Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!eli
From: eli@uw-june (Eli Messinger)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: RE:Bigotry
Message-ID: <1680@uw-june>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 20:34:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.1680
Posted: Tue Jul  3 20:34:12 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jul-84 00:13:15 EDT
References: <710@ihuxe.UUCP>
Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci
Lines: 121

I've stayed out of this discussion so far--and in fact out of
net.singles all together (hi)--but it's gotten to the point where
I feel compelled to comment:

> = ihuxe!rainbow (Robert)


> ... 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.

Maybe you're getting the articles in a different order than I am... or maybe
there's a vortex swallowing them somewhere nearby you.  I remember many
articles that took a very positive attitude towards peoples right to choose
homosexuality as a sexual preference.  To say that Trish was the first one is,
from my readnews perspective, a blatant falsehood.

Further:  Are you Trish?  Have you had private talks with her about the
meaning of her posting?  How can *you* tell *us* what the intent of
*Trish's* article was?  It seems that you aren't allowing for each of our
personal interpretations.  As I (and it seems others) read it, Trish's
article was not a defense of homosexuality as an oppositional viewpoint
to those who were denegrating homosexuals.  Instead it impressed me as an
explanation of her reasons for choosing homosexuality.  By giving her reasons
I think she was in fact giving an implicit defense.  Her presentation
struck me as very defensive--understandably in the context of this newsgroup
and world--and also illuminating regarding some of her personal attitudes.
My view of Trish--based solely on the one posting I've seen from her--is that
she has a negative view of 'men' as a group.  Obviously this view might change
if Trish ever decides to shed more light on herself...  it's very possible
that I am completely misinterpreting her statements, and it's up to her to
clarify.

> 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.

The bluntness also has the effect of truly offending some people
who(m--grammar flames to net.forget-it) I would hope Trish would like
to reach with her message.  This seems to de-emphasize 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 you are making some very rash assumptions based on very little data.
I agree that Trish was trying to illuminate why she was a homosexual, and
I think her reasons, and her braveness in stating them, are interesting and
admirable, respectively.  For you to state that there is nothing "wrong"
(what does this really mean anyway?) with her is, again in my opinion, a bit
rash.  Her words gave me the impression that she had some very deep negative
feelings about 'men' as a group.  Feelings that seem to have been caused by
a series of negative run-ins with members of this group.  My feeling is that,
although Trish may be "happy", she really does have a what *I* consider a
problem (>>you and she may not<<) with her apparent negative attitude towards
'men'.

> 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.

I think a lot of our disagreements come out of how Trish's statments are
read--I seem to see a lot more deep seated hate in them than you do.
Statements such as yours, "No where did she show a hatred toward men,"
find you speaking for all of us.

> 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.

Again, speak for your own interpretation.  If I knew Trish, and knew that
my interpretation of her was wrong--then you are right.  However I don't
know her, and unfortunately can only go on the little bit of her she's
shown us.

> 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.

I agree that I have no right to say that Trish's experiences--or yours--don't
match the use of the term "most"--for that one individual's experience.  Trish
did not bother to qualify her statments as "Most men *I have met* are..."
Was this qualification implicit?  Maybe... but my feeling is that when you
are making such possibly offensive statments you are better off being very
explicit (as *you* were in your statment above!).

> 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.

And once again I'll repeat that this sort of harshness is not always the
best tactic for emphasizing such a point.  I too have tried to keep an open
mind, and I too have paused for a long time before responding to any of this.

> 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?
  
I think that comments about "most" members of a group can be equally
offensive.  As a Jew I find the statment, "Most Jews are rich, own banks
and lend money at 120% interest" to be very offensive--even if they're based
on someone's personal experience of having met 20-out-of-20 Jews that fell
into that mold.  I would guess that most :-) blonde women find the
statement, "Most blonde women are stupid" very offensive.  "Most" is not
a thorough enough quantifier/qualifier for my tastes I guess.

Sorry for the length... hope you all {have, had} a s&s 4th!

... eli