Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Gentlemen's Agreement. Great movie. Great title.
	Mez

    Herb, "Gentlemen's Agreement" by Laura Z.(?) Hobson.
    
      Alan

As I have stated before, I think everyone is a member of some minority/
oppressed group.  I think everyone knows how it feels to be on the down side
of a power differential.  I think Mez really hit the nail on the nose (to 
mix a metaphor) with the realization that the best way to explain how you
feel is to compare your feelings to their feelings in an analogous situation.

This means that, to help those on the other side of the power differential
than you understand how it feels to be on the down side, you have to find 
the part of them that has been oppressed.  It might be hard to find - it
might not be as obvious as race, sex or religion.  Like Herb's example of
an abused child, that isn't something you would realize on a casual meeting.

Look for things that make someone *different*, and you will probably find
something that will help you help them understand.  A while male can still
have been oppressed.  Is he short?  Is he fat?  Did he grow up in a poor
neighborhood?  Was he the child of a single parent in a time when everyone
else's parents were married?  Did he ever live/work/play in a group where
most people were some Other?

Finding common ground, while it may be difficult, may be the best way to 
move forward.

D!

    re 47.7, Bonnie-
    
    Oh, I hear you!  Bonnie, I know why I feel that way.  I've been given
    to understand that my lesbian friends aren't permitted to share their
    private lives as openly in 'public', to all their acquaintances,
    throughout their work and social and professional and educational
    contacts, as are heterosexuals; it just isn't safe to be out *everywhere*, 
    if I understand things right; the way society is so out about facts
    of heterosexuality like husbands and children.  And this unfairness is 
    so baldly obvious, I wouldn't want to parade my freedom to unconsciously 
    share those sides of my life.  It is not that I am ashamed of my private
    life; it is that until others are free to do so, it is not right for me
    so to treat them, so unconsciously to mock them.  I think you might be
    refraining for the same reasons (but you are the one who would know
    that, not I.)
    
    DougO

    Re -1 
    Mike,
    
    >Sometimes it seems to me that there is are differences among the women
    >here in how the male presence here is perceived, and sometimes not, and
    >I wish to hell someone would clear this matter up for me.
    
    I wish to hell we could - but I can't spot an easy statement that would
    clarify it. Perceptions of men in this conference *do* shift around,
    IMO, dependant on prevailing issues and tones of discussion.....so
    do the perceptions of gay wmn by strate wmn.....it's one of the
    things that makes this conference "live", IMO.
    
    >However, since I have already learned that the heterosexual women of
    >this community prefer FWO space....
    
    Ummmm...I don't think so. Some het wmn in here have stated clearly that
    they prefer mixed events. Even some gay/bi wmn prefer to have a choice
    of mixed or wmn-only....me for one. I reckon that events at the party
    would end up pretty equally attended.
    
  >Given that, I have never quite understood why any bisexual woman would ever 
    > choose a male as a sexual/romantic parter; after all, she has a *choice* in the gender of
  >  her sexual partner. 
    
    Well, y'know Mike....when you get that "starspangled" feeling about
    someone there's no point in fightin' it! It takes a rare person to
    switch on my "spangles" these days, so when that special person turns
    up I'm not going to quibble about gender! That's the least important
    consideration ;-)
    
    
    
    

    once more, with feeling.
    
    There are lesbians who don't like men.  There are also heterosexual
    women who don't care for the company of men.  There are heterosexual
    women who feel FWO is not a place they can get good things from.  There
    is a VAST horizon of different tastes and textures and needs and
    feelings in this world, and in this notesfile.
    
    For the benefit of those who never read my divulgence on misogyny, I
    used to naturally be more attracted to men as friends until about 4
    years ago.  I *love* some men.  I *need* some men in my life.  But I'm
    just beginning to enjoy the glory that women are.  The scales are
    tilting as we women discover there are things we share and things we
    can only get from one another.  I do not prefer FWO space over mixed
    space any more than I prefer chocolate over caramel (chocolate over
    caramel - now I'm getting hungry!).  They are different, and they both
    fill my own personal needs.  I am not self-sufficient.  I need
    friendship.  I need support and perspective and sharing.  From people
    of both sexes.  
    
    I believe that many lesbians may choose not to be with men as often as
    they can because they don't *get* as much *stuff they need* from men as
    they do from women.  It's kind of like "natural selection".  I have
    been male-focused about 80% of my life.  I'm seeking balance.  I'm
    learning and reveling in discoveries of the wonders women are, and this
    in turn teaches me that I am *good*, and that the things I can do and
    can feel and can dream are *good*. 
    
    There is no easy statement with such diversity in here.  But if you can
    find a place of comfort within the diversity - if you can be genuinely
    you and own what you bring here - if you can share who you are
    confidently and supportively and honestly - THAT is the key, I feel.
    Whatever type or gender or orientation you are....
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Mike, we're all trying to figure it out, but I think you've hit upon it
    pretty clearly. Men can take on both sexual and non-sexual roles in
    women's lives. For a straight woman, FWO space is an opportunity to be
    free of men in the non-sexual sense, i.e. unfettered by the male
    viewpoint, but no less interested in men, per se. It becomes
    unfortunate when there is no room for lesbian women to love women and
    straight women to love men, and for both to accept the differences, and
    still rejoice in the similarities. If lesbians were to dictate that I
    could not talk about men as lovers when they could talk about women,
    I'd tell them to jump in a creek. Because they would be excluding my
    preference and my orientation. At the same time, it would be equally
    unfair to have FWO space in which lesbians could not explore and share
    facets of their lives because of pressure from straight women.
    
    Now, where do the men fit in? I think the feminist agenda includes
    woman-centering, and moving away from *automatically* assuming that men
    hold the power roles. The easiest way to break this is to let them have
    none, because it forces us to accept women in power, and teaches us to
    assume power. As women become more comfortable with this, then we won't
    try to push the pendulum so hard. But consider the women as managers
    note as an example. We all have TWO things to learn, we must learn to
    accept women in power, and learn to accept power as women. And no one
    said it would be easy.
    
    So, how is this managed best? One group might hold that we let men in,
    but only let them take subordinate roles. Trust me, it would be hard
    for both sexes. The other take is that we leave the men out so that we
    don't complicate the learning process. Meanwhile, we straight women
    take what we've learned about wielding power, and try to share it with
    our loved ones. Personally, I think this is easier.
    
    I think when women are trying to learn something this important, having
    men step in and assert themselves complicates everything. I mean, how
    can we ask you not to, any more than we would ask it of ourselves! But
    until women's assertion is as natural, normal and acceptable as men's,
    we need you to be us for a change. Take the back seat, let us run the
    show, and when you want to make a suggestion, whisper it in the ear of
    a woman, and let her take the credit. Its called "doing stage crew", and its
    an important role: we should know.
    

    .6> This isn't my conference, of course--it belongs to the
    .6> women here--and whatever the women want to do is fine with me. 
    
    IMHO this conference does not belong to the women who note here, Mike. 
    It belongs to the *people* who note here.  For me, this conference
    would be lacking something if men did not participate.
    
    The subject of this conference is topics of interest to women and let's
    face it, *men* are a topic of interest to a lot of women.  I know some
    women who never talk about anything else :-)  I, for one, am interested
    in men's opinions to see how they differ and how they are the same.

    I don't feel comfortable when someone complains that we talk too much
    about men, as if men were an inappropriate topic for this conference. 
    I can understand that some lesbians may not find men an interesting
    topic.  I, personally, do not find "Tom Swifties" an interesting topic,
    but some women apparently do (can't understand why :-).

    I also feel torn about FWO space.  I enjoy the company of women without
    the complicating factors of having men around, but the idea  of
    excluding others makes me feel uneasy.  It brings up too many memories
    of the days when I was excluded for being a woman.  My brothers
    wouldn't let me into their clubhouse to play, I couldn't get a job
    delivering newspapers (boys only), I couldn't go to Yale like my
    brother could...and so on.  It also brings up memories of my childhood
    in Texas where FWO meant For Whites Only.  Separate restrooms, separate
    drinking fountains... the whole bit.  It's because of these feelings
    that I choose not to use FWO space in this file, but I do understand
    why some women enjoy FWO space.

    I consider myself, straight, more or less, but I think labels like
    straight/ bisexual/lesbian are misleading.  I think of human sexual
    behaviour as more of a continuum, with exclusive heterosexuality at one
    end and exclusive homosexuality at another end with most of us falling
    somewhere in between. I also see physical sexual attraction and
    emotional bonding (or falling in love) as two separate aspects of human
    behaviour.  I personally find it easier to form emotional bonds with
    women friends than with men, but find that men interest me sexually and
    women don't.  

    I don't feel uncomfortable around openly gay/lesbian people unless they
    make a big deal of it.  Flirting?  I'm too shy to flirt with men or
    women.  But I do love it when men flirt with me, though I never take it
    very seriously.  I can't say that I've ever noticed a woman flirting 
    with me.

    Mary
    

    <I think when women are trying to learn something this important, having
    <men step in and assert themselves complicates everything. I mean, how
    <can we ask you not to, any more than we would ask it of ourselves! But
    <until women's assertion is as natural, normal and acceptable as men's,
    <we need you to be us for a change. Take the back seat, let us run the
    <show, and when you want to make a suggestion, whisper it in the ear of
    <a woman, and let her take the credit. Its called "doing stage crew", and its
    <an important role: we should know.
    
    Your entire entry seems to beautifully characterize this conference in
    a way that explains a lot of male behavior here. If, indeed, this is a
    cornerstone of the =wn= conference it merits much more prominent
    display. Most men will (indeed are) fight tooth and nail to prevent
    such a thing from happening. Why?

    There are a couple of names that come to mind for those "doing stage
    crew"

    a)sycophants
    b)camp-followers
    c)brown-nosers

    And I think HERE is THE key to the anger that you see from so many men.

    
    persons who think of 'doing stage crew' as being sycophantic or
    brown-nosing have obviously never been in the theatre.
    

	I'll second joe's statement.  As I always used to tell the actors,
"You've had months to work on this and the crew has to learn their jobs in
a week.  You may not think they can make you look bad, but I wouldn't push
them if I were you.  You would be surprised."  Crew is hard work.


						--D

    
    I am one of the lesbians (not sure who the other was) who objected to the 
    collection to pay for Mike V's ticket to come east to meet one of the 
    women here.  Mostly my objection had to do with the idea of collecting 
    money so any two people from this file could meet, but I'll admit that I 
    was especially troubled and angry that we were collecting money in 
    WOMANnotes so a MAN could have a date with a woman from this file.  I 
    can't even imagine such a thing starting up and being supported between 
    two women, but if it did, I would object to that, too.   I totally support 
    however straight women want to spend their energy in this file, and I'd 
    like support (or at least tolerance) for how I spend my energy here.  But I 
    didn't want to spend money so a man and woman from this file could have a 
    date anymore than I would want folks to spend money so I could have a 
    date.  I hope my anger about the collection thing wasn't interpreted as 
    a lack of support for women's relationships with men.

    Justine

    
    i didn't really mind because i was pretty sure it was a joke. but
    it seemed and seems that your concerns are completely valid.
    

    
    re .14:
    
    I thought the collection was pretty silly, but I sure didn't
    object.  Nor would I want to give money to such a thing.
    
    Justine, I wonder, if because you're a moderator of the conference
    that you had a different response than mine?  I mean, silly question,
    but if you were against it, uh, why not just not give?
    

    I think you can feel free to stand (or sit) corrected.  I am under the
    impression that the objection was to collecting money from the whole
    file so that any one person could meet for the purposes of a date any
    other one person.  If it were because we were having a party and some
    person/people wished to attend that party (i.e. the party came first,
    then the person/people wanted to join in), then it would be pertinent
    to the community as a whole MORE (although there are always remote
    people that can't attend parties when they're in the greater Maynard
    area, unfortunately for us).  I mean "collecting money" from any
    notesfile may well feel strange, particularly from a moderator
    standpoint (ethics and morals and scruples - oh my!).  We intend to set
    up a travel fund with DCU for the fifth anniversary party, and we've
    discussed long and hard how we're going to handle who gets what (it may
    wind up being by drawing random lots if we don't get enough money to
    help everyone who wants to attend in the proportion they require it).
    
    -Jody
    

    I too was unhappy about the collection even though I knew it was just
    a joke. Around that time it seemed like all of our silliness centred
    around men with all the jokes about saying pc things to get laid etc.
    And it seemed ironic that it was happenning in =wn=. I guess I was just
    sick of it. BTW, I'm heterosexual.
    manisha

    
    Mike,
    
    Would you care to post the mail we exchanged here so that everyone
    could see who was threatening whom?  I'm not going to get into a battle
    with you here in the file or in mail.  I don't want to discuss your
    thoughts or my thoughts on lesbianism with you.  But I am willing to
    discuss what happened here around the issue of your trip and the
    collection for it and to try one more time to explain to you how I felt
    about it. 
    
    I don't think there is an inconsistency in what I said at all, but
    there is a difference in emphasis for me.  I have general discomfort
    with the idea of collecting money for the social benefit of only one
    or two people.  But the fact that the collection was for a man
    in womannotes did bother me even more than the general discomfort.  I
    don't think that's inconsistent.  I see that I gave you some fuel for
    your argument, but I can live with that, because it was more important
    to me to be honest.  
    
    I don't come to this file to spend time with men, but I understand the 
    current policy that allows equal access to womannotes for men.  And it's 
    possible (not always actualized, but possible) for women in this file to 
    engage with only men, or only women, or men and women.  And as a result 
    of my time in this file, I have come to have real affection for some 
    lovely men that I would never have gotten close to if not for this file.  
    But...  I think I can have all those feelings and still make a personal 
    decision not to spend money so two people can have a date, and I can still 
    express my personal anger that womannotes would choose to subsidize a trip 
    for a man.  I don't know how else to restate it if you still don't 
    understand.  I can see how my feelings and my expression of them would 
    make you angry, but I don't see how you can accuse me of inconsistency 
    just because I said: this bothers me, and this *really* bothers me.  I 
    decided to raise it in the file, because I wanted a sanity check.  I 
    couldn't believe that I was the only one who felt this way.  And I wasn't. 
    Straight, Lesbian, and Bi women spoke up about their discomfort in the 
    file and to the moderators outside the file.  
    
    Mike, I don't want to appear unfair.  If you want to discuss this
    further with me, how about if we have a facilitated discussion in mail, 
    i.e., we copy one or more of the other moderators on all the mail we
    send?  I'm not trying to stop you from presenting your side of things, 
    but I felt that the questions you asked me in mail were intrusive and 
    personal.  Does that sound fair to you?  If you'd like to choose someone 
    other than a womannotes mod, maybe we could have two cofacilitators --- one
    of your choosing and one of my choosing.  Let me know, ok?
    
    Justine
           

    I have deleted all of my responses to this topic.  Compared to really
    important issues, like John Elway's stubbed toe, this one doesn't rank
    high in my personal list of priorities.
    
    -- Mike

     
    
    
    OOOOOOOOOOOo, I love that FWO!

    re .27 Nancy, I gotta agree with you. This is becoming one of the
    all-time great ratholes.
    
    Dana (male who is finding the FWO version of this note very interesting)
    
    

    
    
    I literally forgot what the actual basenote is about....
    

  Re: .26

  Amen.

  Re: <<< Note 48.25 by JARETH::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

  >    Since you are accusing Mike of being threatening, it seems I should
  >    present information I have that may be illuminating.  

  I saw no accusation there.  I saw a simple question about the willingness 
  of one party in a dialogue to disclose the whole dialogue for all
  to see.  

  And while on the subject of telling stories in their entirety, the following
  is disingenuous:

  >Of course, as soon as I show the moderators are in the wrong, 
  >this note will be deleted.

  I can believe that your note might be deleted but not for the reasons you
  state.  If it is deleted, my guess at a reason would be that the issue
  is still under some form of official review and you have no business
  leaking bits of it until it is settled.

  JP

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 47.46   FWO: Lesbian, Bi and Heterosexual:  Same or Different?     46 of 46
GWYNED::YUKONSEC "aaaaaahhhh, the gentle touch"       8 lines   7-NOV-1990 13:23
                     -< I thought it was dead and buried >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to remind people that *Mike and I* asked the moderators to
    put a stop to the pledge drive.  I appreciate the discussion on 
    the file being men-centered, but could we *please* use a different
    example?!
    
    Thank you,
    
    E Grace
    

    
    
    
    A final update:
    
    Mike Valenza and I have discussed this whole thing off line.  I had
    told him that I didn't want to discuss my personal life with him, but
    I was willing to work to resolve our differences on this issue, and we
    have.  We have apologized to each other for any misleading or insensitive
    statements, and we have acknowledged that this is a sensitive issue for both
    of us.  I feel good about the resolution.  Mike (I have this wicked
    urge to call you "Honey" :-) but we don't want people to think we're
    running off together or something :-), if I haven't quite captured this
    right, please add to it.
    
    I'd like to ask the rest of the community to keep using this string to
    talk about the issue of how differences in sexual orientation influence
    women's relationships with each other.  I think the comods may decide
    to move discussion about Mike's and my disagreement to a more
    appropriate string, but I'm sure that if they do, they'll report what
    they've done :-)
    
    Thanks, All!
    
    Justine                 

    <--(.25)
    
    Eric, I am not only not going to delete your note, but I am not even
    going to move it for the moment.  I'll move it later, as part of a
    general cleanup of this string, to either The Rathole or Processing
    once I have a moment to think about which is the more appropriate
    place.
    
    Although I have not had time for lunch today, and am overdue to another
    meeting, I was asked by the other mods to respond to and/or handle your
    note since the letter to Ron Glover you are quoting was sent by me.
    
    Justine was *in fact* frightened by the mail you sent her.  The only
    misquotation involved was substituting "threat" for "wish", and that
    makes sense in context:  it is simply not possible to defend oneself
    from wishes except in fairy tales.
    
                                                       Margaret

    This discussion of lesbian "looks" is kind of funny. It reminds me a
    lot of some discussions I hear from software engineers about the
    engineering "uniform". Engineers will hotly deny that there is such a
    thing, claiming that they are just dressing comfortably and
    practically, but in fact there *is* a subtle and de-facto uniform for
    engineers, and it is enforced. The uniform is agressively casual, and
    for men the icons are t-shirts (with slogans) and levis (worn but not
    ratty). During the winter, flannel shirts are de rigeur in cold
    climates. Some engineers wear polo shirts or even button down shirts
    and slacks, but casual is the rule. In fact - anyone wearing fancier
    clothes, or >horrors< a tie is given endless grief - regardless of how
    comfortable or practical they look. If your personal tastes run to
    tailored clothes (not even suits) DON'T wear them to an engineering
    site!
    
    It is possible to have natural, comfortable, practical and very sharp
    looking clothes. Naturalness, comfort, and practicality are the excuses
    that people give instead of admitting that they wear a uniform. It's
    the same with some lesbians. There *is* a sort of uniform for some
    lesbians, and it's very similar to software engineer drag. It is
    certainly natural, comfortable, and practical - but it's an
    identifiable subset of natural, comfortable, practical clothes. There
    is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with that! However it's slightly misleading
    to imply that that's ALL that's going on. There IS a
    flannel-shirt-and-levis contingent.
    
    Being an exhibitionist, and knowing how to dress to give a particular
    impression, I now conciously choose what impression I want to make.
    When you say that you're "being natural" what I hear is "it sends the
    message I want to send." For example - skirts are clearly natural,
    comfortable, and practical (witness the Scot's kilt - practical enough
    to wear into battle; and the roman toga - the three piece suit of Rome)
    why then don't more lesbians wear them? I suspect it's because today
    they are a *symbol* of the things many of us reject. They are an icon
    of the traditional role of women. (Please don't laugh - I'm serious.)
    
    When an individual dresses in a particular style and tells me that it
    is simply personal choice - I don't think twice. When a group all
    dresses in an identifiably similar way and they *all* tell me that they
    "just chose" to dress that way - I smile. Personal choice, comfort, and
    practicality *are* the overwhelmingly most important reasons, but they
    aren't the ONLY reasons for everyone.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. I do agree wholeheartedly with the previous comment about only
    noticing those lesbians who stand out in some way. I agree that there
    are many more lesbians out there than most people realize - that's
    where a lot of these stereotypes come from. The vast majority of
    lesbigays are "just folks".

>                              There *is* a sort of uniform for some
>    lesbians, and it's very similar to software engineer drag. It is
>    certainly natural, comfortable, and practical - but it's an
>    identifiable subset of natural, comfortable, practical clothes. There
>    is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with that! However it's slightly misleading
>    to imply that that's ALL that's going on. There IS a
>    flannel-shirt-and-levis contingent.
    
Charles,

Help me figure out how to break it to my straight friends that
they're dressed in a lesbian uniform!! And here they thought
they were just dressing comfortably as a holdover from our college
days!  :-)

Kathy

    
    re: charles -n- kathy
    
    so that means that all engineers are lesbians in training??!
    
    or does that mean that a large population of lesbians are aspiring
    engineers??
    
    inquiring minds,
    ~robin

> Help me figure out how to break it to my straight friends that
> they're dressed in a lesbian uniform!! And here they thought
> they were just dressing comfortably as a holdover from our college
> days!  :-)

    Well, Kathy, you could practice by telling some of your lesbian 
    friends (preferably computer illiterates, for this exercise)
    that they're dressed in software engineer drag.  Or by telling
    customers at "The Gap" that if they're not software engineers,
    they're buying clothing for lesbian uniforms.

    That ought to dissuade you :-)

	Sharon

>    Well, Kathy, you could practice by telling some of your lesbian 
>    friends (preferably computer illiterates, for this exercise)
>    that they're dressed in software engineer drag.  Or by telling
>    customers at "The Gap" that if they're not software engineers,
>    they're buying clothing for lesbian uniforms.

 :-) :-) 

    Re: 47.50
    
    When they say that they "walk like a man" perhaps it is visible
    confidence and pride they see? Let's hope it's not "don't mess with
    me."
    
    Re: <robin in the rathole string>
    
    Why don't more men wear skirts? Damn good question, but I think you and
    I know the answer. An especially good question to ask of men who claim
    to dress the way they do because it's comfortable and natural! I'd love
    to wear skirts more often, myself. On the other hand, *I* dress to mess
    with people's heads.
    
    Re: .36
    
    I hope you were being funny - in which case I think it's kind of funny
    too (I actually tried to make that point in my message - engineers
    dress in "crunchy" drag... :-) If you were serious, then I'm afraid
    you've committed a logical fallacy. All A's are B implies only that
    some B's are A and nothing stronger.
    
    Eureka! *That's* what I'll do for next Halloween! I'll come in my =WN=
    T-shirt, levis, and hiking boots and I'll tell everyone I'm a Lesbian!
    Only problem is my lesbian friends would probably *kill* me... :-)
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. I sometimes wear a suit (Dark blue, raw silk, yum) for no other
    reason than that it doesn't fit my persona. (Well, I do happen to look
    gorgeous in it, but it's neither comfortable nor practical...)
    

>    Eureka! *That's* what I'll do for next Halloween! I'll come in my =WN=
>    T-shirt, levis, and hiking boots and I'll tell everyone I'm a Lesbian!

    You realize this means you'd have to cut your hair... :-) :-)

    re comfort, I wear skirts and dresses sometimes because I like the way I 
    look in them, but I definitely do not consider them comfortable.  I
    think jeans are the most comfortable thing to wear.  (and flat shoes
    definitely)
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .41
    
    > You realize this means you'd have to cut your hair... :-) :-)
    
    8-O Omigod! You're *right*! Oh well - so much for that idea.
    
    Though I did meet this very nice lesbian couple up in Yosemite last
    weekend, one of them had the neatest haircut - short brush cut almost
    everywhere but very long in back. Now I ask you honestly - how many
    straight women would wear their hair like that? How did I know they
    were lesbians? Well... they were two women by themselves, there was the
    haircut, they were both wearing lots of flannel, they drove up in a
    four wheel drive, they only had one tent... and they were in the
    campsite next to ours so I *knew*. :-) Oh yeah, I noticed they were
    very careful in their usage of personal pronouns and stuff.
    
    	-- Charles
    

    
    re: haircuts...
    
    ha! i know some lesbians with hair longer than charles'.  the only
    potential problem is that some folks may think you are "passing".(-;
    
    ~robin

    
    RE:.23
    
    >I think I can have all those feelings and still make a personal
    decision not to spend money so two people can have a date, and I
    can still express my personal anger that womannotes would chose
    to subsidize a trip for a man.
    
    I think you should be allowed those feelings and not be required
    to spend money so that two people can have a date.  This whole thing
    didn't come across to me as a date so much as it did an excuse for a 
    party.  I know nobody asked me for money, if you where singled out and
    asked I think that was wrong.  Also I don't think womannotes chose
    to subsidize a trip for a man.  I think the people of womannotes
    chose to subsidize a party for themselves, and this was just part
    of the party and the colection would have started even if the trip 
    had been going the other way.  Just my humble opinion.
    
    Joe

    
    
    Joe,
    
    E Grace has asked that we not discuss the issue of the trip anymore.
    I'd be kind of embarrassed to have my name in lights for so long, too.
    I'd be happy to talk about it in mail with you  or with anyone else who
    would like to discuss my thoughts or theirs on this issue, but I would
    like to honor E's request for an end to this discussion here, so I
    won't be responding on this topic in the file anymore. 
    
    Disclaimer:  This is, of course, only a declaration of my intentions
    and a request that other members of this community honor E's request.
    It is in no way an attempt to censor, stifle, or silence anyone.
    
    Justine

re: the comfort look = lesbian uniform
Charles,
I guess that also means that most of the population of Berkeley (male and
female) are also lesbians in training -- if you put a group of
Berkeley residents in the  middle of a suburban shopping mall, and a
group of lesbians, the only distinguishing characteristic would be
the ever-present coffee cup (paper or ceramic, of course) in the
hands of the former.
	:-)
		MKV

    re 48.36,48.37,48.38,48.39,48.41

    I FEEL that you are being incredibly rude to Charles. And I do not
    understand it at all.

    Right or wrong Charles stated that he WAS SERIOUS.

    For me, the above responses felt like mocking, and it confuses me.

    I suppose I COULD ascribe the replies to a 'nervous' unwillingness to
    acknowledge a stereotype, but that wouldn't be fair to you (or would it?)
    (please do NOT read sarcasm, irony,or wry-ness into this, NONE
    intended)

    Could you explain what was going on?


    				a man

    >Could you explain what was going on?
    
    Yes.  Humor.
    
    D!

    teasing, and charles is the worst tease of all...
    
    

Re: .49

Oh Mary!

That wouldn't be a fair test... most of Berkeley *is* lesbian. Just some of them
don't know it yet. I mean just look at their politics! Looks like the lesbian
party line to me. Berkeley is so PC it's uncanny. "The only city in the U.S.
with a foreign policy! - The People's Republic of Berkeley" The only city in
the us with a communist city government. The only city in the U.S. with two
political parties - Communist and Socialist. I love it. Berkeley is part of why
I love living here. Cambridge comes close (similar remarks about the way people
dress in Cambridge could have been made...) but nothing can really touch
Berkeley. Besides Berkeley has better coffee than Cambridge... :-)

To my anonymous friend.

Not to worry. I don't feel made fun of, instead I feel like part of a group of
friends all laughing together. I'm the one who started it, but it's not at me.
Yes, I was being more serious than not in my comments, but that's ok, the point
was made and now we're having fun with it. There ARE recognizable and diverse
sub-cultures in the lesbian community - just like any other community. Trying
to label ALL lesbians with characteristics of one sub-culture would be wrong,
but many people don't recognize that.

Some people are (deliberately I think) using the All A's are B means all B's are
A fallacy, but that's ok. It's being done in fun.

	-- Charles

    well I agreed with you about The Look you mentioned in .35
    and I felt they were laughing at me (because I agree with you), and I
    felt humiliated by the mocking. And I tried to express that as the
    anonymous writer in .50. (as I tried to express it to you privately)
    
    I am not willing to let this drop.
    The responses were insulting to you and the responses were insulting
    to me. (that they were not INTENDED to be insulting is largely
    irrelevant)
    
    And for christ sakes ladies I'm on your side, imagine how someone who
    ISN'T on your side might feel about this.

    Herb, now that we know someone is insulted I expect people's responses
    will be different.  Up to now I hadn't seen anyone express offense;
    merely, to have asked Charles if he was offended, which he wasn't.
    
    DougO

    What exactly is offensive to you, Herb?  Honest question, I just have
    no idea why you are upset.
    
    Seems to me that we understood Charles's point (that despite claims to
    the contrary, there must be a "look" to the Lesbian community beyond
    just "being comfortable" or else it wouldn't be the case that Lesbians
    are often seen wearing certain kinds of comfortable clothes and not
    others) and that now we are simply making jokes.  Not at Charles, not,
    in fact, at anyone, but at the concept of a "look", and the possible
    meanings on that as it relates to various groups (such as software
    engineers.)
    
    I don't think anyone thinks Charles's comments were silly or irrelevent
    or laughable, regardless of whether we agree with them.  (I certainly
    don't...think they are silly, that is.)  It just so happens that the
    subject is an amusing one.
    
    You say you aren't going to let this lie...what are you going to do,
    then?  What's your goal?
    
    D!
    
    [PS:  I must admit, you note sounded suspiciously like other notes I
    have seen in =wn= that said things along the lines of "You ought to be
    insulted by this..."]

.36>    I hope you were being funny - in which case I think it's kind of funny
.36>    too (I actually tried to make that point in my message - engineers
.36>    dress in "crunchy" drag... :-) If you were serious, then I'm afraid
.36>    you've committed a logical fallacy. All A's are B implies only that
.36>    some B's are A and nothing stronger.

I was being light, Charles, but I was also being somewhat serious.

I know too many women who wear blue jeans and a turtleneck and sweater
or flannel shirt who are most definitely straight that I'm not
going to call those clothes a lesbian uniform. And, conversely, I
know too many lesbians who don't wear the "uniform." 

When you met the women in the Yosemites, you put several things
together to determine that they were lesbians (haircuts, clothes,
one tent, four-wheel drive, careful use of pronouns, lots of flannel,
and whatever else you may have heard or observed in the next
campsite). You went on more than blue jeans and flannel. If you
were to judge people's sexual orientation on clothes alone, you would
be wrong a lot of the time. And I offer up half the "Flatlanders"
in Vermont, a good portion of the female population in western
Massachusetts, and many of my friends from wherever as examples. They
wear what you described as the "lesbian uniform."

I'm not arguing "gaydar." I use it too. I'm just arguing the
simplistic stereotype of the "lesbian uniform." 

Kathy

    >And for christ sakes ladies I'm on your side, imagine how someone who
    >ISN'T on your side might feel about this.
     
    And speaking of being insulting...I have seen a number of women in this
    conference (well, the last version(s) of it) express that they were
    uncomfortable with the term "ladies".  Frankly, I don't care about it
    one way or another, but it seems to me that if you are going to expect
    people to be aware of your sensitivities without telling people about
    them, you ought to at least be aware of other people's sensitivities
    when they *have* expressed them.
    
    D!   

    well my intent was to be courteous. 
    i regret any other meaning
    

Re: .56

Herb, if you'd like a more serious discussion of "the look" I was mentioning,
then DO IT. If you want to start a fight - well, do you *have* to do it here?
We were having fun. I agree with me too, but I don't feel made fun of. I've
said (more than once in this string) that there is a grain of truth to what
I've said - and no one is disputing it. There *are* stereotypical lesbian
"looks" - they even have names, I've used some of them - but they are
*stereotypes*.

I'm a little annoyed that you seem to be getting angry on my behalf - I feel
like you're implying that I'm too dull witted to know when I've been insulted.
Now *that* feels like an insult.

	-- Charles

Herb,

I've tried to explain myself better in .57. If you have any
questions about what I've tried to say, please ask.

Kathy

    re .60 
    
    Charles I commend your ability to respond by making lite of it. 
    I was not able to do that. I too am not interested in a serious
    discussion of "the look".
    
    The issue has nothing to do with "the look" in my opinion. For me it
    has to do with things I have already said. 
    
    re in genl
    
    I would also like to suggest that as long as =wm= remains a public
    conference, issues far more serious -but probably equally as
    accidental- than this one (and I assure you this one is serious to me)
    will kindle and re-kindle emotions.
    
    
    Editorial:
    
    The readership of this conference is TOO TOO diverse for this
    conference to remain public. There are simply too many people who do
    not understand what this conference is about -or maybe know only too
    well what this conference is about- to allow it to continue as a public
    conference.
    
    If you want a conference that serves the purposes of a supportive
    empathetic 'sensitivity group' for women and I believe that is a super
    honorable goal, I believe it is going to be necessary to make your
    conference members only.
    
    There are just too many men, -and enuf women- who are genuinely
    hurt/upset/whatevered by the machinations of this conference to allow
    it to continue its public existence.
    

    and if my editorial seems to have little to do with what preceded it,
    you are probably right.
    I just felt the need to get that editorial off my chest, not as
    criticism, but as a supportive warning. I know how angry I felt, and I
    am certain there are many men -and some women- who at various times
    have felt much, much more angry that I was feeling; and some of their
    actions is a reflection of that anger.

From:	VMSSPT::NICHOLS      "Herb: CSSE support for VMS at ZK 381-2820"  8-NOV-1990 18:27:06.43
To:	WMOIS::B_REINKE
CC:	GILROY::HAYNES,NICHOLS
Subj:	RE: 48.35ff

    Bonnie:

    I have no right to characterize somebody else's feelings about this matter. 
    Perhaps I was hoping that Charles would get indignant and spare me the need
    of going public. Perhaps that was my 'hope' with my 'anon' reply in .50.
    I apologize for speaking for you, Charles.
    I had no right.
    My indignation should have stood on its own!


    					herb
    

    
    	RE: .35, etal  Charles
    
    	Your remarks about "the looks" are interesting.
    
    	It's fun to hear about the descriptions of Berkeley here - I lived
    	there in 1970.  
    
    	Ryan was born while we were in Berkeley (at Alta Bates Hospital.)
    
    	It was a wonderful place to live...and be born.  ;^)
    

    
    	Speaking of Berkeley, what a culture shock it was in 1970 to see
    	the way the folks in the, um, counter-culture dressed in Hollywood
    	compared to the way they were dressing in Berkeley at the time.
    
    	I thought I'd landed on a different planet.  ;^)
    

    
    In talking about this note with a few of my female friends, two
    have stated that Lesbian women were very possessive of their SO.
    Why would this be ?
    
    Rich...

    re .67 Probably the same reason(s) that many straight people
    are posessive. Things like insecurity, low self-esteem, etc.

Greetings:

   This Topic, by its division into FWO and FGD, is discriminatory.

   I suggest that all of those who are against the discrimination in this
conference boycott this Topic and/or create a new one that is not 
divided in this fashion.

                                              -Robert Brown III

�   I suggest that all of those who are against the discrimination in this
� conference boycott this Topic and/or create a new one that is not 
    
    Hey, why not boycott the entire conference?
    
    Ray

>     <<< Note 48.71 by AERIE::THOMPSON "trying real hard to adjust ..." >>>
>              -< A suggestion ... take your attitude elsewhere ! >-

    
>    re: .69	Greetings: ... discriminatory ... etc.

AMEN, Eagles!

  I don't write often but this makes me ill. I read to learn, because I have 
personal biases and prejudices I (like everyone) read things into/out-of
certain replies. some irritate me some amuse me, but *NEVER* would I take
anything I have read to be attacks on MANkind in general. Or discriminatory
there is enough real discrimination in the world, carried on by those we
elect to office where they can do real damage, to be worried about
what in *MY* perception might or might *NOT* be discrimination. I also feel if 
a subset of the population wants a "For Green-people Only" discussion that is
their choice and I will learn more about green-ness that way.

try next unseen or next-note-conference but shut up, give everyone a chance to
say what they want!
Amos

    
    last thursday i had to go downtown to the arts commission offices
    to discuss our grant application. there were a number of us waiting
    in the front office to speak to the various committees. most of the
    people were women, many of whom i knew by name or reputation but
    only a few of whom i'd ever met in person. it was fascinating to
    me the number of different styles these women had: corporate drag,
    blue rinse set, comfortable dyke, etc. knowing first that there
    was no direct correlation between their image and their sexuality
    and second that these were all extremely capable, talented and
    intelligent women.
    

Mike -

How about this - those who don't like it here can leave and start there own
conference.  Those who do can stay.  Kinda like changeing the channels on the
TV, If you find ABC to be offensive, try CBN, instead of trying to pass 
legislation to get ABC's format changed.

grins,

clark.

Mike -

going on the assumption that the FCC monitors what ABC does, or for that matter
what every licensed broadcaster does, and since the FCC has not shut ABC down,
it would appear that ABC does not violate FCC rules.

Grins,

clark.

ps - is that obtuse enough for everyone?? :-)

Mike -

Very true, so in a very real way the jury is still out.

The only question left is -

Has the jury seen the entire program, or just snippets of the "offensive" parts?

grins,

clark.

	This topic is FGD:Lesbian/Bi/Heterosexual - Same or different

	If one of you would care to start a topic called
		Does =wn= descriminate against men?
	you can discuss the FCC and ABC there.  I won't even mind if you
	make it FMO :-)

	Otherwise:  Go directly to the Rathole; Do not pass GO; Do not
	collect $200 :-)

	Mary

    
    	I am very happy that there are FWO notes. Just look at the
    	difference between this FGD note and the FWO version! 
    
    	I'm all in favor of FWO space and notes... especially since we 
    	men have FGD space and mennotes to voice any male concerns in. 
    
    	I'm happy to be able to share in this positive -wm- energy, and
    	it really angers me that some men seem bent upon being disruptive.
    
    	-Erik  

    >That same difference could have been achieved without the FWO
    >    label.
    
    How?
    
    D!

The claim is that SRO/FGD would achieve the same effect.

	-- Charles

    The difference between the FGD and FWO versions of this string goes
    beyond supportive...the actual content of the discussions is different. 
    Imagine!  Women talk about different things when men aren't involved in
    the conversation!  Who woulda thunk?
    
    D!

    >If the desired result is a caring, serious, sensitive, supportive
    >    environment, then draw the line there, not at gender.
    
    And what is the desired result is discussion content that simply never
    occurs when men participate?
    
    D!

    D!,
    
    The concept you are referring to is the one discussed in 319.
    (I found it because I remember the title.)
    
    						Ann B.

    RE .92
    
    >	Look, it's very simple - if you desire environment X, specify
    >criteria that satisfy environment X.
    >	If you want caring, serious, sensitive, or supportive replies,
    >say "caring, serious, sensitive, or supportive replies only".
    
    Does that mean that if we stated (or the mods stated, or whoever)
    that only caring, sensitive and supportive replies were welcome
    in this conference that those would be the only replies submitted?
    
    'gail
    

    
    
    RE:  .94
    
    >Does that mean that if we stated (or the mods stated, or whoever)
    >    that only caring, sensitive and supportive replies were welcome
    >    in this conference that those would be the only replies submitted?
    
    
    	Unfortunately no.  To ensure equality for everyone who wants to 
    answer, each SRO topic should be followed by a FGD topic.  
    
    On a conference-wide basis, that would never work (and Digital would
    probably never support it on their resources).
    
    kath

    In addition, as the FWO/FGD topics are courtesy only, the SRO/FGD
    topics must be courtesy only as well I believe (correct me if I'm
    wrong).  There's no guarantee.
    
    -Jody

RE: .96

>   In addition, as the FWO/FGD topics are courtesy only, the SRO/FGD
>   topics must be courtesy only as well I believe (correct me if I'm
>   wrong).  There's no guarantee.

Jody, I don't think you're "wrong" but I have a different take on it. FWO/FGD
topics are courtesy only because someone can't note in a FWO topic because of
who they are, not because of what they do. SRO topics could be enforced, it
seems to me, because the notes are not allowed there because of what they say,
not who wrote them. This is the same policy used to move or delete any note. I
think you could safely move any "non-supportive" note out of the SRO string as
being "off topic" or ask the author to re-word it to be supportive.

By the way, lest anyone get the wrong impression, I support FWO notes in
Womannotes, and I understand the difference in "feel" between FWO and SRO.

	-- Charles

    
    >small rathole<
    
    Could someone please put in a note that explains all these three-letter
    abbraviations.....FWO, FMO,SRO, FGD etc....
    Hopefully I'm not the only one who's a little confused and wants to
    make sure that they understand what people are trying to say around
    this.
    
    I'd appreciate that definition note in this string, as these terms
    are referenced frequently here at the moment....
    
    

    FWO - for women only
    FMO - for men only
    FGD - for general discussion
    SRO - sensitive replies only
    
    

    FGN- for garabge notes.
    
    REK 

REK, you just said that to get note 100. :*) liesl

    
    RE:.98
    
    Thanks I was wondering too.
    
    Joe

    I applaud the honesty and self-examination demonstrated in 47.99!
    

    I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but what the heck!
     
     I sometimes wonder if I'm the only one who doesn't CARE what your
    sexual orientation is.  I wandered around the streets of P-town this
    past summer and was not enraged or enthralled by the various couples
    wandering the streets.  I admit (being a heterosexual male) I watched
    the passing women with more interest than the passing men, but what the
    hell...
    
     I have friends (at work and in various theatre groups) who are open
    about being lesbian or gay (is that an appropriate use???) just like I
    have friends who are open about being hetero. I don't feel threatened
    or uneasy; I don't feel my 8-year-old son is "at risk" by being exposed
    to these people.
    
     I find open displays of affection (other than handholding or a quick
    kiss) to be equally distasteful regardless of the sex of the
    participants; on the other hand, I am (occasionally) an avid hugger and
    will hug friends of any sex/orientation if they feel comfortable being
    so hugged.
    
     I seem to be in a minority (gee, I wonder if that counts with
    Personnel!) in that I see a lot of people getting hot under the collar
    about sexual preference, and I don't see WHY it makes a difference. 
    [EXCEPTION:  I'm interested in sexual preferences of possible partners
    (it would be rude and prone to failure to try to "pick up" a lesbian
    lady)]
    
     Anyway, I just had to get this off my chest.  Thanks for reading this
    f
    
    
    						Nigel
    
    ps:  "I'm a bisexual -- every time I want sex, I have to buy it!!"

    Nigel,
    
    We think alike.  Except that I didn't stare at strangers on the
    streets of P-town.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Howzabout a hug sometime, big boy?

    I don't get "hot under the collar" but I do care about people's
    orientation.  I don't care a *lot*, and if I don't know, I don't worry
    about it, but I do like to know.  Why?  Well, the most obvious reason
    is that I want to know who is "available" to me. :-)  Hets can assume
    that most everyone they meet of the appropriate gender is at least
    potentially "available", and if they aren't, they will say so.  If I
    want to keep myself intact, I can't very well come on to random 
    attractive women I see...and I just don't have the heart for that
    much rejection.
    
    But it is also nice to know about people I am not interested in
    (like gay men) because I have found that there is a sort of bonding.
    I feel a little closer to someone who is gay (oddly, this was true
    for *years* before I came out) in the same way I feel some unity
    with other women, other RPI graduates, other New Mexicans or other
    bikers.  And like those things, I don't care much one way or another,
    but it is nice to know.
    
    (I haven't seen anyone in this discussion for whom sexual orientation
    is a big deal.)
    
    D!

    I was watching Donahue yesterday, (I know I know ) They had 4 lesbian
    couples who wanted to have children. I was called to the phone and
    missed most of it. One point that they made was that they weren't
    asking for acceptance, just recognition they exist. Not to much to ask
    for I think. Although, acceptance would be nicer. One step at a time I
    suppose, and that's a crying shame. Did anyone else see this program
    and can maybe put in a little more of what was discussed and audience
    reactions and such.
    
    Phil 

    
    My wife & I were talking to our vicar recently (simple counseling - we
    have been trying unsuccesfully to start a family). He was most
    supportive, but he came down firmly against any method that involved
    intervention (donor, surrogacy etc) by a third party.
    
    Afterwards I happened to mention that I'd seen a piece in the paper
    about some lesbian couples who wanted children, and his comment was
    "they are in the same boat you are - they can of course have children
    and it is natural and right to want to do so, but they cannot morally
    accept a donor or surrogate" - which of course leaves the question of
    how two individuals of the same gender can produce children...
    
    
    /. Ian .\

    > ...they cannot morally
    > accept a donor or surrogate" - which of course leaves the question of
    > how two individuals of the same gender can produce children...
     
    They don't share the same moral strictures as your vicar.
    
    Karen
                                                     

    re: .109 and .110
    
    Unfortunately, I feel that anonymous donor insemination and surrogate
    contracts, etc., etc., have little to do with moreal strictures.  These
    types of arrangements are loaded with issues, both emotional and legal,
    and have less to do with "in the best interest of the child" and much
    more to do with self-serving interests of the adults involved.
    
    How would any of you feel growing up in the media spotlight as Marybeth
    Whitehead's and (I forgot his first name) Stern's child?  Or more
    recently, the son of the Crispen couple.  I will be interested in
    seeing what these two kids are like about 13 years from now.  I'd lay
    bets that when they hit their teen years the manure is going to hit the
    fan.
    
    Can you tell that this issue is one of my hot buttons?
    

    re: My note 48.105, in which I expressed my feelings about "sexual
    orientation".  
    
    
     In my note, I explain that *I* am not concerned about the sexual
    preferences/orientations of my colleagues, friends, co-workers, fellow
    thespians, etc etc.
    
     I did not intend to diminish  or devalue the fears and experiences of
    anyone who "came out of the closet" or who is still "hiding".  In
    modern (American) society, there can be a tremendous amount of hatred,
    fear and doubt of _anyone_ who is "different"; yes, even in these days
    of "Valuing Differences" and "Equal Opportunity".  I admire the courage
    of anyone who "came out of the closet" and faced the possible hostility
    of the world; I sympathize with anyone who is afraid to "come out of
    the closet" because of the possible hostility of the world.  I
    apologise to anyone who read my note and felt that their fears were
    being trivialized; that was not my intention.
    
     I also agree with D!; the acceptance of various/multpile sexual
    preferences is higher in this notesfile than in the real world.
    
    					Late Night Nigel
    

    Justine's 633.19 made me wonder
    
    > I think that just about every romantic relationship of mine emerged
    > from a friendship, so I've never really had to face that awful task of
    > calling for a date -- I've had more trouble with the question: so are
    > we on a date now, or is this two friends at a movie, and am I the only
    > one feeling romantic?  (but I guess that's a different topic.)
    
    Having a romantic relationship evolve from a friendship is something
    I've never experienced.  Is this something more typical of Lesbian
    relationships?  As a heterosexual woman I find if I ask a guy out or
    he asks me out there is *always* an implicit assumption of romance.
    My experience is that in male-female relationships, sex always gets in
    the way of a good close friendship.  I actually think it would be
    better if the assumption was friendship which might then evolve into
    romance.
    
    Mary

    Mary,
    
    I been straight and not-so-straight, I have had female friends and male
    friends that turned into lovers, female friends and male friends who
    nver turned into lovers, female friends and male friends who were once
    lovers and are now simply friends, and female lovers and male lovers
    with whom there was an initial assumption of romance.
    
    In other words, all situations happen to all types of people, therefore
    I think it would be hard to generalize.
    
    (If you don't have any "just-friends" of the appropriate sex, then you
    guarantee that none of your lovers will have started out as
    "just-friends.")
    
    D!

       Sorry, I entered the following in the "wrong" place.  I was 
    unaware of how to distinguish women-participation-topics from
    men-too-topics until one of the moderators informed me late last
    night ("WOMEN" in the header versus "FGD"-or-something...)
       Anyway, I'd still appreciate a response...
================================================================================
Note 47.110  Women: Lesbian, Bi, and Heterosexual: Same or Different  110 of 112
MISERY::WARD_FR "Going HOME---as an Adventurer!"      9 lines   8-APR-1991 15:29
                             -< And what's a "2?" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .109 (liesl?  ::KOLBE)
    
          (Thanks for the "honorable mention."  ;-) )
    
          Could you explain the term "sexual preditor?"
    
    
    Frederick
    

I used "sexual predator" to indicate that men have traditionally been the ones
to choose and chase. As for the Kinsey scale, anybody remember which topic
listed the scale? It's a graduated scale between absolutely heterosexual and
absolutely homosexual. liesl

    kinsey starts at "0"
    
    this is how i've always pictured it:
    
    
    
            0        1        2          3         4         5        6
    
            ^                                                         ^
    heterosexual <------- varying degree's of bisexuality -------->homosexual
    
 
    in a non-heterocentric culture, i believe that the population would
    fall across this like a natural bell curve.  due to our culture, i
    think there is an unnatural skew towards the "0".
    
    ~r

    >in a non-heterocentric culture, i believe that the population would
    >fall across this like a natural bell curve.  due to our culture, i
    >think there is an unnatural skew towards the "0".
    
    I would have to disagree with that.  While I believe there is nothing
    "abnormal" about homosexuality, I believe that the skew toward
    heterosexuality is *natural*, in the same way as the skew toward
    right-handedness is natural.
    
    Mary

    re: .116 (liesl  [is that pronounced lies-al?])
    
          Thanks.  I find the term somewhat offensive, however.
    There is an implied ruthlessness.  One could argue that the
    "defensive posture/posturing" of a woman could also be the
    way of choosing to deal with their own sexual expectations.
    Therefore, in a roundabout way, the fulfillment of the *role*
    (which is "defensive" in the case of women, in this case,
    versus "offensive" in the case of the man) is similarly the
    means of *aggression* used.  IN other words, a man can
    manipulate by strength, while a woman can manipulate by weakness.
    Using this as a basis, EITHER sex could then be seen as a 
    predator.  So, to argue tradition, I would think that the definition
    needs further clarification.  If instead you wish to state that
    man has generally been the physically agressive person in physical
    sexual interactions, while woman has generally been the passive
    one, then I would agree.
         Thanks again for your reply.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    is the skew toward right-handedness natural? 
    
    ~robin-who-is-missing-out-on-alot-of-natural-skewing (-;
    
    ~r

me too.  If it wasn't natural for the majority of the species to be heterosexual
then we wouldn't be here arguing about it.  Or else, there'd be a different way
of reproducing.

As a parent, I know my children will have lots of hard issues and choices to
face in life.  I have to say honestly that I hope they turn out to be hetero-
sexual, because I would rather they had the fewest set of prejudices working
against them possible.  I don't believe this is homophobia, but rather the
peculiarities of motherhood, at work.  That same peculiarity that makes me love
them so unconditionally.

(Rathole: but then, I am troubled both by the thought of raising my children as
Jews, and by not doing so.  One side follows my beliefs <more or less>, one side
says "why put them in harm's way on purpose?".  See the relationship?)

btw, was it a Kinsey scale?  I don't remember it as such; I thought it was in
this string or the fwo version, and was from a different (set of) researcher(s)?
Anyhow I turn out to be a 1 or 2, "strong het but could possibly".

Sara

    re: .120
    
    ~r, surely you know that 10% of the population is left-handed.
    
    i think the actual numbers may be higher given our educational system's
    preference for righties and they train lefties to be righties.  or is
    this changing too, allowing lefties to be left.
    
    sue

 Interesting.   Has anyone yet produced statistics on "handedness" vs "sexual
orientation/preference"?  IE, are a greater proportion of lesbians left-handed 
than an equivalent "control" group of heterosexual females?

      Gee, can't you tell it's Friday afternoon?

				Nigel

    uh, Nigel, i THINK that 10% of lesbians are lefthanded
    
    oh, i'm getting confused now, is it really Friday?  :)
    
    sue
    
    p.s.  what's a "controlled group of heterosexual females"?  :)
    

   p.s.  what's a "controlled group of heterosexual females"?  :)
    

I think they're called wives. ;*) liesl

    There are disproportionate percentages of left handed individuals in
    several groups in our society.  Two such groups which come to mind
    are convicted criminals and mathematicians.
    
    You may infer whatever you wish from that data.  I'm outa here.
    
    ed

    oh, my!
    
    I'm a Kinsey 2
    I was taught to write right-handed [changing hands mid-page apparently
       freaked teachers out] but do _most_ other things just about as well
       with either hand [where the tool design doesn't impart a bias]
    
    Is this ...?...naahh...
    
      Annie

    Actually I think I remember hearing that there was a positive
    correlation between homosexuality and left-handedness.
    
    But remember the cardinal rule of scientific studies: causal
    relationships cannot be established from correlational data!
    
    The Kinsey (aka "K") scale:
    
    (Note: the K scale is technically behaviorally based - that is, your
    position on it is determined by what you have *done*, not what you want
    to do, what your fantasies are, how you identify, how you feel, etc. 
    It has been widely critisized for this.  In general parlance, however,
    when someone says I am a K6 [or whatever] they mean how they *feel*,
    not what they have done.)
    
    scale                                              	males	females
    point          description         			(%)	(%)
    
    0		exclusively heterosexual behavior	52-92	61-90
    1		incidental homosexual behavior		18-42	11-20
    2		more than incidental " "		13-38	6-14
    3		equal amount of homosexual and hetero-	9-32	4-11
    		sexual behavior
    4		more than incidental heterosexual beh.	7-26	3-8
    5		incidental heterosexual behavior	5-22	2-6
    6		exclusively homosexual behavior		6-16	1-3
    
    Comments (my own):
    
    - the data is from Kinsey's studies, mostly, which are from the 30's
    and 40's
    
    - I imagine more people identify as K5 and K6 than are on this scale,
    because lots of gay people try to be straight early on in their lives,
    thus have more than incidental heterosexual behavior, despite the fact
    that they are totally or almost totally attracted only to the same sex.
    
    - I think (my opinion only) that the results for women are more skewed
    toward heterosexuality than for men because our society does not
    encourage women to express their sexuality; therefore a lot of women
    end up being "heterosexual" just because it is the default and expected
    rather than because that is what they are really inclined towards. 
    Women are told they aren't *supposed* to enjoy sex so when they aren't
    sexually attracted to their partners, it doesn't cause them to
    question.
    
    - I think that if there were no homophobia in our society, the
    distribution over the Kinsey scale *would* be an unskewed bell curve. 
    That is, I think most people are bisexual to some degree, but those who
    are as attracted or more attracted to members of the opposite sex never
    explore/realize/understand their attraction to members of the same sex,
    since they don't "need" to and there is lots of pressure not to.
    
    D!

    
    ...bi and ambidextrous...;-)
    
    
    					XXOOXX,
    					/R
    

    _both_-handed -- I'm jealous.
    
    Thanks for the kinsey scale, but having seen it I'm even more sure it
    is not the one I (at least think that I) remember.  Help?
    
    Sara

    D!,Robin,
    
    What makes you believe that the population would lean toward a bell
    curve instead of a heterosexual skew? 
    
    Kate

    In trying to think about varieties that might be analogous besides
    handedness, I wonder:  what about larks vs. owls (morning people vs.
    late night people)?  Is this tendency innate or learned?  If innate,
    then it's another variation of us humans along with handedness and
    sexual orientation.
    
    Nancy

>    What makes you believe that the population would lean toward a bell
>    curve instead of a heterosexual skew? 

A few things, none of which "prove" anything.

1) gut level reaction

2) Occam's razor (bell curves are "simple")

3) My own (albeit anecdotal) observations about other people. I have found that
   most of the people I've discussed this with who have really managed to
   overcome all or most of society's homophobia, and thrown off the societal
   pressures that force the bell-curve to be skewed towards heterosexuality
   tell me that they are to some extent bisexual (ie: K > 0).  In fact, while
   my observations are hardly extension enough to be statistically significant
   (and I haven't done an analysis) it seems that it does tend toward a 
   natural bell curve - that is, such people are likely to be at or near K3.

Obviously there are a lot of problems with (3) above.  Firstly, my sample is
random. However it is not, as you would imagine, primarly composed of people
who identify as homosexual or bisexual - most of the people I have talked with
were before I came out.  It could very well be true that people with strong
bisexual/homosexual leanings are more likely to get to the point where I would
consider them as having freed themselves from societal heterosexism/homophobia
and therefore be a preselected sample.

Basically, I don't have any scientific evidence to support my beliefs, just
anecdotal.  That's because scientific statements about "what if" are impossible.
"What if" our society weren't heterosexist?  Well, that is a pretty meaningless
question, beacuse our society *is* heterosexist and if it weren't it would be
an entirely different society with an entirely different structure - it
wouldn't *be* "our society".

D!
 

I would tend to think that in a truly non-heterosexist society, the population
would tend towards a bell-curve, but not one centered on K3.   If our
society of today weren't heterosexist, I can believe that the
population might well fall
into a bell curve centered near K3.

Why?  Because heterosexuals are more likely to reproduce, and I think there's
at least a decent possibility that sexual orientation is genetic.  In a society
which pressures people towards the K0 end of the scale, the likelihood is
greater that more people towards the K6 end of the scale will have children.
Please don't anyone interpret this as saying that gays and lesbians
can't choose to have children; what I'm really saying is they're less
likely to have unplanned children, and all other things being equal,
that will skew the curve.

    Sharon

>Why?  Because heterosexuals are more likely to reproduce, and I think there's
>at least a decent possibility that sexual orientation is genetic.  In a society
>which pressures people towards the K0 end of the scale, the likelihood is
>greater that more people towards the K6 end of the scale will have children.

You're right....you know, I've thought about this before.  The more open our
society becomes towards LesBiGays, the they come out (because they have less
baggage to overcome in admitting it) and the less likely they are to pretend
(to themselves and others) that they are straight.  This means that fewer
LesBiGays would get married, and thus fewer would have kids.  (Yes, some gays
adopt or AI whatever - but I suspect that most LesBiGays who have children did
so while they thought they were straight.)  Which means if there *is* a genetic
link - the more accepting our society, the fewer gay children.

On the other hand, I disagree with this:

>I would tend to think that in a truly non-heterosexist society, the population
>would tend towards a bell-curve, but not one centered on K3.

Or at least your logic supporting it, because it seems to me that a truly
non-heterosexist society would also be one in which anyone who wanted children
would have them, and anyone who didn't wouldn't, and that just as many 
LesBiGays want children as straights.  I think heterosexism and "regular"
sexism are inherently related - without one you don't have the other.  A
non heterosexist society would be nonmisogynistic, and would also have a totally
different outlook on having children...who can say?

For instance, in our society, it is expected that only two people joined
in a (at least semi) monogamous life-long relationship will have children.
Would that be true in a nonsexist, nonheterosexist society?  If the whole
idea that *two* people are required to raise a child were destroyed, then
all that would be required (at least for a woman) to have a child is *one*
act of sex with a man (discounting AI.)  Which means everyone but the 
extremely rare total K6 could handle that....

etc.  You see what I mean about problems making predictions about societies
that have nothing in common with ours?

D!

    The Kinsey scale is described in Note 702.117
    
    					andrew

>    The Kinsey scale is described in Note 702.117

And 48.129

D!

        RE .138
        
>> (discounting AI.)
        
        I used to work for Digital's AI Technology Group.
        
        Dan

	There was a study a few years ago (Can't remember where I read it)
that 75% of the people are right handed and 25% are left.  They found that
of the 25% that are left handed, 10% wrote with a hooked arm while 15%
wrote with the hand under the pen.  Another finding was that a large
number of people that stutter are left or both.  A very large percentage of
the left hand stutters wrote with a left hand hook.  They equated this to the
fact that when the brain is allocating areas of the brain shortly after birth,
that some of the speech areas in the brain are used for left handed use.  
The comment was that in some cases too much of the speech center is allocated
for hand coordination and causes a problem in the speech center in left handed
people.  They concluded that people that were forced to change from left to
right have a higher probability for stuttering.  Seems to be a confusion or
allocation problem.

They studied babies at birth and found that girl babies are in general using the
artistic (left) side of the brain more while boys are using the logical (right)
side more. They found that a very high number of stutters are male and left 
handed.  The numbers were like 20% and 5% of the group were male and female.
They found
through thermal studies that a high number of the right hand stutters had a
higher activity on the right side of the brain.  Remember that the brain is
reversed from the action so that right handed people use the left side for
most of the activity and vis-versa.  People that have strokes on the right
have physical problems on the left side.

They found that many stutters do not stutter when singing.  They found that
singing and speech are for the most part on opposite sides.  Some people
have been helped by teaching a person to sing the words in a mono-tone.
Mel Tillotson the Country and Western singer has a problem and was working
with this group.  

I will try to find the source of this article and enter it in full.  What
this has to do with homo/bi sextuality, I have no idea.

    	A point which I don't agree with is that the nature would wish
    for everyone, or even most, of the population to propagate the species. 
    Forgetting for the moment that being gay doesn't mean you can't have
    children, why would nature want everybody to have children? 
    Overpopulation is, in my mind, probably the leading cause of world
    problems today and the source of many others.  So if 50% of the world
    population wouldn't have children, we'd be doing much better.  So I
    don't think you can argue that it's more "natural" to be straight so
    that you can (over)propagate the species.

    Rachael

re .144

Ah, but nature hasn't kept up with technology.  The technology that we have in
the world today promotes long lives and hence over population.  Back when there
were all sorts of diseases that could kill you before puberty it was important
to have as many people as possible breeding.  So, yes, I do believe that nature
would put a greater percentage of the people in the heterosexual category than
it would in the homosexual category.

Rich

re: .144 (Rachael)

	Except that "modern" life has badly skewed "natural selection" - humans
in the more developed countries now live an average of 20 years or so longer
than they did just 200 years ago. (And 200 years is peanuts in the scheme of
things...)  Reproduction *is* required to maintain the population.

	Nature has ways (starvation when the population outstrips the food
supply) of maintaining the balance.  Humans have badly upset it - not only
for ourselves, but for most other species on the planet.

						--D

    rep -.1 -.2

    In a way I agree with the last two replies, in that homosexuality is
    certainly not a recent thing nature has come up with to combat
    overpopulation.  But we've been around, closeted to the extreme, for as
    long as straight people have.

    There's no way of knowing that nature intended for everyone to
    reproduce.  Why should we assume that all of us need to reproduce to
    propagate the species, even if we were in a more primitive state with
    less overpopulation?  Bees don't all reproduce, some of them are just
    workers.  

    Also, women can always have babies, even if they're lesbians.  So it's
    just the gay males that can't have some of their own.  (of course they
    can father some and then adopt, but that's a lot more complicated then
    the one-time (a few times...) effort of getting pregnant.)   I'm not
    sure if my understanding is correct here, but isn't it true in wild
    animals like deer or elk that only the big ones that win the fights get
    to mate with the females?  If so, even in animal nature it's not
    necessary for all the men to reproduce.  Of course, that leads to
    gay==weaker for men, which I certainly don't think is true.  I just
    wish to point out it's not necessary for all men to have babies in
    order to maintain a population.

    I'm not saying that I'm right and others are wrong.  I really don't
    have enough background on this, and I'm not sure anyone really does,
    since we aren't nature, we can only study her.  I just wanted to point
    out that gay-is-unnatural-due-to-a-need-to-propagate is not necessarily
    valid.

    Rachael

Nature has all kinds of strategies that have the effect of ensuring the
continuation of species.

(I said that carefully; 'nature' has no will, as humans understand the term.
 There is what works, and that gets repeated; and what doesn't work, and that
 dies out, or exists as adjunct.)

The communal society of bees is an example of how the species continues without 
reproduction by every individual -- though we could argue that one; the workers
are all identical siblings who have at least half the same genes as the next
generation's fertile queen, so are they all her mother???

In antelope groups, the males fight to hold good grazing territories.  They get
to mate with the females who are in their territory at the right time.

In horse herds, the male fights to dominate and keep a band of mares, and gets
exclusive access to them for mating.  It may be that a lead mare determines the
band's path and home ground.  The other males group in "bachelor bands".

In certain bird species, apparantly, unrelated (genetically) birds help a
"formally" mated breeding pair to feed and fledge the young.  In some cases, the
female may have mated with some other or more than one male besides the one with
which she is paired for nesting purposes.

In wolf packs, only the alpha (most dominant) male and female produce offspring.
The rest of the pack is there to help bring the young to adulthood, and, one
can say, to keep the alpha pair in good breeding condition.

In humans, for most of the time we've been on the planet, we've been in family
based hunting-gathering groups, whose survival strategy depended on cooperation.
The strategy may have never, I think, _required_ that every member (or most) be
a biological parent.  The support of the group for individuals, and of
individuals by the group, ensured the survival of the group as a whole.
(There's probably a reason why humans and dogs get along so well!)  On the other
hand, those who did reproduce tended to do so every 2-3 years, limited by the
contraceptive effect of nursing, and the risk of birth and of childbearing.  As
in all species, humans needed to make lots of babies since so many did not
survive infancy.

So there seems to be no biological pressure to eradicate homosexual orientation,
since there does not seem to be any _intrinsic_ difficulty accomodating it
within a group.  If homosexuality was predominant, or even got halvsies, I can
see that it could be maladaptive for group survival, since human reproduction 
rates are not real high.  (We're talking for most of human history and
pre-history here, not for the last, say, 300 years, or even thousand years.)
On the other hand, it might be a positive adaptation to keep a portion of the
population as productive but non-reproducing members of the group.

    Gays are not always closeted by culture.  Amerindians, some African
    tribes, and many Eastern cultures allowed openly gay behavior
    and had cultural values to enable folks to have the sexuality they
    were born with. 
    
    Many gay folks can and do choose to be parents now, I can think
    of no reason why gays would not have chosen parenthood in past 
    times.  
    
    Also, if we look at the Kscale, it is a continuum.  There is no reason
    I can think of why a person's sexuality woldn't float around a bit over
    a lifetime, especially if there were no societal pressures to be one or
    the other.  Think of it, your taste in partners changes over a lifetime
    (gawd! can you imagine having the same tastes now as you did in high
    school?! yick). So a more fluid orientation seems possible, even
    likely in a society that made room for sex drive and a variety of
    orientations.
    
    It seems to me that if society isn't locked into rigid roles of
    mainstream heterosexuals and a sub-society of (largely-closeted)
    homosexuals, but instead we all lived together openly in a tollerant
    society, then we all would be happier and saner, folks who wanted
    to have kids would, and folks who didn't, didn't.  
    
    <change gears, slightly>
    
    I feel so happy walking down the street with my sweetie, hand in
    hand, stealing the occasional little kiss at a corner, that it
    enrages me that that small pleasure is denied to gay folks through
    terrorization, shame, and fear.  As far as I can tell, it is the
    heterosexual world that is sick -- sick with the disease of violence.
    
    I guess I got up on my soapbox there a bit and got off the track
    of wondering about the historical and genetic role of homosexuality
    in reproduction. 
    
    <back to our regularly scheduled discussion> 

Remember that a true bell curve over the K-scale does not mean that half
of the population is homosexual.  If you define homosexual as a K5 or a k6,
a true bell curve would mean that (urg, I've totally forgotten the bell
curve constants) what, 23% of people are homosexual.  In terms of breeding,
only K6 doesn't have *any* attraction to MOTOS, and they would only constitute
uh, er, 3% (someone help me with the numbers here) of the population?  Most
people (over 50%) would be between K2 and K4, and there is nothing to stop
those people from producing offspring.

D!

	The question was "why do you believe the curve would be skewed towards
heterosexuality when overpopulation is such a problem."  Rich & I were merely
pointing out that overpopulation is recent in the scale of evolution.

	Not all members of the population needed to (or even could) reproduce,
but survival did depend on continued procreation, both because of high mortality
and the need for younger, stronger bodies to replenish the work force.  That's
why *I* believe there's a skew towards the het side.


						--D

    
    But you don't need people to be *exclusively* heterosexual to propagate
    the species (even without AI, etc.).  If sexual orientation fell along
    a bell-shaped curve, most people would be in the middle (attracted to
    both sexes).  Folks might vary in terms of their preference or level of
    attraction to the same or opposite sex, as in the analogy to handedness.
    But even though more people are right handed (and a larger number,
    still, *express* right-handedness because of assumptions -parents move
    the spoon to the baby's *right* hand, for example- and social pressure),
    that doesn't mean that those of us who are right handed *never* use our
    left hands for anything.
    
    Imagine a world where there wasn't so much pressure to reproduce so
    that only those who truly wanted children would have them -- I'm sure
    there would be far less child abuse.  Imagine a world where folks felt
    free to love whomever they really love -- I suspect there'd be less 
    suicide, less depression, fewer stress-related illnesses, and probably 
    less violence.  In my opinion.
    
    
    Justine

re: .153 (Justine)

	Agreed.  I don't think the curve would be be a negative slope line
from 0 to 6, but I do think the majority would fall in the 1 - 3 range rather
than the 2 - 4 range. (No evidence - gut feel)

	I'm with you on the last paragraph Justine.  I feel no great urge to
reproduce, and I know lots of others who feel the same way.

						--Doug

    That is, if I've spelled it correctly.
    
    						Ann B.

 The Poisson distribution is a mathematical model which does not necessarily
accurately reflect all natural events or characteristics. Perhaps I'm a bit
skeptical that sexuality is one of the things properly described by a 
Poisson distribution...

|    Many gay folks can and do choose to be parents now, I can think
|    of no reason why gays would not have chosen parenthood in past 
|    times.  
    
    I know I'm the one that said this to begin with, but I just wanted to
    point out that while it's relatively easy for a woman to get pregnant
    if she wants, we have a real struggle with legal rights.
    
    It varies from state to state, but it can be very difficult or
    impossible to adopt or  become a foster parent if you're gay.  Further,
    if one partner does manage to become a legal parent, it is often
    difficult/impossible for the other one to become the other legal
    parent.  Might seem trivial until you consider benefits authorization
    and legal rights for medical and other emergencies.  Or even who can
    pick the child up from school, in a real uptight area.
    
    Rachael (who really wishes she could get medical coverage for her
    wife.)

re 154, 155

Well, as they say "One man's meat is another man's Poisson"

				(-:

By the way D! unless the distribution/scale was normalized, the percentage of
people at K5 and K6 would depend entirely on the variance of the population...

I will refrain from the obvious joke.

	-- Charles

    >I feel no great urge to reproduce, and I know lots of others who feel
    >the same way.
    
    I think I know what you mean by this statement, i.e., you don't want
    children.  But, effective birth control is yet another recent attempt
    my humankind to change the course of nature.  The truth is, if you feel
    the urge to have intercourse with a MOTOS, then you feel the urge to
    reproduce.  Its just that we figured out a way to fool mother nature.
    
    Mary

    Re.: .156
    
    The Poisson distribution is a mathematical model which does reflect
    natural discrete events, it is even more so fitting if the number
    of possible events is 'small'. Discrete events is something like
    how many people are in [room ! arena ! group] or something like that,
    and is defined for positive integers. It gives 'natural sense'
    answers like what is the probability of encountering n people
    sitting in a theatre (minimum 1, maximum = number of seats) given
    some scenario. It has the concept of 'skew' built-in also.
    Gauss is suited for analog values (i.e. not countable, but measurable
    events and remember, is mathematically correct only in the -00 .. +00
    interval.
    For large number of events the Poisson distribution and suitable
    values of � very closely approximates the Gaussian distribution.
    For the above mentioned problem, how many people 'fit' into
    one of the Kinsey defined group the Poisson distribution would
    deliver a closer fit/answer than Gauss.
           

    G'day,
    
    I seem to recall from my dim dark days of college that Poisson is the
    only distribution for which any probability can be determined from the
    mean.
    
    It was first used to calculate the number of soldiers kicked to death
    in the Prussion Cavalry.
    It is used in the formulae used to predict telephone call traffic.
    
    So if the mean frequency of an event is L then the P0 is the first term
    of the expansion of
        
    
    
                  1/L* e**-Lt
    
    P1 is the second...... where P0 is the probability of no events, P1 is
    the probability of one occuring....
    
    
    
    So if the average chance of an someone feeling insulted in a notes
    conference per day is 1/5 then poisson will find the chances that
    0,1,2,3,4... people will feel offended in a day..
    
    derek

    
    
    	Getting away from the technical side of this interesting discussion
    ...  :-)
    
    
    As a lesbian who came out in the days when most lesbians didn't have 
    children by choice, I always considered myself a form of "natural
    birth control".  :-)   I never had *any* interest in having children,
    and was quite grateful to my sister for having three children--one 
    for her, one for her husband  and one for *me*!  (Thanks, sis!!!)
    
    
    
    As for the discussion of the Kscale, I agree with some of the earlier 
    noters--if left alone, the majority of the human population would
    be bisexual.  There is, however, too much pressure from society to
    conform, leaving most people confused and caught up in situations
    that they'd rather not be in.  With the amount of society's pressure
    it's a wonder that anyone *does* deviate from what is considered 
    "norm".   I already had this argument with my socialogy instructor
    last semester, I don't want to reiterate it here.
    
    
    Debbi