From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: To Laura
Date: 03 Sep 92 19:34:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



[NOTE]:  I started a new thread not to poke fun at you, Laura, but
to avoid the load time on the other thread.

*****


/ (laura)
/ I keep wondering why it is that you think that this is the ``threatening
/ Gay'' which invokes the not open-minded behaviour.  

Because that has been my experience, and the experience of many friends.
And because I see this same principle played out in other minority groups.
People accept small differences more quickly than they do huge differences.
(Now if the difference is genuine, as in black vs. white, I don't expect
blacks to try to lighten their skin or whites to darken theirs; that's
not what I mean).

The Arab student going to college gets more acceptance than the militant
pan-Arab socialist.  Once you get to know an Arab student, it becomes
very hard to crack "camel jockey" or "sand nigger" jokes; the cognitive
dissonance in your mind prevents you.

The middle-class black family gets more acceptance than the radical 
black Muslim.  In fact, when TV portrays blacks in stereotypical roles 
(shoeshine, watermelon, etc.) the reaction from the black community is 
very negative--rightly so.  Even though there is nothing inherently
wrong with shoeshining or eating watermelon.

Imagine what would happen if Asian Americans were all portrayed as 
laundry owners, Chinese restaurant owners, or bespectacled engineering
students.  There is inherently nothing wrong with laundry, restaurants,
or engineering, yet the Asian community feels it is being done a disservice
when these stereotypes are presented.

I do not see a corresponding desire in the gay community to distance 
ourselves from negative stereotypes of gays (other than the child molester 
stereotype that Clayton would have us all buy into).  

Let me ask you this:  do you believe that negative gay stereotypes even 
exist?  What are some examples?




/ (laura)
/ 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.

Masculinity and femininity are on a broad spectrum, and it would
be a boring and dull world indeed if all the men were supermasculine,
and all the women were superfeminine.  That is not what I am
objecting to.  No one should have to apologize for what and who
they are.

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.  
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.



(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
movement) a huge disparity appears.  The gay movement is decades
behind the rest of the similar freedom movements.



(laura)
/ Do you realy find it reasonable to love queers in a certain
/ sense but still decry those more flamboyant, or `weird' than you?
/ Are they really hurting anybody?  If they are not hurting you,
/ can you find justification  for condemning them?  

Someone pointed out to me regarding a statement that Arne made about
me, that Arne was not judging me, but only the statement I made.
That is , it is OK to condemn the action without condemning the person 
doing the act.  If you accept this principle, then you see the difference
between my condemnation of the act and condemning the person doing it.




(laura)
/ If they are
/ hurting you, can you find any moral ground between wishing that they 
/ were not there and wishing that all Gaypeople were not there?

Well, this gets back to the question of:  is it possible for individual
members of a group to act in ways that defeat group goals?  

If "no", explain how this is impossible.

If "yes", describe how such an event could be identified; what are its
characteristic qualities?



(laura)
/ The world is full of people who do stupid, foolish, wasteful,
/ idiotic, things.  If you choose to group `weird' Gaypeople in that
/ list, then, we disagree, but so be it.  I let those whom I fathom
/ as idiotic and foolish waste on their merry way.  Why do you
/ follow different rules?  And what rules are they?


I thought this was a discussion group for issues such as this.  Am I wrong?




Newsgroups: soc.motss