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

[B <beeline AT mindspring.com>]

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