no. I was just expressing some exasperation. I get tired of always having to put disclaimers in an e-mail to forestall some inevitable bitch about something because I didn't cover it. it would be nice to be cut a little slack sometimes. also, i haven't read every post to the list. sometimes i've only had time to skim. so, if someone doesn't address an issue, it may simply be that they didn't read your mention of it.
>Maybe not. But I have found that most heterosexuals are
>heterosexist to some extent.
> I am not refering to the odd
>comment here and there -- it happens to all people. I am
>talking about the de-emphasis on queer issues that some
>leftists engage in so as not to alienate others. Remember
>when most of LBO agreed that sexual freedom was a minor
>concern compared with others?
i thought that was only charles. huh.
but here's the thing. you complain that people are very conscious or concerned with sexual freedom/gay rights struggles. now, if I read your output and judged it, I might say that you are exclusively focused on those issues to the exclusion of feminism/gender oppression. now, i don't think that's true, but based on what animates your posts to the list, if I were observing from Mars, I wouldn't put you in the category "feminist".
so, what i was saying above was that there are constraints to our ability to communicate our views in this format.
> I mean, is there any doubt
>that the electricians' union in Massachusetts should be persona
>non grata to all leftists/unionists because of what they did?
>
> > 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.
>
>I was unclear. What I am asking is should a union that
>engages in/promotes heterosexism expect that its picket line
>be honored? Should leftists respect hate?
If the picket line is to enforce racism/sexism, no. If you just don't like other racist and sexist practices in the union and won't support it, well that's your choice. Mine is different. I want you and everyone else to hold them accountable, I just don't think crossing a picket line is communicating your message. In the context, you are telling strikers that you don't support labor. period. it's not an act that communicates the entirety of your position. you'd be better off fighting them in other ways and not contributing to the destruction of what little labor, erm, radicalism we have in this country. maybe i haven't thought it through,, though, and there is a way to cross the picket line, as an individual, that would get your point across. hmmm. I suppose queers could picket the picket... although that kinda reminds me of black bloc actions
*ducking* and *running*
> > You're asking about something else and it's insulting that you
>are.
>
>Again, I apologize. I was using your post as a jumping off point
>for other thoughts and that was an error.
>
> > 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.
>
>And I think we have to stop coddling them. We have gone as
>far as we can with understanding/excusing people's/groups'
>heterosexism. It is time to come corect or be ostracized.
>I'll play absolutist: queer rights are non-negotiable (oooh,
>that made me tingle).
:) I suppose that, as Yoshie points out, since women often have to deal
with men (fathers, brothers, sons, etc.) we can't take such absolutist
positions. We can, but our personal lives tend to influence how we think
about politics, compromise, negotiation, influence, etc.
But, believe me, I understand. I've mentioned that I've given up on getting into arguments about hetero/sexist comments that have been made here over the years. You mentioned, offlist, that very few of us bring up sexual issues or discuss them. There used to be a lot more of that sort of discussion. Alas, when you deal with assholes who send you private email suggesting that you're some kind of slut, who make passes at you, and list members who say you're obsessed with sex because, maybe, 20% of your output has to do with sex or my output refuses to conform to stupid norms of proper female behavior, you get a little disgusted. I've got better things to do with my time. So, believe me, I understand your frustration.
> > 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.
>
>You never know. I may get to limp dick one day, meet you,
>decide to change from queer to non-queer and . . .
ROTFLMAO! hey, you can still be queer!
BTW, what do you think about QE for the SG? Is it just me, or does it seem like they worked so hard in early episodes to come off as just *lurving* women. Always making comments about how hot some woman is, how beautifyl she is, etc. It's not that I think queer men don't talk this way....they do. It just seems very forced on that show. Less so now, but very def. in the beginning.
k
>Brian Dauth
>Queer (for the moment) Buddhist Resister
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling