saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/10/84)
From Greg Skinner: > I personally chose to be gay because I think most straight men are your > egotistical, chauvanist, insensitive, macho assholes, who treat women like > they're here on this earth to serve them. Of course there is that 1 in 1000 > who is just perfect, but why should I bother to go through the jerks just to > get that one!!!!! Plus a woman knows what a woman wants, and your basic > straight man could care less, just so long as he gets what he wants. So you > see Jeff, there are other reason to being gay. And I don't need to be cured, > cause I don't have a problem and I'm not sick. I'm a happy lesbian, > who would have it no other way --- thank you. > Trish Millines Thanks Greg for reposting Trish's original article. Your point about her usage of "I think" is a very important one and one that people debating Trish's bigotry have overlooked. In all the quotes of her made so far by other people scandalised by her statements, the "I think" part had been deleted. That is very interesting. I could not remember why Trish's article had not offended me at first, but had offended me after people quoted her, but now I know, she was quoted completely out of context! To repeat my point in case it is not obvious by now: saying "I think that most men are...." is not the same as saying that "most men are.....". The first is an expression of one's perceptions, the second is a blanket statement about a group of people, pretending to be objective. The second is bigoted, but the first one isn't simply because the person making it recognises the subjectivity of her opinion. So it now seems that Trish's crime was not bigotry (i.e defamation) but a "thought-crime". Putting this whole thing in perspective now, I am horrified not by what Trish said, but by the attacks that have been made on her because she has dared thinking "wrong". This is serious folks, I think that all of you who have been so quick to jump on her for her "bigotry" should really start to take a good look at your own attitudes and your own intolerance of others' right to their own thoughts and opinions. Beware of accepting the idea of "incorrect thinking", it is such attitudes that have waged crusades and witch-hunts in the past (and present). Other moral of the story: never trust quotes out of context. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/11/84)
> To repeat my point in case it is not obvious by now: saying "I think that > most men are...." is not the same as saying that "most men are.....". > The first is an expression of one's perceptions, the second is a blanket > statement about a group of people, pretending to be objective. The second > is bigoted, but the first one isn't simply because the person making it > recognises the subjectivity of her opinion. Sophie, Which of the following three statements do you find offensive? (1) "A woman is just a life support system for a cunt." (2) "The typical woman is just a life support system for a cunt." (3) "I think the typical woman is just a life support system for a cunt." If you honestly aren't bothered by (3), then you have been fair in your defense of Trish. I still disagree with you, but I do concede that you've been fair. On the other hand, if you find all three statements offensive (as I do), then you have not been fair at all. Please respond. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (07/11/84)
I have seen several claims in articles in newspapers and in journals over the last couple months that men will make direct statements (like "men are insensitive and callous") while women are much more indirect (like "I think men are insensitive and callous" or "it seems to me that men are insensitive and callous"). Indirectness with potential for deniability is no excuse for bigoted statements. -- Who wouldn't break for whales? Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
sebb@pyuxss.UUCP (S Badian) (07/11/84)
I read somewhere that women tend to say things like 'I think that...' or 'I feel that...' where men tend to leave off the first part and say just '... is so.' Excusing people on semantics is too easy. If you think something then you believe it to be true. This whole issue is WAY out of hand and I'm bloody sick of the whole thing. I don't think anything any one of us can say or do will result is something constructive. If Trish thinks men are creeps, then men are creeps to her, and there ain't a damn thing any of us is going to do about it. We can continue to argue about whether she made a bigoted state- ment. But what purpose would that serve? Do we want to define what a bigoted statement is? Do we expect to change Trish's mind? Come on, let's be real here. Let's just declare a truce. We are at a stand off here and nothing is going to change. sharon badian
stank@uiucdcs.UUCP (07/11/84)
#R:watmath:-829900:uiucdcs:31600079:000:1015
uiucdcs!stank Jul 11 15:33:00 1984
<>
The defense here is pretty silly. In some contexts "I think that..."
is short for "I think that..., but I'm not sure": e.g., "I think
that its still raining". However, it is quite common to say "I think
that ..." to mean "I assert that ...". In the case of the attack
of 999 out of 1000 straight men, it is clear that the stronger meaning
of "I think" was intended. Indeed, if the original authoress did not
actually wish to assert the truth of her statement, why did
she bother posting it to the network??
Now about the "thought crimes" issue: no one is suggesting that force
be used to make someone think like everyone else. However, in a
rational society, a person, who makes her/his thoughts public, makes
those thoughts a subject for discussion. We are obligated to allow
this person to HAVE these thoughts, but we are NOT obligated to meekly
sit back and listen to their promulgation.
S. Krolikoski
U. of Illinois at U-C