Conference quark::mennotes-v1

In MAIL, someone asked what she could do to relieve the pressure of 
the closet without outing anyone.  This was my answer:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Other than overcome one's own prejudices, and voting against those
>    who would maintain it in the lawbooks, really (honestly) what ELSE
>    is there to do at this point in time?  Especially if one is not
>    gay (there seems to be the two camps where even if the perspective
>    is shared, the discomfort exists :/ )   

I place actions into two categories:

	o  Work attitudes and assumptions about gay people in 
	   yourself.

	o  Work to make the "default" in the environment less 
	   heterosexist.

You can also "vote for/against the 'right' people," but that is
probably determined more by your regular politics than it is by an
implicit concern for gay people.  For instance, conservative gay
people tend to vote conservatively.  for that reason, I'd like to
steer clear of organized politics, especially since there is so much
more that one can do that is less politically charged (though not
necessarily easier). 

The first bullet talks about working attitudes and assumptions about 
gay people.  In the end, all we can ever do is work on ourselves; that 
is the only person over which we have real power (power as defined as 
"the ability to act").  And, working on attitudes and assumptions
isn't the same as what most people consider "working on my prejudice."
Attitudes and assumptions are a very subtle form of prejudice.  It's
the difference between burning a cross on someone's lawn and feeling a
slight "squirmy" kind of discomfort when being around a person of
difference. 

One way to work on attitudes and assumptions is to check 
"prejudgements."  For instance, "Since gay people are more artistically 
inclined, then he would definitely know when the Mappelthorpe exhibit 
will be in town."  There are some assumptions that are going on in 
that kind of reasoning.  Usually, the assumptions are based on 
stereotypes, but not always (at least, not always descernable).  What 
you can do is watch for assumptions and "leave the door open" for the 
possibility that you might be wrong (of course, you might be right); 
just check out those assumptions before you go acting on them.

Another way to check your "attitude" toward gay people and gay issues 
is to notice when you squirm, when you feel sharp discomfort, and 
when you feel a strong urge to avoid someone or some topic.  For 
example, my mother cringes every time I use the word "lover" to 
describe a spouse of a gay person.  Of course, there is nothing wrong 
with my mother having an opinion that "partner" is a better term than 
lover.  What _is_ wrong is that my mother's face crinkles, a charge 
fills the air, and she "corrects" me about my choice of words.  She is 
truly bothered by the term.  Why?  I think because she pictures two 
men buggering every time she hears "lover."  "Partner" removes the sex 
from the picture for her.  If she would overcome the discomfort and 
the attitude, it would free up some energy and empower her to act 
instead of react.  Until she works that attitude, she'll crinkle and 
jump every time she hears that word; she'll have no choice or power to 
be any other way about it.  She is disempowered.

One last thing that you can do when working attitudes and assumptions 
is to befriend gay people and to take in gay culture.  Once you start 
ferreting out stale attitudes and assumptions based on stereotypes, 
you need to replace them with data that you can gather from real, live 
gay people.  As for connecting to the gay community, the resources 
there are wonderful.

For instance, I recommend the following books for people getting 
started on the topic:

Beyond Acceptance: Parents of Lesbians and Gays Talk About Their 
Experiences
	Carolyn Welch Griffin, Marian J. Wirth, Arthur G. Wirth
	(Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986)

The Color Purple
	Alice Walker
	(Harcourt Brace Javanovich, 1982)

Loving Someone Gay
	Don Clark
	(Signet, New American Library, 1977)

Reflections of a Rock Lobster: A Story About Growing Up Gay
	Aaron Fricke (Alyson Publications, 1981)

Rubyfruit Jungle
	Rita Mae Brown
	(Bantam Books, 1973)

Tales of the City
	Armistead Maupin
	(Harper & Row, 1978)

(I have a very large gay booklist.  These are just the books listed in
the "Getting Started" section.  If people want a copy, send me mail
and your mailstop.) 

In addition, I recommend that you check out the following movies:

(In no particular order)

The Times of Harvey Milk  (If you only want to watch one, I recommend this one)
Pink Triangles
Before Stonewall
Parting Glances           (Another personal favorite)
My Beautiful Launderette
Maurice
Desert Hearts
Torch Song Trilogy
Lianna
Rights and Reactions      (Story of passing of the gay rights bill in NYC)

In addition, I recommend attending a performance of the Boston Gay 
Men's Chorus (there are choruses in other cities), take in a play at 
the Triangle Theater (they did "Breaking the Code," the story of Alan 
Turing, who was gay and hounded for it), attending a gay pride parade 
(judge it on it's own; don't take other people's--or the 
media's--accounts of it), attend a PFLAG meeting (Parents and Friends 
of Lesbians and Gays), or take in some other "gay" event.  There is no 
educational substitute for being around real gay people; there is also 
no better way to uncover areas of discomfort, areas that you may 
choose to examine further.

(Regarding feeling discomfort: if you examine the discomfort and you 
find that it is a "good" thing that you feel uncomfortable about 
something, then that's good.  The main reason for examining 
discomforts is to get rid of the ones that are silly and that are 
wasting energy that could be spend elsewhere.  Getting pissy over the 
word "lover," for instance....)

The second bullet said to work on changing the societal default of
heterosexual.  I think that it is too much to ask that there be no
default, especially since the vast majority of people are heterosexual
(I would argue "bisexual," but that is another discussion...).  I am 
advocating a change from "Why...men are for women and women are from 
men, d*mn it!" to "Most people are heterosexual, but there are 
significant numbers of lesbian, gay, bi people."  I'm asking for the 
default not to be so fiercely "enforced."

What can you do about it?  As an extreme, you might choose 
not to participate in anything that is heterosexist in nature.  For 
example, I have a very good article written by a heterosexual woman 
who refuses to take advantage of the privilege of marriage because it 
is a privilege that is denied to her lesbian and gay friends.  (Even I 
think that this is a bit radical, though I appreciate and gladly 
accept her support.)  

On a more moderate note, you can simply point out heterosexist or 
heterocentrist activities when they take place.  When you are at a
wedding or talking about a wedding, you might initiate a discussion as
to what a bad/strange/unfair/different thing it is that we don't allow
gay people to marry.  When someone tells a gay joke, assuming that 
there are no gay people in the room, you could point out (either 
seriously or with a joke, whichever is your style) that ten percent of 
the people in the country are gay, and, if there were 10 people 
listening to the joke, there might have been a gay person hearing it.  
Or, you might want to simply point out that derrogatory jokes about 
women and other minorities aren't okay, why do they feel it's okay to 
tell derrogatory jokes about gay people?  Or, you might want to keep 
it light hearted and just say, "Oh, I know a _lot_ of gay people, and 
that's just a tired old stereotype that isn't true."

If someone says something or produces some kind of event that 
implicitly or explicitly states "men are made for women" and "women 
are made for men," then you might want to point out, "Not always!"  
For instance, Mark Levesque, in the "Is it [auctioning bachelors] 
sexist?" note did this by mentioning, "Why don't they auction gay
dates, too?"  That is a perfect example of introducing a legitimate
option into the discussion, but one that is simply "not thought of"
(excluded) at best, and fearfully avoided at worst. 

If you do Valuing Differences work and you mention the laundry list 
("We need to value differences.  Black and white people need to get 
along.  Men and Women.  Younger and older...")  Toss in "gay, lesbian, 
heterosexual, and bisexual."  If you see gay topics in the paper, 
break the "conspiracy of silence" by talking about it with coworkers 
or friends.  For many people, mentioning "gay" is taboo.  Even 
introducing the topic--even if the topic dies in stony 
silence--undermines the idea that "we can't talk about it."

...and so on and so on.

Let me give you a bit of a warning on attempts to introduce gayness as 
an option in the default of American culture: you will probably be met 
with either shocked stares, a quick subject change, or deafening 
silence.  My experience with this is that most people will tolerate my 
presence, but they really aren't interested in engaging in specific 
dialogue.  This changes over time, but it takes persistence, patience, 
and timing on my part, and it takes them sticking with me on their 
part.

I contend that, if everyone were doing this type of work, there would be no 
need for outing.  The communities would be closer together.  The 
societal norm would be a non-charged default with an acceptable 
substitute of homosexuality.  Empathy would reign.  In general, this 
kind of work sends ripples into the environment that change it.  Once 
the environment opens up and becomes more tolerant and then accepting and 
then empathetic, it will give closeted gay people a less-charged 
environment in which to make their decisions about coming out.  Choice 
without heavy penalty for choosing the "wrong" option.

What I would like to see is the option of coming out for gay people
(or keeping information private) to hold similar ramifications as the
privacy choices of heterosexual people regarding privacy.  Until the
fear of death, beatings, loss of jobs, rejection by family, loss of
apartments, and loss of credit lessens, then privacy becomes a jail
cell with heavy penalties extolled for trying to "escape."  It would
be egalitarian if gay people came out or didn't depending on personal
values of privacy, not depending on threats and pressure from others. 

We can create a condition in which outing is not effective, needed, or 
relevant, but that will take a lot of work from heterosexual people.  
We definitely need your help in changing the environment defaults and 
the pressures that keep people in unhealthy closets against their 
will.  If you are against outing, are you folks up for working with 
us--doing the work that I outlined here--to eliminate outing and to 
equalize privacy issues between heterosexuals and gay people?


							--Gerry

    
    I think we can be non heterosexist without being lectured to
    like children or told what to read/how to think..
     

    
    
    >>I think we can be non heterosexist without being lectured to
    >>like children or told what to read/how to think..
    
    
    	Obviously I'm biased, but I think you frequently read too much
    	attitude into people's notes.  Some person had asked Gerry
    	about how she should better learn to deal with gay people and
    	the issues important to gay people.  He responded with a list
    	of possibilities.  I don't see him lecturing -- simply offering
    	options.  
    
    **********************************************************************
    
    Gerry:  Thank you for the great note.  
    
    From my (gay) perspective, the one thing I wish would happen less is
    people assuming that I'm not gay.  Gay people quickly grow tired of the
    "when are you going to get married", "someday you'll find a nice
    man/woman" comments from people that they hardly know.  
    
    	Greg

    well, Greg, if they legalize gay marriages, maybe the question will
    be relevant!
    
    %^).
    
    -roger
    

    re .3 Greg,
    
    > I don't see him lecturing -- simply offering
    > options.
    
    From scanning .1, that's what I saw too.
    
    re .4
    
    I think you missed the point...What Greg was saying is that people
    are always asking him when he's going to get married (to a woman),
    or 'find a nice girl and settle down,' which assume he is hetero-
    sexual.  The alternative would be to ask open-ended or gender-
    neutral questions, like 'Are you dating anyone special?' or 'Do
    you live alone?' for example.  I think that's what he meant.

    Cheers,
    Deb  8-}    

    I would think just toning down people's subconscious homophobe behavior
    might be enough.  For me, I don't squirm and I don't have a problem
    looking them sincerely in the eye, without thinking about sex.  A 
    woman knows what it's like to be "sexualized" in the workplace - you 
    just know it when the guy you're meeting with is not thinking of work.  
    And I imagine gays can sense this insulting behavior, too.  
    
    And then of course, I include them in my jokes.  If you're genuinely not 
    a homophobe, (like I'm not), there's no need to fear putting your foot 
    in your mouth.  They know you're probably het - no need to apologize
    for making some innocuous reference to it.  Discuss the normal things 
    you would with anybody and in the normal ways you do, (unless you're a 
    real yahoo in which case few of either persuasion are interested in 
    talking to you, anyway).  Don't zero in with, "Yeah, I was at this gay 
    bar once..."  I would think the most embarrassing thing would be to see 
    a het person tripping all over themselves trying to prove how open they 
    are.  Make it a non-issue, like the color of one's car.  Who cares about 
    that?

Re:  .6

	Hey that dittos my opinion exactly!

	Make it a non-issue.  Sort of like this:

	J: "I'm gay."

	D: "Yeah?  So what's your point?"

	During lunch I've discussed my (now ex-) lover while others in
	my group have discussed their wife, kids, husbands, etc. and
	no one bats an eye.

	On the flip side, if you make it a big issue, everyone else is
	going to make it a big issue...

	Just my thoughts...

	--> :) John <--
	

    

         This is true,anyway you look at it,we are people.I think most
    poeole don,t understand there own sexuality."There fear" is just
    true media hipe.The main thing to remember is people are people

    
>    I think we can be non heterosexist without being lectured to
>    like children or told what to read/how to think..

I apologize if it sounded like a lecture.  I can see how it can be 
seen as that.

I firmly do believe that if you read some of that stuff and watched 
some of those movies and _still_ held opinions that ran contrary 
to mine, then that would be fine by me, since your opinions are coming 
from experience with gay people and culture.

My point is not to tell you how to think.  My point is to make a plea 
to you to base your opinions in direct experience with gay people and 
culture.  What you think as you experience these things is up to you 
(as if it could be any other way, right?).


							--Ger

>================================================================================
>Note 467.0                       male sexoholic                        9 replies
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    I'm not sure if many of the men in this file have a difficult time
>    holding back their sexual desires for women to the extent that when
>    they are driving down the street and see a half decient looking woman
>    they stop and ask her if she needs a lift and if she gets in asks her
>    to have sex.(just one example) 


I can't tell you how frustrated I am to have been in this file for a 
long time, to have noted in an openly-gay way, to have come out of a 
very intense outing discussion, to have posted .1, and then to read 
something like this.

When I read something like this, I feel totally devalued, discounted, 
and "erased."  (Please note that I am not attributing any motives to 
the author or accusing him of anything.  He is not "responsible" for 
how I feel, and I am not out to label him "bad" or "good."  I only 
want to relay to you how I feel when I read stuff like this.)

The message in this note is clear to me: men sexaholics seek out 
women.  The way this is written, I don't exist, I am not part of this 
picture.  Is it a huge leap to think that I am not welcome?  

This is a perfect example of what I was trying to talk about in .1, 
the plea for people to open up the default.  If you want to know about 
male sexaholics, then why didn't you write "men and women" instead of 
just "women"?  If you are only interested in heterosexual male 
sexaholics, why doesn't the title reflect that?

Please, please, PLEASE note as if I exist and as if my experiences are 
part of the "male" experiences.  Please don't cut me out like this.  
Over a prolonged period of time, these little things build up and they 
really, REALLY hurt.  


							--Gerry

    His base note was a plea for help from a heterosexual man, with a
    specific problem which happened to be heterosexual, and he identified
    it with heterosexual phraseology.  
    
    Aren't you a bit sensitive about this?  Must we all now couch our
    questions, our feelings, our thoughts in gender-neutral ways so you
    won't feel omitted?  
    
    tony

    Fear not, Ger,
    
    The preceding replies only show that some people need to be
    led kicking and screaming to some kind of political/social
    consciousness.  Even then, it won't happen as long as
    people don't think there's any need to change.  I'm sure your
    note was taken seriously and thoughfully by many people who
    aren't as vocal.  We all have agendas; it only *seems* that
    some are pushed more than others.
    
    Richard

    Oh, no! Perhaps I'm becoming one of those sensitive guys :-) but
    when I read the topic about the sexaholic stuff the first thing
    that I though of was "there must be gay men with the same problem."
    That base not could have been written in a more orientation neutral
    way. In fact it could have done so and still been directed at just
    the problem of men being so attracted to women. There are differences
    in societal acceptance of men going after men and men going after women
    after all. There are some similarities though as well and including
    gay men would be more useful to everyone then excluding them.

    The point in this topic may just be that somethings that heterosexual
    men are not aware of my appear as blatant exclusion to gay men. In
    cases like that a little understanding may go a long way. Gay men
    should also be aware that those kind of notes are not always, in fact
    my seldom be, attempts to deliberately exclude them. Assuming the worst
    can get in the way of good communication and make enemies out of
    allies.

    			Alfred

    Who broke into Alfred's account?
    
    - M

    RE: .19 Mike knows what it means. I know what it means. Chances are
    most people who know me well know what it means. It's nothing you
    have to worry about.
    
    RE: .17 Was that about my .16? I was addressing the topic and no one
    in particular.
    
    			Alfred

My take on the situation is that I don't feel the way Gerry does.  I don't think
that noters here have an obligation to phrase their notes so as to automatically
make everyone feel included.  People write from their own experiences and
environment, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to stop and 
generalize their notes to the extent that it's no longer relevant to them.

Now Gerry, if you want to add a reply that says you know men who pick up
other men off the street and feel they must ask them for sex, go right ahead.
We all need our horizons expanded.

						Steve

    
    Re: .11
    
    Ger, I think I understand what you've expressed.
    On a slight tangent, I wish this topic had been titled
    more along the lines of: "Heterosexuals and Gays, working Together"
    or something like that. 

    I don't know, but .15 sounds like a threat to me.  Threat (or
    prediction) of what?  Stay tuned, I'm sure we'll find out.
    
    Richard

    I just wanted it to be perfectly clear what you were saying.
    You might just as well have said "go back into the closet."
    Very enlightening.  Thank you for sharing your perspective
    with us.  So far, you're the only heterosexual who has
    threatened to stop noting.  If wishes were horses...
    
    Richard

     I don't think Herb was saying "go back into the closet."
    
     I don't think that 467.0 necessarily excludes gays by virtue of the
    fact that it does not specifically include them. I am not convinced
    that it is worthwhile to have to word every sentence in a gender
    neutral manner. I understand how you could feel excluded, but there's
    nothing to stop you from starting a homosexual-aholic note.
    
     The Doctah

    
    Tangent...
    
    Speak for yourself Herb. 
    I'm encouraged that mennotes is enjoying a greater level of
    activity lately, and I'm encouraged that it includes ALL MEN!!!
    
    Your comments are not appreciated by this noter.
    
    								Hank

    Here we have a topic devoted to gays and non-gays trying to work
    together towards understanding and consideration.  Very nice, 
    very 90's, very VoD.
    
    Thank you Herb, for showing us what we're up against.
    We have a long uphill climb, apparently.  Believe it or
    not, I appreciate your honesty.
    
    Richard

re .13

    
>    Aren't you a bit sensitive about this?  Must we all now couch our
>    questions, our feelings, our thoughts in gender-neutral ways so you
>    won't feel omitted?  

Today's hyper-sensitive society demands that we write/speak so that no one could
possibly feel excluded.  While it is important to recognize that the differences
in people cause them to react in different ways to different situations, to try
to include this in most expressions of thought makes sentences so long that you
generally can not not easily determine the meaning of the sentences.

Rich

    Herb,
    
    Most conferences tend to get one or two active topics that dominate
    it for several days at a time. This is a common phenomenon. There
    are several ways to deal with this, including next unseening the
    topic and/or starting a new topic of your own.
    
    Bonnie

    Apparently I'm up against you Herb, at the moment. I'm trying
    to figure you out.
    
    I respectfully doubt your statement that you've "accepted"
    gays, either 37 years ago, or yesterday.  Your antagonistic
    notes belie that claim. I suspect you accept gays as long
    as we keep quiet and let you talk about what's on your
    mind, period.  Seriously, I think the topic is appropriate:
    give us some examples of how you have accepted gays in your
    life.
    
    Sincerely,
    Richard

>(Please note that I am not attributing any motives to 
>the author or accusing him of anything.  He is not "responsible" for 
>how I feel, and I am not out to label him "bad" or "good."  I only 
>want to relay to you how I feel when I read stuff like this.)

I'm sure he didn't mean me any harm by it.


					--Gerry

>Now Gerry, if you want to add a reply that says you know men who pick up
>other men off the street and feel they must ask them for sex, go right ahead.
>We all need our horizons expanded.

But you are unwilling to expand them yourself.  The minority has to do 
all the work.

I hear y'all.

I'm welcome here only if I make the effort to retro-fit my life into 
your heterosexist portrayals of "life" and "manhood."

If it is about "heterosexual" topic, then, darn it, label it such.  If 
it is about "men," then, darn it, open it up to all men and please 
stop cutting a significant portion of men out of the picture.

You guys are unwilling to work with me to open up the heterosexual 
default, and then your judgements of "right" and "wrong" on outing 
are supposed to be accepted without challenge???  If "outing" is a 
"people issue," why are you telling me that using inclusive language 
is a "gay problem"?

It's a people problem when you want to exert your power and influence 
over gays to maintain the status quo.  It's a gay problem when you want 
to maintain the status quo through inaction.

Your slips are showing, guys....

Tolerance stinks.  How would you feel to be "tolerated" by a group of 
people you thought you were a part of.

I guess I'm greedy.  I guess I wanted more from MENNOTES.  Maybe I 
just have to shut up for a while.  Maybe I don't know my place....

							--Gerry

    Thanks for sharing your experiences, Herb. I have more questions,
    but I'll refrain from asking, since it would be none of my
    business.
    
    Richard

    
    Re .37:
    
          American Heritage Dictionary:
    
          tolerance, n.: The capacity for or practice of recognizing
                         and respecting the opinions, practices, or
                         behavior of others
    
    What more do you want, Gerry?
    

>But you are unwilling to expand them yourself.  The minority has to do 
>all the work.
    
     I suppose there will always be a disconnect here... We have such
    different expectations. If we accept that 10% of the population is gay,
    that means that 90% of the people are not. And while it would be much
    easier for the 10% to have the 90% behave in a less majority-centered
    manner, it is unlikely that this will come to pass soon (before the age
    of the great tolerance). I understand that you want to be included,
    believe me. But the simple fact is that heterosexual IS the default in
    life, so it is difficult to overcome in speech. It is very easy to
    ASSUME heterosexual until proven otherwise, especially when you're
    right 90% of the time. That's about 80% better than the weather men.
    :-)
    
>I'm welcome here only if I make the effort to retro-fit my life into 
>your heterosexist portrayals of "life" and "manhood."
    
     Nope. You're welcome here as long as you can play nice, just like the
    rest of us.
    
>If it is about "heterosexual" topic, then, darn it, label it such.  If 
    
     I don't feel the need; sorry.
    
>You guys are unwilling to work with me to open up the heterosexual 
>default, and then your judgements of "right" and "wrong" on outing 
>are supposed to be accepted without challenge???
    
     Nope- you can challenge all you want. :-)
    
>If "outing" is a 
>"people issue," why are you telling me that using inclusive language 
>is a "gay problem"?
 
     Now that's a good question! It's too late in the day for me to think
    about that... Maybe wednesday ( going fishin' tomorrow. :-)
    
>It's a people problem when you want to exert your power and influence 
>over gays to maintain the status quo.  It's a gay problem when you want 
>to maintain the status quo through inaction.
    
     That's a pretty self-serving characterization. I don't suppose you'd
    like it if I used a similar tactic to smear gays.
    
>I guess I'm greedy.
    
     Yeah, probably. So what? Who isn't? How many people wouldn't want to
    have their cake and eat it too, given the chance? :-)
    
     The Doctah 

    in re .33
    
    Herb,
    
    what I meant by that was that these things are temporary phenomena..
    
    they pass...
    
    Bonnie

      

        TIMEOUT!You men are banging your heads against a wall for nothing.
    If we just learn to expect each other what we are,then it makes
    it a hell of alot better,to learn to work to together,and so forth
    and so on.Please remember to repect each others differences,and
    and you will all find that life is much more pleasent.If we were
    all the same,life would boring.
      

    One thing that Gerry hasn't mentioned, and is part of his (and my)
    annoyance at the topic is that the way the basenote is worded, it
    excludes participation by gay men. It asks for help on a purely
    heterosexual problem. No problem so far, except that the problem
    mentioned is one that's well known in the "gay community" and has been
    discussed by LOTS if not MOST of the gay men I know. I don't know why,
    possibly because gays are more open about sexuality, whatever, it
    doesn't matter. Gay men HAVE VALUABLE INSIGHT into this particular
    problem, and the basenote is worded in such a way to discourage sharing
    that insight.
    
    "Sexaholics" are NOT all straight. Obsession with sex is NOT a
    heterosexual problem. You may be inadvertantly excluding the very
    people who can help the most. If gays are being intentionally excluded
    (which I don't believe) that is bigoted. If gays were unintentionally
    not included, and feel excluded therefore, you are depriving yourself
    of valuable insight.
    
    This is not about Gerry wanting strokes. This is not even about the
    pervasive invisibility of Gays in our society (which is bad enough to
    justify pointing out when it occurs), to me this is about excluding the
    very group that can probably help the most, AND THROUGH THOUGHTLESSNESS.
    That's stupid.
    
    Gay men have LONG been accused of being "oversexed", "promiscuous",
    "obsessed", et nauseating cetera. So the subject is a popular one. "Is
    it true?" Well, yes, for some men it IS true, but not for all. "Why are
    they like that?" The discussion goes on and on from there. It's been my
    experience that straight men, in general, either don't admit to being
    obsessed with sex, or don't think it's a problem. I think the basenote
    author is pretty brave for even bringing the subject up.
    
    	-- Charles

    RE: last several replies.....obviously note 467 was written by a man
    who is having a problem with his sexual attraction to women. I feel he
    entered this note looking for help for *HIS* problem. I've reread it
    several times and I fail to see where he specifically excluded
    participation by gay men. I feel that since he is having a heterosexual
    problem, he is looking for help from other heterosexual males who may
    have had the same problem. If those of you who could relate homosexual
    experiences that could possibly provide some insight, post it. 
    
    Don't crucify him beacuse his problem just happens to deal with women.
    
    Paul C.

    RE: .47  Yo Herb, see 466.11

I also think that the author of 467.0 is brave.  And I think it is a 
very good note.  All I was trying to do was to apply it to the topic 
in 466, to show that it could have been worded to broaden the 
heterosexual default, if the author wanted to do that.  And I fully 
understand that some people don't want to broaden the heterosexual 
default.

FYI  Here is 467.0 worded inclusively, helping to broaden the 
heterosexual default and to welcome gay and bi people into the 
conversation (change bars included):


|   I'm reserving this note to talk about men's sexual compulsion.  My
|   experience with this topic is from a heterosexual point of view, 
|   so I'm going to talk about that.

    I'm not sure if many of the men in this file have a difficult time
    holding back their sexual desires for women to the extent that when
    they are driving down the street and see a half decient looking woman
    they stop and ask her if she needs a lift and if she gets in asks her
    to have sex.(just one example) But I know many men who can't control 
    or have a VERY difficult time controlling this, I for one have a tough 
    time. Its not just an urge, its overwhelming and takes up more than 25% 
    of daily thought.
    
    I can control this to the point where I don't actually have sex with 
    other women but it is by far the most difficult thing I have ever had
    to do. ONE DAY AT A TIME. easier said than done sometimes its one
    minute at a time.
    
    This is causing many problems such as.. it takes up so much thought 
    (like there is something wrong with me, how can I put this problem to
    rest once and for all, this is unlike my personality, I love my wife
    and family ect...) it interfears with other parts of my life. 
    
    I know quite a few guys who have the same problem but don't perceive
    it to be as bad as I do.
    
    In note 451 some guys say they would not forgive their wife if she were
    fooling around, I admit it would be difficult but finding out why
    first, might be the best way to go. I understand that women also can be a
    sexoholic although I think there are less of them than men.
    
    Anyway is there anyone out there who has had this problem and found a
    way to beat it?
    
    KH 
             

I'm not asking anyone to go "generic."  I'm just asking that, in 
general men's topics, you somehow leave the door open for gay and bi 
men to participate instead of insisting that the gay and bi men open 
the door themselves.


							--Ger

    In my opinion (since no one asked ;^)...the author was asking
    specifically about a problem the *he* was experiencing.  He was not
    indulgin in rhetoric, or invoking a new "general" topic...  Therefore,
    I believe we should NOT expect him to have worded *his* problem in any
    way but the way *he* saw it.
    
    In April of '88 I had a very serious problem for which I, too, turned
    to MENNOTES for help (note 224).  I worded that note in purely personal
    and 1st person ways...just as the author of 447 did.  My problem dealt
    with the break-up of my marriage... an issue not wholly constrained to
    the heterosexual community, since many gays have deep interpersonal
    relationships which also break up and cause pain, confusion, hurt and
    all the same feelings *I* experienced.  There was no outcry about my
    basenote not being "inclusive" to the gay community....  why is there
    one now?  
    
    This fellow has a problem, is turning to us for help, and we brow-beat
    each other because he stated his problem in a purely personal way.  
    
    There seems to be something wrong with that picture.
    
    tony

    I would say that at this point in time TOLERANCE is a big step.
    I wouldn't try to PUSH people too far, or we may end up a few steps
    back in time.  
    
    
    You can force laws, and policies, but you can't FORCE opinion.
    
    I agree, gender generic topics are NOT a pre-req. Wouldn't it depend on
    1)the question
    2)who the base notes wants responses from 
    3)the Basenoters TOLERANCE.
    
    
    I'd say live and let live and lighten the *HELL* up.
    

(*sigh*)

I think that the basenote is fine the way it is written.  I think that 
the person who entered it was brave, and I'm glad that he entered it.  
(I tried to show respect for the topic by moving the discussion here, 
instead of crashing in on that conversation.)  I'm not trying to 
create an "outcry."  I am not trying to paint anyone as "wrong."

If people choose, they can--in my opinion--help gay-heterosexual 
relations by making notes more inclusive.  If they choose not to, they can 
help in a zillion other ways (see reply .1).  Do whatever fits your 
politics and personal values.

I apologize to the author of the basenote if I hurt him or maligned 
his topic, because I sincerely, sincerely did not mean to do that.

Bye.


						--Gerry

Gerry,
	I'm glad you decided to enter reply 467.32.   Like many of your notes, 
it is well-written and insightful.  I don't know why you were hesitant to 
write that reply.

	I must admit that when I read 466.11, I had problems with it.  Even
though we are both gay, we often see issues from a different perspective (at
least that seems to be the case, from what I've seen in Notes). 

	When I read 467.0, the issue of inclusiveness never crossed my mind. 
I felt that I was reading a heterosexual man's description of a problem he is
having, written from his own personal perspective and experiences.  (I do know
that the issue is one that some gay men are dealing with, and I did wonder if
anyone would enter a note providing a gay perspective.) 

	But from the tone of your 466.11 you gave me the impression that you
had no interest in the original noter's problem.   In some of your subsequent
replies you corrected that impression.

	Sometimes inclusiveness comes from within ourselves.  Our own
insecurities can sometimes cause us to feel excluded from a conversation,
issue, or event when we really aren't. 

	If someone doesn't walk up to me and say, "Richard, you are welcome
here," every time I enter a room, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am not
welcome in that room. 

	Sometimes I forget that.

	Your 466.11 seems to indicate that perhaps you sometimes forget it
also. 

-Richard-

    re: .53
    
     Excellent! Exactly the point others tried to make; perhaps it will
    work better coming from you. Thanks.
    
     The Doctah

    RE: .53
    
    	Right on! Beautiful job of wording that w/o attacking. I agree with
    	you totally and had wanted to say the same.
    
    RE: .54
    
    	Ditto...
    
    	-Erik 

    I'll jump on the bandwagon, too.  I have sensed that feelings here were
    on edge several times...mine included.  Hope this is the beginning of a
    new understanding, or level of tolerance, (whatever you think it should
    be called) by ALL of us, and between ALL of us.
    
    Thanks.
    
    tony

>    I'll jump on the bandwagon, too.  I have sensed that feelings here were
>    on edge several times...mine included.  Hope this is the beginning of a
>    new understanding, or level of tolerance, (whatever you think it should
>    be called) by ALL of us, and between ALL of us.
    
I really, really do want this understanding and tolerance, too.  
That's why I keyed in my reply in the compulsive-sex note, when I 
actually didn't want to.  I have entered on other note on the topic, 
and it was done anonymously; this is the first time I attached my name 
to a note that talks frankly about my personal experiences with this 
problem.  It's a bit scary.

However, I still don't feel as if people "understand" why I got so 
angry at basenote.  And--regardless of whether you agree or disagree 
with me--I can't join in in this "isn't the new understanding great!" 
talk until I feel heard.  That hasn't happened much in this note.

I'm not saying this to stir up trouble or bad feelings.  I'm saying it 
because, if you really value understanding, then you might want to 
try walking in my shoes a little more, because you haven't gotten it, 
yet.

>	I'm glad you decided to enter reply 467.32.   Like many of your notes, 
>it is well-written and insightful.  I don't know why you were hesitant to 
>write that reply.

Would you be quick to enter a note that gives some details about your 
sex life?

>	But from the tone of your 466.11 you gave me the impression that you
>had no interest in the original noter's problem.   In some of your subsequent
>replies you corrected that impression.

Actually, I had intense interest in the topic, yet the title and tone 
of the basenote--and my state of mind at the time--made me feel like I 
wasn't welcome at worst, or that I would have to insert my views into 
a note that had been "heterosexually framed" at best.  

If you want to tap into how I was feeling, imagine a man walking to a
party with a group of men he thought were friends.  Everybody but me
walks in the front door, and lets the door shut before I have a chance 
to get in.  I wonder why they didn't hold the door open for me, but I 
shrug it off and open it myself.  Once I get into the party, my 
friends treat me well.  I follow a few of my buddies into another 
room, and the door shuts before I get a chance to open it.  I begin to 
wonder more, but I decide that I'm an indeed welcome, it's just that 
they have other things on their minds.  So, I open the door, walk into 
the room, and am treated well once I am in there.  Next, I go to the 
refridgerator with my buddies.  They open the door, grab beers for 
everyone but me, and then shut the door.  A bit disgruntled, I open 
the door, and one of my buddies yells out, "Hey, Gerry, feel free to 
grab one of my Bass Ales!"  

They never explicitly excluded me.  They didn't mistreat me once I got 
into the action.  They were even very nice to me at times.  But it 
took a lot of energy (emotional, mostly) for me to open all the doors 
myself.  On some days, when I am feeling strong, up, and happy, I can 
put out the extra energy, knowing that, once I have expended the 
energy to get inside, I'll be treated okay.  However, on days in which 
I'm tired, depressed, scared, or lonely, I don't have a lot of extra 
energy to open up the doors myself.  On those days, I might get pissed 
at my buddies and yell at them.  On those days, I might ditch my 
"buddies" and spend time with people who will hold the door open for 
me and ask if I want a beer while they are in the refridgerator.  When 
I feel stronger and in a better mood, I can go back to spend some time 
with my other buddies, since they do treat me well once I let myself 
in the door.

Let me repeat at this point: I don't expect other people to feel the 
same way as I do; I don't expect other people to "agree" with my 
feelings; and I don't blame anyone for how I feel.  However, if you 
all value "understanding" as much as you say you do, then you might 
want to try to understand that this indeed was how Gerry Fisher was 
feeling when he read that basenote.

Truth is context.  Before you judge me harshly or negatively for the 
little fit that I through regarding this basenote, please understand 
that my reply came right after a very emotional discussion of outing, 
one that made me question internally whether I was still welcome in 
this file (and, frankly, with a lot of other lesbians, gay men, and 
bisexuals with whom I used to be on friendlier terms).  I was "down" 
when I read that note, so it got to me.  

However, please be clear that it was the tenth door that closed in 
my face in this file, not the first.  It's just that this door closed 
in my face when I was down.  Remember that I have participated in the 
"What women are attracted to in men," "How men feel about women's 
breasts," and more than a few other basenotes in here that also felt 
like a closed door in my face.  

Some days I have the energy for it.  Other days I don't.  

I can do what Richard was getting at in his note.  I can work to keep 
in mind that, although the wording in many MENNOTES notes is framed 
tightly in heterosexual terminology, I will be tolerated at worst and 
welcomed at best once I expend the energy to open the door for myself. 
In brotherhood and partnership, I am asking MENNOTErs to help me out a 
little bit; there is something that you can do.  Would you please hold 
the door open for me once in a while?  It would make me feel more 
welcome, make me feel more like a friend and less like a tolerated 
acquantance, and it would save me some emotional energy.

The reason why gay ghettos still exist is because it is sooo wonderful 
to go to a place in which homosexuality is the default.  In those 
places, all language provides me with an "in," and I do not have to 
retrofit my life into discussions and situations that are framed in 
ways that I have to expend energy to "translate."  I can spend less 
time openning doors, and more time relaxing and being myself.  If 
heterosexuals want to get a glimpse of what I feel like noting in 
here, imagine what it would be like going to a gay party or gay event, 
an event at which you have to translate terms (_IF_ you feel 
comfortable enough to speak up at ALL), or translate situations.  You 
would find out what it would feel like for guys to be talking about 
their boyfriends and then turning to you to hear about your boyfriend. 
It's easier to talk about your life than it is to first spend energy 
dispelling assumptions before talking about your life.  No?

So, I am asking for your help.  Would you please hold the door open 
for gay people once in a while?  I promise to continue to work at not 
being overly sensitive.  (And I feel like I'm pretty much recovered 
from the carnage in the outing topic.)

Thanks for listening.


							--Gerry

    re: Gerry
    
>However, I still don't feel as if people "understand" why I got so 
>angry at basenote.
    
     I'm not sure that anyone doesn't understand. I think what you are
    seeing is people who are reluctant to agree that what you are
    experiencing is really a closed door which you must open. I think that
    most people here feel that there is no door; simply an open entrance
    to the "room" which you may enter or not as you see fit. I think that
    you feel that the door hasn't been opened because no one has explicitly
    asked you to enter the room; many of us feel that there is no door to
    open and all you have to do is follow (or lead). To revisit your
    metaphor; imagine yourself at a party where there are many rooms, each
    of which provides context for a certain discussion. As one tires of a
    discussion, a simple change of venue brings us to a new one. Each room
    is connected on four sides by open door frames, allowing entrance/exit
    at will. As some of your buddies move to a new room, ought they ask
    you if you wish to come along?
    
     I can understand how you feel about this, especially when you are  
    depressed. It can seem as if screen doors exist on the frames; you can
    see your friends, but haven't been invited along. I'm sure that mood
    plays a large part in the perception of doors. I think that the
    resistance of the many to using gender neutral terms in each note is
    similar to the resistance you'd find from your buddies if you asked
    them to invite you along into each room they chose to visit. It's not
    that you aren't welcome; it's just that it's so much easier to NOT
    specifically ask each time we go into another room. Do you see where
    I'm coming from?
    
>Would you please hold the door open for me once in a while?
    
    I think this is a reasonable request, especially of the "regulars." I
    don't think it would be especially productive to expect the newcomers
    to the file to understand the dynamics of the membership, however. I
    don't see a problem with trying to help out...
    
>The reason why gay ghettos still exist is because it is sooo wonderful 
>to go to a place in which homosexuality is the default.  In those 
>places, all language provides me with an "in," and I do not have to 
>retrofit my life into discussions and situations that are framed in 
>ways that I have to expend energy to "translate."  I can spend less 
>time openning doors, and more time relaxing and being myself.  If 
>heterosexuals want to get a glimpse of what I feel like noting in 
>here, imagine what it would be like going to a gay party or gay event, 
>an event at which you have to translate terms (_IF_ you feel 
>comfortable enough to speak up at ALL), or translate situations.
    
     I hear ya. I have joined the gay file for precisely this reason; to
    get the feeling of what it is like to be on the other side of the
    fence. It's interesting.
    
     And your comment about translating your words to make them fit is
    precisely what people are having trouble with. It takes effort to
    change the status quo, to translate to make things gender inclusive.
    That's why it isn't done more often.
    
     The Doctah
    
    

    
>>However, I still don't feel as if people "understand" why I got so 
>>angry at basenote.
>    
>     I'm not sure that anyone doesn't understand. I think what you are
>    seeing is people who are reluctant to agree that what you are
>    experiencing is really a closed door which you must open. 

Here is the crux of my problem of not being heard.  In my opinion, 
when people "agree/disagree" on what I am experiencing, then they are 
telling me that my perceptions of what I'm experiencing are wrong.  
They are telling me how to feel, or what I should feel.  I feel as if 
my feelings are invalidated.  Why isn't it okay that I felt what I 
actually felt at that time?  (The future I can work on....)

I _fully_ understand that, once I get my stuff together more, maybe I 
won't feel the "closed door" stuff anymore, but that is a fully 
accurate description of how I feel in this file and when I read the 
basenote.  I know my experience better than anyone else (unless you 
think that I am being dishonest and trying to hand you a line).

>I think that
>    most people here feel that there is no door; simply an open entrance
>    to the "room" which you may enter or not as you see fit. I think that
>    you feel that the door hasn't been opened because no one has explicitly
>    asked you to enter the room; many of us feel that there is no door to
>    open and all you have to do is follow (or lead). To revisit your
>    metaphor; imagine yourself at a party where there are many rooms, each
>    of which provides context for a certain discussion. As one tires of a
>    discussion, a simple change of venue brings us to a new one. Each room
>    is connected on four sides by open door frames, allowing entrance/exit
>    at will. As some of your buddies move to a new room, ought they ask
>    you if you wish to come along?

This is a very accurate metaphor for how I feel in the gay notes 
files.

If I do some work on my stuff, maybe I can shift my perceptions.  But, 
working with what I have to work with right now, this is how I am 
perceiving the situations.  

One of the points of Valuing Differences work is that people feel
differently about an event depending on the point of view they are
coming from.  Valuing Differences work is listening to all the points
of view and not trying to make one "wrong" and one "right," just
understanding the dynamics as to how each of these perspectives work. 
Once you understand how a person perceives the world, communication
with that person becomes a lot easier; empathy allows for easier
communication. 

Or, you might think that this Valuing Differences philosophy is wrong.
I've found it quite useful in my life.

							--Gerry

>Here is the crux of my problem of not being heard.  In my opinion, 
>when people "agree/disagree" on what I am experiencing, then they are 
>telling me that my perceptions of what I'm experiencing are wrong.  
>They are telling me how to feel, or what I should feel.  I feel as if 
>my feelings are invalidated.  Why isn't it okay that I felt what I 
>actually felt at that time?  (The future I can work on....)
    
     I don't know how to resolve this conflict. While it is tempting to go
    with "majority rules," that has a tendency to overshadow individualism.
    What can you do? 
    
     Say I write something in the gay notesfile, and the way I react to the
    responses is to lash out and complain that I am being picked on for my
    sexual orientation even though the response I'm getting is more related
    to the tone in my note than the fact I'm heterosexual. And everyone
    agrees that I am being oversensitive. Are my feelings wrong? Is it
    incorrect for me to react that way? I am tempted to say yes... How
    would you react? If you felt my response to the stimuli did not
    correlate with yours in any way?
    
     It's tough to say that people's feelings are wrong, that their
    perceptions are skewed. I think it does sometimes happen. What
    yardstick do we use? I don't know...
    
    The Doctah

    re: .60
    "there is no universal right or wrong".
    
    I disagree with this.  I believe there *is* a universal right or wrong
    for many issues, including homosexuality.  However, I have resolved not
    to be evangelical about it and shove my beliefs onto others.
    
    They are my beliefs and (I think) they are shared by many.  Valueing
    Differences is a lofty notion...and I am ready to learn how re-defining
    values for the sake of expediency is going to change the rightness or
    wrongness of those values.  Just because we agree to agree or disagree
    on a particular issue does resolves nothing except personal
    conflict and confrontation.  It says *nothing* about rightness or
    wrongness.  And I refuse to believe that the rightness or wrongness of
    *some* issues is a matter of perception.
    
    tony

    Hi Gerry,
    
    When I read your description of going from room to room with the
    door closing in your face, I could feel the sense of exclusion in
    that and the doubt that it must cause when it *seems* accidental.
    But I was more struck by the fact that you seemed to be the last
    to go through the door.  When the door closed only you were left 
    out.  I wondered how it would feel to you to be in the middle of 
    the group, so if the door closed, you would not be alone?
    What would it take to feel in the middle?  What would it take to
    feel that you were responsible for holding the door open for the
    guy who was BEHIND you?
    
    Bill

(This is so hard to put into words without being together in 
person....)

I don't think that I am trying to get other people to change their 
values.  This note hasn't been about "changing people who think that 
homosexuality is wrong."  It's been about giving tips to people who 
are interested in helping gay people to feel more welcome in 
heterosexual society.  Others can hit NEXT UNSEEN, I figure.

I also don't think that just because I have a feeling about something
that that gives me the right to be a jerk about it, know what I mean? 
There are ways to express the feelings so that they aren't blaming or
bashing anyone else. 

I guess what I find so frustrating in discussions like these is that 
some folks in Notes try very hard to describe feelings the way they 
happened, and some even do a pretty good job of doing this without 
blaming anyone.  (I tried not to blame the basenoter, but I suppose I 
could have done a better job.)  When other people try to "disagree" 
with how I feel, I then feel as if my personal experience is "wrong" 
and has been discounted, when it actually happened.  Yes, people's 
opinions about the "why" and "what will come of it" can often be 
skewed, but, if they are semi-healthy, they are the best judge of 
their own feelings.  Judge the hypothesis or the conclusion, don't 
judge the feeling.

Did you ever encounter an experience in which all participants were 
asked "what happened?" and you got 20 different answers.  If we can 
only experience reality through our senses and through our biased 
selves, then isn't it true that we can't know reality?  That we are
all working on a collection of skewed and biased perceptions?  (Lily
Tomlin and Jane Wagner's play had a line like: "Reality is just a
collective hunch.")  For many years, the reality of the situation was
that the world was flat; it was a collective hunch. 

I have a perception, and, indeed, it is biased and skewed.  I would 
like to be accepted where I am right now, and, hopefully, understood.  
I promise to try to understand your skewed perception and to accept 
you where you are.  Once that happens, maybe we can then work together 
with a deeper understanding of each other's perspectives and a better 
opportunity to broaden our collective hunch.

I don't expect everyone to agree with what I've said in this note.  I 
just wanted people to hear where I am coming from.


							--Gerry

    
>    When I read your description of going from room to room with the
>    door closing in your face, I could feel the sense of exclusion in
>    that and the doubt that it must cause when it *seems* accidental.
>    But I was more struck by the fact that you seemed to be the last
>    to go through the door.  When the door closed only you were left 
>    out.  I wondered how it would feel to you to be in the middle of 
>    the group, so if the door closed, you would not be alone?
>    What would it take to feel in the middle?  What would it take to
>    feel that you were responsible for holding the door open for the
>    guy who was BEHIND you?
    
Maybe I am already in the middle and it still closes in front of me. 
Maybe I already am aware of keeping the door open for those behind me
(for instance, people may notice that I use gender-neutral language
when appropriate; that is one example of me holding the door open for
those behind me). 

Or maybe not.

						--Gerry

re .62 Tony,

>    re: .60
>    "there is no universal right or wrong".
>    
>    I disagree with this.  I believe there *is* a universal right or wrong
>    for many issues, including homosexuality.  However, I have resolved not
>    to be evangelical about it and shove my beliefs onto others.

I believe what -mike z was saying in .60 was that there is no "right/wrong" 
when you're talking about someone's *feelings/perceptions* - not issues. If I 
say "I felt hurt by what you said," no one has the right to say "You're WRONG."
They can say "Gee, I didn't mean to hurt you, etc., etc.," but it's not a 
matter of right/wrong.

Trying to understand people's differences is "a lofty notion"?  I don't think 
so - to me it just says 'Digital can't eliminate people's hate/prejudice/
bigotry, but we can try to a) open their eyes and minds a little, and b) make 
sure that people are safe from it in the workplace.'  

You want to tell racist jokes to your family?  Refuse to hire a family 
lawyer because she's a woman?  Kick your son out of the house because he 
tells you he's gay?  Go ahead - The company won't stop you.  But fortunately 
Digital does make it clear that it does not value hate/prejudice/bigotry in 
the workplace with regard to employees, customers, vendors, suppliers, etc.

To me, that's a big part of what we call "Valuing Differences" - recognizing 
that not everyone in the world (or in this company) is exactly like 
ourselves...People are different, they have a right to be different, and they 
have a right to not be discriminated against because they're different.  

Nobody is trying to force anyone to be anything they're not - a different 
sex, differently-abled, different religion, heritage or sexual orientation.  
But each of these differences has value, and only by recognizing them and 
trying to understand them, can we *all* feel like truly valued employees - 
not 'second class citizens.'

My perception is that you're really not "ready to learn" about people's 
differences - rather, it appears that you've already made up your mind about 
what you believe (and what you "refuse to believe") about what is "right" 
and what is "wrong."

Cheers,

deb  :-}

    Curious - anyone else noticed the "Preference Announcement" increase
    in recent years?  When new acquaintences at work find out I am
    completely devoted to my wife of 30 years, they find it necessary to
    make it clear that they are also hetero.  In many cases it comes in
    comments (by males) on the attractiveness of nearby females, etc.
    
    Personally I think that our family doctor of 20 years is gay, and the
    whole family is heart-broken that he is retiring.  His preferences are
    both his own business, and irrelevant to us.  It just doesn't matter.
    I was raised on a Maine farm, and acceptance of individual traits is
    almost a religion there.  Sexual preference was the LEAST of the 
    individual differences!  At least being gay meant you were not chasing
    your siblings of the opposite sex!  Laugh - there was one shack in the
    1940s which contained 4 families (at least 4 family names) but about a
    dozen identical looking kids.  Again, that was ignored, it was THEIR
    business.   Phil

    .68 Is quite correct that Incest is a serious crime.
    BUT it is hard to prove.  To the best of my knowledge the possible
    case I mentioned was not investigated, rather ignored in the Down-East
    tradition of minding their own business.  The 4 interchangeable
    families are long split up.  The tiny shack disintergrated and not
    visable.
    My point was that if people respect each others' privacy and rights to
    be different, sexual preferences are irrelevant.  Phil

There's a good article in the Boston Globe today about the Boston Police 
liaison to the gay community coming out of the closet and revealing 
that he is gay.  He said that he wanted to be a role model for other 
police officers to come out, and a role model for other people in the 
city.  He said that he wanted to come out because the double life he 
was leading on the job was making his head spin and led him to drink 
too much.

His name is Robert Johnson.  He is an ex-Marine who grew up locally,
in Woburn, in a military family.  He is part of the mounted force (his
horse's name is Spike). He's been with the force since 1986, and he's
been the liaison since last summer. 

It's a nice article.  I also liked the part of the article that said 
that folks high up in the police force were encouraging officers to 
come out, in order to improve relations with the gay community and to 
improve the handling of diversity within the departments.

The article reported that most gay policewomen and policemen are 
afraid to come out because of the possibility of support being dropped 
by their partners and because of general lack of support--on the lower 
levels--in the whole department.  Hopefully, Mr. Johnson's openness 
and effectiveness as a policemen will help to makes things safer for 
openly-gay cops in the future.

I like what's happening in Massachusetts for gay people.  It's feeling 
safer and safer around here.  I see more and more gay bumpers stickers 
and signs that people are willing to take the chance to be open.  And 
articles like this show me that a lot of heterosexual people in the 
area are being really supportive.  Me likes!


							--Gerry