Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:17:02 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 670

In this issue:
                    GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 664
                            Living End & BSA
                           politics in podunk
                     Cindy and Maureen and the Baby

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 1 Sep 1992 8:11:33 GMT
From: 815288A@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Subject: RE: GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 664

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 92 16:20:12
From: CJones <CJones.MAILROOM@wylbur.kines.ucla.edu>
Subject: Living End & BSA

Mail*Link#170#                    Living End & BSA

I meant to include these notes in my last posting, but I forgot.

I'm the kinda guy who stays through the end credits of movies to see if
anything interesting happens.  At the end of "The Living End," there is an
indication that it was funded partially through the American Film Institute,
which is funded by the NEA.  Does Jesse Helms know about this?

Today's (8/31) LA Times has an article on page 1 of the View section about the
boycotts of BofA, Levi Strauss, and Wells Fargo.  Basically the gist is this:
BofA changed its stand right after the GOP platform criticized them for cutting
of funding to the BSA.  Levi Strauss and Wells Fargo say that they won't change
their minds, despite rumors to the contrary.  The banks say that the boycotts
haven't hurt them financially.  The writer wondered why the United Way hasn't
been targeted, after all they're the #1 contributer to the BSA.  (BTW, SF's UW
chapter cut off its funding, Chicago's has put the BSA on probation--they have
5 years to change, and LA's has voted down a funding cutoff)

 Chad Jones
 UCLA Department of Physiological Science
 cjones@kines.ucla.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:22:18 EDT
From: Dirk McCall <dm47@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>

A recent poster inquired as to the origins of the term, "faggot", in
reference to gay men. According to the book Homolexis by Dr. Wayne Dynes,


(quoted directly from the volume)

"Because of recent assertions and controversies, the origins of the word faggot
merit careful scrutiny. Akin to Norwegian fagg, "heap, bundle", Old French,
fagot gave rise to English faggot, which took on the secondary meaning of a fat
slovenly woman, a "baggage." This contemptuous term for womankind, abundantly
attested in the English and Scottish dialects, was not transferred to
effeminate homosexuals until 1914 and then in the criminal slang of the
Northwestern United States. (At any rate, no unequivocal earlier document has
been produced.)
All the philogical evidence that can be mustered confirms that there is no
connection between faggot/fag in the perjorative meaning "homosexual" and
1) fagot/faggot in the connotation of burning at the stake. No one was ever
burnt at the stake in England for either buggery or witchcraft: the penalty
for both was hanging, from the statutes of Henry VIII in 1533 and 1542 down
to the acts of repeal in 1861 and 1736 respectively. The use of both words is
always in connection with heresy and only after 1517, when the Reformation
intiated a new wave of religious intolerance;
2) fag in the British public school acceptance of a younger boy obliged to
perform menial tasks for an upperclassman;
3) French fagot/fag in the meaning "convict, criminal sentanced to forced
labor."
In short, the notion that the meaning of faggot as homosexual stems from the
purported medieval custom of burning gay men as "kindling" for witches' pyres
is altogether without foundation. This myth was probably invented by gay
liberationists in New York City, ca. 1970, though it may have been triggered
by a brief comment in Diana Fredericks' "Diana: A Strange Episode" (New York,
1939). For a thorough review of the philological evidence, see Warren Johannson,
"The Etymology of the Word Faggot," Gay Books Bulletin, no. 6. (Fall 1981),
 p.16ff."

From his text, it would appear that the contention that the term faggot
is derived from the buring of gay men as kindling is in error. Hope that helps~!

Dirk

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:25:43 MST
From: "Gabriel (in New Mexico)" <G9348712%NMSUVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      politics in podunk

Yesterday (Sunday) there was a fundraiser put on by the Don~a Ana County
Democratic Party.  They had contacted a family member and asked her to
sell tickets.  The tickets were $25 per couple.  She reminded them that the
couples she would be selling them to would be same-sex couples, and she was
told, "Yes, that's what we want."

We took it as a challenge, and showed up wearing "Gay and Lesbian voters for
Clinton" stickers, "Silence=Death" pins, etc.  There were over 30 of us.  Yes,
the Dems made money off us (we got to have some barbecue, beans, chile, and
beer, as well as the usual speeches), but we used the time to impress the crowd
with our presence and to connect with a number of candidates and their campaign
people.  Some of us shared a table with some of the synagogue members, and we
got into a lengthy conversation about bigotry.  I got a promise from the
congressional candidate's campaign treasurer that the candidate would speak
with our groups, student and otherwise (I have to wait until Wednesday to
call the treasurer.)

There were no nasty incidents at all.  We were welcomed by a number of the
officials and it was a lovely, sunny day under the pecan trees.  A really
fine event for this remote outpost.

Gabriel (in Las Cruces)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Medlin <jmedlin@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Cindy and Maureen and the Baby

First, let me give a cheer to Cindy and Maureen for making the commitment
to expand their family to include a child.  It's not one to be made
lightly, and it's not one I choose to make, by the way.  I doubt I'd make
a good daddy.  I was a little disappointed to learn from Cindy's post that
many gay folks seemed opposed to their decision; I wonder why.  Were they
really saying "I don't think I'd want to raise a child." or "I don't think
you two ought to be raising a child"?  If the latter, did they offer
reasons?  Were they specific to C and M (and if so, they aren't any of
my/our business, of course) or were they more general?

I don't think the gay community is a family any more than the straight
community is one.  I'd hate to see the powerful and eloquent word 'family'
reduced to dishwater from being given every possibly relevant definition.
The gay community is a very diverse COMMUNITY, which I think differs quite
a bit from a FAMILY.

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU