From: wrobboy@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (William Robboy)
Subject: Re: A.D.A. against HOMOSEXUALS?
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:23:40 GMT

Steve Conlee writes:

>	 In the Memphis, TN Sunday paper, The Commercial Appeal,
>	dated July 26, '92 many articles pertaining to the new
>	Americans with Disabilities Act could be found,...
>	 Now, to my reason for posting.  The article, found in the
>	business section, entitled "Educate, be aware, adivses
>	manager", (and I quote) says:
>		"Congress specifically excluded a list of
>		 people or conditions from coverage; they
>		 include current illegal drug users,
>	         homosexuals, and compulsive gamblers."
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>	 Excuse me, but how the HELL did queers get in this picture?!,
>	unless of course, you are gay and DO have a disability.
>	Does the government still consider homosexuality a
>	disease or a disability?...
>	OH, and the way this "male dog in heat" groups us with
>	"illegal drug users" and "compulsive gamblers"?
>	I truely hope that most people can see this "playing-
>	on-the-mind" game.
>	 Also, in another article in the same section of the paper
>	and I quote, states:
>		"The law goes well beyond traditional notions
>		 of disability by including any person with
>		 an impairment that substantially limits a
>		 major life activity. It protects people with
>		 AIDS, with cosmetic disfigurements, etc......"
>	 Oh, I see.  If I'm "straight" and have AIDS it's OK.....
>	but, if I'm gay and have AIDS forget it."


One also hopes that neither compulsive gamblers nor drug users are
excluded from coverage for AIDS (or cosmetic disfigurements) under the
Act. But such an exclusion is an absurd interpretation of the
paragraph in question.

I haven't read the legislation, but my reading of the newspaper quote
is just the opposite of Steve's. It is wretchedly written, but surely
it means that homosexuality is *not* to be considered a disabling
condition for purposes of coverage under the ADA. Like it or not,
people do seek treatment for homosexuality as a pathological
condition, and it's at least conceivable that someone would seek ADA benefits
for being queer, and that some homophobic professional would would certify
that this impairment substantially limited his patient's life activity.
But I, too, wonder who this scenario occurred to and why, and how it came to
be explicitly excluded along with those other cases. At any rate I hope the
legislation itself is a lot clearer than the newspaper's version. On the other
hand, I wonder just whose mind has been played on when our panic to disassociate
ourselves from other stigmatized groups interferes with our ability to read
a paragraph logically.


Bill Robboy

wrobboy@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu

blawlrwy@uiamvs.bitnet

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

Date:        Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:55:46 EDT
From: "AAKL000@CATCC.bitnet  Kevin S. Lowery Catonsville"
 <AAKL%CATCC.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: SIG FILES FROM HELL!

> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:51:20 EDT
> From: romickle@vassar.edu
> Subject: THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE PATERNALISM
>
> >> "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is.  I
> >> only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that
> >> differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute."   -Rebecca West, 1913
> >
> >Woah, chill out baby!  Nobody is callin' you a doormat or a prostitute!
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >I am not saying that discrimination isn't out there, but this sig file
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >has a hard edge that is rather uncomfortable.  Can we be a little more
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >positive?
>
> Uhm, EXCUSE ME!  This totally unecessary response is rife with reactionary
> condescension and a paternalistic tone ("Now, now little girl, why ruffle
> feathers with such a harsh sig file?")  What, I ask, is so uncomforting

Well, girl, what you interpretted me as a paternalistic tone, was a
misjudgement on your part.  When I use terms like girl, etc., it means
as in "girlfriend." It doesn't mean "little girl!" (Ugh, vomit,
vomit!)So maybe you shouldn't have been so quick to assume . . .

> about this sig file?  To me (and I'm sure many others on the net), this sig
> file is an affirmation of woman's integrity and self-esteem--it *is* a
> positive statement.  Moreover, it speaks truth. Think before you write.

Well, dearest derrick, I think that this is a free forum that I can
express my opinions in as well as you or the originator of the sig file
that I first addressed.  I am tired of being harrassed by women who make
digs at my sig file filled with my "personal" reactions to life and then
I get digged for pointing out someone else's (in my opinion) marginal
sig?  Hey, how about equal time, dearie Derrick?  Of course, everyone
has the right to complain about something . . . maybe you need to read
my latest sig file, hun!

Listen, I may not like the fact that I am a minority and I get tread on
by some homophobic white supremists, discriminated against in the
workplace, etc.  Yes, I think that you ought to express your views, but
not to a place that you backlash the people that have for so long
supported financially or voluntarily that cause.  I have always thought
and lent my support financially or as a volunteer to the women's
movement because I hate discrimination, period!  I just don't like to be
included in the male, white supremacist group that is not inclusive of
women.  I disassociate myself from it completely.  But not only do I
ignore, but I also try to discourage discrimination of women in
othersand volunteer my services in show of support.  I create
newsletters -- gratis -- for Women in Film and Television amongs others.

I just don't think that I should have been pressured to alter my sig
file if one above is permitted.  I am not asking the originator to alter
her file, but I would also not ask the same be expressed of me!

________________________________________________________________________
\ think  /  Kevin S. Lowery            | You can offend some of the
 \ pink /   Catonsville Com. College   | people some of the time, and
  \    /    800 South Rolling Road     | some of the people all of the
   \  /     Catonsville, MD 21228      | time, but certain people you
    \/      AAKL000@CATCC.BITNET       | can offend no matter what!
                                       | What's a girl to do? -- Kevin

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:11:50 -0800
From: b_blumberg@macsch.com (Bryan J. Blumberg)
Subject: Americans with Diabilities Act

Dear Steve Conlee,

     The ADA does in fact exclude homosexuals, but not in the
way that you described it in your post to Gaynet.

     First of all, the newspaper you read kind of lumped
everything together into a big uncomprehensible mis-match.
Imagine, homsexuals and gamblers, indeed.

     Actually, what the Jesse Helms's of the Senate did was
insert an amendment into the ADA which states that
homosexuality is not to be considered a disability for the
purposes of the act.

     Well, I certainly *hope* homosexuality isn't to be
considered to be a disability!  It's just that they're so bent
on putting us down at every turn, that after they convince the
world that all homosexuals are mentally disabled, they don't
want to take a chance that we'll be able to somehow let the
courts interpret the ADA as being a law which would grant
us equal rights.

     Pretty low, if you ask me.

     If you want your very own copy of the Americans with Disabilities
act, write or phone:

House Document Room
B-18, Annex #2
Washington, DC   20515
Phone:  (202) 225-3456

     And just ask them for a copy.

========================================
Bryan  J. Blumberg, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, California  90041-1777
(213) 259-4914, B_BLUMBERG@MACSCH.COM

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

Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:26:05 CDT
From: TPENNYC3@UA1VM.UA.EDU

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

Date:    Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:38 PDT
From: BEN TELLER                           <IZZYDX9@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: motss

I keep seeing references to MOTSS.  What do I need to do to get on the
mailing list?

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

Date:        Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:57:16 EDT
From: "AAKL000@CATCC.bitnet  Kevin S. Lowery Catonsville"
 <AAKL%CATCC.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: FEMINIST/WOMAN/LESBIAN HATER -- NOT!

> Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:15:14 EDT
> From: Sarah Richardson <SRICH@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
> Subject:      Doormats, prostitutes, & feminists
>
> "Kevin S. Lowery Catonsville"  reacts to LOCKE's sig.:
>
> >> "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is.  I
> >> only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that
> >> differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute."   -Rebecca West, 1913
>
> >Woah, chill out baby!  Nobody is callin' you a doormat or a prostitute!
> >I am not saying that discrimination isn't out there, but this sig file
> >has a hard edge that is rather uncomfortable.  Can we be a little more
> >positive?
>
> This sounds like you wish that feminists would be softer,
> more comfy, more, um, ...cheery?  I almost expected
> to see, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

WELL, YOU SURE DIDN'T CATCH ME WITH YOUR GREEK SALAD, MA'AM!
YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE YOU DON'T HAVE TO HIT OVER THE HEAD WITH THE
FRYING PAN TO GET THEIR ATTENTION!

> Here's a suggestion - next time you go to a movie
> (read a book, watch a TV show, etc.),
> REALLY try to identify with any of the women in it
> and see how often you feel comfortable.  You might
> begin to understand why feminists (who can also be
> men) feel that a hard edge is often appropriate.

Maybe all I ever hear from the feminist friends of mine and those with
whom I dearly love the same old stuff over and over again and I hate
hearing it.  Yes, they may be the victim BUT I AM NOT THE AGRESSOR!
Unfortunately, most men (myself excluded) see that HARD EDGE as "Oh,
she's just a dyke" or "Oh, she just needs a good lay!" kind of
mentality.  Unfortunately, the people that NEED to read your message,
never really DO read your messages.

> Sarah (who rewrote this to douse some flames.)

Sorry Sarah.  Didn't do much good.  I still think that you need to
consider BACKLASH.  It comes with every minority.  (Refer to sig file.)

________________________________________________________________________
\ think  /  Kevin S. Lowery            | You can offend some of the
 \ pink /   Catonsville Com. College   | people some of the time, and
  \    /    800 South Rolling Road     | some of the people all of the
   \  /     Catonsville, MD 21228      | time, but certain people you
    \/      AAKL000@CATCC.BITNET       | can offend no matter what!
                                       | What's a girl to do? -- Kevin

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

Date:        Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:17:46 EDT
From: "AAKL000@CATCC.bitnet  Kevin S. Lowery Catonsville"
 <AAKL%CATCC.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Going FISHing

> Date: 25 Jul 92 12:34:33 EDT
> From: Thanalakshmi.Subramaniam@Dartmouth.EDU
> Subject: sigfiles and WIld at Heart.
>
> *re the rebecca west sig file- hello? what a condescending suggestion to
> *calm down* and be positive. *no more nice girl*, i say! that is the classic
> feminist quote, one i remember from when i was a teenager, it totally *speaks
> truth* as derrick puts it.

Well, honey, if you're not going to be a nice girl, neither am I.  I
think that you have a lot of nerve to say that what I said was
CONDESCENDING!  It just sounded rather volatile to me and didn't like it
that I was expected to delete out of my sig file something that the
lesbian women on this net seemed to dislike.  All the while I MUST
tolerate the opinions of a radical feminist in her sig file.

Don't get me wrong as you have done before.  I support the women's
movement and have not done so just with lip service.  That is not the
issue here.  The issue is that I should be allowed to say what I don't
like and not expect the creator of the sig file to change it at all if
she doesn't want to.  But, please don't expect me to back down and
change my sig file either.  Well, if all of you are going to be adamant
about what is sacred in your sig files, then I should be given the same
consideration and will, at my earliest convenience, put the reference to
FISH back in.  For those of you who don't like FISH there are always
chicken and beef!

> *Wild at Heart- nothing misogynist abt this movie? well, remeber the scene
> where willem dafoe terrorises Laura Dern, puts his hands all over her, and
> makes her, in effect, *ask for it*, then leaves? i was so outraged by this,
> that i was shaking. it was the classic mushing of *she wanted it* , she
> *asked for it*, * rape is just rough sex* classic rape excuses. at least in
> my *non-positive* feminist opinion. this may not make the entire movie
> misogynistic, but that scene was nothing if not that.

Well, shimi, I didn't ask Barbra Streisand to take out the part where
Tom gets raped in PRINCE OF TIDES!  It really shook me and hit home
since I had been raped by a fellow boy scout whom I trusted at the age
of 11!  But, I had to applaud the work for being accurate and dealing
with it in a professional manner.  That may have been something that DL
did not do in WILD AT HEART.  I will give you this: his portrayal
ofwomen usually is not very healthy.  But, then again, nothing in DL's
movies ever are.  They are all dysfunctional!

> :)
> shimi

AND TO TIM: I really hate your attitude.  If anyone was CONDESCENDING it
was YOU!  Look, if you're not part of the solution, you're
definitelypart of the problem!  If you don't have anything constructive
to say, then just do it privately, okay?

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

Date: Monday, 27 July 92 15:34:28 CST
From: LLRLF%UTXDP.BITNET@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Inquiry

Several issues ago, I requested from you Netters an inquiry about the
controversal "Positively Gay - Positively Straight" that one of the
Boston newspapers ran about a year or so ago.  I believe that the
ADVOCATE ran a small article on it.  I would like some help from my
Gaynet collegues (sp?) in trying to obtain a copy of the Boston
article.  Can anyone out there help me?????????????

Richard Foster
UT Austin

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:36 EDT
From: YHANAWA@LUCY.WELLESLEY.EDU
Subject: LA HOUSING

I am posting this for a frien:
	"LF seeking housing in L.A.:  I will be entering the graduate
	program in history at U.C.L.A. this fall, and am looking for
	an inexpensive studio apartment in Santa Monica, Sawtelle,
	West Hollywood or West L.A. beginning Sept. 1 or 15.  I am also
	willing to consider housing with one or two other non-smoking,
	non-pet owners.  I will be in L.A. August 2-8, and can be reached
	before that time c/o "YHANAWA@Lucy.Wellesley.Edu" or by telephone
	in Boston at [617]522-9720.  Ask for Elyssa.

I might add that she is quite a lovely person who will be responsible and
considerate.  So, if you are looking to rent or sublet for a year, or
know of any good place, do please send me an e-mail or give her a call.
Thanks very much to all in advance.

					YUKIKO for Elyssa
					YHANAWA@Lucy.Wellesley.Edu

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

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