From: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin)
Subject: Re: A Conversation With Matthew
Originator: jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:01:38 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

mattm@Apple.COM (Matthew Melmon):
> Let's see - I say "Queer Politics don't exist."  You say
> "What are the motivations behand 'Queer Politics?'

it's a fine statement of your party's line on education when you can't
understand what it is that you wrote.  

> Fine.  Queer Politics exist.

ok, now we need to define what we mean by it.

> Perhaps, one could say there are a bunch of oak trees and a
> bunch of maple trees.  The maples are upset, because the oaks
> grab up all the light. The politics of the Maples is to get
> more light.  The politics of the oaks is to keep the status
> quo.  Can the oaks help their feelings if they like the
> way they're made?

WOW!  you have outdone yourself in simplicity, but i guess this
provides an easy starting point.  [a particular problem with this
model is just who is signified by what.  i assume the maples are gay
people and the oaks are republicans.  hmmm, as a republican gay, where
do you fit in here?  are you an oak or a maple, a republican or gay?
are these adjectives or nouns (a particular problem when dealing with
people)?  well, semiology has always been a thorn for you since you're
certainly not ivy league.  yuk!  yuk!]  sooo, i'll keep this simple.

first, i'm uncomfortable with this notion of congenital political
affiliation.  you imply that the oaks can't help but be oaks, but
people aren't so limited as to be born republicans.  i would assert
that the process of identifying with a political party is a social and
economic process [and the republican party likes to tack on a sexual
process as well.] 

second, the trees are completely immobile.  it is not possible for the
oaks to physically attack the maples, nor can the oaks make
denigrating rhetoric a la pat buchanan which will influence the other
trees (or do the trees speak to you like some kind of messiah?).  in
real life, gay people *can* pass undetected as straight people (have
you ever seen a maple in drag?) and receive all the rights and
priviledges afforded to heterosexuals.  gay people become targets when
we choose not to be other than we are.  the republican convention is
an easy example, and i can name people who have been brutally
assaulted and murdered just because of their same sex affection.

third, the only resource for survival in your model is sunlight.  in
real life, gays are routinely losing their jobs, their apartments, and
their families.  just who owns this sunlight, anyway, and who's
responsible for doling it out?  does the supplier take any
responsibility when a group is under-supplied?

> And in the end, the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe,
> and saw.

and that's a simple statement of your morality, matthew, and you had
the gall to call me "Orwellian"...

if you want to continue this discussion, and i hope that you do, i
would suggest that you find another model.  in particular, you'll need
one in which the players are not so fixed; we're human beings and
nothing less can provide a framework that incorporates our
consciousness.
-- 
Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Newsgroups: soc.motss