Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Can we move forward by saying stereotypical things like "how white 
male" of him?  No.  Is there some validity to saying something like 
that?  In my opinion, yes.

I'm in a real bind on this topic.  Sometimes I really can't stand
"men," with strate, white men being placed at the top of the list. But
it's not that simple.  I'm also afraid of men (you know that subtle
pressure of walking into a room full of men and having to "be a man,
too"???).  I also love them.  I'm also indifferent to them.  I also
have mixed feelings when it comes to men of difference (black men, gay
men, bisexual men, feminist men, veterans, men of different physical
ability, and so forth). 

I don't know.  It's complex....

Being a gay man, I know how infuriating it is to be dismissed as being 
some stereotype.  However, I know from the experiences that I've had 
doing Valuing Differences work here in the company that, routinely, I 
will get the most grief (resistance to the feelings of others) from 
strate, white men (closeted, gay, white men sometimes can give me more 
grief).  I struggle to keep an open mind for each individual, but in 
the back of my mind, sometimes I hear that voice say:

	"He's such a strate, white male"

Or the term some of us use of women who have bought the traditional 
managerial role:

	"She's a man in a skirt"

I guess it's just up to me to keep tabs on this stereotypical thinking
of mine and not to let it rule my behavior.  There is some personal
work that I have to do around this issue, to chip away at it. I accept
this, and I will work on it.   However, I'm no fool.  Don't expect me
to completely drop my guard around strate (appearing), white men when
I do my Valuing Differences presentations until I see fewer and fewer
of them trying to throw monkey wrenches into my efforts.  It would
help me to chip away at my stereotypical thinking if there were more
and more examples of nonstereotypical behavior in this group of
people. I'll do my part at undermining the stereotypes, but are strate
(appearing), white males doing their part? 

							--Ger

    Why has it become a crime to be a white male?  It seems as though
    "white males" are getting blamed fopr everything.  You see it in
    almost everything.  I have heard (on the radio) and seen (on the
    boob tube) more and more of portraying men as babbling idiots. 
    THe woman always comes to the rescue of the poor slob who obviously
    cannot tie his shoes without almost hanging himself.  It's both
    irritating and humorous.  I can see differentiating between males
    and females, I cannot see differentiating between colors.  In my
    eyes, and that's all it is (my opiinion) men and woman are different,
    but the only difference between races is pigmentation.  Cultures
    and heritage are what makes the difference between races etc.  Everyone
    is partially a part of their environment.  
    
                                                          Mike

    I don't agree with the use of the phrase, and I'm sure it isn't
    furthering interpersonal relations to use it....however I think
    I see what they might have meant.....f'rinstance, the most blatant
    example of this "stereotype" was Archie Bunker (just like the most
    blatant example of the "dumb housewife stereotype" was Edith Bunker).
    Of course, the producers, directors, and writers for the show (All
    in the Family) allowed them to step out of character once in a while,
    and those were the most affecting shows....so I'm sure no one can
    be that way *all* the time.
    
    -Jody

I had just written a 100-line explanation of what I was trying to get 
at, but I thought it might be a better idea to try to do it in two 
paragraphs (minimalism is all the rage in tech. writing these days).

Is it a crime to be a white male?  Of course not.  Does being a white
male mean that the person is automatically guilty of oppressing women
and minorities?  Of course not.  If I encounter a (strate appearing)
white male, am I justified in not automatically trusting him and 
expecting him to be prejudiced?  In my opinion, yes.  (Keep in mind, 
try to look at this from the perspective of a woman or a person in a 
minority group.)  If I am talented and smart and if I have run into 
the glass ceiling at work (not being able to advance despite my 
talents), then it's not going to take too many "You're paranoid"s or 
"Only the most talented get the jobs"s or "You're using your <status> 
as an excuse"s from SAWMs for me to withhold my trust from them.  Put 
your hand in the fire and get burned once, no need to do it again 
(until you are sure that the fire is out).

In my experience and the experiences of a lot of women and minorities 
(not all, but a lot), most SAWM disregard the difficulties and 
feelings of people who are not SAWM.  Many SAWM use rationalized, 
intellectualized arguments to "prove" that everything is okay and that 
only the most qualified get ahead.  Meanwhile, our guts are telling us 
that something is very wrong when we look at the heads of goverment 
and corporations and see...surprise!...mostly strate white males.

And does race make a difference?  In my experience, yes.  Many African
American men understand what racism is all about, so it is not a huge
leap for them to understand sexism, homophobia, classism, ageism, and
so forth. (Though it would be a mistake to think that all African
American men are okay on all issues.) 

So what does this all mean?  It means that many women and minorities 
don't trust SAWM until they show signs that they are willing to listen 
(without judgement and without personalizing complaints about "the 
system" as being complaints about them), and until they show signs that 
they are willing to question and push against a system that excludes 
the brightest and most talented women and minorities from the top of 
the power structure.  

I think that SAWMs who "do their part" really learn to listen without
whipping up rationalizations to justify the pain and struggling of
women and minorities.  And if you think that this "pain" and
"struggling" are manufactured or exagerated, consider this: If one
woman is standing on the street corner complaining about the glass
ceiling, I could understand if you were to dismiss her as crazy.  If
ten women are talking about the glass ceiling, then I can see where 
you might think that the full moon is bringing out the crazies.  
However, if hundreds of thousands of women are talking about the glass 
ceiling, about not being taken seriously, about being dismissed, then 
I think that something is wrong; we can't ignore those numbers (or can 
we?).

Many, many women and minorities are pissed and frustrated about their
lives in this country (USA).  (It ain't just a few nuts standing on a
street corner.) And SAWMs have a choice.  They can continue to recite
nearly irrelevant intellectual arguments that say explicitly or
implicitly, "You all shouldn't be feeling that way; things are okay."
Or, they can accept that the feelings exist (feelings aren't right or
wrong; they just "are") in large numbers of women and minorities, and
they can take the intellectual energy they had been spending on
dismissing people's feelings and they can apply that energy on the
system so that more of us (white, Asian, African American, women, men,
gays, and so forth) can feel happier and more productive. 

It weren't 2 paragraphs, but it weren't 100 lines, either.  ;-)

							--Ger

PS  For more information on the glass ceiling in TV journalism, check 
out the latest interview with Mother Jones.  Linda Ellerbee and others 
talk about how hard it is to be a bright, talented woman in the TV 
networks.

    RE: Ger- I don't buy this one bit.  If you take a man and woman who 
    have comparable qualifications, the woman is making $1.01
    to the mans $1:00.  Look it up, it's fact.  It isn't easy being
    a male today.  You take the heat for almost everything that happens
    to women.  
    
    Something I don't agree with is mixing racial issues and gender issues.
    People will try to lump them together and they are two different
    issues.  There are very different variables to both of them.  Mostly
    having to do with physical charicteristics reproduction, strength
    etc.  THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES.
    
    Lastly let me give you my definition of prejudice.  It is the act
    of thinking you, bacause of what you are, black, white, male, female,
    etc., are better than someone else who is not like you.  I am not
    afraid that there are differences between genders because it's true.
    
    Bottom line is we all have our stuff that gets in the way of our
    looking at things objectively.  We have got to strive to overcome
    them.  Making the "white male" the bad guy is antiproductive and
    really quite silly.
    
                                                Mike

    	As stated in the base note - it's difficult to detect the emotions
    of the encounter - she may have been kidding around, or she may
    have intended nastiness ...
    
    	If it's in kidding - it should be left alone, thin skin only
    causes pain.
    
    	If there was insult intended, it should be ignored - confrontation
    with one who thinks and acts along those lines is wasted time and
    energy.
    
    	Yes - I recognize and agree with the observation that in some
    quarters, we caucasian straight adult males are being singled out
    as the enemy, as the perpetrators of social injustice. Those who
    think that way are unworthy of our attention.
    
    	Guy
    

>    Bottom line is we all have our stuff that gets in the way of our
>    looking at things objectively.  We have got to strive to overcome
>    them.  Making the "white male" the bad guy is antiproductive and
>    really quite silly.
    
Mike, 

Your note is a perfect example of why I dread working with white
males.  (Please don't read anger into this note; I'm not feeling any. 
I just want to be as honest as possible.  This is how I think and 
feel.)  

What I did was try to describe how people are _feeling_ and how they
are reacting to those feelings.  I said that women and minority people
are feeling angry and frustrated trying to work and to live in this
society.  Note that I did not assign blame to any group of people for that. 
The feelings are there.  Period. 

What _you_ did was to come at me with stats (the dollar comparison)
and with theories on prejudice.  Then, to top it off, you say that to
"make the 'white male' the bad guy is antiproductive and really quite
silly."   Are you implying that I am "making the 'white male' the bad
guy," because I am not (I am making "the system" the bad guy). Are you
implying that what I have typed in is "silly"?  (It isn't that hard to
make that connection.)  Makes me feel great! 

That's my point.  Women and minorities try to describe experiences and 
feelings.  And 9 out of 10 white men will come back with statistics, 
philosophy, and often with the word "silly" or "paranoid" or 
"counterproductive" or "unqualified" or <fill_in_the_blank>.

In our minds, being cautious of strate-appearing white men is not
"silly" and it is not strictly "blaming them"; it is a survival
mechanism based in experience.  I know that having a male body and
having white skin doesn't automatically mean anything; I'm smarter
than that. But I'm also a realist. If 9 out of 10 times I deal with
SAWM I get them trying to argue away what I am feeling, then I'm going
to be cautious of them.  Period. (Note that I did not say "blame" them
or "dismiss" them; I just said "be cautious" of them.) And I wish that
SAWM would just _listen_ to what we are feeling, not "take
responsibility for," but just to _listen_ and to accept our feelings. 

You may not "buy it," but my point (and the point of many women and
minorities) is that our anger and frustration is not something that
you can "buy" or "not buy"; you can't debate away our feelings.  And
as I mentioned before, if only a few people are feeling something,
maybe it's just a few malcontents; if a few hundred thousand people
are feeling it, then there might be cause to take note. All I want is
just some recognition that the feelings are there in large numbers of
people and that there might be some fine tuning we can do to the
system to help.  That's all. 

							--Gerry

    >RE: Ger- I don't buy this one bit.  If you take a man and woman who 
    >have comparable qualifications, the woman is making $1.01
    >to the mans $1:00.  Look it up, it's fact.  It isn't easy being
    
     Where in the world did you get that salary comparision?
    
    Department of Labor statistics show a very, very different picture,
    with women---as always---on the short end of the stick!
    The idea that women, in American society today, make more money
    than men for comparable work is absolute nonsense!!
    jpr

    I believe he is quoting stats that were made a few months ago...
    which stated; Amongst the COLLEGE graduates, FEMALE GRADS were making
    1.01 to the WHITE MALE GRADS 1.00...
    Am I correct?
    
    But naturally, I am wrong, cause hey, I am a white male.... and
    All I am doing is disqualifying the minorities and womens feelings
    of anger by 'making' up stats.....
    
    

    RE: -1  That's exactly what I am speaking of, but it will be blown
    off as always.  
    
    RE: Ger-As you have your opinion, so do I.  I (as a white male),
    am sick and tired of being blamed for what's going on.  It's the
    easy way out to blame someone else for one's failures.  Most white
    males know of are just trying to make a living as is everyone else
    of other genders and colors.  There are people of each gender and
    colors who are prejudice.
    
                                                Mike

    There was a song a few years ago called "69 cents for every dollar",
    which was the salary women make compared to the salary men make
    (although by now it's risen to about 73 cents for every dollar).
    This is adult working women compared to adult working men (no
    particular educational background considered).
    
    I like what you are saying, Ger, and I support your stance.  
    
    I am not blaming any one strait white man for what has happened to all
    women, or all people of other racial or sexual backgrounds.  But
    it *feels* sometimes like there must be *something* they are actively
    doing to make things the way they are glass-ceiling-wise, or maybe
    even more likely there seems there is something they are not 
    actively doing to help change things glass-ceiling-wise.  They are
    traditionally the most powerful people.  I know that I cannot force
    them to change anything, I cannot even force them to listen.  I
    cannot force them to work towards greater equality.  
    
    Perhaps this is where some of the feelings of anger and frustration
    come from...from someone being without power in some ways, and speaking
    of being without power in some ways, and rather than having someone
    with power say "I hear you", or better yet "I'll help you", they hear
    "You aren't without power.  Hah!  You have as much power as I do!  In
    fact, in some ways, you have *more* power!  I don't believe you could
    possibly justify feeling that way!"  - and the cycle continues. 
    
    Please don't flame me.  This is just an attempt to vocalize a feeling
    it is very difficult and sometimes painful to put words to.  
    
    -Jody
    

    
>    I (as a white male),
>    am sick and tired of being blamed for what's going on.  It's the
>    easy way out to blame someone else for one's failures.  

Just to keep the record straight, I am not blaming white men for 
"what's going on."  I am also not "failing."  I also did not accuse 
SAWM of "making up" statistics.

What I did say is that I sense more of a struggle in my dealings with
SAWM than I do with women or with people of color.  I am smart enough
not to ignore my experiences, so SAWM raise a flag in my head and
cause me to use caution.  I also feel that statistics are good and
should be discussed, but, when I talk "feelings" and someone comes at
me with only "statistics" in an attempt to "prove" something, I feel
like my feelings are being invalidated and ignored.  ("Women have no
right to feel angry when the statistics say that educated women make a
penny more than educated men"  Well, since you can't debate feelings, 
yes, they _do_ have a right to feel whatever they are feeling.)

I keep trying to clarify what I am saying, because, when I read other 
notes that paraphrase what I tried to say, the paraphrasings are 
saying something different than what I tried to say.

The only question I have is: Do you think that it's possible that when 
women and minorities say, "I am struggling and feeling a lot of pain, 
anger, and frustration with trying to make it in this society," that 
many SWAMs hear, "I am struggling and feeling a lot of pain, anger, and 
frustration, and it's all your fault"?  I'm not seeing a lot of 
"blame" in my notes, but most replies talk about being tired of being 
"blamed."  Why is this?


							--Gerry
PS I'm a white male, too.

    Jodie,
    
          The stat of .73 to a dollar is a tool used by the womans
    organizations as propaganda to make woman feel as though they are
    being cheated.  You have to look at alike circumstances otherwise
    the argument doesn't hold any water.  
    
    Gerry,
    
          I understand that feelings are valid to the person who is
    having the feelings.  What I am trying to do with the stats is to
    correct the misconception that men have it better than woman.  I
    also want to say that I (even though I am one of those straight
    white males) feel as though I am struggling also.  Trying to raise
    a family of four one one salary is definitely not easy today.  When
    someone gets a job ahead of me because a quota has to be filled,
    it tends to burn me up because I work hard and feel as though I
    should be rewarded accordingly.  It's not all peaches and cream
    being a SWAM believe it or not.  We all have our crosses to bear.
    
                                                     Mike

I moved all replies starting with .18 to a new note to discuss wage parity.
Please continue the discussion on categorizing people by appearance in this
topic.  Thanks.

			Steve - co-moderator

>.14>What I did say is that I sense more of a struggle in my dealings with
>.14>SAWM than I do with women or with people of color.
>
>    	Could that be your problem, and not the the SAWM's?
>    
>    	Do you think it is?
    
Absolutely.  It says more about me than it does about SAWMs.  The only 
word that I have an issue with is the word "problem."  It may or may 
not be a "problem" for me.  

That's inherent in the definition of "feedback."  When I feel 
something, the idea is for me to say, "<blah> happened, and I felt 
<blah>."  

One of the most damaging phrases that is often used today, in my
opinion, is "you made me feel <blah>."  No, no one "makes" anyone feel 
anything.  One statement or action can elicit 10 different feelings in 
10 different people.  The person making the statement or performing 
the action didn't "make" those 10 people feel anything.

Yes, there are the cases when people blatantly do something when they 
have already been given the feedback that it irritates the person, 
but, still, the person isn't making the other person feel anything.  
That inconsiderate person may not have many friends after a while, but 
that person isn't manufacturing feelings in anyone else.

I think that the idea behind telling someone (SAWMs) about my feelings 
is that people as a community are more powerful than individuals.  I 
can go off and work on my feelings about SAWMs (indeed, I'm doing A LOT 
of personal work around that issue).  I'll bet that I can even someday 
get myself to a point where there is no emotional charge around dealing 
with SAWM.  However, what good would that do if I still run into the 
same practical problems that SAWMs have traditionally posed for me 
(using logical arguments to tell me I shouldn't be feeling something). 

What if the SAWMs didn't even know that something they are doing is
bothering people (me)?  My telling them (feedback) will give them
information that they might need if they do decide to change in the
name of community spirit and improvement.  I don't think that it is
unreasonable for women and minorities to say, "I'm struggling with
inhibiting feelings, and maybe we, as a community, can work together
to create a better environment."  And it works in reverse, too.  Once
a person works in community with others for the good of someone
besides him or herself, the community is then available to work for
that person one day.  Theoretically, that's the way community is
supposed to work.  If SAWMs worked in community with minorities and 
people of color on their problems, then the women and minority people 
would be freer to respond to the problems of SAWM.  If the support 
isn't going one way, don't expect it to go the other way.

And even if people receiving feedback decide not to change, my
offering feedback will let them get to know me better.  I believe it
is a good thing to share myself with other people.  It is in sharing
myself with other people that I grow (through their knowledge and
"perception" of me, since everyone's perception of me is just as valid
a "Gerry Fisher" as my perception of myself).  I gain by giving. 

I don't know how to explain the paradox of "gaining by giving," but 
just consider what happens to people when they shut themselves off 
from others.  Consider the extreme case of isolation being sensory 
deprivation.  If we cut ourselves off, we die in the worst case and we 
stop growing in the best case.  Yes, we need to receive information 
from the outside world, but we need to give information back, as well.

Check out the people who share their feelings and ideas with other
people. In particular, check out people who are just learning to
"feel" in front of others, to be more genuinely themselves, to drop
the rigid "facades," to stop trying to be what they think other people
want them to be.  Notice the change in appearance and attitude. Notice
the growth and increase in strength. 

I can't explain it.  But I can see it when it happens.  The exchange 
of feedback--without blame--is a growth experience that feeds the 
individuals and the community.  Or, it CAN be.


						--Gerry

From:	TLE::FISHER       "Work that dream and love your life." 13-JUN-1989 11:00:43.88
To:	FISHER
CC:	
Subj:	Why I use the word "strate."


I purposely misspell "straight" to mean "heterosexual with no other 
connotations--negative or positive--of the word 'straight.'"  

It has nothing to do with an added level of homophobia, or anything like
that.  Just heterosexual.

Here is my line of thinking:  I can't stand being called a homosexual, so
I don't like calling people heterosexuals.  (I dislike "homosexual" because
it sounds so clinical, and there seems to be too much of a focus on the
"sex" part and not enough on the "falling in love/emotional" part.)  When
I have called people "straight," I have gotten the feedback that some
people don't like that; it makes them sound like a "square" or "nerd" or
someone who is not "cool."  (Depending on your personal politics, being
called "straight," as in "straight and narrow," can either be a compliment
or an insult.)

So I use "strate."  It's not a perfect solution, but I feel good about it.
It's my way of saying, "by misspelling this word, I am cutting away all
connotations and connections with 'straight and narrow,'" just like the
use of the word "womyn" is like saying, "by misspelling this word, I am 
cutting the connection between 'man' and 'wo-man,' thereby treating 
wimmin as distinct entities."


							--Ger

        Ger,
        
        It's just  a  label, not much different to the ones used by the
        heterosexual community to  refer to homosexuals, and nothing to
        get upset about (by either).  At least it's better than the one
        used in a previous Soapbox revival - 'breeders'.
        
        'Strate' to me however has (I would guess) similar connotations
        as  'quere'  would  to  you,  in    that  it's  a  label  which
        attempts to define a person in terms  of  their  sexuality, but
        with  the emphasis on straight/bent, ie.  normal/abnormal,  and
        as such, in my opinion, it doesn't serve as a good label.
        
        Andy
        

>        ...it doesn't serve as a good label.
>        
>        Andy

If you hear of another one, please let me know.  Until then, I figure 
I'll stick with "strate" (used generically) and whatever it is 
individuals want to be called individually.


							--Ger

    Gee, I thought you misspelled the word STRAIT.  Which, when used
    as an adjective, means: Strict, rigid, or righteous.  It fit the
    context, of what was being said.
    
    Alan

>    Gee, I thought you misspelled the word STRAIT.  Which, when used
>    as an adjective, means: Strict, rigid, or righteous.  It fit the
>    context, of what was being said.
    
No, but I misspelled "straight" meaning "strait" two notes back!

Is anyone keeping track of all this???  ;-)


						--Ger

>Is anyone keeping track of all this???  ;-)
    
    Anybody care?
    

>          -< someone had to say it, even if it was mean. No offence >-
>
>>Is anyone keeping track of all this???  ;-)
>    
>    Anybody care?

Yeah, I do.

If everyone else in the conference types NEXT UNSEEN, that's okay by 
me.  I'm doing what I feel I need to be doing.


							--Ger			

    Gerry-
    
    I was kidding. It wasn't supposed to be looked at in any serious vein
    at all.
    
    The Doctah
    

>	That was very strait of you, Gerry, to take Doctah seriously.
>    
>    	Strait meaning narrow.
>    
>    
>    	Personally, I think if we're gonna have a new word for an old
>    one that could be taken the wrong way (ie strate for straight),
>    then why don't we also have gaye (no offense, Marvin).  After all,
>    not all gaye people are happy, just like not all straight people
>    are square.
>    
>    -mike z

Good point.  I'm sure that you will work that action item, right, 
Mike.


							--Ger

	Thanks to all of you for contributing on this topic. You might be
interested to hear that my friend had second thoughts herself on the use of
the expression. She was concerned that in categorizing the individual, she
was limiting our expectations of him, and has embarked on a bit of soul-search
and research to explore the source of the comment. I congratulate her on her
energy. Rather than stick to her guns, she wants to grow. We all could use some
of that (Its so human of us).

To the topic: ( Go to the bottom for "STRATE" )

    >doesn't take the proper role of leader (allowing the group to decide
    what it wants, without contaminating it with his own opinions).
    
    Some time ago i heard this definition of a "good leader": Taking
    people where they want to go.
    
    This conflicts with the "military" definition of: Leadership is
    the art of obtaining the willful cooperation of people to achieve
    a common goal.
    
   "Sounds like" the leader mentioned is "facilitating" where the group
    is headed anyway.
 
     
        
    >Her husband and I had a mild case of lockjaw in response to the
    comment. I am not inviting woman bashing, however I would like to get
    some opinions on whether this sort of comment can move society forward
    into greater understanding. 

    If by understanding, we mean that some people haven't caught up
    to the DEC Culture of the "ideal" society, and we need to make
    allowances for our friends, i guess the answer is "yes". At the
    same time, we need to "educate" our friends as to the needs of people
    they've never met (ie, hey kiddo, lighten up a little. lots of <generic
    persons> are very sensitive and caring (intelligent and responsive,
    warm and loving, etc and so forth).
    >Are male/female stereotypes useful ? 
    
    >Can we categorize people without disrespecting their uniqueness as an
    individual ? 
    
    NO !
    
    "Categorizing" is randomly desentization to people as a group.

    To wit: Calling persons by "group names" dehumanizes the individuals
    and places them under the aegis of common socio-political "worst
    case" names:
    
    niggers, queers, breeders, broads, prisoners, enemy, dumb_blondes,
    spics (no spans), pollocks, kikes, contaminated, politicians, lawyers,
    noters, gunmen, hyper_active, conservationist, oil_companies,
    polluters, fisher_men, liars, israelies, arabs, engineers, THEM,
    THEY, US.
    
    Group names came, i am sure, for statisticians to identify quantitative
    numbers. Some of those statistiticians worked in Germany, Russia,
    England, US of A, and most other places.
    
    The problem with "categorization" is that NO ONE person "exactly"
    fits the applied definition. I tell you I am a "hiker". I am not
    a HIKER. I am a person who goes on hikes in the mountains. It is
    but ONE aspect of my person sense who i REALLY am. And even that
    is evolving EVERY day.
    
    A person to whom i am very close was worried that we may CHANGE.
    We did change. Together. NOt always in step, but we changed. This
    person is NOW glad we changed to be the way we are, and not a way
    that was feared as a possibility.
    
    [end of this portion of this diatribe]
    
    (Are Elocutionists part of the Dia tribe ?)
    
Re: STRATE
    
    It was the white folks who invented the word Negro, as it applied
    to an african type person who is black. (seems strange that there
    are also now WHITE native born Africans.)
    
    It is the blacks who chose to adopt the word "Black" as it applies
    to them. I don't mind "Straight, Breeder, Strait". 
    
    I mind someone else selecting a word convenient to them, for the same
    reason these sams folks object to "Homo". It is not MY word of choice.
    (hey, take it easy. this is my opinion, not an argument.) 
    
    If the men whose sexual preference for other men choose "Gays",
    that is fine for me. If "THEY" (the Gays, prefer amongts themselves
    to se whatever they want to discuss us Heterosexuals, thats also
    fine with me. I prefer straight, because i am. Straight as in 
    "Straight Arrow", mild temperament, pays taxes on time, conservative
    in actions and lifestyle, open minded.
    
    Language is what people use. Intelligent people read the phrases, and
    interpret  the meaning in accordance to our own "Learned
    Experiences". (Actually, ALL people do, not just the "intelligent
    ones".) 
    
    Ok, thanks,
    
    Bob

        
	

    
    	What I trouble myself with in this discussion is the entire concept
    of labeling.  I'm not like anybody else, and I don't know anyone who is
    like anybody else, so I see no value in dividing people into categories
    and discussing them as though all the people in a category are the
    same.
    
    	I have no objection to being described as white and male, any more
    than I would object to being described as 42 and occasionally more
    ironic than I should be.  All of these are true.  I do, however, tend
    to anger myself when I hear a phrase like "It's so WHITE MALE of you."  
    To me, a phrase like this suggests that all people who are white and
    male that the speaker has met are exactly alike, and that just isn't 
    true.  Attitudes like this are shallow and insulting, and people who 
    think this way are practicing the prejudice they seek to condemn.
    
    	Too often people who feel they have been discriminated against by
    one person of some description will automatically project that
    discriminatory attitude onto other people of similar description.  For
    example, I once got into an argument with a person of a color different
    from mine.  He was wrong (it was a factual matter, not a matter of
    opinion).  When he realized he was about to lose the argument, he said,
    "You think I'm wrong just because I'm <his color>!"  "Nope," I replied,
    "that's a coincidence.  I *do* think you're an asshole, though."  And
    as much as I deplore labeling, I'd stick the same label on anyone who
    uses that kind of reasoning, because *I* think it fits.
    
    	If a person feels she or he has been discriminated against by an
    individual because of gender, race, sexual preference, or whatever,
    then that person has a legitimate grievance, and a right to seek
    redress.  However, that person does not have the right to make blanket
    statements about all people of the same gender, race, sexual preference
    or whatever as the asshole who discriminated against him or her.
    
    	(Climbs down off one soapbox and up onto another.)
    
    	One other thing.  One of my women friends sometimes asks me for a
    "male point of view" on some issue.  We know each other well enough
    that we understand that she's asking for *my* point of view as a male
    person, and not as a representative of males everywhere, who all think
    alike.  I find this distinction is not always clear.  Elsewhere in
    this conference, I've encountered the occasional "speaking as a <member
    of a particular group of common gender, race, sexual preference, etc.>,
    I say that..."  I hope these people realize they are speaking only for
    themselves as individuals.  This is not to say that I haven't agreed
    with many of the statements made after this phrase.  I just want to
    make it clear that my agreement with a person who makes a statement
    like this does not make me "one of *them*," whoever "they" may be.
    
    	Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

    Re: .0
    
    >Are male/female stereotypes useful ? Can we categorize people without 
    >disrespecting their uniqueness as an individual ?
    
    I think stereotypes serve a purpose, albeit a limited one.  I think
    they're a natural reaction to complexity.  Millions of people live in
    this country alone; depending on where we live, we see hundreds or
    thousands of people a day.  It simply isn't possible to react to each
    and every individual we encounter as an individual.  So, as a first-
    pass measure, we group people by traits.  This collection of traits
    eventually develops into a stereotype.  Sometimes they get embellished
    beyond the point of usefulness (engineers all wear jeans and eat
    Twinkies for breakfast, which usually takes place some time after
    noon).  A person has a stereotype problem when they can't pull
    individuals back out of the pigeonhole and look at them as individuals.
    
    With stereotypes such as the one you mention, I actually react as if
    they were completely abstract.  Rather than pertaining to any
    individuals, they're a collection of traits with a label for convenient
    reference.  Would I call somebody for using such a stereotype?  It
    depends on whether I saw an ability to separate the abstract from the
    individual.
    
    I'm not sure I'd be interested in calling people on every single sexist
    remark they utter.  I'd probably save my efforts for those whose use of
    sexist comments is sustained and symptomatic.  I've found that some
    people who are very aware of sexism and its evils will joke around with
    the stereotypes or use them as shorthand.  A friend and I were once
    talking about how nice it would be to have someone to clean the house
    and make dinner.  "You know," she said, "what we need are wives."  Now
    that is sexist on the surface, since it implies that the woman's role
    is to serve as a domestic.  Obviously, we don't believe that.  But we
    use the word to express the things that were traditionally the province
    of wives.  When my roommate and I were dealing with an around-the-house
    fix-it problem, I said, "Wouldn't it be nice to have a man around the
    house if you could just take him out of the closet when you need one?" 
    This, too, is sexist on the surface.  It implies that men are only
    useful for helping out around the house.  This, of course, is not true,
    but it used a traditional aspect of men to focus on our own
    deficiencies.
    
    Of course, this kind of shorthand only works among people who are on
    the same wavelength.  And, while it's not as bad as a lot of things,
    it's not a good practice by any means.  But I think it's fairly common 
    for people to use that kind of shorthand.  It's also common to use 
    aspects of the stereotype to ease interaction.  By finding things that
    fit the stereotype in men/women (she goes through 10 different outfits 
    trying to decide what to wear, you couldn't pry him away from Sunday 
    football with a crowbar), we get the sense of the familiar.  "Ah, I
    know what this is.  I know how to respond to this."  We're well
    acquainted with stereotypes; they're part of our cultural vocabulary. 
    The trick is to recognize them and be willing to admit that they are
    not true for all people or maybe even most people.