughter. And, if one is in a charitable frame
>of mind, concern for the speaker's sanity.

Yeah, bet the Canadians think it's funny. 
 
>Perhaps this is the reason for our differing views...you perceive
>a serious problem, I don't.

No, I percieva a potential problem. You percieve a simple bigot, and
by your posts, your reaction seems to be giving your prejudices free
reign. You respond to things I did not say, and do not mean.
 
>>even if Diane cannot stomach the fact that Robert Shaeffer
>>posted it. Believe it or not, that does not automatically make it wrong,
>>even if they generally disagree.
>
>No, the fact that Robert posted it doesn't automatically make it wrong.
>
>>>>Having
>>>>had the pleasure of conversing (so to speak) with a few flaming 
>>>>anti-heterosexual homosexual's on the net, I am not going to qualify their
>>>>existance. I will only state that I have no idea how prevalant this is.
>>>
>>>Well, in my realife and net experience, it's 0%.  Maybe I'm not in 
>>>the right newsgroups <grin>
>>
>>It ain't 0%, or you can pull a rini and claim that I am lying. :^)
>
>I said IN MY EXPERIENCE, which in no way states anything about
>your experience.  I didn't mean that they don't exist; I just
>haven't had the "pleasure" of meeting one [and I'll pass, thanks.]

My point is that all gays and lesbians are -not- the nicest people you
have ever met, well balanced, and a good source of advice. And I am not
saying that all heterosexuals are, before you read this into the above.
 
>-jen


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism