NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17183

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky soc.bi:17183 soc.motss:53467
Path: sparky!uunet!nntp1.radiomail.net!fernwood!autodesk!owen
From: [e-mail] (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:43:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: soc.motss
Lines: 108

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (ryerson.schwark) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew Solovay) writes:
> Quoting Ms. Manners:
> >  But she has never yet heard of anyone who was under rude attack
> >  killing the instinct for self-defense and saying: "Wait a
> >  minute--I believe you have a point there. It's a good thing you
> >  yelled and threw paint at me because it made me realize that
> >  you are right and I was wrong. I appreciate your calling this
> >  to my attention."

> Well then, Ms. Manners fails to understand how the threat of being
> beaten to a pulp can persuade someone not to call someone a 'faggot'
> anymore.  It may not change their minds, but it will probably change
> their behavior.

I understand quite well the concept here.
I also understand that this *solution* is temporal. When the threat
goes away, the behavior returns and probably gets additional spin because
now there is some new motivation based on revenge. This kind of
cycle of violence does not solve the problems, in my opinion this kind
of stuff perpetuates and accelerates the problems.

I understand that in a situation which is about to devolve into violence,
the temporal solution may be the best one, affording an opportunity
to get out of harms way. But at some point we need to look at solutions
which will address the root causes thus eliminating the need for short
term negative load problem solving like this.

> The assumption that we have to get people to agree with us to get
> them to change their behavior is wrong.

So True, yet there are a lot of people who hold that assumption, and act
upon it . We see it here in the newsgroup all the time. We see it
amongst ourselves as well as with strayts !

There is no unified Queer *us* to agree with in the first place.
We talk about the gay community, but because we come from all segments
of the population we have a really wide spectrum of views and needs.

This is one of the things that really infuriates me about those particular
people who rail on and on about how all queers are *this* or *that*..

I think our diversity is the real measure of our natural place in society.
I think we need to really understand that even with 25 years of Gay
liberation movement we are largely invisisble to the outside society.
We are a frightening unknown because of the stereotypes and prejudiced
views held in common by most of our strayt peers.

I held all those stereotypes and prejudices myself before I came out.
I was convinced that I must be something uncategorized, because I surely
didn't fit any of the categorys I thought existed regarding queers.

The greatest revelation of my coming out process was to find that the men
who frequented all these new places and events I was attending were just
like the men I was used to dealing with in the cross section of places I
was going to before  (except for the most part they were smarter, handsomer
and had better taste )

> I've seen it here in the
> workplace.  People are told not to tell sexist jokes, and I know
> several people who do not understand why and disagree, but because
> they'll catch heat if they do, they don't.  The people these tactics
> don't work on should have enough sense themselves to figure out
> why they shouldn't.

Again, I understand  this concept well, it is the use of force.
I've been in the situation where I was forced to accede to the ways of
others too many times not to recognise this beast when I see it.

I'm not saying it isn't effective, it certainly gets the job done.
But again only as long as the threat of force is there.

I remember an incident when I worked at the Ripleys museum on Fishermans
wharf back in the early seventys. Our assistant manager was a handsome lad,
popular with the women, bright and intelligent. One day one of the
employees told a queer joke, and he made a simple statement in response.
I paraphrase; * You know, I understand the humorous aspects of that joke,
but its easy to use that kind of humor to put down people who are gay.
I try to avoid making fun of others in ways that exploit their differences.
For one thing I'm not sure I want to rule out the possibility that I might
engage in some Gay activities myself someday*.
Well, of course looking back at it today, its clear to me that he was at
least Bi, if not totally queer. But my poinbt is about the effect it had on
me. I was deeply closeted at the time, having just come from Providence R.I.
I thought *wow*, if this guy - who has women lining up to go out with him
can say that and mean it, then I don't have to pretend I'm strayt anymore
and I don't have to laugh at queers jokes to show that I'm *one of the
guys*. It was an object lesson, a strong - positive one. I am greatfull to
Drew for that lesson. Of course as I said I was deeply closeted, and was
not ready to *really* come out to myself - nevermind the rest of the world.

Even though it waan't until eightyears later that I did come out, that
incident stayed with me , and when I did finally find my courage, it was
still a source of strength for me.

As a libertarian I hold to the principle that I do not want my peers
to use force to mandate my behavior, so I will not use force to
dictate theirs.



LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
    Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "