Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:24:33 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 622

In this issue:
                 Gay/Les/Bi/Trans/Queer as an Identity
                    "Born That Way": Does It Matter?
                         Alfred Packer sig file
                        _Boston Reader_ address?
                   Credit Unions and Same-Sex Couples
                  michael j. pastor iii and being gay
                       gay bars and san francisco
                     request to have my story read
                    Morrissey, Morrissey, Morrissey
                             PHILLIP-MORRIS
                    GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 621

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: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David M. Pahnos" <dp0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Gay/Les/Bi/Trans/Queer as an Identity

 Mark Hertzog <mwh8h@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>:
>Those who complain that a group identity creates an "us-them" situation
>ignore one essential fact: the division is there, and *we did not create it.*

that is incorrect and it is obvious that you did not read what i wrote
as i mentioned that (first I may add).

>It was straight society that decided long ago that hets were "us" and queer
>folk were "them."

It wasn't that long ago (in historical perspective) at all and we were
the ones who responded as thus and legitimized their prejudice and
stereotype.

>It continues to this very day and is played upon by the
>president of the United States and his political party.

Please do not stereotype the Republicans as some of us happen to be gay
ourselves, and are not happy with the right wing leadership.

>That will occur only when the united "thems" have
>accumulated enough cohesive political and social power that "us-them"
>politics is a loser.

no, what happens is that the original "us" becomes a "them" as long as
the mentality is kept.  what happens is that the "thems" do not decrease
their group identity (especially since they were never a group in the
first place)  as equality is increased.  that is when we get backlash
and ethnocentric behavior and regression.

> I say it's not likely to be seen in our lifetimes because (a) there are
>too many people like our posting friend who have been sold a bill of goods
>that having any identity other than the predominate "real American" identity
>is wrong,

I never said that.  I never thought that. I never bought that bill.
Keep your assumptions to yourself.
I could just as easily say that it won't because (a) there are too many
people like our posting friend who have been sold a bill of goods that
having any other identity than that your forebears and one of oppression
 and emphasis of irreconcible differences is wrong.

>(b) those with power are succeeding beautifully in egging us on
>in dividing amongst ourselves, gay men v. lesbians v. bisexuals v.
>transsexxuals v. queers v. homophiles v. moderates v. militants v. insiders
>v. outsiders v. leatherfolk v. radical feminists v. ... need I go on?  And
>that's just within our own community.

if you are a diehard true ethnocentrist like you have said above that
you are, then this is the preferred logical next step isnt it?  I see a
major contradiction between your attitude of a and b.  I see that
wonderful emphasis of difference, that unecessarily anally retentive
overly detailed  laundry list of inclusion.  those with power are doing
this?  what power?  who?  I see the groups like Queer Nation emphasizing
 the divisiveness more so than strayts.  They dont know that those kind
of differnces exist in the first place..how can they create a trend
towards it?


>Or, in brief, as I think Ben Franklin said: "We must all hang together,
>or surely we shall all hang separately."

Thanks for ending the post with an quote that supports my side of the
debate.  It condradicts yours.


michael j pastor iii
guest on davids account

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

From: Mark Hertzog <mwh8h@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 12:07:27 EDT
Subject: "Born That Way": Does It Matter?

Howdy again.
     I'm not inclined to fault Stonehead Phillips that much for the phrasing
of the queer question to Bush.  It would have been nice if he'd followed up
and asked whether Bush would repeat the answer to the face of his campaign
chairman's openly lesbian daughter, Dee Mosbacher.  But I digress.
     While it is a matter of intellectual interest to determine why people
are attracted to one or the other sex (or both sexes), just as it's of
intellectual interest to determine why some folks are left-handed or
ambidexterous, in real-life living terms *what blinking difference does it
make*?
     We've made a serious mistake as a movement in putting so much stock into
the idea that "we're born this way."  First, it makes no difference to bigots
that people have no choice about their race or sex.  Perhaps more important,
we negate ourselves.  Suppose someone could choose to be gay and did so.
Would it lessen that person somehow compared to a person who's gay by nature?
By resting so much on the argument that "we can't help it," we buy into the
whole notion that straight is normal and that we're abnormal, and that the
burden is on us to justify or explain our "abnormality".
     Tim Pierce makes an excellent point: religion, at least ultimately, is a
choice.  Whether one is Jewish because one was born Jewish or raised Jewish
or converted to Judaism makes no difference, and anti-Semitism is no more
justified in the case of a convert than in the case of a born-and-raised Jew.
It is considered out of bounds for society, which claims (tenuously) to be
Christian in this country, to discriminate against Jews in order to (a)
protect their Christian children from being converted, or, and this is pretty
sick, (b) give Jews an incentive to convert to Christianity.
     The religious/strong ethical beliefs comparison is most valid in an
additional sense.  The ultra-right always is running down our "immorality."
Our morality as a community differs from theirs, just as Jewish or
Rastafarian or humanist or Hindu or vegetarian morality differs.  Even gay
Christians differ from most straight Christians in their interpretation of
the Bible and its moral dicta.  We may point out that speaking in tongues,
handling snakes, shaking in convulsions in church and televised faith healing
also are out of the American norm.  But those deeply held religious beliefs
and practices are fundamentally guaranteed under our Constitution, while ours
are ridden over roughshod because we keep letting the ultra-phobes state the
argument in their own terms.  Our way of life comprises *our* deeply-held
moral beliefs, and they are no more subject to question in public debate than
those of the fundies.
     Will we PLEASE stop bashing ourselves and trying to fit our round pegs
in their square holes?

Love,
Mark in Virginia
("You son of a bitch!  There were only seven Democrats in this county, and
you ate five of them!" --California judge sentencing Alferd Packer, ca. 1850)

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

From: "Mac Phillips"  <MAC@hup.ucla.edu>
Organization: UCLA Honors & Undergraduate Pgms
Date:         13 Aug 92 09:09:11 PST
Subject:      Alfred Packer sig file
X-Pmrqc:      1

Love your sig file Mark.  I heard a different variation:

    "Don't know why we're hangin' Alfred Packer.  There were only
seven deemocrats in the Colorado Territ'ries, and good ol' Alfred et
five of'em."

    -One republican to another after the guilty verdict of
Alferd Packer, the first American convicted of Canibalism.
Apparently, Alfred was part of a fateful silver mining expedition
into the Rockies.  All seven got snowed in for the winter, and in the
spring good old Alfred hiked out alone, picking his teeth.

    I'm told Alfred Packer is also the namesake of a campus dining
hall at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

    My source is Ms. Packer, my highschool biology teacher from
Melrose, MA.  A proud ancestor of Alfred and an avid arachnophile,
she was quite a character herself.  When studying virology, she
generously proffered her own scorching case of facial herpes in a
demonstration of lysing.

    I had this class 10 years ago, (There.  I said it.), so forgive
me if not all my facts jibe.

   "-Suppose I were to say your pearls were false.
    -They were.  They were.
    -Surely you must know when you wear pearls, that little by
    little the pearls become real.
    -and isn't it the same with memories."

                                -My recolection of my adaptation for
                                an oral interpretation of Gerry
                                Herman's musical adaptation of Jean
                                Giradeux's tea party scene from,
                                _The Madwoman of Chaillot_

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@   @@@   @@@@         @@@@   @@@@@@@@@@          @@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@   @@@   @@@@   @@@@@@@@@@   @@@@@@@@@@   @@@@   @@@@@
========   ===   ====   ==========   ==========   ====
=============@@@@@@@@   @@@   @@@@   @@@@@@@@@@   @@@@@@@@@@          @@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@   @@@   @@@@   @@@@@@@@@@   @@@@@@@@@@   @@@@   @@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@         @@@@         @@@@         @@@@   @@@@   @@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

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

Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:13:21 EDT
From: Michael Montgomery <MICHAEL%PUCC.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      _Boston Reader_ address?

Would someone please send me for _The Boston Reader_ address and if avail-
able price of sample issue and/or subscription.  Thank you everso,
                                      Mike Montgomery
                                      michael@pucc.princeton.edu

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:13 CDT
From: C60RBR1%NIU.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Credit Unions and Same-Sex Couples

   A member of our Task Force here at NIU has asked about credit
union membership and benefits for his significant other-does any
reader of Gaynet know about college/university credit unions and
same-sex couples as to memberships, limitations, etc.Let me know
if your school does NOT have them-we can use that data, too.Many
thanks in advance.                  Rob Ridinger  `

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

Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:06:42 MST
From: "Gabriel (in New Mexico)" <G9348712%NMSUVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      michael j. pastor iii and being gay

He says:

>                           I equate being gay with 1. liking certain
> types of music (I will go to a dance club that places house or techno
> over one of country), 2. liking comic books (I collect them, and I go to
> some conventions), 3. science fiction (almost the only genre of fiction
> or non-fiction that I read, much to my detriment, as I refused to give
> anything else a chance), 4. not being able to digest shrimp (but I  can
> digest other shellfish), 5. being an abused child (by a father who was
> damn good was he was good, and pretty bad when he was bad) and other
> traits.

I guess I'm not gay, then, since my dad didn't abuse me.

Gabriel (in New Mexico)

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

Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:08:02 MST
From: "Gabriel (in New Mexico)" <G9348712%NMSUVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      gay bars and san francisco

The sender (forgive my not recording you) who noted the many gay bars in
cities such as S.F. falls into the same conundrum I previously remarked:
There are clearly more "out" gay people in S.F. than in some other places,
but these people are a quite small fraction of all the queers in the USA.

If indeed we are anywhere near 10 percent of the population, then San
Francisco, New York, L.A., et al, would have to be 150 percent gay in order
to contain all of us.  In fact, even in S.F., I've heard it said that the
majority of fags and dykes are in the closet.  Most of the twenty-five
million or so of us do *not* live in the big gay meccas, and so we must
make up some percentage of the places we *do* live.  I think it is important
to remember that, because we are, in fact, everywhere, and in non-negligible
amounts.

Gabriel (not the only queer in New Mexico)

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

Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:20:04 MST
From: "Gabriel (in New Mexico)" <G9348712%NMSUVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      request to have my story read

I have a raw first draft of a new story (fiction), which I'd like to
have read by anyone who is interested.  It's a bit complicated and about
600 lines.  It's also rather dark.  (I don't want to say more, because
I want to see how much of it is understood by an audience.)  Please let
me know if you're willing to read it through and send back comments.  (I
felt that 600 lines was too much to require of those who have to pay for
the privilege of Gaynet, and may not be interested.)

Gabriel (in New Mexico)

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

From: <MARKD@urjwc.ucla.edu>
Subject: Morrissey, Morrissey, Morrissey
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 12:29:00 PDT
Encoding: 37 TEXT

To Mark (in Virginia):
    Two things:
    1.) Perhaps I should have been clearer.  Morrissey has yet to proclaim
his affections *FOR ME.*  While I truly believe this will inevitably happen,
I think the man better put on some speed, cuz I'm tired of waiting for him to
watch over me.
    2.) In regard to him being out FOR YEARS - and I confess, I have not read
that first RS interview - my understanding of the situation, and this came
from the columns by (I think) Adam Block in the "Voice" and "Advocate"
was that Morrissey has alluded (or would "eluded" be better?) to being gay,
but has remained cagey on the subject, refusing to actually commit (must be
his fear of intimacy, and probably is the most major stumbling block in his
and my relationship).
    My impression was that Morrissey had not really declared one way or the
other - and since he had not declared affection for women, it was assumed
that his affections ran toward men, with no thought given to both or neither.
Then I read a while back that he was *happy* because he had let down his
defenses and gotten romantically involved with *someone* - no gender declared
(and obviously not his destiny as I remain single).
    I must admit that I haven't kept up with Mr. Suedehead's press
much since his first solo album.  In fact, I haven't seen much (in the
American press, anyway) that was much more than a rewritten press pack.
    BTW, I still miss the musical tug-of-war between Morrissey and Johnny
Marr.  Most of his solo stuff lacks that kick the Smiths had [although he
hasn't sunk as low as, say, post-Beatles (or even post-Wings) Paul
McCartney]. How is "Your Arse-n-al"?  And how are we to interpret the pun in
that album title?

Mark (in Los Ugliness)

"And there's much more we can say/and there's much more we can do/and there's
much more we can learn/Generations of Love." -- (Mad about the) Boy George

"You don't eat meat/But you eat your heart out Stephen." -- from Sandie Shaw
to Suedehead

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

Date:        Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:08:21 EDT
From: "AAKL000@CATCC.bitnet  Kevin S. Lowery Catonsville"
 <AAKL%CATCC.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: PHILLIP-MORRIS

> Sender: lmeissne@milton.u.washington.edu
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Loren Meissner <lmeissne@u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Philip Morris to Target Cigs to Gays
> Mime-Version: 1.0
>
> The following article was published in the Thursday Aug. 13 "Advertising"
> column (page B1) of _THE WALL STREET JOURNAL_. (Reprinted without
> permission-excerpted here due to lack of time to type it all in.
> Disclaimer: I am posting this for informational purposes only and the
> views expressed in the article are not necessarily mine).
>
> PHILIP MORRIS TO PUSH BRAND IN GAY MEDIA
> by Joanne Lipman
>
> ....[Tobacco] industry giant Philip Morris Co.s next month will unveil
> Benson and Hedges Special Kings- an 85 millimeter version of its longer
> upscale smoke- with ads directed in part to the homosexual market. Among
> other publications [including Esquire and GQ], the brand's introductory
> campaign is scheduled to appear in the October-November issue of _Genre_,a
> fashion and life style magazine for homosexual men. The ad campaign
> apparantly marks the first time that a major tobacco company has
> advertised in the national gay press.....
>
> [etc.etc.etc., I have to stop
> typing now and get to work, but if the demand is there, I can type in more
> tonight (if you folks write me and ask me to do it)].

Loren, thanks for posting this information.  Would you please post the
rest of it at your leisure, pretty please, pretty please with sugar on
top of it?

Now, I don't mean to attack you or anyone else, it is just that I have
a hard time justifying this kind of advertisement as good advertising.
Let's face it, they sell a product which has adverse affects on good
health.  I may not be in perfect health myself, but I try to avoid
even second-hand smoke.  Many of you can already see my point so I
won't belabor it.

But one must also admit that the advertising money does go to help the
community (if even only for supporting GENRE's magazine.)  Besides, lots
of us (by no means do I mean to infer ALL of us) do support their
company already so it might be about time they funnel some of that money
back into the community.  Both ideas have justifiable reasons, but I
am still feeling uncomfortable that such advertisement is sent to our
community, politically and personally.  Ah well, we can't be PC all the
time!

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

Subject: Re: GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 621
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:24:17 PDT
From: "Joseph C. Chen" <cchen@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>

> PHILIP MORRIS TO PUSH BRAND IN GAY MEDIA
> by Joanne Lipman
>
> ....[Tobacco] industry giant Philip Morris Co.s next month will unveil
> Benson and Hedges Special Kings- an 85 millimeter version of its longer
> upscale smoke- with ads directed in part to the homosexual market. Among
> other publications [including Esquire and GQ], the brand's introductory
> campaign is scheduled to appear in the October-November issue of _Genre_,a
> fashion and life style magazine for homosexual men. The ad campaign
> apparantly marks the first time that a major tobacco company has
> advertised in the national gay press.....
>
  I don't know whether I should be glad that homosexual men are being
recognized or be annoyed that the dominant culture is trying to poison us to
extinction  :)

> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------


just my $0.02 about what m.j. pastor iii wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "David M. Pahnos" <dp0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
> Subject: ethnic gayness
>
> Unity is not produced through division.  United we stand, divided we
> fall,  and Humans do not bond with each other based on our differences,
> but rather our common attributes.
>
> all we are doing is playing their game with an ethnic identity.  we can
> be a group of individuals without being a group.  as a group, we are
> letting them keep us that way.
>
  I agree with human unity, but I also believe that group identity is
unavoidable.  Group association and individuality are the two conflicting
positions in between which people must a balance.  Human beings can be
individuals with their own traits and personalities, but they also need
conformity -- to be accepted.  There are strong individuals out there who
can stand by themselves, but the majority of the population utilizes group
mentality.  Every human social structure is based on groups: from families
to nations.  Therefore, I doubt that group association can be abolished from
human behavior, at least not in the near future.

  Differences come with group identification; groups are formed based on the
similarities and differences between people.  Although most people
disapprove of them, prejudices and bigotry based on these differences do
evolve.  Even generalizations about a certain group can be aligned
negatively; for instance, Asians are sometimes generalized to all be bad
drivers.  In order to eliminate these prejudices, the group must reinforce
itself in combat.  But the combat should be against the bias, not against
other groups.  The group needs to point out that differences do exist within
the group--i.e. not all gay men like to dance--and to correct the
prejudices.  People should be allowed to organize into groups because of
their differences, but these differences should not be judged by people
outside of the group.  Unity and peace can only come from people recognizing
one another's differences and respecting them.

  I associate myself with certain groups because I enjoy the similarities
that I share.  I like to talk to my Asian friends because we have similar
cultural backgrounds, and we can easily understand one another's opinions,
desires, and problems.  I like to go dancing with my gay friends because
they're wild, fun, and flamboyant.  I like other people to see my
differences because I want them to like me for what I am.  There's nothing
wrong for one to associate him/herself with a particular group; the
prejudices between groups need correction, not the groups themselves.

  I babble . . .

*******************************************************
| Joseph C. Chen                | Apathy and Lethargy |
| cchen@jarthur.claremont.edu   | The Evils of Summer |
*******************************************************

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

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