NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17167

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 2.0 KB | 42 lines

Newsgroups: soc.bi
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!maths.tcd.ie!longvalley!cjmchale
From: [e-mail] (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:32:11 GMT
Lines: 31

In <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Brad Booth) writes:
>Ciaran McHale wrote:
>> I disagree that that any X movement is defined in terms of non-X. For
>> example, I don't think that any GLB (or a subset thereof) movement is
>> defined in terms of straight people. Similarly, I agree with Iseult that
>> feminism is not, and cannot be, defined in terms of men.
>
>Maybe I'm not making myself clear, the GLB or feminism movement is
>a movement for/about GLB or women, BUT the existence of that movement
>would not occured if it were not for an oppressive group, straight or
>men.  You don't see a straight or masculine movement, because they're
>not oppressed and therefore have no reason to exist.

I think we are in heated agreement. News is a bit behind here at the
moment but seems to be catching up. An article I posted yesterday on
this topic should hopefully clear up any misunderstanding, if it
manages to make it to your site. The basic point I made was that there
is a difference between "heterosexuality" (being attracted only to
motos) and "heterosexism" (the belief that heterosexuality is the only
"right" sexuality). While a GLB movmement can be defined in terms of
heterosexism, I don't think it can be defined in terms of
heterosexuality. To make the analogy with feminism, heterosexuality=men
and heterosexism=patriarchy.


Ciaran.
--
---- Ciaran McHale ([e-mail])
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone]