Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: RE:Bigotry Message-ID: <710@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 12:32:37 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.710 Posted: Tue Jul 3 12:32:37 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 04:11:03 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 90 Before I look at Alan's comments more closely, let us refresh our memories on the intent of Trish's article so that this digression of arguments won't get out of hand. About a month ago there were a number of articles claiming that there must be something wrong with homosexuals. Now this is certainly something that needs to be properly chastised. However no-one was willing to take an opposing viewpoint until Trish. I admire her courage to take a stand all alone. And all she said was that women show her more understanding/feelings/sensitivity than men. Actually she said men showed less. Her harsh words might be out of line except when you consider what she was responding to. They were only used to make a point. The bluntness emphasizes her point. Anyway, she was trying to explain why she was a homosexual and that it was her free choice. She was happy with her life and there certainly wasnt anything wrong with her. Now, back to Alan's thoughts. > First Trish posted her bigotry to the net. Then I was attacked > for objecting to it. Now I'm accused of being a bigot! The word BIGOT to me means a person who displays a total hatred towards a particular group or person for no reason other than what they are. Trish responded to bigotry against homosexuals. No where did she show a hatred toward men. She only indicated a lack of interest for a male relationship, not a male friendship. She is not a bigot. You on the other hand keep insisting on tearing Trish apart. Matter-in-fact you have no reason to do so as far as I can see and you have made no attempt to justify why Trish deserves your wrath. You are expounding the meaning of a bigot. Even when the error of your analysis has been revealed to you, you insist on continuing on your set course of accusations. For instance no one calls you a bigot for being straight. > (1) Trish said, "I think most straight men are your egotistical, > chauvenist, insensitive, macho assholes." How much extrapolating > do you have to do? She has a problem! If you disagree, think > about some other statments of the form: > > Most are . > > How do you react to these statements? What if you are a member > of ? Obviously she used some pretty harsh language. But you have taken it out of context. And then you have unreasonably extrapolated in a desperate attempt to justify your actions. She has no problem when you consider her article as a whole. You might have a reason to make a minor flame at her choice of language. You have no reason to make personal attacks against her. Anyway, she did use the term "most" not "all". This leaves everyone a way out of her statement. That should leave you no reason to complain. Who are you to say that Trish's experiences don't match the use of the term "most"? My personal experiences will actually back her up. Use of the term "many" would have been an understatement. This you could have reasonably disagreed with but you have chosen other lines of attack in the past. I would not argue if you gave your opinion on what word you think should have been used. But this is a small detail and digresses from the article's intent. Once again I'll repeat the harshness was intended to emphasis her point. Something I took with a grain of salt considering what kind of articles she was responding to. I kept an open mind. I did not respond with immediate hostility. I paused for thought to understand what was going on. > (2) I was not spouting "typical stereotypes", since I don't think > that Trish is a typical lesbian. There are good and bad reasons > for making just about any choice you can make. I'm objecting to > Trish's reason, not her choice. I have earlier given what I feel is Trish's reasons for being a homosexual which I derived from her article. I can see no better reason. What would be a better reason than those which I gave? Just because Trish used a negative argument instead of a positive argument is irrelevant. In the end they say the same thing. And here you go again. Calling her atypical. Geez. Keep this up and I'll start making attacks against you personally. I'll have good reason though which will not make me a bigot. Do you treat every normal homosexual in this way? You start by calling them abnormal and go from there? That was what Trish flamed about in the first place. > (3) I'm getting tired of the double standard. If a man made this > sort of remark about all woman, I suspect the same people who are > defending Trish would be jumping all over him. I insist that we > should *consistently* reject *all* such bigotry. I would jump all over any person who made a derogatory comment about ALL members of any group irregardless of the sex of the speaker. So where's the double standard? Since we seem to all agree on consistantly rejecting all forms of bigotry, I suggest we start with the only bigotry in evidence here. Yours. Robert