From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Redefining masculinity
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:11:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



/Where's this attribution?

As I said, this application doesn't permit attribution.  Other than to
manually clip it in, that is.


/Which feminine gays?  How can you tell from a posting?  

By reading it, and what they say in it about masc. gays.


/Given the people that have been doing the
/most rationale discourse on this thread (and no, I don't include you on
/that list), 

Thank you.  

Obviously, "rational" to you means "agrees with what I think";
so "irrational" must mean actually mean "disagrees with me".  I think I
have it now.


/and having met most of them, I don't see how anyone could
/not preceive them as "masculine".  Of course this is silly - since the
/"requirement" of having a concept as "masculine" as some sort of thing
/to measure up against is likewise silly.  

Masculine:
The term is an adjective.  By definition, it cannot apply to everyone.  An
adjective that applies to everyone ceases to be descriptive and has no
meaning.  It is not a "right" that everyone can claim, anymore than "tall" 
is an adjective that should apply to everyone.   Deliberately expanding
or contracting an adjective is indicative of a private agenda.

I cannot ever play pro basketball.  I am 5 foot 9.  Instead of changing the
rules of basketball, or redefining the word "tall", I simply accept the
fact that I am too short to play.  I also accept the fact that some 
people are *not* too short to play, and I admire them instead of slamming
them for what is their intrinsic nature.  That is a superior way to deal with
reality, than to have dynamic redefinition of words to suit our personal
tender sensibilities.



/
/they are only concerned that
/we aren't what THEY want us to be - it doesn't matter if we're nellie,
/butch, masculine, feminine, feminine-acting-masculine, masculine-acting-
/feminine, alternating-between-the-two-every-other-day, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Actually, it matters quite a lot.  The dozen or so straight people who
know I'm gay were surprised and quite hard to convince.  The uniform
remarks I heard were:

1.  "But you don't ACT gay."
2.  "Are you sure?"
3.  "If more gays acted like normal people, I don't think that society
     would have such a problem with it".
4.  "How come [feminine gay name] has to act like that?"

Being gay should be no more of an issue than being left-handed; something
that is definitely not average, but not a glaring difference, either.
And a difference which should carry no weight in employment, housing, etc.
However, if people rivet in on any one facet of their personality and
become polarized by it, the resulting imbalance can be pretty bizarre.




/	Harping on such a set of non-issues, only makes clear a great
/insecurity about these issues.  Perhaps you could get counseling to
/help you get over your homophobia...

Yeah, right.  This is another variation on the well-known group chant:

IF (confrontational) 
	THEN (homophobe)  

You have mastered this equation perfectly.  Unfortunately, it's a little
stale.  You need to learn the difference between honest disagreement 
and paranoia.  It would also help if you leaned a little more on logic
than on guilt-by-accusation.  Trying to silence all the people who
disagree with you by calling them homophobic is cowardly; try facing the
issues instead.



/	Getting beaten up by a bunch of straight boys is pretty
/terrifying to me.  Losing my job because I'm gay is terrifying to me.
/What makes it "OK" for a bunch of people to make me deny who I am to
/beg for my rights when they didn't have the right to take them away 
/in the first place?  

Nothing makes it okay.  I am not in favor of you (or me, or anyone else)
getting beat up/losing their job/ etc.  Believe me, I know:  I have also
had to step in to prevent a gay friend from getting the shit beat out 
of him.  I was also denied employment for being gay, so I HAVE BEEN THERE.

However, if you stand up for your rights in a t-shirt & shorts, or in 
a business suit, that is AT LEAST as effective as doing it in drag. 
Actually, probably more effective.  


	
>The ultimate question is:  what do you want to accomplish?  Do you want
>your short little hour on stage to strut like a drag queen, or do you want 
>to make progress towards gay acceptance?

/	I want the progress.  But to get anywhere it will be necessary
/for us to be unified.  

Unification is useless if it means being united on something that is
erroneous.  We can all be united in our belief that the earth is flat;
it won't win converts and it won't change the shape of the earth.

People like you want to use "unification" as a sledgehammer to force
conformity.  That is also wrong.  This isn't a political convention
where we all back a candidate, in spite of his/her flaws.  Smells too 
much like groupthink to me.


/As long as there are assholes like you trying
/to tear us apart because you can't "handle" the fact that people are
/different than you we will get nowhere with the people who deny us
/our rights because we are "different" than them.  Do you see the
/very obvious parallel there?  

No.  And, as I have already said, I do not advocate denying anyone rights
because of how they act / dress / whatever.  

This discussion is not about denying rights.  It is about the most effective 
way to advance gay acceptance in general society.  I maintain that the 
bizarreness that is so prevalent among many extreme gay functions works 
AGAINST that acceptance.  


	
>However, the right to act how 
>you please doesn't carry with it an guarantee that you will be respected 
>for how you act.


/	Of course not.  I mean look at this - it's very clear that I
/ have no respect for you.  But I'm sure with a little counseling under
/ your belt you might learn to confront your own fears about gay men
/ who are different from you.


Not "fear"; the word is "distaste".

And, as I suspected, people like
you insist that if anyone doesn't like the way you act / dress, then
obviously the problem *must* be with the other person.  After all,
you are *clearly* in the right, and it's simply a well-known fact that
it's not possible for you to be contradicted, isn't it?



/	And respect has nothing to do with rights anyway.  

Say what?


/ I don't give a flying frog's ass if George Bush respects me.  

Got news for you bud:  if we don't get at least some respect, the 
rights will never come.  That's why it all boils down to what you
want:  what is the most effective way to get from Point A to Point B?

Newsgroups: soc.motss