gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (02/13/86)
I've been reading with some interest the lastest postings on gays and sterotypes. I think a lot of things in the gay community are changing now like they have never changed before. The changes I am thinking of are not changes becasue of AIDS, but becasue of the tolerence of gays that has started in the last 15 years. Here at MIT we have an on-campus gay student group called GAMIT, for Gays at MIT. Although I am not currently as active in the group as I once was, I have been exposed to many students from various colleges around the country, and heard much about gay student groups around the country. None of these gay student groups were around 20 years ago. GAMIT started as the "Student Homophile League" about 15 years ago. That was relativly early, compared to other school's student groups, many which have only been around for the last five or so years. What I am trying to get to get to here is the early acceptance of homosexuality. Yes, there are plenty of effeminate people around the Boston college groups. But there are plenty of completly normal acting ones. It's amazing when new people show up at a gay stuednt group - many of them ALREADY act effemiate before they 'come out'. Many others never act effeminate. A few latch onto the 'dishing' etc., and grow more effeminate as time goes on. I sincerly believe that as homosexuality is more accepted, and the traditional sterotypes melt away, so will the effeminate gay men. Of the many young gay men I know (17-23 yrs old), only about 1/4 of them would I say "act gay". Not that there's anything wrong with acting gay. Some people use it as a personal identity - for others, they fall in with a bunch of gay friends who all act effeminate and will follw suit. When I first came out, I was amazed by the number of guys who I met were effemniate. My gut reaction always was "I'm gay becasue I like men -- not men who act like women". Unfortunatly, it's the straight acting homosexual who is never counted - the news programs miss him, he finds a lover, and vanishes somewhere in the suburbs. (See the New York Times, 2/11/86, front page, second section) I'd like to go twenty years in the future and see what people's stereotype of a homosexual is. AIDS will change things, promescuity is out. Friends are in. Safe sex is in. I never thought I'd have my father asking me if I was using condoms..... What do you think the future holds? Of your friends, how many are effemniate? How many act straight? Andy -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Systems Manager, Visible Language Workshop | | gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu | | UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber decvax!mit-eddie}mit-athena!gerber | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
blueskye@sun.uucp (Tim Ryan) (02/13/86)
In article 2498, gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes > > Yes, there are plenty of effeminate people around > the Boston college groups. But there are plenty of completly normal > acting ones. What is "normal acting"? The apocryphal "straight acting and appearing"? > It's amazing when new people show up at a gay stuednt > group - many of them ALREADY act effemiate before they 'come out'. > Many others never act effeminate. A few latch onto the 'dishing' > etc., and grow more effeminate as time goes on. > > Of the many young gay men I know (17-23 yrs old), only about 1/4 of > them would I say "act gay". Not that there's anything wrong with > acting gay. Some people use it as a personal identity - for others, > they fall in with a bunch of gay friends who all act effeminate and > will follw suit. > When I first came out, I was amazed by the number of guys who > I met were effemniate. My gut reaction always was "I'm gay becasue I > like men -- not men who act like women". > Unfortunatly, it's the straight acting homosexual who is never > counted - the news programs miss him, he finds a lover, and vanishes > somewhere in the suburbs. (See the New York Times, 2/11/86, front > page, second section) > What do you think the future holds? Of your friends, how many > are effemniate? How many act straight? > This posting disturbs me very much. Not because Andy Gerber dishes about "effeminate" gay men, but because i've seen this attitude far too often. I suppose it's the same old argument, but i am really amazed at the number of people, homosexual and heterosexual, who simply cannot accept diversity as a useful, interesting, and enriching experience. It bothers the hell out of me. My immediate take is that if gay men can't accept other gay men who are different (in whatever respect--butch, fem, black, white, fuschia, catholic, jewish, muslim, whatever difference) then how can we deal with our own fundamental "difference" from the "rest of the world?" My personal opinion is that we are no different from anyone else. We are all people with a vast, rich diversity, a world full of people and experiences. Let's stop trying to "fit in" and start being ourselves. - tim ryan {the known world}!sun!blueskye "Since you left / I've been watching / Blue skies / Come and go" a-ha
gt3191b@gt-oscar.UUCP (02/15/86)
> > Here at MIT we have an on-campus gay student group called >GAMIT, for Gays at MIT. Although I am not currently as active in the >group as I once was, I have been exposed to many students from various >colleges around the country, and heard much about gay student groups >around the country. > You should see what it's like here in the bible belt. The Ga. Tech equivalent of GAMIT was de-chartered by the Student Government (sic) two years ago for "lack of interest". It's a sad commentary.... { ================= } McAllister, Daniel Grear 1985 Football Basketball -------- ---------- Georgia Insitute of Technology, Tech 20 89 PO Box 33191 UGa 16 65 Atlanta Georgia, 30332 "Silence is Golden" WHAT? ME? GRADUATE? THEN What'll I do? ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gt-oscar!gt3191b
gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (02/15/86)
In article <3234@sun.uucp>, blueskye@sun.uucp (Tim Ryan) writes: > In article 2498, gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes > > It's amazing when new people show up at a gay student > > group - many of them ALREADY act effemiate before they 'come out'. > > Many others never act effeminate. A few latch onto the 'dishing' > > etc., and grow more effeminate as time goes on. > > > > Of the many young gay men I know (17-23 yrs old), only about 1/4 of > > them would I say "act gay". Not that there's anything wrong with > > acting gay. Some people use it as a personal identity - for others, > > they fall in with a bunch of gay friends who all act effeminate and > > will follw suit. > > When I first came out, I was amazed by the number of guys who > > I met were effemniate. My gut reaction always was "I'm gay becasue I > > like men -- not men who act like women". > This posting disturbs me very much. Not because Andy Gerber dishes > about "effeminate" gay men, but because i've seen this attitude far > too often. I suppose it's the same old argument, but i am really > amazed at the number of people, homosexual and heterosexual, who > simply cannot accept diversity as a useful, interesting, and enriching > experience. It bothers the hell out of me. My immediate take is that > if gay men can't accept other gay men who are different (in whatever > respect--butch, fem, black, white, fuschia, catholic, jewish, muslim, > whatever difference) then how can we deal with our own fundamental > "difference" from the "rest of the world?" I think you missed totally the point of my posting. In fact, I know you did. What I was trying to say was that as homosexuality is more accepted, people will find it less neccesary to act effeminate and be the "typical" homosexual that is often thought of by the media, by straight adults, etc.. Did you ever see Mel Brooks "To be or Not to be"? The homosexual from that movie is an example of the sterotypical homosexual that so many people carry around in their minds. Everyone should be exactly what they want to be. They should act exactly as they feel like acting. WHAT I WANT is enough freedom so people won't FEEL that to be gay, they need to act like women, use 'she' when talking about a guy, etc. If they WANT to do that, let them have fun doing it! But I think the whole desire to act that way ARISES from the sterotypical view of homosexuals that exists in our society. Think of it this way. When someone is coming out, when they are finally realizing what they are - unless they have a gay brother, a gay friend, etc, they have NO OTHER VIEW of homosexuals except for those that they see in the media, from their parents, and from what their friends tell them. IF YOU REMEMBER, THIS ISN'T VERY COMPLIMENTARY! It's full of words like "fairy", "sissy", "queer", and others I'd rather not repeat. So what do you do? Well, you just might start acting they way you "think" you're supposed to act. Like the media view of homosexuals. By doing this, you help fuel the continuance of these views. In some ways, you're letting the outside world (straight) determine what you act/look/talk like. In terms of "differences", I didn't say anything against {black, white, red, green, tall, short, *} people in my posting. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Visible Language Workshop | | gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu, gerber@athena.mit.edu | | UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber decvax!mit-eddie!mit-athena!gerber | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) (02/17/86)
gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes: > blueskye@sun.uucp (Tim Ryan) writes: > > gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes > > > [comments about effeminate gay men] > > [comments about diversity] > [comments about gay men acting effeminate because stereotypes say that they > are] When I first came out, one of my closest female friends said that she didn't like gay men acting effeminate ala Marilyn Monroe image because it reflected the way they saw women, in a sexist manner. I haven't really thought this out an awful lot, but I tend to agree. On the one hand, these men are saying "Why should everyone conform to your view of sexuality, of how men should act?" On the other hand, they go and act like society's image of women. They cast off one restricting stereotype to adopt another. (I know, it's none of my business how people act, they should be the way want to be.) By the way, there's a movie on CBS this Saturday night called "Welcome Home, Bobby" about a teenage boy who gets involved with an older man. Has anyone heard anything about this? ::: :::::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :::::: :::
schuster@Shasta.ARPA (Jay Schuster) (02/19/86)
In article <722@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes: >gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes: >> blueskye@sun.uucp (Tim Ryan) writes: >> > gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes >> > > [comments about effeminate gay men] >> > [comments about diversity] >> [comments about gay men acting effeminate because stereotypes say that they >> are] > [comments about how "adopting" effiminism can be perceived as sexist] Before more people dump on this guy (Andrew Gerber), I'd like everyone to keep in mind that it is VERY ovious that he is new to the gay male community. We all agree that diversity is our strength, and that we shouldn't retain the xenophobia that is associated with the society-at-large. Maybe once upon a time it was a survival trait; thankfully that's not true anymore. Before we all dump on Andrew, think back to what you thought about other gay men (stereotypes), before you figured out that what society taught you was a bunch of crap. And if you never had to endure Small Town Homophobia, because there was a GLYNY or a BAGLY where you grew up or otherwise, be very glad of that. When I first came out in high school, I had a lot of the same attitudes (misconceptions) that Andrew seems to have. I had them mostly because I grew up in Small Town America (Vermont) and had never known any other gay men. So I formed my own little view of the world. To make myself acceptable with my straight (and prejudiced) friends, and realizing that I didn't fit any of the stereotypes that I knew of, I did some dumping on the stereotypes. Well, I know I was wrong, but I also know that if I had had to maintain my self esteem with no support whatsoever from the friends that I had, I would have ended up much more messed up than I did. I was not secure enough to set out on my own to find gay friends, I was underage, and I was living in a state (an entire state) that had only one gay bar, and even that was constantly closing and opening under new management. It is about seven years later now, and I know better. "Effeminate" is a bad word to describe what Andrew (and everybody else) means. We all know that if a woman acted "effeminate" we'd all think she was a drag queen. When I was in high school, a friend of mine met my lover, who had been out longer than I and was much less uptight about being camp than I. The friend asked my lover why he acted so much like a girl. Just then three pieces of blonde female fluff walked by, tittering among themselves. My lover exclaimed "I act like that?!" It showed that what my friend was calling effeminate was not at all feminine, it was just different. He is still freaked out to this day, and we have a hard time communicating now. Jay Schuster ...!decwrl!shasta!schuster schuster@su-pescadero.arpa
richard@apple.UUCP (richard johnson) (02/25/86)
I don't know about you, Andrew Dear, but you still seem to think that there is something negative about what you term stereotypical gay behaviour. I think what others are trying to say here is that acceptance of gay people will not suddenly make the flamers vanish. Why should they - they're probably having a marvelous time. Would you expect all the nuances of black culture to disappear if blacks were 100% accepted by our society ? How about the Asians ? Mexicans ? Tierra Del Fuegans ? Really now...I myself enjoy a well-placed flame, especially when the BP (Breeding Public...thanks Owen) needs their comfortable little cages rattled. After all, if I didn't, some might think me part of that invisible faction you spoke about...quiet and assimilated into straight society. Imagine. ----------------------- richard johnson apple computer, inc. usenet: [mtxinu,nsc,voder]!apple!richard
baron@harvard.UUCP (Jeff Baron) (03/01/86)
In article <25757@apple.UUCP> richard@apple.UUCP (richard johnson) writes: >when the BP (Breeding Public...thanks Owen) ... I don't know about everyone else, but I find the term "breeding public" in exceptionally bad taste. Actually, until last summer, I used the term here and there. Then one day, a friend got very upset when the term came up. And you know what? She was right. Until gays learn to stop assaulting straight people on such grounds as those, straights will continue to be antagonistic. After all, they are not responsible for the fact that gays cannot have children per se, just as gays are not responsible for everything else that is wrong with the world. I guess my message is just to think before you make what I would consider to be rash comments. "Fighting" for gay rights does not include sinking to the level of some straights in the gutter. -- Jeff Baron {allegra,genrad,ucbvax}!harvard!baron
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/01/86)
In article <745@harvard.UUCP>, baron@harvard.UUCP (Jeff Baron) writes: > In article <25757@apple.UUCP> richard@apple.UUCP (richard johnson) writes: > > >when the BP (Breeding Public...thanks Owen) ... > I don't know about everyone else, but I find the term "breeding public" in > exceptionally bad taste. Actually, until last summer, I used the term here > and there. Then one day, a friend got very upset when the term came up. > And you know what? She was right. Until gays learn to stop assaulting > straight people on such grounds as those, straights will continue to > be antagonistic. After all, they are not responsible for the fact that > gays cannot have children per se, just as gays are not responsible for > everything else that is wrong with the world. I don't know about everyone else, but I find the outrage shown by certain members of strait society when they're called "breeders" a real hoot. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to let straits experience what it's like to have the shoe on the other foot, and "breeder" is probably one of the least offensive labels I can imagine. Listen, Jeff, straits who are antagonistic to gay people will be so regardless of what they're called; my experience has been the those who are REALLY offended are usually those more-liberal-than-thou-how-can-you-call-us-that-after-all-I'm-very-tolerant- of-people-like-you types. Ach, to be viewed only in terms of biology and sex! The horror, the horror... Screw 'em if they can't take a joke. Anyway, where's the insult? It's hardly like anyone is being accused falsely of something derogatory. FInally, let's not forget that many lesbians and gay men are themselves "breeders." Identifying oneself as gay says NOTHING about one's capacity to bear or father children. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU {bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyer
on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (03/02/86)
>In article <745@harvard.UUCP> baron@harvard.UUCP (Jeff baron) writes: >>In article <25757@apple.UUCP> richard@apple.UUCP (richard johnson) writes: > >>when the BP (Breeding Public...thanks Owen) ... > >I don't know about everyone else, but I find the term "breeding public" in >exceptionally bad taste. Actually, until last summer, I used the term here >and there. Then one day, a friend got very upset when the term came up. I think its interesting to see the reaction to this term. I used it in a posting because it was relevant to the subject I was addressing. Personaly I don't use it often , and when i do Its not meant as a put down. So I fail to see how it could be in bad taste . > >And you know what? She was right. Until gays learn to stop assaulting >straight people on such grounds as those, straights will continue to >be antagonistic. After all, they are not responsible for the fact that >gays cannot have children per se, just as gays are not responsible for >everything else that is wrong with the world. You canmake any descriptive term insulting by your use, The breeding public is a reality, and as it was pointed out by someone else ...it does not exclude Gays!!. Many Gay men and women are proud to breed. I have made a conscious decision not to refer to non gay people as "straight... for one thing I'm not bent or crooked . It is the heterosexual ruling culture that has been promoting an atagonistic attitude towards homosexuals, not the other way around. I suspect that there is a lot of Gay rage simmering under the surface. And theat ruling culture is gonna have to occasionally feel the sting of unreasoning prejudice before it will understand that ALL bigotry hurts someone. >I guess my message is just to think before you make what I would consider >to be rash comments. "Fighting" for gay rights does not include sinking to >the level of some straights in the gutter. your message is a reasonable one and we agree, now how can we get that message to the ones in the gutter! lux .. ON Owen Rowley
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stricklen) (03/03/86)
> In article <745@harvard.UUCP>, baron@harvard.UUCP (Jeff Baron) writes: > > In article <25757@apple.UUCP> richard@apple.UUCP (richard johnson) writes: > > > > >when the BP (Breeding Public...thanks Owen) ... > > I don't know about everyone else, but I find the term "breeding public" in > > exceptionally bad taste. > > I don't know about everyone else, but I find the outrage shown by certain > members of strait society when they're called "breeders" a real hoot. > As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to let straits experience what it's like > to have the shoe on the other foot, and "breeder" is probably one of the > least offensive labels I can imagine. I agree that the term "breeding public" is in bad taste. Creating new labels and stereotypes is no way of fighting against old labels and stereotypes. Rise above, Steve! Rise above! Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln
krossen@bbncca.ARPA (Ken Rossen) (03/03/86)
In article <23@spdcc.UUCP> dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: > I don't know about everyone else, but I find the outrage shown by > certain members of strait society when they're called "breeders" a > real hoot. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to let straits > experience what it's like to have the shoe on the other foot, and > "breeder" is probably one of the least offensive labels I can imagine. Granted. However, Steve, your spelling is usually impeccable, so I wonder if "strait" is a new one ... just a pun, perhaps? Has it passed into common usage? Care to enlighten us? (For purposes of etymological interest only, of course :-? ) -- "That's the way we spell New Hampshire." Ken Rossen ...!{ihnp4,harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!krossen ____or____ krossen@ccp.bbn.com -or- krossen@bbnccp.arpa
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/04/86)
The spelling is in the same tradition as words like "wimmin" (used by feminists
who dislike the original as being too male-derived), "amerika", etc.
Here the emphasis is on denying that "not-gay" == "straight", with
whatever connotations the word s-t-r-a-i-g-h-t provides. I used it for
its jarring textual appearance, along with its delightful resonance
on "strait-laced", "straitjacket", and "dire straits". It's used
frequently in subterranean gay prose.
There's probably plenty to be offended by here if you're the susceptible
type.
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyermcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/06/86)
> I don't know about everyone else, but I find the term "breeding public" in > exceptionally bad taste. It's also inaccurate. Not all of us are breeders. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "What? That? It was just a filthy demon! It wasn't even from this dimension!"