Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] parade in Chapel Hill

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: B <beeline AT mindspring.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] parade in Chapel Hill
  • Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:49:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00)

Response to your point #2: In order to discuss heterosexuality, the norm, one
must discuss sex. In order to fully discuss sex, one must delve into
relationships.

-You may be different-, but I have found that most who are "touchy" about
their, um, verbal treatment by the minority (in response to being
heterosexual/white/male/religious/successful/the majority/what have you) are
also the very people who have no desire to discuss sexual matters, either
individually or by group, eg male/female, older/younger. -In my experience-,
these people tend (!*tend*!) to be far more comfortable with discussions of
wars, politics, religion, rules, and stuff like that than they are to discuss
sex and relationships. A good number of these seem to be the very same people
who are uncomfortable with full sex education in high school (by which time
it's too late to do more than illuminate this rather basic element of these
young persons' lives, anyway).

One could argue that a lot of liberal types have no desire to discuss sex and
relationships, either. Women are more willing to discuss relationships but
most would want to gloss over the sex part. Some men will discuss sex, but
won't touch relationships if they were wearing full battle armor. This keeps
the sex and sexual relationships an unexplored mystery, like microbial
effects on human health a few hundred years ago, when all they knew was that
clean people lived longer, healthier lives, so were said to be "next to
Godliness."

Maybe the problem is that honest discussion would have to include aberrations.

~B


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Wilson <sipacate AT hotmail.com>
Sent: Aug 27, 2004 8:45 AM
To: internetworkers list <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [internetworkers] parade in Chapel Hill

1) I don't feel that a "straight power parade" is derision of homosexuals.

2) Every day isn't straight power day. Being heterosexual is not talked about
in the media nor is it talked about much at all. I am sure there will be some
militant anti-gay people there however. As with any group, there is an entire
spectrum of people, some accepting some not.

3) Bob Dumas. Don't listen to him. Wouldn't care if he was burned at the
stake. The great thing about the radio is, it has several adjustments you can
make. Some modify volume, some cut the power.

4) My Therapist comment. My appoligies, I should get to know you before I
assult you with tasteless insults. While I am still not able to see your side
of things, since my attitude towards the whole march thing is if one can
march, then all can march, you certainly feel you have developed a rational
argument.

Sort of reminds me of the South African kid who was suspended for trying to
win an African American achievement award. Double Standard.

http://www.theomahachannel.com/education/2783824/detail.html

dw















Dan Wilson wrote:

> I never post to this list either. However I think that your

> statements could be taken to mean that parades should only be for

> minorities. Surely you mean something else.

That is correct.

> To accept a gay pride

> parade and to deride a heterosexual parade is indicitive of a double

> standard.

There is no double standard. Not when the straight power parade is

organized to deride those who are not heterosexual.

> If we have freedom of speech, then let any one who chooses

> to march, march without prejudice.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to march. I'm saying that the

march offends me. In particular, the use of a publicly-owned natural

resource -- the radio spectrum -- to advocate a divisive agenda offends

me. Bob Dumas the private citizen has his first amendment rights. But

as a broadcaster, his first amendment rights are accompanied by

significant duties to the community. He is flouting that responsibility.

> I for one, would welcome

> heterosexuals marching because being heterosexual isn't something to

> feel guilty for.

Being heterosexual isn't something to march for in the first place. It

is the majority culture, the somatic norm, the social default. There is

no oppression or discrimination imposed upon hets. Gay Pride comes once

a year. Every day is straight pride day.

> And as for Tabeckett, you really seem to have a problem with this.

For some reason this pushes my hot button. I'm really sick of Dumas and

G105, I'm really sick of Clear Channel's abuse of radio broadcasting and

the public trust. I think that comparison to the Klan march is

perfectly apt: choosing to demonstrate in Chapel Hill for its symbolic

value, a bigoted display disguised as promoting the position of a

majority group. Granted, Dumbass does not carry the baggage of a

century of violence and hatred. But the essential rhetorical devices

are the same.

> Have you seen a therapist lately? ;-)

You can debate me or not, but don't insult me.

TaB



http://bholroyd.home.mindspring.com/

Only simple and quiet words will ripen of themselves.
-- Tao Teh Ching




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page