From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: The War Between Us (Long)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:59:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.194345.2585@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>
>I disagree with the claim that the queer segment of society is more
>"mature" than any other segment. Here are my arguments.
>
>1. I agree that being oppressed gives one an extra incentive to examine the
>assumptions and dynamics of society. Don't forget, however, that there
>are lots of groups, not just GLBO folk, who are oppressed: Blacks,
>Jews, women, handicapped... Do you think that all these (and other)
>oppressed groups are equally "mature" in the sense you are talking
>about or do we queers have some special quality which the others lack?

Maybe it just a hope that there is some sanity out there, because there
doesn't seem to be any among the crackpots who have the reins to this
starship.

Anyways, I also have tended to believe that when a person feels discriminated
against that most of the time when I think deeply about it, I find they are
right and tended to have a better knowledge and intimacy with the situation
and the dynamics involved than I.  Queers, being subject to social exclusion
at all levels I thought would be the first people to ask if you wanted to
learn either something positive or negative about the issue.

I mean, yup, you've got me right.  If I want to find out, for instance, what
parts of this university would cause accessibility problems for the disabled,
a disabled person would be the first one I would ask.  I can see the obvious
one, but I'm sure that there are many subtle problems that are beyond my
experience and vision.

>Also, while a queer person may be knowledgeable on the dynamics of
>society w.r.t. sexuality, do you think that that same person will be
>equally knowledgeable about the dynamics of society w.r.t., say, skin
>colour or physical (dis)ability?  If this were the case then surely
>gay/bi men would be much less sexist than we currenty are. (I know
>we're sexist because one does not have to look too hard to hear
>complaints from lesbians/bi women about it.)

Well, the topic I had started this on was socialization between homosexuals
and bisexuals, so I hadn't meant that the maturity applied universally.  They
can see farther than most on this issue, and perhaps even a bit farther than
others on other discrimination and social issues, but are omniscient by any
means.  Every group even includes a lot of myopics, despite the fact that
experience should have granted insight.

>2. I reckon that for every GLBO person who is "mature" there are N who
>are not (where N is, say, 10 or 100). Thus, while there are enlightened
>individuals, I don't think that GLBO folk, as a group, are.

I dunno.  I'd tend to disagree, because when it comes to other issues it
seems that the straights I know are all mired in the way society has worked
in the past and are content to let things stay that way, without even clueing
in on how much suffering the social norms cause for others.

><> How many times do I hear that being bisexual means you MUST have a
><> partner of each sex at the same time?
><> --- amy young (alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu)
><> Where are we supposed to get the energy for dealing with all these
><> partners?
><> --- Iseult White (iw@tosser.Rational.COM)

The following is an article written in response to the Walk-a-Breast campaign,
that was in support of Gwen Jacobs, a University of Guelph student who was
charged with commiting an indecent act after walking topless in the city
one sweltering day last summer.  It appeared in our university paper, Imprint.
She was also convicted, and is undergoing numerous appeals over the case.

	At the risk of appearing politically incorrect on the matter, I would
	like to publicly voice my support for Judge Payne's decision in the
	Gwen Jacobs case, and my opposition to the Walk-a-Breast protest, both
	for its means as well as its motives.

	My views stem from a number of beliefs.  I believe the human race
	is fundamentally motivated to preserve and propogate itself.  I
	believe the most constructive means (by far) of doing this is the
	loving, stable, two parent heterosexual family.  My experience is
	that this unit tends to make happy, well-balanced children.  I believe
	that responses to sexual stimuli are always, to a certain degree,
	involuntary.  Finally, I believe that failure of a marriage partner
	to keep his or her sexual relations within the marriage is usually
	cause for marital breakdown, and is always a destabilizing force on
	the marriage.

	From these beliefs I conclude that it is not unreasonable to limit
	the so-called 'rights' of a woman to act voluntarily in a way that
	causes involuntary and unusual sexual stimulation of the men around
	her (and vice versa).  I think that baring female breasts in public
	constitutes such an act.  (Let's save the general debate about
	what constitutes 'unusual sexual stimulation' for later, shall we?)

	Obviously for Dianne Pfieffer's husband, Gwen Jacobs influence was one
	that started an incidence in the marriage.  Perhaps his actions
	showed a lack of strength and commitment.  Perhaps Ms. Jacobs should
	have been more considerate.  Clothing is a barrier we have set up
	in society to protect ourselves (a rule to the wise and a guide to
	the foolish), and it is one of the few still standing.  Why would
	we, as a society, wish to subject our most successful self-preservation
	institution to yet another strain by legally endorsing an act such
	as Ms. Jacobs'?

	Contrary to your "Feature", my opinion is that Judge Payne's decision
	was neither dubious nor an affront to reason.  It was rooted in a
	long and profound collective experience with the family as a funda-
	mental human institution.  Gwen Jacobs' 'words of wisdom' are little
	more than irresponsible and foolish.  That student 'leaders' and their
	organizations would support such an unquestionably illegal, and
	genuinely tasteless protest over a cause as dubious as this shows
	nothing but a lack of forsight [sic] and absence of judgement on
	their part.  That they do not see that such actions promote, rather
	than reduce, gender violence, and the abuse of women generally, is
	incomprehensible.  Most students are still single, and perhaps from
	there stems the inexperience and lack of wisdom that claims sexual
	licence is harmless.

	Anyone is within their rights to think that Gwen Jacobs represents
	a progressive view.  I am within my rights to protest such irrespons-
	ibility towards society, such disrespect for women, and fight it
	(legally) at every opportunity.

	Simon Clift

Against such, how can I help but feel (and with a little helplessness) that
queers (homosexuals and bisexuals) are more insightful.  Find me a queer
that can come up with such a clueless attitude, and I'll be genuinely
suprised.

And I do, on the other hand, think that it also represents both a bias and
a bit of wishful thinking to make such an attribution.

>Ciaran.


Brad