From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:06:01 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan3141424@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.032141.18000@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <168CBECFB.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.190731.12467@netcom.com>
>>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>>  (re: Morgan, Ireland et al)
>>>>And this gaggle of lesbians is presuming to instruct heterosexual,
>>>>family-oriented women on how to deal with men!
>>>*That's* what they're trying to do!? Ohmigod! Thank heavens that there are
>>>still big strong manly men like you to save our precious childbearers
>>>from the lesbian scourge! What would we little dust-fer-brains *ever* do
>>>without you? (hint: I don't know, but I'd be willing to find out...)
>
>>Actually Diane, I think it is a valid point. What basis do lesbians have
>>for giving heterosexual women advice about men?
>
>Perhaps it is easier for them to see the problems (and solutions) from
>outside?  What basis does a male, heterosexual psychologist have for
>giving advice to a woman on how to deal with men?  

My point is that a lesbian is unlikely to have experience in hetero
relationships, or may even find them distastefull, and might be more
likely to give bad advice to ruin it than most non-homosexuals. And a
male phychologist, like a female friend, is more likely to be involved
in a hetero relationship, and more likely to have ideas and motivation
to patch up an ailing relationship.

>                                                   For that matter, what
>basis does *anyone* have for giving advice to someone else on a
>relationship they are not involved in?  Relationships and needs are very
>similar for *people*, regardless of the sex or orientation of the people
>involved.  

Perhaps so, but the problems and solutions may not be identical.

>              Lesbians and gay men generally have a slight advantage, in
>fact, because they have *had* to think about their roles in
>relationships, unlike heterosexuals, who *can* (but don't always) simply
>accept the societally-ordained roles.  

Well, my understanding is that they have fewer long-term relationships
(as a percent, not numerical) then hetero relationships, so this may be
more of a disadvantage. Do you know different?

>                                      So, for a woman who does not wish
>to stick with the societal roles, a lesbian might be the best person to
>advise her, as the lesbian has probably considered all possible roles
>for herself in relationships and made choices, rather than just
>following a predefined path.

Thanks, you just make my point. She may have motivation to advise an
end to the relationship, for reasons having nothing to do with the
relationship per se. 
 
>>I could see going to a
>>lesbian friend for emotional support. But advice about how to work -with-
>>a husband would not seem to be the expected advice.
>
>Why not?  Is working with "a husband" different from working with any
>partner?  Is there something special that has to be done for "husbands"
>that would not be done for other partners?

The disticntion is relevant, as I am not talking about homosexual
relationships. If you want to play word games, feel free. Count me out.
 
>>How can one advise about something one knows little about,
>
>Why do you think that lesbians know "little" about relationships?  Why
>should they know any less than anyone else?

Do lesbians know anything about HETERO relationships? Try to concentrate 
Muffy, it's another one of those context things you were grilling me 
about. And when I use the word lesbian, I am excluding bi-females, can
we talk about the same thing?
 
>>or perhaps
>>something which one finds distastefull or perhaps even hates? 
>
>I assure you that lesbians do not, on the whole (certainly, some
>individual may) , find emotional, romantic, or sexual relationships
>distasteful.  

Are you deliberaty trying to misunderstand?

The point is that some homosexuals find heterosexual relationships
either distastefull, or they literally hate heterosexuals. Having
had the pleasure of conversing (so to speak) with a few flaming 
anti-heterosexual homosexual's on the net, I am not going to qualify their
existance. I will only state that I have no idea how prevalant this
is.


>                 Perhaps, before making more statements about them, you
>should get to know some.  

Perhaps before making statements like you have made, you should take a few
moments and read for meaning. I do not apologize for what I have posted,
and it matters not at all if your experiences do not coincide.

>                           Of course, that could be difficult, if you go
>in with such ridiculous preconceptions.  

Go with that thought Muffy, and look too your own preconceptions.

>                                         If you ever try, remember that
>just because they are unwilling to accept *clueless* men does not mean
>that they are therefore unwilling to accept men in general.

Care to flesh out your assertion of *clueless*ness?
 
>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women