From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Silent Majority (was: other stuff)
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:58:56 GMT
Organization: (getting there)



I've had this article of Bob's hanging around waiting for an answer,
but I haven't found it easy to develop, so I think I'll just make my
reactions clear:

I wrote:
  >>This group has a lot more structure than usually appears.  We're
  >>surprisingly cohesive, and that means that someone who "breaks in"
  >>is doing something to the structure that holds us together.  "Doing
  >>something" is deliberately vague.  
Bob said:
 >	The "cohesiveness" I think stems from mutual respect of
 >both our similarities and our differences (mostly the latter) than
 >some sort of RNC-like "party line and platform" as we are occasionally
 >accused.  Most of the people who feel they are "gunned down" in this forum
 >by some overseeing cabal are getting a reaction from not so much a 
 >"threat to the structure" the protection of a group of us who are
 >under attack from a parochial point-of-view.

I think that your perception of common respect, especially for our
differences is really the structural glue for soc.motss, and that
you are quite correct about the cohesiveness and what constitutes a
threat.  It's also worth pointing out that almost any "attack" is met
by more than one kind of defense.   

And your illustration is perfect:
 >	The latest thing with B.S. is of course a classic case of this:
 >it is VERY ironic that for the most part, the people who are scuffling
 >with him the most are not in any way stereotypical.  Why are they
 >countering B.S> so hotly?  It's not their hides under attack but others
 >of our community who are near and dear to us.  [ ... ]
 >  We really are a family.
Yes, but that's another thread.

 >	This brings up an even more interesting point (IMHO): what does
 >it say about a group of people who would seel out their family so easily?
Nothing that would make me want to be part of that group.

 >Put another way, people like B.S. have a very hard time envisioning an
 >inclusive GBLO*-community.  Their need for assimiliation and gender roles
 >are deep-rooted.  If push came to shove, how far would it go before
 >they sold the rest of us out?  
They don't seem to want to make use of the support and acceptance
that _we_ can provide.  I personally feel that it's their loss, but
I won't insist.

  >>We often see words from (relative) newcomers that show that they're
  >>aware of the possibility that their articles may be seen by folks
  >>who've been around longer as hostile or disruptive.  For the most
  >>part, the ones who approach with discretion (which isn't the same as
  >>hesitation) discover that there's plenty of room for them here.
 >	It's not so much tenure as it is exposure.
Yes, absolutely.  It isn't tenure at all, in the sense that some of
the most unwelcome among of have been known in these precincts for a
very long time.  It's exposure (as in becoming a known entity to the
people already here) and reflecting your own acknowledgment of the
rest of us as individuals.  You mention your own initiation; mine
was a seemingly overwhelming pfoject of learning how to tell people
apart and figuring out who was friends-- or enemies-- with whom. 

 >	Sort of like a microwave-GBLO*-education.  And while I can
 >see that ofr some/many it might be too intense or too fast, it
 >is the nature of this kind of forum.  But if you get beyond the 
 >hump of mutual respect, the benefits from all the cross-sub-culturing
 >is a never-ending education and mind's view into more facets of the
 >gay community one may ever have.
Truer words have seldom been spoken!

 >BBC hoping for 3 good
 >days in a row
Have you been stargazing again?  Did you get them?


-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Newsgroups: soc.motss,ba.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality