>But for some members of the list, it seems that
>solidarity is a one-way street. B. responds to my
>post, but omits any mention of the heterosexist
>actions of the electricians' union in Massachusetts.
>John doesn't even bother to respond at all while
>answering other members' posts. The contempt
>they show for queers and their issues is telling.
woah. woah. woah. i don't know why, exactly, you think that no response to you means people don't care. the thing you learn from the Internet is often that no response means peole have nothing to argue with.
>Kelley writes:
>
> > It would be very dispiriting to see yet another person
>cross the line without knowing why.
>
>It is also dispiriting to sees unions not being in favor of
>marriage equality for queers. But at least in this case I
>do know why they hate.
see now, here's an example where you seem to jump on me a wee bit when you should know better. I wasn't discussing the racism, hetero/sexism, etc. of unions. To expect me or anyone else to do so within the constraints of internet communication is taking it a bit far.
Also, while I understand your frustration with heterosexism, I'm not sure berating everyone on the assumption that they are is a great approach. Believe me, I understand where you're coming from, though. I just find it a little troubling since there are _so_ many of us, among typical posters, who aren't heterosexists--although we may occ. say something that we hadn't realized is so, just as any oppressed groups internalizes oppression.
Anyway, don't want to jump on you and I'm not sure if this is constructively phrased.
>If you unions want solidarity they had better be prepared to
>give it as well.
>
> > Crossing the line, for anything other than a health emergency,
>just seems needlessly confrontational.
>
>Confrontation is often the only path open to queers, even among
>so-called leftist allies.
BRIAN! I was talking about a very specific example: crossing a picket line for emergency care... then you turn it into another issue altogether and the tone is accusatory. Why are you jumping on your allies and lecturing them as if they don't know this?
> > OTOH, having been employed by these family operations for many
>years, I have to say that, in my experience, these are the most
>exploitative places around if you're not a family-member who stands
>to inherit the business.
>
>Kelley is right. The job Terrance left last month was in a family-run
>importing business. It was horrid.
>
> > As for the cases of a labor call to solidarity premised on racism,
>hetero/sexism, xenophobia, etc. Well, those are hardly calls for
>labor solidarity and I really _can't_ imagine anything like that
>happening today.
>
>What about the union in Massachusetts that changed its by-laws to
>hurt queers? What about other unions that do not support marriage
>eqaulity for queers? Aren't they calling for solidarity while engaging
>in discrimination?
See, again, I'm talking about a specific thing: calling for a strike/picket to keep blacks, women, queers from being hired at all. You're asking about something else and it's insulting that you are. ME OF ALL PEOPLE!
Of course I think that is wrong. OF COURSE I know that unions remain sexist, xenophobic, etc. They've made progress; they have a long way to go -- as with everything else about progressive social movements.
Good luck to Terrance on his new job, btw. Again, I'm not trying to antagonize, but it gets a little exasperating when you're jumping down my throat -- even though I know you wouldn't put a jiggler anywhere NEAR my mouth. :)))))
k
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling