From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Keywords: internalized homophobia, self-loathing
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:15:29 GMT

In article <l8og7kINN4nj@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.172347.3647@microsoft.com> 
>bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>>
>> This thread (and all the related threads) have been an exercise in
>> feminine gays trying to redefine "masculine".  The idea is to stretch the
>> definition wide enough to (somehow) include them as well.
>> In the process, of course, they have to slam and tear the normal-acting, 
>> masculine gays who need no such redefinition.  In order to create a new
>> definition of "masculine", it is first necessary to destroy the old one,
>> since the fem. gays can't live up to it.  
>
>"Normal-acting, masculine gays".  Oh dear.  
>
>This paragraph is truly loony.  Fem gays just can't get themselves
>together enough to be butch, er, normal-acting and masculine.  In a
>snit, they've launched on a concerted effort to redefine "masculinity"
>so that they, too, might be called "masculine".

Behaviour seen in males of the species is by default, masculine.
Somehow it is being forgotten that the labels 'butch' and 'queeny'
and such are -relative- to the speaker. They are -indicators- and
have NO real defined point.

Things done by men are masculine, and things done by women are feminine.
Many of these overlap, but oh well. Just chalk it up as 'human behaviour'.

>> Perhaps is because those individuals who propagate stereotypes make it
>> hard for the group as a whole to be accepted.  Of course, as soon as someone
>> says something like that, a thousand screaming voices go up "I should be
>> accepted for what I am, regardless of how I act".  People may believe
>> that, but life doesn't work that way.  Gay pride parades featuring faggots 
>> from hell wearing nothing but g-strings are pretty terrifying to the average
>> person. 

But it serves a point. It shows the average person that we vary in our
appearance, our actions, how out we are and that we are too varied to
stick into a tiny shoebox classification. It points out how rediculous it
is to try and label people by what they see. Put a leatherman and a drag
queen next to each other and ask the average passerby which one is gay.
What do you think the average answer will be? How accurate would it be?

I am one of those people shouting that we should be accepted for who we are.
The body is a shell for the real person to get around in. If that shell is
wearing lycra or leather makes no difference in the gayness or straightness
of the person inside that shell.

You just don't like it because it means you can't dump someone into a category
and assign traits to them based on those simple, neat little labels. Maybe
accepting human nature as amazingly complex is a little too much for you to
deal with.

>> People have a right to act however they want; I would not support any 
>> measure (private or public) to restrict this.  However, the right to act how 
>> you please doesn't carry with it an guarantee that you will be respected 
>> for how you act.

I ask for and expect no guarantee of acceptance. There are obviously a large
number of gays who will get no acceptance from you. Tolerance, yes. Acceptance?
No. People have prejudices, the trick is not letting those prejudices trick you
into isolating yourself from people who are on your side.

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+     \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
Newsgroups: soc.motss