From: sfsmith@pennsas.upenn.edu (Sandy F. Smith, Jr.)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: There was this sign in the window...
Keywords: @$#!% NewsWatcher bug...
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:26:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

A minor incident at this year's Philadelphia Gay Pride Parade and Festival has
generated an unusual response.  Given some of the recent traffic on straight/
gay relations, I thought I'd share it with you (along with a few thoughts of
my own on the subject) and see how y'all in netland would respond.
- - - - -
The organizers of the Pride Parade contract with a local ambulance service to
provide emergency care for the marchers.  The ambulance brings up the rear in
case anybody ahead needs assistance.  This year, according to an article in
the _Philadelphia Gay News_, the two-man ambulance crew put signs in the
windows reading "We're Straight" in response to what they said were unwanted
advances from people along the parade route.  According to the crew (as quoted
in the article), bystanders were asking if they could "do it" with them in the
back of the ambulance and yelling phrases like "try it, you don't know what
you're missing."

The parade organizers complained to the ambulance company, which suspended the
two drivers and pledged to have them undergo sensitivity training.  All of this
was duly reported in the pages of _PGN_.

The paper was deluged with letters -- supporting the ambulance drivers.  The
general tone of the letters ran like this: "Sexual harassment is sexual
harassment, regardless who's doing the harassing.  Putting a "We're Straight"
sign in the window in response to a come-on should be no more offensive than
saying "no, I'm not interested" to a pick-up line in a bar.  And now these
men are getting punished for just saying no?  Come on--this is grossly 
unfair."  The paper also excerpted a _Philadelphia Daily News_ column by
Jill Porter that made much the same point.
- - - - -
Now, bear with me for a moment while I wrestle with my own opinions on this
subject. [ungggh...uUUnnggh...UNNNNGGGHHH...WHAM!!!  How about best 2 of 3
falls?]

On the surface, the letter-writers are dead on.  Nobody should have to submit
to unwanted advances, regardless of the sex or orientation of the advancer or
advancee.  If the drivers were indeed propositioned, their response was rational
and (you'll forgive me) straightforward, and they should not be punished for
that.

But reading the ambulance crew's remarks, a little alarm goes off in my head:
"Something's amiss here."  My experience observing Pride Parade crowds suggests
that the sort of out-and-out propositioning they describe is the exception,
not the rule.  Furthermore, the sort of remarks attributed to the bystanders
brings up that old "recuritment" bugaboo fundies throw in people's faces all
the time.  At the risk of trivializing the issue of sexual harassment yet
again, I can't help but wondering if their explanation wasn't just a cover for
the discomfort they felt surrounded by all those queers, and that perhaps the
sensitivity training is called for.

Your thoughts on the subject?
___________________
Sandy F. Smith, Jr.
Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
16 College Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6378.  (Opinions mine, not Penn's)
Internet: sfsmith@pennsas.upenn.edu
 
"The God I serve don't make no trash!" -- Rev. Emanuel Cleaver, Mayor, City
of Kansas City, Mo.
Newsgroups: soc.motss