From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Date: 06 Jan 93 00:46:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan5.010019.12395@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.053120.7082@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.000601.10282@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>"Mutually exclusive"? What makes you think that I meant that? I draw very
>few absolutes, and it seems you have a tendency to interpret what I write
>as black & white, all or none, mutually exclusive, etc... What gives?

Rich, you stated that a [het] male pyschologist would be more likely than
a lesbian to give good relationship advice to a het woman than a lesbian
woman.  The reasons you have for thinking that were not clear to me, so
I used paraphrasing to try to find out.

[rich:]How can one advise about something one knows little about,
[muffy:]Why do you think that lesbians know "little" about relationships?  Why
[muffy:]should they know any less than anyone else?
[rich:]Do lesbians know anything about HETERO relationships? [...]
[rich:]And when I use the word lesbian, I am excluding bi-females, [...]
>>
>>Why are you assuming that all people who have ever had hetero experience
>                           ----------
>>are BI or het?  
>
>Whatever are you talking about, and again you use ABSOLUTES. 

You specifically exclude bisexual women from "lesbians" (so do I.)
You asked Muffy what lesbians know about hetero relationships, which
implied to me that you assume lesbians have not had hetero experience.

My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.

>Do you think that [lesbians] are able to -define- what is right and proper
>in the het world? I do not.

Of course not. But then, I don't think that any one person is able
to -define- what is right and proper for the entire het world. I think
that each person can -define- what is right and proper -for-them-,
and may do so with input from others. 

[Society as a group sometimes defines what is right and proper for
society - ie, rape is illegal, marriage laws, etc, etc - ideally
these should reflect the input of society as a whole, is this what
you mean, you see het-hating lesbians trying to make these definitions?]

>>Most of the women I know who self-identify as lesbians have had het
>>relationships. Not necessarily relationships that they considered
>>"bad", just het relationships.
>And the lesbians who have not had het relationships, or bad het relationships?
>Do they have their act together?

The ones I know, [I am only talking from my own experience] yes.
In fact I owe my last relationship to the matchmaking and encouragement
of one of them [she set me up with one of the guys she worked with].

>>I would be very surprised if a het asked such a person for relationship
>>advice.  Assuming, of course, that the homosexual in question became
>>friends with a het DESPITE their anti-het bigotry...from what you 
>>describe, that's nearly impossible.
>
>This is the part Robert Shaeffer brought up, if many of the leaders of the
>feminst movement and publishers of feminist magazines are lesbians, then this
>is exactly the situation that may exist. 

IE, you see that if many of the leaders of the feminist movement and 
publishers of feminist magazines are lesbians who happen to hate hets,
then these lesbians will preach anti-het hate?

>And I do not think that this
>point is invalid, 

No, neither do I. 

I also think that the typical het reaction to such anti-het hate
[is it Dworkin who declared all het intercourse is rape?] is
total, hilarious laughter. And, if one is in a charitable frame
of mind, concern for the speaker's sanity.

Perhaps this is the reason for our differing views...you perceive
a serious problem, I don't.

>even if Diane cannot stomach the fact that Robert Shaeffer
>posted it. Believe it or not, that does not automatically make it wrong,
>even if they generally disagree.

No, the fact that Robert posted it doesn't automatically make it wrong.

>>>Having
>>>had the pleasure of conversing (so to speak) with a few flaming 
>>>anti-heterosexual homosexual's on the net, I am not going to qualify their
>>>existance. I will only state that I have no idea how prevalant this is.
>>
>>Well, in my realife and net experience, it's 0%.  Maybe I'm not in 
>>the right newsgroups <grin>
>
>It ain't 0%, or you can pull a rini and claim that I am lying. :^)

I said IN MY EXPERIENCE, which in no way states anything about
your experience.  I didn't mean that they don't exist; I just
haven't had the "pleasure" of meeting one [and I'll pass, thanks.]

-jen
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6991 soc.men:22472