From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Straight Stereotypes (was Re: To Laura)
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:05:13 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

In article <1992Sep14.222311.23327@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>
>(me)
>>No I am not asking that.  I am asking what good does it do to bring
>>to life all the stereotypes that people have about gays.

Ooops, excuse me for butting in (well it was my thread!)
You don't have to ``bring to life'' those stereotypes.
They are *already there*.  They exist.  Your problem is
to bring to awareness that there are other sorts of Gaypeople.
Nuking the stereotypes strikes me as an unprofitable way
to go about it.

My problem with homomophobia is that is doesn't let you be
you.  My problem with homophobia versus homosexual stereotyical
behaviour is that is doesn't let those who demonstrate
homosexual sterotypical be them.  Everybody has to has a hobby.
Some people dance, some people buy ailing British cars, some
people cross dress and make like Judy Garland and do every stereotypical
gay thing that I can think of and a lot I can't.

So what?

No skin off my nose.

My rancour is spent on those who give them the hard time.  Me,
the worst I can say is ``you look silly''.  But if that was
a crime, then lime-green polyester suits would have been
outlawed decades ago.

>/(dyer)
>/And who is doing that?
>
>Anyone who voluntarily acts out such stereotypes. 


Oh yes.  People who voluntarily get out being queer, and
establish certain behaviours, on mass, which are common
enough to become stereotypes, and who had the good sense
to die before 1970 are ``our gay hereos''.  

Now, there is a definable ``stereotype'' and those of
us who fit into that sort of stereotype are supposed to
change ourselves and get out of your way so that you
can provide a ``new Gay vision'' which doesn't include
us.

>
>/ (dyer)
>/ [Brothers]
>/ [Cheers]
>/ [Torch Song Trilogy]
>/ [BBC]

my personal thanks for Steve Dyer who has a tolerance level far
beyond mine.  (or did you get warned which episodes to see?)

I've seen none of these.

I find it intersesting that you chose to delete his commentary.
Me, I'd just say ``haven't seen any of these shows''.  But you
were the one who asked for ``Gays in the popular media''.  
What?  Didn't like what he found?

>
>
>This is all well and good, Steve, but you have overlooked a few
>things (so what else is new?):
>
>1.  The networks are only going to allow a "watered-down" version of
>a gay character to be seen.  By that I mean, you won't see any of the
>more flamboyant, outlandish folks on the tube; it just won't sell 
>advertisements or help Nielsen ratings.

Sure.  Let's you and me and Steve converse in e-mail about how to
fix this.  Were you born yesterday?  The idea that there is a
``watered-down'' version of a Gayperson seen as versus one you
can only see by inuendo is a big deal.  This is a success.
It's not perfect, but it is a success.
>
>2.  The arts (film, etc.) have traditionally been more tolerant of
>gays.  The fact that Torch Song Trilogy was a hit tells more about the
>artistic venue and the intended audience than it does about what the
>average American is thinking.  How would it play in Smalltown USA?

So?  Smalltowm USA is obsessed with the idea that ``gaypeople'',
all sorts, happen other places.

>
>3.  These are all situations where the audience has a prolonged exposure
>to a character under a controlled environment.  In other words, some things
>take time to explain or demonstrate.  
>In films and TV, the audience sits through the entire show, and 
>over the course of 1/2 hour, or 2 hours, gets to know the character in
>his/her role.  
>By contrast, in the half-minute or two minute TV exposure that characterizes
>the average pride parade, there is no prolonged exposure where the 
>script writer can have the person's attention for a fixed amount of time and
>present their work.  So, if we know beforehand that we only have two minutes
>maximum to get our point across, what do we want to say in two minutes?

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa,

We have no point that we can get across in 2 minutes.  We've got
hours of points to make.  We don't have pride marches to get a
single point across in 2 minutes.

We get to hang out with our friends and celebrate how miraculous 
it is that we are here at all -- and get to make new friends.
Don't look at a pride parade as a protest -- look at it as a
Rose Bowl, or Santa Claus Parade.  The folks out there who
are making their parades as a protest are looking at this as
an ideal.   Good for you, Good luck with your protest parades,
let us know when they happen so we can attend  ``Hello Oregon!''.
(They have a 2 minute point to make.  Sink this bill.)

>
>(dyer)
>/Nope.
>
>You speaking for the whole Cabal these days, Steve?

Nope, Just speaking for Steve.
Ooops, I helped create net.motss.  Must be one of the
cabal.  If there is some great cabal, how come they
don't invite me to their parties?  




-- 
	C unions never strike; they only work to rule.

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Newsgroups: soc.motss