Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    Maggie,
    
    funny, i hadn't noticed till you mentioned it...
    maybe since many of those involved in the 'discussions' are
    in position of power/authority/money there is more of a risk,
    therefore they are arguing more loudly.
    
    Maybe women are less likely to be 'suspected' thus less likely
    to participate in the outing.  
    
    Maybe women have less to lose with the outing, so don't get all
    upset over it.
    
    Maybe women are more laid back, and just don't get riled over
    such truth-telling (or is it tattling???)
    
    who knows.  In one of the articles about Barbara Bush's Wellesley
    thing, she mentioned she recently had a friend die from AIDS, and
    she said: "no, i won't tell you his name, I don't agree with all
    this outing business!"
    good for her!
    
    deb
    

    Maybe (we could hope) women just aren't as bent out of shape over the
    question of who others choose to express their sexual desires with.
    
    I've noticed over the years that men as a whole seem to be much more
    threatened by the gay or lesbian life style than women as a whole seem
    to be.  I've often wondered -- and asked -- why this is so.  I sure
    don't know.
    
    Karen

A couple thoughts - 

One, all the big publicity Outings have been politicians, celebrities, etc.
Women are far, far less often in those sorts of positions of power where 
Outing makes the news...

Also, for some reason, in my experience, men and women alike are a lot less
threatened by female homosexual than male homosexuality. I don't know why, but
a result is less homophobia surrounding Lesbianism than male homosexuality,
and Outing seems to relate to homophobia.

Third, maybe it isn't as bad for a woman, perhaps because of the paragraph
above?  I have heard about thus and such a famous woman was gay, but you never
hear that their gayness caused huge problems in their life; whereas all the
time you read about this or that famous historical man turned out to be gay
and it caused him a lot of problems.

Finally, women in this society aren't supposed to be sexual.  We don't
*notice* women's sexuality, we are not concerned with it, we don't acknowledge
it.  Outing is an obsession with someone's sexuality - since women don't
*have* a sexuality (in the eyes of society) why would they be Outed?

D!

    Perhaps a lot of it has to do with (what I see) as part of the male
    version of female sexuality.  Some men (IMO) think women's sexuality exists
    to please men.  Many straight men are turned on by lesbianism, or
    at least lesbian acts.  As if two women together are merely practicing
    until a man comes along. (no pun intended)
    
    So perhaps outing of a woman doesn't bother men so much and therefore
    doesn't bother the power structure so much.  And if it doesn't upset
    the power balance, it can't much hurt the victim.
    
    It's as if the worst a woman can be is a "woman who simply needs a real
    man."  Even our sex lives aren't taken seriously unless its in the
    context of being a part of the sex life of a man.  Bah.
    
    I've never understood homophobia.  I know it exists.  I know it's
    repugnant.  But can find no reasonable reason for it.  
    
    I also do NOT belive in outing.  A person's private life is private
    unless they freely choose to make it public.
    
       Margaret

    Re: 2-3-4 Bingo!!! Straight males are turned on by females making love
    where as if it was 2 males and 1 female that is not.... a turn on..
    Point I wish to make... How come when 2 females meet they kiss cheeks
    but THE MALES SHAKE HANDS... Males Kissing!!! It is not accepted!!!
    But females... OK... Never mind me I tend to get pissed off at this..

    GIRLS play with dolls.... boys play with action figures... 

    My son will play with what ever he likes.. if it is a doll then so be
    it! I refuse to let society tell my son what he will play with and what
    he will not.. I personally will not allow Mutant ninja turtle whatever
    in my house  because off all the violence they portray... Oops a
    little off the subject...

    My point is that WE CAN CHANGE the future thing of out young  ITS UP TO
    us, not the teachers in out schools, not the little league coaches..
    US The parents who are guiding the future of out world...

    REK

    Sheet, my longest reply in here....

    REK
    
    my sons played with dolls as little boys, and then moved on
    to action figures as did their sisters...
    
    my oldest son is very sensitive on womens rights issues
    
    so I guess that being a thoughtful sensitive parent does work
    
    aside
    
    
    about a year ago, our eldest son Michael - age 19+ said to me
    "did you know that 'free to be you and me' is a feminist record
    for kids?" my reply was.. "why do you think I bought it?"
    I still remember him as a 4 or 5 year old happily singing 
    "it's all right to cry" along with Rosie Greer, the foot ball
    player.
    
    
    It seems I've managed to raise up activist, sensitive sons, but
    my daugthers seem to have bought into the old rules.
    
    sigh
    
    bj

    Bonnie, you are the exceptino to the rule.. Then again I wish you,could
    talk to my kids...

    Rick
    
    bring them over
    
    BJ

    I have a 2 year old and a 10 year old... are your sure your ready?
    
    
    Rick

    D! hit it on the head. There is less of a societal aversion to
    female homesexuality than to male homesexuality. I think a large
    part of it is the myth that women are by nature more loving than
    men, and the expression of that love is not so odd.
    
    --- jerry

    I think I'm missing the connection.  If this is an important issue, why
    are men the only ones putting heat into the discussion?  Because it
    affects mostly men?  But the men it affects are mostly *gay* men, where
    does the heat from the straight men come from?  Fear?  Identification? 
    Natural contentiousness? ;')
    
    							=maggie

Maggie,

When you say "putting heat into the discussion" do you mean only men are 
replying to this note, or only men are doing the outing?

Anyway, I was talking about this with some co-workers of mine yesterday at
lunch.  Two male coworkers agreed that the big reason it was men being 
outted and men doing the outting was that men feel most threatened,
personally, by male homosexuality, and thus male homophobia against male
gays is the greatest/strongest homopohobia.  Again, I don't know why, but
in my experience women don't feel at all threatened by male homosexuality,
and only slightly threatened by female homosexuality. And men, as has been 
pointed out before, are postively excited by the idea of female homosexuality.
In short, the whole *Issue* of homosexuality (homophobia, outting, legal
stuff, etc) seems to be mostly men.

I think a good example of this is two different stories I have gotten 
about people "coming out".  A group of male friends, most of whom at one
time or another had a male friend come out to them, said they were taken
aback, shocked, uncomfortable, and took a long time to learn to deal with
it. On the other hand, when a Lesbian friend of mine came out to her female
friends (straight) she said that the most common response was *intrigue* -
"Oh really, wow, cool...so, what's it like?"

D!

    For more on the "acceptability" of lesbianity vs. that of
    homosexuality, please see:
    
    human_relations
    942 - experimentation and social mores
    
    -Jody
    

	I think that more men are involved because, in general, sexual
	matters are more of a big deal to men then women. Women do not
	appear to be as obsesed with sex the way so many men are. I also
	tend to think that women view the issues of privacy vs deception
	differently then men. Women tend to view ones sexuality as a matter
	of privacy almost entirely. Many men on the other hand, while still
	valuing privacy, view hiding ones sexual orentation as deception.
	A grey, rather then black/white, distenction I agree but one which
	exists for many men no the less.

	One of the reasons that men sometimes have trouble dealing with
	gay men coming out to them is that they feel that they have somehow
	been decieved. That takes some getting used to. The gay men who have
	come out to me have never been a problem for me, in other words it
	had no effect on my feelings/dealings with them, but I didn't grow
	up with any of them either. I never when through all that adolesent
	discovering girls/sex stuff with them. I am not at all sure how I
	would feel if someone I did go though all that with came out. Much
	as I'd like to think it wouldn't change anything I will not really
	know unless/until it happens. 

			Alfred

   For more on the "acceptability" of lesbianity vs. that of
    homosexuality, please see:

	QUARK::MENNOTES
	455 -  Female Homosexuality and Men 

				Alfred
 

.14>	One of the reasons that men sometimes have trouble dealing with
.14>	gay men coming out to them is that they feel that they have somehow
.14>	been decieved. That takes some getting used to.

Alfred,

Do you think this is as much of a problem for women when lesbian friends come
out to them, or do you think the feelings of deception are stronger
for men? If you think the feelings of deception are more of an issue for
men, could you elaborate please?

Kathy

    I don't pretend to know how women feel about gay women coming out
    to them but I believe that the feelings of deception are stronger
    for men. "Deception" in some ways is something that women are
    taught is acceptable for women. After all isn't that what make-up,
    padded bras, coloring ones hair really are? Not important or
    harmful (usually) but a slight deception none the less. Men are
    raised to believe that even small deceptions are bad. At least
    it's bad to deceive your friends. Obviously none of this is absolute
    and contradictions abound, I could find some myself.

    As I say I don't really know how it is for women but if I were to
    find out now that a male friend lied to me years ago I'd be upset.
    I don't think I would be as upset finding out that a women lied
    to me. I am not surprised if a women lies to protect someone's
    feelings. I am surprised if a man does. It appears that women will
    hide things from someone to keep them for being hurt but men will
    usually get it out right away rather then deal with it all built up 
    later on. Not all men or all women are this way but it appears to
    be a fairly common difference.

    Since men expect to to hear things from their friends first and
    early, as it were. To hear of someone's gayness late or second hand
    often comes as a shock. In someways it is the how and when that are
    as hard, or harder, on the relationship then the what. There is a
    reaction to ask oneself "why didn't I know this before? Didn't they
    trust me? What else have they kept from me? Can I trust him?" Not
    totally logical reactions perhaps but real none the less.

    			Alfred

I believe these feelings of deception strate people are referring to are
directly related to the fact that most heterosexuals assume everyone is
heterosexual, and to learn otherwise comes as a shocker.

Turning it around, would I feel deceived if a gay friend of mine suddenly 
revealed she/he was strate?  One lesbian friend recently told me that she
sometimes sleeps with men -- I was surprised, but not "deceived".  What I
don't understand is why people think everyone should reveal their sexual
orientation or take the risk of alienating a strate friend.  What does a
friend's sexuality, if you're platonic friends, have to do with anything?
Does this belong in another topic?

Carla

    This topic seems to have gone from a gender-split on reactions to the
    outing controversy to discussion of how it feels when someone comes out
    to you.   But maybe how it feels is a large part of the high feelings
    about outing that are generally expressed by men. (Whereas women seem
    calmer about coming out and outing.)

    Part of it might be that gay men have more to lose.  Not only does an
    outed gay man lose the ability to function as a strate man, he loses
    the power associated with being a strate man.  He stands to lose job,
    face, and the trust of his peers. As an earlier note said, (to
    paraphrase) a man is expected to be honest and upfront with his
    friends, no deception.  I think that even if someone never explicitly
    states sexual preference, that people tend to make the assumption
    of strateness.

    It's weird because out or not, the gay person is still the same person.
    The difference is that other's people's perceptions have changed.  

    A lot of the strong feelings can come from more extreme homophobia
    against gay males than against lesbians. I think that male
    homophobia against gay men is an affect of sexism.  Men want to 
    keep the male power elite pure and safe.  The problem with gay men
    in the male power circles is two fold: 1) gay men are seen as being 
    like women and therefore don't belong in the elite making it impure
    for other men. And 2) gay men might actually be more macho than strate
    men as a gay man has sex with another man.  Talk about unsafe! whoowe.

    IMO, women need to fight homophobia as well as sexism.  They are
    related in cause and effect.  The cause is maintaining dominance
    and the effect is oppression.

    I suspect I may get flamed for some of these opinions.  I'd appreciate
    it if, before turning flame on, you realize: I am not condemning all
    men but _some_ men (and some women) who buy into power through sexism,
    homophobia, and other exclusionary beliefs.  

    Margaret    (EGYPT::RUSSELL)

    Wow, Margaret, that was interesting.  So, in other words, you're
    saying that, on the average, society rates women more acceptable
    as sexual partners than men.

< The vast majority of gay men act in a way
< that is exactly opposite of macho, so I really think this theory is invalid.
    
    On what do you base this statement??

>don't understand is why people think everyone should reveal their sexual
>orientation or take the risk of alienating a [straight] friend.  What does a
>friend's sexuality, if you're platonic friends, have to do with anything?

	I think that not hidding ones orientation is more an issue then
	revealing it. If a gay male pretends interest in women he's being
	"dishonest". Is it a big deal? I don't know. It probably depends
	on the relationship. But isn't ones sexuality a big part of who
	they really are? Can one have a lasting trusting relationship with
	someone who hides a major part of who they, as a person, really
	are?

				Alfred

    <    <<< Note 126.23 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "The quest for Lord Stanley's Cup" >>>
<
< Actually, I missed a qualifier. Should read "openly gay men" Sorry.

< And I base this on my observations of people that I know to have been
< exlusively or predominately homosexuals. If you disagree, please explain your
< position.
    
    I have almost no experience with *openly* gay men and so am not
    qualified to make a statement either way.  I doubt that you are,
    either, but at least now we know this is your *opinion* based on
    your own observations.  The way you had stated it previously it almost
    sounded like the result of some "independent study."
    
    In any case, it would all depend on the definition of "macho," anyway,
    and I believe that that, too, is subjective.
    
    In my nearly two years at DEC, I have become aware of quite a few
    Lesbian-or-bi women, but almost *no* gay men.  I can only guess that
    this is because it is safer for Lesbian women to be out than for gay
    men to be out.  Or else because I am a woman and am more likely to know
    more about other women's lives than about men's lives.
    
    In any case, if the gay population of my environment here at DEC is
    anywhere near as high as I should assume it to be (higher than the
    total population, right?), then there is simply *no way* that I could
    say that gay men are more, equally, or less macho than non-gay men. I
    can only *assume* until shown otherwise, that they are probably equally
    macho -- whatever *that* means.
    
    Anyhow, this tangent doesn't particularly interest me, but perhaps it
    will interest others.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

I'm a woman, and I'm extremely bothered by outing.  I care a lot. 

Knowing that a friend is gay or lesbian or bisexual doesn't bother me.  Finding
out after years of assuming otherwise [if I thought about it at all] isn't a
problem; I don't feel deceived.  I admit to having been major disappointed when
a friend I was trying to seduce told me he was gay...rats! 

But I get so _angry_ at the thought of someone making another's private life
public domain.  I find it every bit as despicable as I would if someone made
mine so.  I hide very little, but I still think my life is mine to share.

  Ann

    
    Re .23
    
    I too am curious as to how you developed this opinion.
    
    
    I work out in Boston at a gym that's about, oh 70% gay.  I would say
     very few of the men there fit your description.
    
    
    SWR                                                

    Mark stated that he thinks, from his experience and observation,
    that most gay men act in a way that he describes as the opposite
    of macho.  A couple of people have replied that they disagree with
    this.  What I find interesting is that the replies that disagree
    with this observation give me the feeling that they found it insulting
    for gay men to be described as not acting macho.  Is it an insult
    for men to be described as not being macho?  Or, are the replies
    simply objecting to a generalization that they don't think is true?
    Are most gay men macho acting and looking and is this somehow better
    than not being macho?  What's so great about being macho anyway?
    
    Lorna
    

�    What I find interesting is that the replies that disagree
�    with this observation give me the feeling that they found it insulting
�    for gay men to be described as not acting macho. 
    
    A good number of gay men work pretty hard at that macho stuff and
    wouldn't take kindly to the removal of the label.  As in the het world,
    hunks are considered catches...
    
    I think the Doctah's statement was a good example of how sterotypes
    reinforce themselves.  A guy who's overly femme isn't "normal", so you
    goes looking for explanations; near the top of your list of
    explanations is that he's gay; every time this explanation fits, you've
    reinforced the idea that gay men are effeminate.  A "normal regular
    kinda guy" (to quote Clare Quilty from "Lolita" (: >,) doesn't require
    any explanation, so you assume he's het.
    
    Ray

    Lorna,
    
    My question to Mark was just that:  a question.   Any disagreement
    is based on that fact that he generalized.  I do not have any
    particular opinion about the "macho-ness" of gay men, nor do I
    particularly care!  I tried to say that I believe it would be more
    accurate to assume -- lacking any controlled study -- that the
    percentage of "macho" (whatever *that* means!) gay men is probably
    close to the percentage of macho non-gay men.
    
    I am replying because my question on this was the first of the only
    two that have questioned Mark, and I am puzzled as to why anything I wrote
    would give you the feeling that I would find it "insulting
    for gay men to be described as not acting macho."
    
    Nancy

    
    
    Ray,
    
    I agree with your analysis.  I think that straight-looking, i.e., macho
    gay men go unnoticed (by straights) as gay men.  I think the same holds
    for lesbians.  I was amazed when I first went to some women's bars at
    how many of the women there were conventionally attractrive and didn't
    fit my notion of a lesbian.
    
    About outing... I think Nancy Russell really captured some important
    points.  Men who come out or who are outed may have more to lose than
    women.  A white gay man who can pass as heterosexual gets to have all
    the power and prestige that straight, white men have.  A lesbian who
    passes as straight is still a woman, and so she may decide that having
    a community of women is more valuable than trying to pass in a world
    that doesn't value her anyway.  
    
    My opinion about outing...
    I'm against it.  I agree that it helps us all when prominent gays
    and lesbians come out of the closet, but the decision to come out
    is a private one.  I can imagine lobbying someone to try to persuade
    her/him to come out, but I would never make that decision for someone
    else.
    
    Justine
        

Is someone _for_ outing? Maybe I'm missing a conversation in another notesfile;
I didn't even know about it til this topic got started.
	Mez

    Mez
    
    There is a gay magazine that makes a point of 'outing' famous
    people who are gay. They recently 'outed' Malcome Forbes.
    
    There is apparently support in the gay community for 'outing'
    gays who are actively working against gay issues, i.e. passing
    laws against them etc..
    
    Bonnie

    
    I entered my note not in defense of being macho, but as an objection
     to what I perceived as being an incorrect stereotype.  It sounded like
     input was wanted from someone who has gay friends/acquaintances.
     (Generally, I find the correlation between macho behavior and *sshole 
     type behavior a little too high for my taste.)
    
     As far as outing goes, from what I've gathered, there's a substantial
      amount of support for such action when it involves protecting oneself 
      (ie outing a politician who is passing legislation that is directly
      harmful to one's self or one's community).  Opposition to gay legislation 
      doesn't necessarily imply hypocrital behavior by closetted politicians,
      so that in and of itself doesn't warrant outing, imo.
    
     No one that I've talked to about the issue seems to support outing just 
      because a person is closetted, though there are the radicals who support
      that too.
    
     SWR
      
    

I'm not sure why men seem to have stronger positions that women
on the subject of outing. Maybe, as some have already pointed out,
it's because men typically have more to lose.

Traditionally, men in this country haven't had to be accountable
for their sexual lives. For example, birth control and monogamy are
often more the domain of women than men. When a married man fools
around, it's pretty common to keep quiet about it. In fact, it's
almost acceptable for married men to fool around.... Consider how
the press in Washington kept quiet about JFK's flings....

Re outing:

I agree, the decision to "come out" should be left up to the
individual. Nearly always.

I do *not* think people should out one another for purposes of
gossip, intrigue, entertainment, or amusement.

However, when a gay person in power (such as a political figure) *actively*
tries to oppress gay/lesbian/bi people, that person has named a new
game. (And beyond the hypocrisy, I think they're an absolute fool to
start such a stupid game.)

If a person lobbies for environmental regulations but empties sewage
into the stream that runs by their house, that person should be held
accountable for the inconsistency. 

If a person lobbies against civil rights for homosexuals, hangs his/her
political reputation on the line that homosexuality is immoral, and then
swings by the gay bars to find a little action on the way home, that person
should also be held accountable for the inconsistency.

Kathy 

    Just heard a nice little rumor that a certain Mass person running for
    Guv. has hit the "outing" list..... And this person has not commented
    about this.. DO you think this will hurt this Democrat's chances on
    winning the Guv'v job?
    
    REK

    re: rumors
    
    I generally find it true that a rumor says more about the rumor-monger
    than about the subject of the rumor.
    
    mdh

    Why beat around the bush?  It was on last night's new (Channel 5, I
    think) that some folks are trying to "out" Evelyn Murphy.  I *think*
    they had some objection to something she was for or against, but it
    wasn't clear to me.  Evelyn responded that she wanted people to get to
    know her and what she stands for, etc., but that she had a right to
    privacy in some things.

    Re: .38
    
    Since this person is a public figure, can you identify the alleged
    "outee?"
    
    Re: .39
    
    Marge, clearly there are some rumors that are true, or turn out to
    be so:  
    
       Last year's "rumor" about Jack Shields' resigning, for example
    
       This year's "rumor" about there being a "buyout package".
    
    In life, I have found that more rumors turn out to be true than not.
    
      Alan

    Re: .40
    
    >                Evelyn responded that she wanted people to get to
    > know her and what she stands for, etc., but that she had a right to
    > privacy in some things.
    
    I'm sure Gary Hart had a right to privacy with Donna Rice. Had he
    stayed a private figure, he would've stood a better chance of retaining
    that right.
    
    Once a person moves into the public domain, at least lately in America,
    he/she becomes fair game.
    
      Alan

    Like the rumor that the Japanese have invaded the West Coast?
    
    Like the rumor that there are ground up worms in <company>
    hamburgers?
    
    Like the rumor that the world would end in <date>?
    
    							Ann B.

    So far I see no evidence that <whoever it is> trying to "out" Evelyn
    Murphy is/are gay.  I suspect its just another campaign dirty trick in
    a basically dirty set of inter- and intra-party politics.
    
    We've all seen campaign dirty tricks before, yes?
    
    I've also seen no evidence beyond rumor that it is true.  Nor is this
    like Hart and Monkey Business.  Murphy did not request scrutiny. 
    Further, even if it is true, what difference does it make?  She's
    running for governor, not Total Woman of the year. The question is: can
    Murphy be a good and effective governor?
    
    Who benefits from Murphy losing votes?  Certainly not gays; she's got
    the most liberal record on homosexual issues.  Cui bono?  Flood,
    Belotti, Silber, Pierce, and Weld.  Cui malo? Most everyone.
    
    A similar accusation was a rumored back some years ago when Ed Koch was
    trying for the Democratic nomination for Governor of New York.  The
    underground slogan was "Vote for Cuomo or the homo."  It was _nasty_
    stuff.  It was never clear where the rumor came from.  It just existed.
    While Koch did not make it to Albany, he was twice re-elected NYC mayor
    after that.
    
    --Margaret   disgusted by outing and rumor

In Mass, this might not hurt much.  In most states, its probably the
kiss of death.  Stupid issue, but then most are.

    re:.44
    
    I'd like to know where you got the idea that "outing" is (in your
    words) "*primarily* [my emphasis] a weapon that's wielded by
    homosexuals."  I'd be inclined to believe that it's primarily a
    weapon by political opponents of whatever sexual persuasion who
    are trying to damage the victim's chances. Murphy is sympathetic
    to gay rights, so starting a rumor that she herself is gay is the
    easiest way to cause damage. Many people are all too willing to
    believe that no self-respecting heterosexual would be sympathetic
    to gay rights.
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    >	Why?  Because outing is primarily a weapon that's wielded by
    >homosexuals, when some decide to "influence" another homosexual
    >to act in a a way they think is proper.

    i think that other responses have a truer idea of *who* PRIMARILY
    uses outing as a weapon.
    
    >	Barney Frank alluded to outing other politicians, if they would
    >not support certain gay-rights bills and other legislation which he
    >felt was the right thing to do.

    	>Does that sound like blackmail?  It does to me.

    it sounds like blackmail the way you report it. i thought that barney
    frank's threat had more to do with closeted republican congresspersons
    who were outing [or "suggesting"] that specific democratic
    congressional rep's were homosexual. how did you get the idea his
    threats were due to legislative differences? 
     
    if his motivation wasn't legislative differences, but a backlash of
    sorts, then the following doesn't necessarily hold true.
	
    >That's what those who "out" do - they offer privacy, but for politcial
    >obedience; political "favors".

    
    ~robin

    Good Grief!
    
    Didn't *anyone* else see the news show I referred to?  If I had watched
    more closely and remembered better, I could TELL you whether the man
    making the allegation was saying it as a gay person of not!!  But I
    didn't, so I can't!  Surely *SOMEONE* reading this string did???????
    
    If not, feel free to call Channel 5 and ask!

    
    I'm reasonably sure that the report in the paper indicated
    that the person making the allegation was gay.
    I read it in Monica Collins column.
    
    								Hank

    
    
    I believe that a lot/most of the people doing this outing are
    themselves gay (so far I've only heard of men doing this).  The
    rationale seems to be that it's empowering for gays and enlightening
    for non-gays to see that important, powerful, or otherwise admirable
    people can be gay.
    
    I think it would be wonderful if all gay/lesbian/bi people were
    suddenly easily identifiable.  Then the world might see that
    we're everywhere, that we do lots of different kinds of jobs well and
    that we have as much diversity in our community as non-gays have
    in theirs.  But that's not the way it is.  Only a small part of the
    gay population is visible, and violence and discrimination against
    people believed to be gay are still real (some might even say they're
    increasing).  I support the right of each of us to make a private decision 
    about whether and when to come out.
    
    I also see and deplore the hypocrisy of a gay, conservative man who
    benefits from his white male privilege and works to keep his
    other gay brothers and sisters down.  This kind of man benefits
    directly from his invisibility as a gay man, and he doesn't have
    to support gay rights because *he* is not discriminated against
    because no one knows about his sexual orientation.  When I think about
    this hypocrisy, I am tempted to cheer the attempts of others to bring
    this (hypothetical) man out of the closet.  In public he bashes gays 
    -- let him be rightfully identified with that group he supposedly hates
    and expose his hypocrisy for all to see.  BUT I stop short of really
    endorsing even this kind of outing, because I wouldn't want it used
    against someone who is working for the empowerment of women and gays.
    
    Staying in the closet is a form of buying into and even perpetuating
    homophobia.  But buying into homophobia that's real and dangerous
    (as it is in this culture) is a reasonable and understandable response.
    An analogy that comes to mind is that not standing up to a bully
    does give that bully more power, but standing up (all by yourself) to 
    a bully who could harm you  is dangerous.  No gay/lesbian/bi is really
    alone (We're Everywhere!), but the catch is that you have to open your 
    closet door at least a little to be able to see that.  I believe that 
    opening that door takes a great deal of courage, and acts of courage must 
    be freely chosen.
    
    Justine

    re .53
    
    �	Even if it is not "primarily a weapon used by homosexuals", outing
    �is a weapon that some homsexuals are able to justify using, under
    �circumstances they see as threatening.
    
    yes. i definately agree with you on this commment.
    
    ~r
    

I believe that when a politician (or other public figure) actively works
against the Gay Community that this person is no longer entitled to the
protection of the Gay Community.  This protection has been (among other 
things) that we have kept quiet for years about other people that we
have known to be gay.

If someone wants to remain closeted, then that is their right, so long
as they do not sh*t where they eat.  

        Carol

    Does the Gay Community equate 'protection' with 'respecting
    privacy'? And feel it can equate 'violation of privacy' with
    'withdrawal of protection' ?

<    Does the Gay Community equate 'protection' with 'respecting
<    privacy'? And feel it can equate 'violation of privacy' with
<    'withdrawal of protection' ?

No one can speak for the entire Gay Community.

I, however, feel that as long as the hypocrites encourage discrimination
against gays, that when we keep silent about their sexual orientation 
we are "protecting" them from the very sort of hostile society that they are
helping to create. 

         Carol

re: .55

Hear, hear!  You hit the nail on the proverbial head, Carol.

Carla

re.

>I, however, feel that as long as the hypocrites encourage discrimination
>against gays, that when we keep silent about their sexual orientation 
>we are "protecting" them from the very sort of hostile society that they are
>helping to create.


Ok, I think I understand this, but can't "outing" be seen as a contradiction
to the goals of the Gay Community?  That is, if the Gay Community is trying to
get across that "Gay is ok" and then "outs" someone knowing that it will hurt
them (politcally), does/could not that imply that infact "Gay IS NOT ok"?

-Hamp

re: .55

Carol,

You expressed my feelings exactly!

Kathy

    i'll take a shot at .59
    
Ok, I think I understand this, but can't "outing" be seen as a contradiction
to the goals of the Gay Community?  That is, if the Gay Community is trying to
get across that "Gay is ok" and then "outs" someone knowing that it will hurt
them (politcally), does/could not that imply that infact "Gay IS NOT ok"?
    
    i don't see it as a contradiction in the goals.  what are the goals,
    anyways?  to show that gays are normal people, spread throughout
    society?  to improve living conditions/decrease discrimination?
    well, the more people who are out as homosexual, the more evident 
    it is that there are a lot out there.  and one way to improve
    conditions is to stop others from trying to make things worse.
    
    which is what some closetted gays are doing....voting in such a
    way as to increase discrimination.  if they were out and felt
    the effects of the way that they voted, they would reconsider
    passing laws that permit discrimination due to orientation, or
    whatever other hot issues are up for debate.
    

    What happens to the closeted gay politician who really believe that 
    the Gay Rights Bill is redundant?
    
    What about the gay politician that believes that gays should not be
    foster parents? Maybe he/she believes in more traditional values.
    
    I think a person has homosexual feelings by nature, not choice. A per-
    sons political beliefs can be in contradiction to his physical make-up.
    
    In my opinion, Evelyn Murphy is a respectable person. So far, she
    hasn't been accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old page. She
    hasn't been involved in prostitution. 
    
    Kate
    
    

�    What about the gay politician that believes that gays should not be
�    foster parents? Maybe he/she believes in more traditional values.
    
    Kate, how *could* someone believe that, rationally?  
    
    T'me it seems as strange an idea as you thinking the irish shouldn't be
    foster parents, or me thinking that scots shouldn't. (I'm presuming
    Donovan is your family name rather than your married name).  I can't
    imagine any way in which a person could hold a belief like that based
    on anything but societal prejudice.
    
    						=maggie

    Maggie,
    
    I don't know. Honestly I don't know how anyone could believe in 
    capital punishment. I really don't. But everyone a lilly livered
    liberal like me.  ;^)
    
    Kate

    re:.63
    
    	� Kate, how *could* someone believe that, rationally? �
    
    Probably not at all, Maggie, but then, where does rationality come
    into it?
    
    --- jerry

    re: 126.62
/    In my opinion, Evelyn Murphy is a respectable person. So far, she
/    hasn't been accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old page. She
/    hasn't been involved in prostitution. 
    
    and if she were "accused" would that make a difference?
    
    anybody can make accusations.  of course, sometimes the accusations
    turn out to not be true, but by the time this is learned, the wrong
    person may have won the election.
    
    that is what i always think when i hear accusations during elections.
    

Re. .67, 

>	If it is Ok for a gay person to out a gay/bisexual politician
>    because he/she is doing the wrong thing, is it also Ok for a homo-
>    phobic person to out a gay/bisexual politician because he/she is
>    doing the wrong thing?

> -mike z


I'm one of the people who have spoke in defense of outing in *limited*
situations, so here's my answer to your question:

	I think outing is an act of self-defense. I don't
	think it should be used unless the person being
	outed has worked actively to oppose the civil rights of
	gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

	If outing is an act of self-defense, then I can't
	see why a heterosexual (homophobe or not) would need
	to out someone. (You used the word "homophobe." I assume
	you meant heterosexual....)

	BTW, I see no need for outing Ev M. That was an
	unfortunate use of outing.

Kathy

According to a glance at the Boston Herald, the 'outer' did so because he said
Ev M. is against condoms in HS, and clean needles distribution.
	Mez

    
    
    I believe that the official response from Murphy and her campaign is
    that she's not going to answer, that she's not going to share that
    part of herself with the public.  In a way, I wish that there were as
    many non-gays who don't identify their orientation as there are gays
    who do.  In other words, I wish that lots of people who find the
    orientation question too intrusive would say so.  It generally seems
    that non-gays are willing to identify themselves as "straight" when
    asked -- even if they think the question is intrusive.  I think that
    anyone who isn't gay and wants to get a sense of what it might be
    like to be devalued on the basis of sexual orientation should spend
    a day being intentionally ambiguous.  It seems to me that if being gay
    weren't so devalued, disclosure of orientation could be on a "need to
    know" basis.
    
    Justine
    
    ps maybe I'll start a note on coming out.  I think there's a lot to
       discuss there that's different from this issue of "outing."

    re: .72 (Mez)
    
    A few days ago I caught about the last 15 seconds of an interview
    with the "outer" (Jeez, I wish I could remember his name) and 
    that's what I heard him say as well.  I think this points up
    a critical weakness in the "pro-outing" argument.  While I
    haven't entirely made my mind up, I find much to agree with in
    Justine's viewpoint here and Gerry Fisher's (in Mennotes).  I
    find the "self defense" argument pretty compelling.  
    
    The question I see arising, however, is, "Who determines what
    is 'self defense'?"  Any individual might decide that a legis-
    lator's opposition to certain proposals isn't supporting what 
    (s)he considers to be "the important issues" and that opposition
    amounts to an attack on gays.  In this instance, I don't see the
    rationale that opposing condom distribution in high school or
    opposing clean needle distribution� amounts to an "attack" on
    the gay community and thereby justifies "outing".
    
    Steve
    
    � Just for the record, I happen to support both of these ideas;
      I just don't support the idea that they're "gay rights" issues.

>    The question I see arising, however, is, "Who determines what
>    is 'self defense'?"

Steve,

As with so many things, it's a judgment call. And I agree with you:
opposition to clean needle distribution and condom distribution
in high school doesn't justify outing someone. I think he used
poor judgment.

It's too bad good judgment isn't enforceable! We'd avoid so
very many problems.   :-)

Kathy

.76>	Can you see how a homophobic person can feel exactly the same way,
.76>    and cite the same reason (self defense), and use that to justify outing
.76>    someone who is pro-gay?

	I don't understand your question. Would you rephrase it?
	(Also, when you refer to a homophobic person, do you
	mean one who is homosexual or heterosexual? And what
	do you mean by "pro-gay"?)


.76>	Do you think trading "out"s (ie: homosexuals amd anti-homosexuals,
.76>    both actively involved in outing people who they feel are threats to
.76>    their lifestyle) will help or hurt the gay community?

	I think people who work at oppressing gays, lesbians,
	and bisexuals are the ones who hurt gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

	Does it hurt the gay community when someone is outed? I don't
	think it hurts me. It might hurt the person being outed....

Kathy

I think I understand what Mike is asking...

If a public figure is acting to harm a group of people, then it is okay for
that group of people to "out" that public figure, since because that public
figure was doing them harm, it can be considered self defense.

So if Joe Schmo is a politician supporting a bill that legalizes hunting
of homosexuals, and he is gay, it is okay for the gay community to out
him in self-defense.

But what if Joe Schmo is a politician supporting a bill that legalizes
something that heterosexuals feel harms *them*, say, making homosexuality
mandatory.  [I am using extremes here just to make a point.]  Is it okay
for the heterosexuals to "out" Joe in their *own* self-defense?

The problem with the self-defense argument is it relies of perception
of harm.  Just about every cause that helps one group can be percieved
as harming another group.  That means that if self-defense is a valid
reason for any group to "out" someone, that every public figure who takes
a stand on an issue is open to being justifiably outted by *some*
group, since he is probably in some way harming some group somewhere.
(Or at least, that group percieves that he is harming them.)

The solution to this would be to say "it is only okay for *homosexuals* to
out a homosexual in self-defense".  Or, more generally, it is only okay
for a group that a public figure is a *member* of to publicize that pesons
membership status if and only if doing so is an act of self-defense for
the group in question.

D!

    I agree with Mike's statements a few back that outing is a very two
    edged sword. I can understand the reasons that homosexuals would choose
    to support it. I think it's ultimately self defeating.

    I'm reminded of a line from "Man of La Mancha" where Sancho says
    "whether the pitcher hits the stone or the stone hits the pitcher, it's
    going to be bad for the pitcher". liesl

    The only time I could justify outing is when a law has been broken or
    when a situation that may be illegal comes to surface.
    
    In the case of Gerry Studds, where a child had been molested or in the
    case like Barney Frank's where illegal prostitution was taking place in 
    his home, I would want to know. 
    
    I'm not acting as judge and jury in the case of Mr. Frank. But if I
    lived in his district, the outcome of the ethics hearing would be
    important to me.
    
    Kate  

    re:.73
    
    I agree, Justine. It would be nice if people of *any* persuasion
    would refuse to identify their orientation because of the
    intrusiveness of such queries. But until there's a radical shift
    in societal attitude about homosexuality, it's damn unlikely to
    happen. As long as homosexuality is still seen as "abnormal" and
    "bad", any straight person who refuses to comment on his or her
    orientation will be "branded" as gay. If they're straight, what
    have they got to hide, right? 
    
    Maybe someday we'll come out of the Dark Ages.
    
    --- jerry

<    The only time I could justify outing is when a law has been broken or
<    when a situation that may be illegal comes to surface.
<    
<    In the case of Gerry Studds, where a child had been molested or in the

I am not in favor of outing someone because they molest a child.  I *am*
in favor of having them charged with child molestation.  

Sexual orientation is not the same as pedophilia.  A male child molester
who abuses a boy may be straight or gay.  What he definately is, is a child
abuser, and should be declared as such.  It bothers me when I see someone
refer to a man as gay for the fact that he abused a same sex child.
Although many people know the difference, many people don't, and when 
the media reports that way, or when we discuss it that way, it paints
all gays with the same (filthy) brush. 

          Carol

    
    re .73
    
    Justine, I've tried that. Once. And it was the most uncomfortable
    feeling, SOLELY because the arena in which it would have been discussed
    was my social circle where there are prospective partners. I didn't
    feel like doing that much explaining...
    
    I think at work or somewhere where I was networking, and NOT interested
    in meeting prospective partners, it wouldn't matter to me at all.  But
    since I look at almost all "networking" events as an opportunity to
    meet prospective partners, it makes a lot of sense to me to be blatant
    about my orientation. Now, if I had a partner, AND I was a super
    private person, I wouldn't need to state my orientation at all. But my
    nature as a person is such that I always speak in terms of "we" when
    I'm partnered, and due to the nature of language, my partner will
    usually be given a pronoun. I do not think I do this because I'm
    straight, but more because I'm NOT gay. I have nothing to fear in doing
    this, nothing to lose. And, above all, I hate being private and
    secretive about being in love. Its not my style.
    
    Fact is, I don't advocate it for ANYONE, but I can understand why for some
    people, it seems necessary... and probably painful.

I was reading "The Sisterhood" by Marcia Cohen this weekend, and was surprised
when I came across a story that looked alot like Outing, but occured in the mid
to late '60s. Kate Millet was at a forum where she gave a (rather clinical)
talk on bisexuality, and two other women gave talks: one on feminism, the other
on homosexuality. After a few questions during the question and answer period,
a woman (who Kate recognised as a member of Radicalesbians, a group Kate was a
member of, which was not a secret) asked Kate Millet specifically if she was a
lesbian. (So, it's not quite like the cases of Outing I've heard of, where it's
stated to the press.) Kate, after a few minutes of worrying about how this
might hurt feminism (she had been Time's cover portrait for an issue on
feminism, and several member of the movement, Betty Friedan being the most
powerful, were explicitly not interested in the "lesbian question"), replied
"Yes, I am". 

And the story continues powerfully from there...
	Mez