Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women,net.motss
Subject: Re: Bigotry
Message-ID: <8289@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jul-84 01:56:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.8289
Posted: Tue Jul 10 01:56:22 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 07:08:34 EDT
References: <2569@allegra.UUCP>, <1038@hao.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 43

>  I just want you to know, Alan, that I agree with you 1000%. There is no
>valid defense for bigotry. It seems that it's considered OK for minorities
>to say bigoted things about whites and/or males, but not the other way
>around. I don't like being called a macho asshole by someone who doesn't
>even know me, just because I happen to be a white male. Assuming that because
>someone is a member of group X, they must exhibit quality Y is the most
>basic form of prejudice. The fact that Trish is a lesbian has *nothing* to do
>with this issue. The fact that it is a member of a "minority" group being
>bigoted against the "majority", doesn't justify it. It is still bigotry and
>it still stinks. And it isn't necessary, either. I have known some lesbians
>who weren't bigots. I do *not* believe thay are all man-haters. If I did,
>then *I* would be guilty of bigotry.
>  This whole thing has been clouded over with the (important, but irrelevant) 
>issues of gay rights and women's rights. But they are just smokescreens. If 
>Lori, Sophie etc. cannot see that this is a simple case of bigotry, then you 
>aren't reading what we (Alan, Keith, myself, etc.) are saying. We are not 
>objecting to someone being a lesbian, we are objecting to this "generic" hate 
>of "most" men, based on a *very* small sample of the total population. It's
>time we got rid of this double standard.
>
>--Greg

Wait a minute here!  either you have not been reading what I said greg
or you are mistaking me for somebody else.  I have never defended Trish's
bigotry or her right to express bigoted opinions, simply because I believe
that her statements are bigoted and innapropriate in a public forum like this
one.  I don't approve of "reverse" bigotry more than you do and I agree also
100% (that's enough) with what you said..

HOWEVER, what I do defend is her right to have her opinions and her own
perception of the world.  I was objecting to Alan's labeling of her as an
"unhappy and not well-adjusted" person on the basis of her statements against
men.  I think her statements were clearly bigoted, but that anybody who would
want to attack them should attack them or Trish for her bigotry, but not
attack her for other things such as her choice of ways to deal with her 
perception of the world (by being a lesbian).  I think Alan's personal attack
of Trish was completely uncalled for as there were clearly other ways to
deal with her bigotry which did not involve attacking her lifestyle.

Now, let's see if YOU understand my position.....

Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley