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: RE5:bigotry
Message-ID: <717@ihuxe.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Jul-84 20:19:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxe.717
Posted: Wed Jul  4 20:19:59 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jul-84 00:39:48 EDT
Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 234

<the following comments I have drawn upon are from uw-beaver!uw-june!eli>

> 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.

Obviously. But at least you didn't immediately jump on my case with
wild accusations because of it. You drew one line out of my article
when I was trying to make another totally different point. You questioned
me about it. I'll now rephrase it appropriately. (Trish made the first
controversial statement for homosexuality). Trish was not given this
benefit. Its exactly the same type situation. Trish has obviously said
something that can't be literally true. What I oppose were all
those immediate personal attacks upon Trish. No inquiries. No discussion.
I thought it was rather unfair.

> Further:  Are you Trish? 

Be serious! I exist. It just might be a little tough to prove.

> Have you had private talks with her about the meaning of her posting?  

Well, unlike many others, my first action when I saw Trish's article
was to drop her a line asking if she had any male friends. You see, I felt
there wasn't enough information available to pass judgement. Her reply
"Sure, I have many male friends". So I am guilty of inside information.
But nothing no one else could have gotten. Her response made it clear to me
that she isn't a bigot with a hatred towards the male race. So I felt
a need to protest any and all such accusations. It was sort of my trump card
if I ever felt my arguments alone weren't enough. Because I was arguing for
the possibility, not the actual truth. The information should be irrelevent.
But it sure helps to know I have truth on my side.

> How can *you* tell *us* what the intent of *Trish's* article was?  

I cannot. That is just the point I am making. I just chose an alternative
interpretation to try to indicate that there are other possibilities to 
those close-minded people out there. Their attacks upon Trish could be and
are unjustified. And I couldnt just sit here listening to their gospel
believing they knew Trish's intent.

> It seems that you aren't allowing for each of our personal interpretations.

Not true. This is one of the basic laws I live by. Everyone is entitled to
their own opinions. I have tried to present my arguments and examples
in the hope some people would reconsider their opinions. I have tried
to show where some people's opinions might be based on false assumptions.
Never do I say they are absolutely wrong in their opinions(unless I got
carried away trying to respond here or there). All I tried to do
was make people realize that there are other possibilities and that perhaps
they should re-analyze their thoughts.
What I do not approve of is personal attacks without good cause 
which I felt is the case.

> 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.

Now here we have a nice decent article about someone's opinions. Reasons
are presented nicely. There are no personal attacks. This is what we should
have more of. Your interpretation is definitely a valid one. We just have
a fundamental difference in philosophy here. I give Trish the benefit
of the doubt(in light of my "inside" information)until she exhibits otherwise.
I did not think her one article alone was enough to justify all those
other accusations. You on the other hand(though very mildly) don't give
her the benefit of the doubt until she defends herself. Thats perfectly
acceptable to me. I mean she did say those things and no one knows the
intent for sure. Except the one person who has chosen not to clarify as of
yet. Like I said before, I don't think there is enough information present.
On that basis I chose to reserve judgement.

>> 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.

Well, if people take things with a grain of salt and are open-minded,
it probably wouldnt have mattered. As it is, She was no doubt truly offended
herself to motivate her posting of the article in question. I know when
I am upset/furious at someone I let them have it without regard to casual 
observors and their opinions. I get it off my chest and thats that.

>> 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.

Does this mean you agree that others have made some very rash assumptions
about Trish with very little data? If so, I rest my case. This is the
point I'm trying to make.  

> 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.  

Since I was not the first to use the word "right" or "wrong", I cannot help
you there. I infringed upon the use of it from I dont know where anymore.
Its probably left open to the interpretation of the reader. A prime spot
to cause further controversy. 

Anyway, I have no objection to your opinion. It wasnt a personal attack.
Who am I to judge what impression my statements leave.
I just feel it is rash to say something
IS wrong with her. So I made the opposite statement. I just hope you
keep an open mind. 

> Her words gave me the impression that she had some very deep negative
> feelings about 'men' as a group.  

This could very well be true and I certainly won't disagree. But everyone
has negative feelings about one thing or another.

> Feelings that seem to have been caused by
> a series of negative run-ins with members of this group.  

Its hard to imagine someone getting a negative feeling about anything 
without encountering/observing the subject in question. I agree again.

> 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'.

Very very true. I have been saying this all along. Words like unhappy, bigot
maladjusted do not apply. Just because I dont like spinach and you do
(were talking hypothetical here) doesnt mean I am unhappy and maladjusted.
All that counts is what I think. And if I'm in the minority, that doesnt
justify the majority saying I have a problem. But I'm not taking anything
away from rationally discussing the topic.

>> 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.

Guilty as charged. I should say I saw no hatred towards me.
But this is irrelevant. Its a digression from the point I was trying to
make. Everyone takes the exact wording of things so literally.
Thats how this whole discussion started in the first place. Its
no wonder that there are so many articles picking on this that and
the other thing. By the way, you did not see me flaming about people
who said she showed a hatred towards men. Since I am in that group
and the comment is inapplicable, I could have digressed and made
a silly flame.

>> 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.

We have already agreed that everyone is entitled to their own opinion
and their right to present it. You, I, and everyone can make their
own interpretations.

>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!).

Since when must we all be lawyers? I will not jump to conclusions that later
may quite easily be proven wrong. Others can do what they want.

>And once again I'll repeat that this sort of harshness is not always the
>best tactic for emphasizing such a point.
 
I do recall saying that Trish deserved comments with respect to her harshness.
As for not being the best tactic, this seems to be a good topic for a new
discussion. ie how to present points.

>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 have noticed this. You have gone out of your way in choosing your words
carefully. I do appreciate it. You have presented some very valid concerns
and some very logical opinions. I enjoyed reading them.

> 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.

I agree. If I(by all means a hypothetical situation) posted an article
on the subject of most blonde women are stupid and gave my reasons, then
I have made a clear statement. No doubt it would be thoroughly analyzed
and ripped apart. I would be very deserving of any accusations people
would brand me with. No one will disagree with that. However now lets
change the situation slightly. I happen to only date brunettes. It so
happens that I then see a number of articles putting down guys who
date brunettes. I slowly get angry and finally the bubble bursts.
I post an article "Happy as a brunette dater". Now in the course of
my flaming I mention most blonde women are stupid. 
Now this definitely should be questioned for 
clarification and intent. It should not result in immediate punishment being
heaped upon me. Now someone comes along and asks me if
I have chosen any blonde female lab partners. I respond "sure, lots of times".
That should be enough evidence to give me the benefit of the doubt pending
clarification of my exact views on the subject. This I perceive as a similar
situation to Trish. I oppose the total lack of clarification requests(seeing
as she was in the process of trying to make another statement) and the 
immediate accusations thrown at her. I think it would be proper to reserve 
judgement.

Robert