Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!hogpd!keduh From: keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: RE: bigotry Message-ID: <351@hogpd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 17:01:41 EDT Article-I.D.: hogpd.351 Posted: Tue Jul 3 17:01:41 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jul-84 00:12:02 EDT Lines: 126 <<||>> This whole discussion has been rather interesting, but it's starting to get irritating. The story so far... Some people post some articles that are almost rabidly anti-gay. Someone known as Trish rebuts these articles. In the course of her article she states that she is a lesbian as well as her belief that "... most straight men are your egotistical, chauvenist, insensitive, macho assholes." A person named Alan takes exception to some of the attitudes expressed in Trish's article [ the apparent bigotry and hatred expressed towards straight males ] and later raises the question of whether or not Trish's choice of a lifestyle was made with good reason [ sort of the lesser of two evils after bad experiences with "straight men" vs. a real love of/for women ]. Next a person named Robert [login "rainbow"] posts a series of articles in rebuttal to Alan's and in defence of Trish's. Now it's my turn... :-) I find that I tend to agree with Alan and that Robert's articles seem hard to follow and somewhat contradictory. Keeping in mind Trish's statement to the effect that most [ not some, not just a few, not several, but MOST ] straight men are assholes [straight men meaning heterosexual and not just part of a comedy team :-) ] .... Robert states: >And all she said was that women show her more >understanding/feelings/sensitivity than men. Actually she said men >showed less. HA! [means I disagree. remember the original statement.... most straight men are your egotistical, chauvenist, insensitive, macho assholes. I agree that this can be interpreted to mean that she feels that men showed her less understanding, etc. but there's more to it than that.] then he states: >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. Again, I refer you to the original statement. One could say that calling most straight men +assholes is simply indicating a lack of interest for a male relationship, not a male friendship; but I don't buy it for a minute. [ At least, in the USA today (1984) calling someone an asshole usually indicates a great deal of dislike, if not actual hatred :-) ]. The following is from Alan's article: >> (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 statements of the form: >> >> Most are . >> >> How do you react to these statements? What if you are a member >> of ? > Robert replies: >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. Really now.... a *desperate attempt to justify your actions*... these words seem kind of "loaded", if you know what I mean. I don't think the extrapolation was at all unreasonable. Using "most" instead of "all" gives everyone an out, and if her experience backs it up, then it's all OK ?? Let us postulate a good-ol' boy from the South named "Jim-Bob". Now Jim-Bob makes the statement that "most blacks are stupid, unclean, inferior, eaters of waste". Is that perfectly OK to say ? Jim-Bob now points out that he said "most" and not "all" and that his experience backs it up. He claims that "many" would have been an understatement, and anyway, he has a friend that thinks the same way and can back him up. Everyone still happy ?? I sure hope not ! Now, what is upsetting about the statements that our hypothetical Mr. Jim-Bob made ? Not the fact that he used "most", but the underlying attitudes [the hatred and bigotry] that is shown by these statements. I think that Alan had a valid point to make. Just a little more... this from Alan: >> (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. and Robert's reply: >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 consistently >rejecting all forms of bigotry, I suggest we start with the only bigotry >in evidence here. Yours. > >Robert > I disagree.... In the context of the statements made earlier, the difference between "all" and "most" is minimal. "Most Mexicans are lazy bums" still strikes me as a rather bigoted statement. I fail to find evidence of bigotry in Alan's article.... indeed, he seemed to be objecting to it. {ihnp4! or pegasus!} hogpd!keduh