crane@fortune.UUCP (John Crane) (06/01/84)
I don't know why many people who contribute to this newsgroup seem to be so hung up about whether or not somebody is gay or bi admits it or not or whether or not they are told that this or this person is or is not gay or bi or whatever or even whether somebody is homophobic or not. This topic has been beaten into the ground. Andy posted a very good response that says most of what I want to say on this subject. If we truly want to end discrimination, we should become not only color- blind but sexual-preference blind and bigotry-blind. And probably blind to a lot of other things as well. Can I coin a new term? Homophobophobic. Then I guess somebody will come along and describe this article as homophobophobophobic. John Crane
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (06/03/84)
Sorry, John, I cannot agree with your posting about "homophobophobia."
First, you state:
If we truly want to end discrimination, we should become
not only color-blind but sexual-preference blind and
bigotry-blind. And probably blind to a lot of other things as
well.
This paragraph could be a bit more precise, but I feel you are confusing
the end-point (no discrimination) with our present condition (wallowing in
it.) If we truly want to end homophobia and discrimination, we have to
identify it and work against it. Pretending that it doesn't exist may be
comforting until one tries to operate in the real world--the illusion
vanishes pretty quickly. Witness the Deukmejian AB-1 veto, the opposition to
forming 'net.motss', the fervent opposition to civil rights bills in most
states...one could go on and on.
As far as the discussions about "who was gay vs. who wasn't", well, at some
very basic level, the sexual preferences of historical figures aren't
usually very important. However, when facts are covered up, biographies
bowdlerized, manuscripts mistranslated, history distorted, the omission of
such information is symbolic of the homophobic attitudes which engender
such untruths. As Ron Rizzo said, one even knows the damn name of Charles
Babbage's wife! Yet Turing, a major figure in mathematics and C.S., who died
tragically young, a suicide during "treatment" for his homosexuality, is
only a name to most of us, an instance of "pure mind" freed from corruption
by the facts.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAgtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (06/04/84)
You've got it all wrong: It's Homosexism and Heterophobia!
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (06/05/84)
>You've got it all wrong: It's Homosexism and Heterophobia!
This guy is either missing a smiley-face ":-)" or he's missing some
brains--let's assume the former!
I haven't seen any material here which could be called "heterophobic".
That history has been distorted by deliberate omission and obfuscation
is pretty clear to anyone who examines the record. Boswell relates
the rather hilarious (were it not so egregious) history of
mistranslations of Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, and Latin texts, as well as
latter-day doctoring of Renaissance authors (e.g., Michelangelo's
sonnets.) Ron Rizzo has also mentioned the attempts by revisionist
biographers to de-sexualize the personalities of 19th century artists
such as Whitman and Wilde. Is it any wonder that people who are
concerned for the unbiased appreciation and understanding of history
and culture are crying "foul"?
If this is "homosexism", then let's have more of it. But I think it is
not, nor is it "heterophobia."
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/05/84)
What's this story about Babbage's wife? I never heard of her.
The one woman I have heard of in connection with Babbage is
Ada Byron Lovelace, first programmer, daughter of Lord Byron and
wife of the count of Lovelace. She was a friend of Babbage, but
I do not know enough about her to know whether there was any
romantic involvement between the two of them. In any case the
reason she is remembered and talked about in CS is not because
she is some guy's wife, but because she "helped" Babbage with
his work.
What she did exactly, I don't know. I have hear rumours that
she was not really a programmer, but "just" a proofreader.
This is a typical view of women's work. I have heard of other
women's work being denigrated before so I will reserve judgement
until I find out more.
If I may add my two-cents worth, the attitude of people that believes
that the only way women can become famous is by being someone's wife
is not much better than the attitude of people who believe that
famous people's homosexuality should not be mentioned when it is
relevant to their work.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleyrrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/07/84)
Oops! I goofed, mistaking Ada for Babbage's wife. My apologies. Perhaps sexism was in part responsible for my getting the facts wrong, but given the by-now common habit of looking at the contributions of famous person's spouses (heterosexuals, that is) among biographers etc. (among whom are more than a few avowed feminists), I don't think my slip was heinous or especially sexist.