From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: To Laura
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

Sorry to break this into two parts...

In article <1992Sep03.193449.227@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>/ I may be understanding
>/ you wrong, but I keep reading things which leads me to believe that you
>/ think that the straights will accept you, just fine, as long as they don't
>/ think that you are `weird' -- and that straights have a stereotype
>/ of Gays as `weird' and that you think it is just dandy that they have
>/ problems with the `weird' -- but you are not `weird', so they accept
>/ you  -- and if the rest of us would all stop being `weird' we could
>/ all nicely be accepted, end of problem.
>
>/ I know that I am putting words and conclusions in your mouth, but
>/ can you tell me whether this is an innacurate reading of what you
>/ have said?  And if not, where it varies?
>
>
>By "negative stereotypes", I do not mean a man who is naturally
>soft-spoken, gentle, or effeminate.   And I don't mean a woman
>who is confident, outgoing, or masculine.
>
>I am not really concerned about the degree to which a person is
>_naturally_ feminine or masculine.  As has been correctly point out, those
>are probably fixed traits, and there is not much we (as people)
>can do to change what God has given us - - nor should we try.
>
>I don't personally find  feminine men attractive, but as long as I
>perceive that it is their natural personality which I see, I respect them
>for being genuine and real.

How condesendingly nice of you.
I truly believe that you did not mean this to be condescending.
I just can't believe in the ``Divine Nature'' who gives
one ``A Natural personality''.  If there were such a God or 
Goddess, She would ressurect my friend Rob so as he could
attend his memorial.  

Being alive rather than dead is natural.
All the rest we work on.  (provided we are living things,
rather than non-living.)

Plants work on being alive,
Trees work on being alive.

A huamns, we woprk at it too.  And being sesitive critturs we
decide what it is we want to have regularly in ort beds (or 
suitable contrivances.).

>
>What I am talking about is the rehearsed, practiced campy acts that
>many gays seem to thrive on.  This is _not_ a personality trait; it is 
>practiced, and rehearsed.  By definition, personality is not practiced--it
>is natural, needing no practice.  

Okay, for the sake of arguement I will take your
definition of personality.  Be assured that this one is
very primmed to go if this continues.

>Some of them spend hours getting the lines right, working on the facial 
>expressions - - the way someone would work at developing a good 
>British accent, for example.
>
>This behavior has a lot of comic value in the gay world; the more
>outrageous the action, the more "points" that one scores with
>friends.  I should also point out that the overbearing, 'butch'
>swaggering 'macho' type is also pretty phony; often done for sexual
>attraction reasons.
>
>They are both (in my opinion) attention-getting mechanisms,
>which unfortunately don't do the gay movement any good.

Certainly, I agree that they are worked upon -- I've watched
my friends, who did not have what we called a ``swish'' voice 
(is that term still current).  And in our Pre-AIDS days, having
such a voice and using it in the appropriate bar meant 
``I'm here.
I'm queer.
I'd like to get laid!''

>(laura)
>/ I believe that you lack a sense of history.  These days, coming out,
>/ is, while still a traumatic process, *much easier*.  Most people you
>/ will come out to have glimmered, from the popular media, that this
>/ thing, called ``coming out'' happens.  20 years ago it was unknown.
>/ 10 years ago it was rarely known -- at least in the popular press.
>
>/ Now, even the most evangelical of Christians knows what ``coming out''
>/ is. 
>
>/ This is progress.
>
>
>I disagree.  It is progress in the absolute sense of the word; you are
>of course correct on that.  But when I compare it to other similar
>movements (racial equality for blacks, women's rights & equality

ho yes!  Lincoln frees the slaves but it takes Martin Luther King
for real freedom...to start...

I know that you have not spent the last 20 years or so of your spare
time working for Gay rights.

I've spent the last 14.

A lot of it was wasted time.

A lot of you know it better that I.

But I get to hear somebopdy tell me that the fact that Gay
rights haven't achieved what he thinks Black and Womens' rights
have achieved.

Can we all get a smile?!

Fifteen years ago I asked to make ``Gay rights'' an issue like
``Black Rights'' and ``Womens' Rights''.
.... to a crowd of 300, which I thought was pretty good.

Now, people are pissed because we didn't move fast enough??!


Giggle.  How the hell could we have moved *too quickly*!!
I', amazed, damn proud, and amazed we did what we did.
-- 
	C unions never strike; they only work to rule.

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura