From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: Breeders and kikes
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 08:29:54 GMT

(sorry, wanted to include Ailsa's post, but technical difficulties
won't let me delete text easily, so I'm going to include the whole
thing. Sorry about that bandwidth...)

Ailsa N.T. Murphy <IO81409@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:

>that is EXACTLY my point.  assuming straight people are clueless
>is JUST as stereotyping as assuming whatever it is people assume
>about jewish people (i never heard it, as there were TONS of
>jewish kids in my high school).

I know. Is anti-semitism as common as it used to be, or is it local-
ized, or what? I've not noticed much of it around me, but then I have
been known to be oblivious to such things...

i went about doing that, and not
>only made life more difficult for myself, but also sometimes
>assumed that someone was clueless and straight when they were in
>fact clued and gay!  i just treat being a lesbian as being totally
>normal and appropriate to mention in conversation when it comes
>up.  i've never reaped any negative repercussions from it, and in
>fact a couple of my friends who are high schoolers credit me with
>helping to make them non-homophobic.

You can assume a random straight (?) person is clueless without
compromising yourself. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a
queer to be prepared for the people they come in contact with to
be clueless straights, just as I think it's reasonable for women
to have their guard up around strange men; it's not true that *all*
men/strangers (apparently straight) are pigs/clueless or downright
homophobic, but enough are to merit inner preperation for any
unfortunate events that they may cause (rape, sexual harassment,
heterosexism, assult). It's preparing for society's priveleged to
be as oblivious and lazy and insensitive as society lets them be,
rather than expecting society's downtrodden to be as (insert stereo-
type here) as society attempts to force them to be.

>i assumed my mom was a clueless straight person, and it turned
>out that she had a number of gay best friends, had had a biwoman
>make a pass at her once and wasn't fazed by it, and had no
>problems at all with my homosexuality.

Yes. This is why you don't let the fact that they *could* be bigots
faze you or inhibit you. Their potential bigotry is not your problem,
not something for you to avoid triggering. But you shouldn't pretend
it can't possibly be there any more than you can pretend it's safe,
as a woman, to go walking in a park at night or be the only woman in
your department at work. Be prepared, but not afraid.

>i stand by what i said.  for any stereotype you can dig up,
>you can find at least ONE person who fits it.  but assuming
>that members of ANY group all fit this steroetype is bigotry,
>even if i do it myself.  (esp. as regard men, but that is
>anotehr topic...)  i just admit that i am, in some cases,
>prejudiced.  i'm working on it, though.

I really don't think it's a bad prejudice to expect the priveleged
to be spoilt, but that's getting into class imbalance and shit like
that, things that I think are handled much better by our sages.

John, getting really upset about leaving tomorrow night.

--
John Dorrance    ** Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico **    thaaang@odin.unomaha.edu

		I always thought of you as my brick wall
		   Built like an angel, six feet tall.
Newsgroups: soc.motss