From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: To Laura
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:38:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



(markm, in a wishful sort of mood)

> [lots of line walking, backtracking to a degree from the generalizations
>  which he has been making here recently]

Nope.  No backtracking.  



(markm)
/Laura has asked you some very pointed questions which you try to sidestep
/and dodge by posing back question of your own.  

Nope.  None of that either.  Sorry you missed the answers; have someone
read them to you.



(markm)
/Be a sport and participate.  Your childish tactics of avoidance are getting
/entirely too boring.  

Christ, another .edu poster who thinks he should have been in screenplay.
Feeling the old righteous fervor today, are you Mark?  



>/ (laura)
>/ I keep wondering why it is that you think that this is the ``threatening
>/ Gay'' which invokes the not open-minded behaviour.  
>
>Because that has been my experience, and the experience of many friends.
>And because I see this same principle played out in other minority groups.
>People accept small differences more quickly than they do huge differences.
>(Now if the difference is genuine, as in black vs. white, I don't expect
>blacks to try to lighten their skin or whites to darken theirs; that's
>not what I mean).
>

/(markm)
/But Bobby, now you go off and give all of these fine examples which are
/based on already knowing something personal about the subject.  

No.  The examples re: blacks and Asians do not have anything to do 
with knowing something personal about the subject.  Try again, Mark.

And you fail to address the point:  why is the example with Asians
and blacks not valid?



(me)
>I do not see a corresponding desire in the gay community to distance 
>ourselves from negative stereotypes of gays (other than the child molester 
>stereotype that Clayton would have us all buy into).  

(markm)
/On the contrary.  I see a great many people trying to distance themselves
/from the queer equivalent of an "Uncle Tom".  Being a lackey, no matter
/how noble you may think the cause, the still being a lackey.  It does
/not enhance your position, but rather, it makes you a slave.

Lackeys, by definition, "kiss up" to the power brokers in the society
(white males).  The negative stereotypes I presented are not "lackeys".  
They are stereotypes of behavior that do not even need whites males 
to be present in order for them to occur.  

In an effort to forcibly inject your point into this, you conveniently 
skirt over the point I made without successfully addressing it.  
Put another way: you fail to address the point.  But, so what else is new?



(me)
>Let me ask you this:  do you believe that negative gay stereotypes even 
>exist?  What are some examples?

/(markm)
/yes.  you.

Cute.  

But you fail to address the point.  Should gays willingly act out
the negative stereotypes that society has?


(me)
>Masculinity and femininity are on a broad spectrum, and it would
>be a boring and dull world indeed if all the men were supermasculine,
>and all the women were superfeminine.  That is not what I am
>objecting to.  No one should have to apologize for what and who
>they are.

/(markm)
/Not even if they find happiness in campy, affected behavior.  Because,
/THAT IS WHO THEY ARE.  Buy a clue.  You are so close it is amazing.

AFFECTED BEHAVIOR IS NOT AN INHERENT PART OF THE PERSON'S NATURE.  
"Affected" means intentional, deliberate, with the intent of impressing
or showing off.  It's role-playing, pure and simple.

When it comes to what people really are by nature, no apologies.  When it 
comes to behavior or habits that are deliberately selected, then yes:  these
are up for debate and criticism, and people can be taken to task for it.

If someone has the obnoxious habit of interrupting you when you speak,
do you just accept it as their way of "finding happiness"?  Or do you
let them know?

That's why I can give my roommate hell for the way he keeps house.  
That's why he can give me hell for how loud I play music.  Your personal, 
deliberate behaviors are most certainly up for discussion.  
Newsgroups: soc.motss