keith@telesoft.UUCP (Keith Shillington @spot) (02/05/86)
I suppose this is mainly a supportive respose to Chris's article, included with various of my opinions in the topic area, at the tail, I pose a few questions for the net... > First, I do think that, as a whole, lesbians are way more together than > gay men. Well, in general, I agree, and, I am NOT fond of generalizations. The moment something is classed or categorized, an equal or greater number of opposites and counter examples pop up. My experience, is also that the persistent activists are typically lesbians. > As far as straight people and acceptance goes, I think it is impossible to > make any generalisation about that at all. I seen everywhere from complete > acceptance to death threats. Yep. > Stereotypes can be dangerous, however. Especially negative, bitter ones. > There are many gay people who just don't engage in "gay" social activities. Various reasons generate these behaviour patterns. Not of interest are situations where an individual is "at risk" in associating publicly in "gay" events. Of interest (to me) are people who CHOOSE not to associate with "birds of a feather"; especially when such association would clearly be beneficial to the individual. Obviously this phenomenon is not unique to the "gay subcommunity" but a total societal issue. > ... If somebody gives me a "dead flounder" handshake ... Yuk. Throw back the dead fish, and give me a warm hearty grasp... > ... Dignity ... The only problem I have with religious organizations is the antithetical nature of Bible interpretation. This is indeed a deeply personal issue, and probably not worth getting flamed about... > Life is what one makes of it. Ab so loot lee. I am what I have made myself to be, and I am the responsible party for all the good things and all the bad things that have happened (and will happen) in my life. To live otherwise would be folly. > ... I think Kenwatch is kind of stupid, but understandable. If it were > more positive (ie., warned newcomers rather than launching vicious > counter-attacks), I think I would > like it better. ... Ahem. Let us provide an example of communication as opposed to reaction. Far too much of what we call communicating is reacting, and reacting to reaction. The key element in communication is listening, and our friend Ken has some things to say. Granted, there is some difficulty in reading the message between the noise, albeit, the message is there. Often what Ken has to say CANNOT BE IGNORED! He represents (I get the impression more violently on the net than in real life) a wide spectrum of what we, gay people, need to be worried about. > But I don't think a person should go sour on an entire, giagantic > population of people... A wise policy, especially given what I have said about generalizations.. > I don't want to lessen the point about pettiness, because that and gossip do > seem to be overly abundant in "gay" culture. But I encourage people to make > their own culture and their own friends, and to be open to all people. I feel I have the right to point the vile finger at the "gay culture" when it comes to gossip. I am pointing that finger in the mirror, and it is ugly, ugly, ugly. I highly recommend that all listen closely to yourselves when you are gossiping, you will hear what others are saying about you.... At last, the promised questions: Stereotypes and generalizations are a two sided coin, what are the advantages, and disadvantages to having and using them? How important is acceptance, as opposed with tolerance? What are the fundamental differences between intolerance, rejection and persecution? On avoiding associating with members of the group of whom you are a member: Why do you ostracise yourself from the group? How do you qualify yourself as a member of THAT particular group? =AND= Who (like REALLY) is not including you? What is in a handshake? <religious question deleted> How is Ken Arndt valuable to the net? What benefit can we gain from his existence and persistence? (I reject no, and none, etc. as answers) Last, and not least by any stretch of anything... :-) Who pays the cost of gossip? Keith << Ho baby, get out the asbestos >> -- Keith Allan Shillington telesoft!keith@SDCSVAX.ARPA 619/457-2700x388.ATT {ucbvax!sdcsvax,celerity,bang}!telesoft!keith.UUCP
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stricklen) (02/07/86)
> Stereotypes and generalizations are a two sided coin, what are the > advantages, and disadvantages to having and using them? Stereotyping and/or generalizing about a class of persons has the advantage of saving one time and energy. After all, one need not take the time to get to know a new person's motivations; one need not listen. One already knows all one wants to know about the person. Quite obviously, the greatest disadvantage is all the missed opportunities this habit creates -- opportunities to create friendships which extend one's life experience and knowledge. > How important is acceptance, as opposed with tolerance? What are the > fundamental differences between intolerance, rejection and persecution? The degree to which acceptance is important to a person depends directly on how well she or he feels about herself/himself -- how satisfied they are with their interpersonal relationship(s), how successful they feel in their careers, how solidly they hold their morals.... To this "solid" person, acceptance is not important -- but without tolerance, others begin infringing on his or her pursuit of happiness. Now on to a pet peeve of mine. I am tired of the articles stating how gay behavior in bars and other meeting places is less than savory. What does one expect in an atmosphere of competition -- where most persons are motivated only to find the most gorgeous other, no matter the cost. For those who believe this is peculiar to gay folks, I would suggest spending an evening at a corner table in a straight singles bar frequented by "regulars." Gossip abounds -- as well as rampant rejection. I do not see any advantage to gay persons to highlighting their differences from the general public. I suspect closer scrutiny would reveal all behaviors are largely predictable with an understanding of simple human nature. Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln