ORL_WBOL%JMUVAX1.BITNET@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (02/08/90)
Bill,
I resent the indiscriminate use of the term 'homosexual' because it
is too often misused by the general public who lump all homosexual
activity as being part of a gay identity. 'Homosexual' is a clinical
term refering to sexual activity between two people of the same gender.
MANY people may be participating in such sexual activity and still NOT
be gay. Gay is a term of identity and selfacceptance.
For comparison, the racial equivalent is "Negroid" and there are many
people who may be classified by race as such but who do not carry a
"black" identity.
Which brings me to my pet peeve of the month (year and perhaps decade)
in the labeling we as a society do to others. I HATE the affirmative
action reports you are sent after you apply for any jobs. You are
asked to check one of the following boxes to describe yourself. (Yes,
legally these are optional but . . .) We are sooo dualistic as a culture
we REQUIRE people be either black or white. More and more people are
products of mixed marriages. There is no gray to select from. Unfort-
unately in our society if you are not 100% caucasion, then you are black.
(Purity? Sounds very Hilterish to me.). Genetically, I seemed to be
dipped entirely from by anglo-scottish-irish heritage. In fact, I am
very proud of my Oklahoma indian roots (Cherokee) yet can not be technically
classified as Indian because I do not "look" or am generally identified
by others as Indian. So, each time I mark caucasion I am denying part
of my heritage. Anyone share this frustration? I have since started
marking both boxes and letting them deal with the frustration. But why
should we as a society (reflected by our government) even begin to
make such requests.
Ooops, sorry. I guess I got stuck on another button. But may be that
is also related to the gay vs. straight and homosexual issue.
----billDANGAY%UNC.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Daniel L Leonard) (02/08/90)
bill,
yes, i understand your frustration. however, if i remember
correctly the census form gives opportunity to give one's
ethnic background. unfortunately almost all other forms do
not.
true gay is much broader term than homosexual. i've always
said that gay includes some level of socialization with other
gays, so then there could be a closeted homosexual but not
a closeted gay .. these are my conotations and not necessarily
shared by a majority of those involved.
dangayDANGAY%UNC.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Daniel L Leonard) (02/08/90)
folks,
please permit me to return to a previous topic-male
coupling.
could couple who have been together more than 5
years please share with us their 'style'of relating ?
other couples who have been together a shorter period
have shared some good experiences that work for them. i
guess what i'm getting at is--do those methods work over
the longer times ?
i do stand corrected if "over 5s "have
responded and i missed it. our system is usually down
atleast once a day and may not completely back -up
the email.
thanks for your time,
danPMCCOY@OCVAXA.CC.OBERLIN.EDU (Rodney John Greer McCoy, Jr.) (02/09/90)
Yes! Another Cherokee GayNetter!! Bill, I have the same problem, since I am African-American AND Native American. When I see those little boxes that don't allow me to acknowledge both my heritages, I decide to fuck up everyone's system by checking both boxes anyway... It's like checking the "heterosexual" and "homosexual" boxes if someone doesn't acknowledge bisexuality...;-) Rod
mike@TURING.CS.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) (02/09/90)
There was a very good article in Communications of the ACM a while back in which the author explained that he always checked "Other" and filled in "mongrel" when asked to identify his race. Having backgrounds (as virtually *all* of us do) in Northern Europe, Africa, Native America, Southern Europe, Asia, etc., he felt it was irresponsible to call only *one* of those his "race". He also pointed out that the entire idea of race "classification" is now meaningless, at least in this country. Any system of classifying by race will be inherently flawed, because none of us fit neatly into any of the categories, and be designed more to acheive particular goals than to acheive accurate measurement. A good example is racial classification in the "old" southern US. Blacks were people with *any* amount of African descent; Whites came for purely European stock. This is, of course, patently ridiculous. Another example is in the Southwest. The major ethnic groups in New Mexico are usually listed as "anglo", "native american", and "hispanic". Problem 1: Many, many times, blacks are to be classified as "anglo", truly a unique usage here. Problem 2: Hispanics in New Mexico are really of two rather distinct varieties. "Spanish" were descendents from Spanish settlers, with little of the Indian blood characterizing Mexicans. They have a quite distinct culture from that of hispanics found in the south of the state, which is quite conmingled with Indian culture. -mib
Christopher.Young@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU (02/13/90)
I can sort of relate to the frustration relating to which box to check if you are of more than one race. My father is Chinese and my mom is Scottish-Irish- Welsh-English and Chocktaw (sp?). However, my mom's family rarely communicates with us, and I really only know my mom and my grandma (who's now dead), so I'm not close to them at all. On the other hand, I know my dad's side quite well, including my aunts, uncles, great-aunts, great-uncles, first, second and third cousins, etc. My Chinese side has been by far the dominate, and when I speak of my family I only refer to them and not anybody on my mom's side besides her and my grandma (I never met my grandpa... he died in a plane accident before I was born). So I guess I really don't consider my white/Chocktaw side part of my family. Thus, I check Asian because I consider myself Chinese (which is the majority of my blood anyway). -- Chris.