NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/motss/57942

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 6.6 KB | 128 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!kimbark!jcav
From: [e-mail] (JohnC)
Subject: some thoughts
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: what I said to Walter Smith
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:28:30 GMT
Lines: 115

Some weeks ago I entered into an email exchange with Walter Smith.  We
exchanged several messages, culminating with my sending the following, to
which he has yet to reply.  I'm posting it here now because it meant a lot
to me to write it, and because I've not (until now) been able muster the
courage to submit to this forum anything terribly substantive.
The eloquence of Joe Francis, Brent Capps, Jess Anderson, Bob Donahue, Nelson
Minar, Melinda Shore, Owen Rowley, Ellen Seebacher (I'll stop now, even though
I've left out so many people) and others do intimidate one just a wee bit.

I suppose this amounts to a De-Muffining Experience, even though I've already
posted a few articles to soc.motss, now and again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: Walter Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: please listen
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 16:07:50 -0600

In message <[e-mail]> you write:
>I see it, I just don't think it's such a 'good thing'.  There are plenty of
>political discussions in motss; EVERY one of the discussions I became involved
>in was started by someone in the group; I just followed up to them.  But it
>was OK when the discussion was 'pro'.

You've rejected a priori the possibility that the reaction was engendered by
what you _said_, not who you are.  I believe that you are mistaken.

>Just for curiosity, which things do you see me as not listening to? DO you
>see me as listening to any?

See below.

>> What negative stereotypes??  All they did was grow impatient with you,
>> becoming gradually less and less polite until politeness disappeared
>> altogether.  How is that a "negative gay stereotype"?
>
>One would be the speed at which it disappeared.  Stereotype #1, gays are
>irrational and hottempered.   Then there's the language that was used,
>#2, gays are rude, crude, foulmouthed, and have a bad attitude.  Then there's
>the posts (like from Bob Dohanue) that basically tried to tell me how to
>go about being supportive, and if I didn't do it his way, even if I was
>supportive, I was an idiot.  Stereotype #3, gays are narrowminded, and
>there was is the only way.  And anyone who says something they don't like
>will be shouted down.

Nobody can shout you down unless you let them.  Political arguments aren't
always pretty, nor should they be.

About those particular stereotypes: I've never heard of _any_ of them, which
is interesting.  But...do I therefore question their existence?  Of course
not.  But you question almost everything people have told you in soc.motss,
because you hadn't seen any evidence yourself.  I understand what you mean
about not believing everything you hear -- that makes sense.  But do you
understand that we can get _mighty_ pissed off at people (like you)
questioning things that we see all the time?  Walter, _different_ things
happen to openly gay people that happen to straight people.  Is it not
reasonable to assume that you haven't personally had such experiences
because you aren't gay, rather than because they don't happen?

You asked what it was that I thought you weren't listening to.  What it is
is people telling you things that are true, but that are totally outside the
realm of your experience.  I can imagine that you've never really tried before
to talk to gay people about being gay, much less to smart, political Usenet
gay people.  I know it's a shock, but we in soc.motss (and in the Real World)
have seen lots and lots of people who sound just like you, or very close.
People (even gay people) being human, we _just get tired of it_ sometimes.
We react with impatience.  This is not a "gay" reaction, it's a human one.

>Well, maybe I will in a while.  But not for now.  I don't think of it
>as 'running'; it's not like I'm afraid of the people.  I see it as
>avoiding what had become a pissing contest, which I had no interest in
>being in.  What's funny is that (and I'm not referring to your email, thats
>been good) some people have even gone so far as to pursue me via email,
>when I stopped responding in motss.  All they seemed to want to do was
>flame me some more, which I found rather comical.

Human beings react in anger all the time.

>As for me "listening and learning", do you think it's just me that needs
>to, or do both sides need to hear the other better?  Do you really think
>most people hate gays, and want them discriminated against, like some of
>the people I was arguing with do?

I think there's continuum of belief.  I believe that there's a huge amount
of distrust and ignorance out there.  I believe that you do _not_ believe
this to be true, because you think your own tolerance is more commonplace,
simply because it's obvious to you.

What is apparently so difficult for you to grasp is the simple _enormity_ of
having WHO YOU ARE be deemed distasteful at best, worthy of murder at worst.
The opinions of the majority of Americans fall somewhere along that continuum.
Of course the majority (according to some polls) is against job discrimination.
But the majority also believes homosexuality to be inherently immoral, is
against same-sex marriage, is against adoption of children by same-sex
couples.  I believe that you do not even _begin_ to conceive of the burden
this places on a gay person right off the bat.  It takes tremendous
self-assurance to get past that to the point of being out and proud,
self-assurance that many straight people will never need and never possess.

I appreciate that you are and believe yourself to be tolerant of
homosexuality, and believe you when you say that you feel misunderstood by
the people in soc.motss.  But you must understand that what I/we am/are is
not something to be "tolerated" anymore than what you are is something to
be "tolerated".  It's what I am.  It's whom I love.  It's whom I have sex
with.  It's what does and does not make my cock get hard.  For you to
magnanimously "tolerate" these attributes of me demeans the inherent value of
my love.  Mere "tolerance" just isn't good enough, Walter.  That's what
you're not hearing.

    JohnC

--
  ______     John Cavallino - B0 f++ w c+ g++ k+ s++ e h- pv
  \    /     queer person
   \  /      EMail: [e-mail]
    \/       Talk requests: [e-mail]