[GN] Was Mr. Rogers Anti-Gay?
Chief Thracian
all of us to be good neighbors, I then ask you:
At any time during his being on the air, has he explained to kids,
that gay people are nice people, too, and part of what makes for a
friendly neighborhood?
I ask you: find me in which show or shows, such an enlightened
statement was made, by our "loving-neighbor-to-all", Mr. Rogers (so
recently deceased; perhaps this secret went to the grave with him).
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Brian P. Evans
>If Mr. Rogers' long-time children's show was such an inspiration for
>all of us to be good neighbors, I then ask you:
>
>At any time during his being on the air, has he explained to kids,
>that gay people are nice people, too, and part of what makes for a
>friendly neighborhood?
No.
I then ask you:
At any time during his being on the air, has he explained to kids that gay
people are not nice people and not part of what makes for a friendly
neighborhood?
>I ask you: find me in which show or shows, such an enlightened
>statement was made, by our "loving-neighbor-to-all", Mr. Rogers (so
>recently deceased; perhaps this secret went to the grave with him).
Um, Mr. Rogers is still alive.
If you don't even know if he's alive, are you sure you know anything about
what he has said? Methinks you're angry because you want to be, not
because you have any facts.
I heard him give interviews where he did say that being gay was of no
concern to anybody.
Mr. Rogers has always been about the day-to-day concerns of very young
children growing up. As such he dealt with common fears such as the
monster in the drain, being afraid of the dark, the first day of school,
sibling rivalry, etc.
While a case can easily be made about including comments about racism,
sexism, and homophobia, that generally isn't the point behind Mr.
Rogers. But, I haven't watched Mr. Rogers in a long time.
Here's a thought: Why don't you do the homework and look up what Mr.
Rogers has said about gay people and then get back to us.
It may help you save a really good rant for somebody who really deserves it.
--
Brian P. Evans
rrh...@home.com
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>And when did he single out Christians? Or Heterosexuals? Or
>African-Americans? Was his postman gay or straight? When bell ringers
>visited, were they lesbian or straight?
Wow, I'm really shocked. Now that we look a bit more closely, with
hindsight we see the many flaws of Mr. Rogers...so cleverly hidden by
the gray miasmic shadow that is TV-land. These questions must all be
answered: Amerika needs to know!
>Mr. Rogers never did anything that suggested that neighborliness should
>be withheld from anyone.
I think some of you guys take Mr. Rogers all too seriously. Just how
old are you, anyway? Or better said: "Just how far removed are you
from your childhood; psychologically, that is?"
Chief Thracian
<rrh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It may help you save a really good rant for somebody who really deserves it.
ROTFL
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Marc Stauffer
Your questioning of Fred Rodgers is just a little over the top. I knew and
lived close to Fred in Pittsburgh and a high school classmate was his
producer.
1.) Look at Fred's age and when the show started to air - AND his target
audience 4 - 7 year olds. While he might be
able to address the subject of gays in a diverse society today; he
couldn't have addressed them given PBS and Federal
Funding during the time frame he was starting and at his peak.
2.) Fred gave generously to AIDS walks as well as treating his gay and
lesbian neighbors as equals. He'd ask how our
significant others were or ask where they were if he saw one and not
the other.
3.) Fred lived in a very very diverse neighborhood - full of Pittsburgh's
multicultural ethnicity, as well as high, low, and
middle income and students and various races.
4.) Fred did a lecture at my invitation at our denomination's National
Meeting that I chaired. His title was "TV - Chewing
Gum for the Eyes". He spent 2 hours talking about how diversity
enriches our society and knowing the backgrounds
of different groups was essential to being a tolerant adult and
allowing those with differing values and world views to
share. He said he hoped that children through such exposure to all
peoples would lead them to good stewardship of
our nation and world when they became adults. TV was not a baby sitter,
TV was essentially mindless - like chewing
a piece of bubble gum. TV could not and would not ever be a substitute
to going outside and playing with the neighbors,
and learning how their families did things or celebrated different
holidays. He encouraged people to meet and get
together with people of various backgrounds - know your neighbors. Will
you be my friend? When I saw Fred it was
always a nice day in our neighborhood.
5.) Did Fred ever mention homosexuality specifically - NOT that I'm aware
of. Given IMHO what I know of the man and his
views - he is a compassionate, tolerant, well educated person who
values everyone in his neighborhood, city, country
and world.
Marc
M. G. Stauffer
Chief Thracian
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
<<
5.) Did Fred ever mention homosexuality specifically - NOT that I'm
aware of. Given IMHO what I know of the man and his views - he is a
compassionate, tolerant, well educated person who values everyone in
his neighborhood, city, country
>>
In a time where anti-gay hatred rages, it is the duty of every
responsible person--especially those with a mass media outlet--to
directly address the problem, through education and compassion. To
deal with this matter indirectly or surreptitiously does no good for
anyone.
It doesn't matter if one is performing for tots...there is still a way
to teach kids that gays are decent folk too, without offending
anyone's ethics. Remember: it is in these formative years that
prejudices are concretized...unless they are taught otherwise.
Of course, the same applies to *any social crisis...however, Amerika
is still quite quite horrified at the thought of gay equality.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Sam Damon
From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:01 PM
Subject: [GN] Was Mr. Rogers Anti-Gay?
> If Mr. Rogers' long-time children's show was such an inspiration for
> all of us to be good neighbors, I then ask you:
>
> At any time during his being on the air, has he explained to kids,
> that gay people are nice people, too, and part of what makes for a
> friendly neighborhood?
>
> I ask you: find me in which show or shows, such an enlightened
> statement was made, by our "loving-neighbor-to-all", Mr. Rogers (so
> recently deceased; perhaps this secret went to the grave with him).
First off, Fred Rogers is not deceased. Since you are asking for exact
shows, etc, I ask the same of you, where did you hear that Rogers had died?
As the person who posted the first message about Mr. Rogers on Gaynet, I can
tell you that my original post was about the cessation of his show, not his
life. In fact, he is alive and well.
Your argument is a poor one for these reasons:
1) Berstein's pioneering research on sociolinguistics has shown that
specific words (i.e. examples) need not be given for concepts to be
effective. Implied ideas are much more important, as they come from within.
As long as exclusionary or conflicting examples are not given then there's
no reason for the target audience (i.e. children) to form opinions contrary
to the message. I now modify your question and ask of you, did Fred Rogers
ever give a homophobic message? Did he ever give any reasons for kids to
respect gays any less than other people? To quote you, "find me in which
show or shows, such ... statement was made." Kids are not born homophobic.
It needs to be taught. Why would a general message of respect not be
beneficial to gays?
2) Human beings live on principles and not specifics. It is much more
important to teach kids overall tolerance and respect than to name each
religion, creed, gender, race, etc specifically. There is a psychological
phenomenon known as "generalization," that is usually used to explain
discrimination. This important defense mechanism works like this: if one
is attacked by a leopard, one learns to avoid flee immediately the next time
a large leopard-like cat approaches. One does not wait to see if it is
indeed a leopard by looking for spots. It could just as well be a panther
or tiger. Human beings do the same thing with other learned lessons. We
generalize (which, unfortunately, is also a root of dicrimination). Fred
Rogers does not have to mention gays for someone to learn that respecting
gays is no different from respecting blacks.
3) Lesbianism nor homosexuality, in general, are never mentioned in the
bible. All 7 major references in the King James version, for example, refer
are to gay males exclusively. Yet can it be denied that bible-thumpers also
condemn lesbianism? If one can generalize hatred, why can't you also
accept that children can generalize tolerance and acceptance?
4) Finally, I ask you -- when did he mention heterosexuals, Hawaiians,
Muslims, Filipinos, etc, by name? Yet, he is near-universally credited to
have instilled love and respect amongst people, including those who now work
for lesbigay rights. Like the many tributes he received on the Nightline
show, I count myself among these people. So does my girlfriend, who *chose*
to work in AIDS, despite a paycut. And many of my friends, gay and
straight. We had our own little remembrances of Mr. Rogers the night of the
Nightline broadcast. So whether he mentioned "gay" or not, he clearly did
something right. Just because you don't count yourself among those he
positively affected, don't discount it in those of us that he did.
Chief Thracian
>As the person who posted the first message about Mr. Rogers on Gaynet, I can
>tell you that my original post was about the cessation of his show, not his
>life. In fact, he is alive and well.
Ah, that's it then.
>1) Berstein's pioneering research on sociolinguistics has shown that
>specific words (i.e. examples) need not be given for concepts to be
>effective.
That is a complete denial of the reality that silence about gay people
does us no harm. Our invisibility obviously causes kids to see gay
people as "weird" in the rare times when they see two guys (or gals)
kissing or holding hands.
>Implied ideas are much more important, as they come from within.
Hogwash. This is a general truth, which does not cover specific
issues. Sesame Street and other modern kids' shows work overtime to
teach kids that people of color, Asians, the disabled, etc., are all
good kids. But where are the gay kids, the gay adults?
There are no healthy role models, allowed in our mainstream media and
community/family lives. Yet you claim it is not necessary to
specifically cite gay inclusion in order that children may incorporate
images of gays in there conscious sphere of "what is normal"!
>As long as exclusionary or conflicting examples are not given then there's
>no reason for the target audience (i.e. children) to form opinions contrary
>to the message.
Bullshit. What you don't know, you fear...or at least are very
suspicious of. Our very exclusion from visibility in the society
mainstream, has proven to be a wickedly effective weapon in demonizing
our Community. When kids hear a preacher blasting out against
"homosexual perversion", they have no role models from the mainstream
media--such as Mr. Rogers--by which to oppose the preacher's claims.
>I now modify your question and ask of you, did Fred Rogers
>ever give a homophobic message? Did he ever give any reasons for kids to
>respect gays any less than other people?
Why, yes, of course...in his silence about gay people...and by
portraying stories and songs in traditional boy/girl fashion. This pap
then brainwashes children to accept ONLY male/female pairing in the
normal world.
>It is much more
>important to teach kids overall tolerance and respect than to name each
>religion, creed, gender, race, etc specifically.
More crap. Overall tolerance does not manage to cover certain
minorities...particularly homosexuals. Same reason we need specific
hate crime laws to protect certain minorities: because the "general"
hate crime law does not serve to discourage attacks on the minorities
in question; though it may be effective in other cases where these
minorities are not involved.
>Fred
>Rogers does not have to mention gays for someone to learn that respecting
>gays is no different from respecting blacks.
Bullshit. See my rebuttals above. Doesn't Mr. Rodgers include puppets
of color, disabled puppets, etc., to include them all in the "normal"
scheme of things...in order to make children accepting of such folks?
Yet, by excluding any gay puppets, he is therefore keeping gay people
in the dark recesses of childhood nightmares...which are then preyed
upon by our homophobic churches.
>Yet, he is near-universally credited to
>have instilled love and respect amongst people, including those who now work
>for lesbigay rights.
If as a queer child, you watched shows that inspired being good, you
of course may be influenced by this. But just as we gays must pretend
the lovers in a romance novel are of the same sex...we are acquiring
the inspiration through our own adaptive imagine; not from society's
acceptance or compassion.
> Like the many tributes he received on the Nightline
>show, I count myself among these people. So does my girlfriend, who
>*chose* to work in AIDS, despite a paycut.
Many straights can only reach out to gays, when they are on the death
bed. Where was their compassion before...when it would have *prevented
this evil manifestation of homophobia, in a veritable disease deemed
"anti-gay"? I don't find any straight person as gay-loving, because he
or she is involved in fighting AIDS. This is not really a gay issue.
We need straights joining gay politics and fighting alongside us...not
literally loving us to death.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Sam Damon
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [GN] Was Mr. Rogers Anti-Gay?
>
> >1) Berstein's pioneering research on sociolinguistics has shown that
> >specific words (i.e. examples) need not be given for concepts to be
> >effective.
>
> That is a complete denial of the reality that silence about gay people
> does us no harm. Our invisibility obviously causes kids to see gay
> people as "weird" in the rare times when they see two guys (or gals)
> kissing or holding hands.
First off, please show me where I wrote that "silence about gay people does
us no harm." What I wrote was that Mr. Rogers' message was beneficial to
gays. In fact, you conveniently ignored the last sentence in my first
point, "Why would a general message of respect not be beneficial to gays?"
I love the way you throw off melodramatic absolutist terms like "complete
denial of reality" when you present no data or research other than your
opinion. When people argue with words like "obviously," it means that they
have no evidence or argument to stand on. As Brian Evans, our
mathematician, can tell you, "obviously" is a word to be used cautiously, if
ever, in a proof. And it's certainly points off when we referee an article
for medical publication.
Furthermore, you conveniently ignored my point of saying, "as long as
exclusionary or conflicting examples are not given then there's no reason
for the target audience (i.e. children) to form opinions contrary to the
message" and "Kids are not born homophobic. It needs to be taught." We
cannot blame Fred Rogers for the world's homophobic examples. The negative
examples come from society, not Fred Rogers. My point is simply this: he
did NOTHING homophobic, and his generalized message of harmony is beneficial
to gays. Thus, applying this logic to the Subj Header, "Was Mr. Rogers
Anti-Gay?" the answer would be no. Are you even familiar with
sociolinguistic or Berstein's research?
Just because some children will grow up homophobic does not mean that it's
Rogers' fault. Using your logic, we'd automatically blame a parent whose
child grows up homophobic. There is currently a case where a gay Native
American teenager was killed by the son of a lesbian. Evidence very much
suggests that it was a case of gay-bashing. Using your logic, we'd
automatically accuse the mother of being homophobic as well. You are
ignoring the fact that there's a world ouside of Mr. Rogers' neighborhood,
just like there's world outside of the lesbian mother's home, thus seeing
"gay people as weird" is not the fault of Mr. Rogers.
> >Implied ideas are much more important, as they come from within.
>
> Hogwash.
Uh-oh, more inflammatory words that's indicative of an opinion without
strong argument.
> There are no healthy role models, allowed in our mainstream media and
> community/family lives. Yet you claim it is not necessary to
> specifically cite gay inclusion in order that children may incorporate
> images of gays in there conscious sphere of "what is normal"!
Once more, show me where I said that. Quote my exact words, please, in
context. What I said was specific to Rogers' show, namely, that he did not
have to show specific examples of gays to be beneficial to gay rights. And
I cited Bernstein's research as well as a principle in psychology. Note
that I never said that it wouldn't have been even more wonderful had he
mentioned gays, but I credit him with helping gays, nevertheless. And he was
certainly nbot harmful to gays.
> >As long as exclusionary or conflicting examples are not given then
there's
> >no reason for the target audience (i.e. children) to form opinions
contrary
> >to the message.
>
> Bullshit.
There you go again. As someone in academic research, I find your lead
one-word arguments laughable, and ultimately ignorable.
> What you don't know, you fear...or at least are very suspicious of.
Please show me ANY proof of this from the field of child psychology or
educational psychology. Try reading up on Piaget. One citation is all I
ask; I can look up the complete article in our medical library. Again, it
seems like you are arguing from opinion and nothing more. What studies have
shown is that what a child doesn't know, s/he is CURIOUS about -- unless
there are prior [similar] negative experiences.
If this fear factor is so prominent, we wouldn't have the many accidents
caused by childhood exploration of poisons, high windows, electrical
appliances, firearms, water, etc.
This fear or suspicion only comes into play when there is a prior negative
experience (i.e. the "generalization" phenomenon I cited earlier), whether
direct or vicarious, true or imaginary (the so-called false memory" effect).
This is a major contributor of racism. homophobia, etc. As I wrote, " Kids
are not born homophobic. It needs to be taught."
One major flaw of your arguments is that you seem ignroant of child
psychology and projecting an adult's perspective onto a child. For example,
it is true that adults are generally suspicious or skeptical of that which
they do not know. But to project an adult's wealth of experience onto a
child just flies against research.
> Our very exclusion from visibility in the society
> mainstream, has proven to be a wickedly effective weapon in demonizing
> our Community. When kids hear a preacher blasting out against
> "homosexual perversion", they have no role models from the mainstream
> media--such as Mr. Rogers--by which to oppose the preacher's claims.
Your argument is once more incorrect. It is not gay exclusion from society
that demonizes, but the existence of *negative* images. Once again, if
there are no negative images (or positive ones), then kids are neither
homophile nor homophobic -- kids need to be taught to be homophobic. If you
disagree with this, I'd love for you to cite a psychological example where
kids are by nature, homophobic. Your statement that of "what you don't
know, you fear...or at least are very suspicious of" is simply false for you
ng kids.
What you seem to be demanding of Fred Rogers then is a political show where
he'd speak contrary to the world's social ills. That was the not the
mission of his show. I don't believe he ever spoke about Tibet or Sierra
Leone or Communist repression. Does that mean that Fred Rogers was
supportive of the situations there? Closer to home, I don't believe he ever
spoke of rape, drug use or women's suffrage either, does that mean that he
espoused a view on any of these subjects by ommission?
While I might agree with you on the "mainstream media," Mr. Rogers' show was
not mainstream. It appealed to a specifc group on a very special channel,
PBS, with special funding. I can guarantee you that his show would have
been threatened with cancellation, defunding or at the very least, waves or
protest, had he openly discussed gays. I know because I've volunteered for
PBS, and have seen the protests after gay programs aired -- and those were
for adults. Witness the constant threat of defunding from a conservative
Congress. Would your donations be enough to support his show if other PBS
members threatened defunding??? I would much rather have an ongoing show
that preached generalized acceptance than a show that showed gays and then
faced abrupt cancellation.
At Mr. Rogers' target age, parents have almost complete control over what a
child sees on TV. Some kids don't even know how to change the channel yet.
Do not blame Mr. Rogers if parents do not care enough to shield that child
from homophobic programs or messages, or worse, transmit these messages
themselves. Once more, you are missing the point that the show targets a
vey specifc young age group -- a group that does not get exposed to
homophobic messages (remember, they don't read all that well, and don't
understand the concept of sexuality. Again, read up on Piaget if you doubt
me) unless the parents give it or allow it. If those are the attitudes of
the parents, there is nothing Fred Rogers can do to counter it, especially
since no one theme merits continual discussion. Indeed, if the parents are
homophobic they will be among those threatening cancellation of the show.
> >It is much more
> >important to teach kids overall tolerance and respect than to name each
> >religion, creed, gender, race, etc specifically.
>
> More crap. Overall tolerance does not manage to cover certain
> minorities...particularly homosexuals. Same reason we need specific
> hate crime laws to protect certain minorities:
I'm simply not going to respond to this "more crap" argument anymore because
you repeatedly fail show any knowledge about the issues beyond your
opinions. Your use of the word "cover" may apply to laws, but unless you
provide academic psychological proof that "Overall tolerance does not manage
to cover certain minorities" or that those laws are somehow related to child
psychology, your argument is non sequitur and makes no sense.
> >Fred
> >Rogers does not have to mention gays for someone to learn that respecting
> >gays is no different from respecting blacks.
>
> Bullshit.
There he goes again with the academic arguments.
> Yet, by excluding any gay puppets, he is therefore keeping gay people
> in the dark recesses of childhood nightmares...which are then preyed
"dark recesses of childhood nightmares" ... more histrionic verbiage with a
misuse of Freud. Re-read your sentence, "keeping gay people in the dark
recesses of childhood nightmares" and see if even you know what that means.
I would love to see your statistics on how many children of Fred Rogers'
target age have nightmares of gay people. Indeed, I would give up this
whole argument and admit I'm wrong if you can show me one documented case
study of such a child having nightmares about gays. Yes, a child may have
nightmares about a person if s/he was abused by him/her, but this true
whether the abuser is gay or straight. In that case, the kid is not having
nightmares about sexual orientation but about abuse and the abuser. Heck,
please show me proof that such a young child can even conceptualize "gay."
After all, if you can't conceptualize it, you can't have nightmares about
it. Okay, go ahead, support the phrase, "keeping gay people in the dark
recesses of childhood nightmares."
> >Yet, he is near-universally credited to
> >have instilled love and respect amongst people, including those who now
work
> >for lesbigay rights.
>
> If as a queer child, you watched shows that inspired being good, you
> of course may be influenced by this. But just as we gays must pretend
> the lovers in a romance novel are of the same sex...we are acquiring
> the inspiration through our own adaptive imagine; not from society's
> acceptance or compassion.
You keep refering to society and its guilt, when we are talking specifically
about Fred Rogers.
It's amazing that somehow, only you among the many people on Gaynet -- you,
who have shown no familiarity with childhood psychology -- have this
self-revelation. Others have said how helpful Mr. Rogers was. So perhaps
it was only your childhood that so skewed toward homophobia that the
benefits of his show did not take effect. Why else don't you hear
complaints from others? I posted that initial message on several gay lists
and a gay radio show (GayBC), and all I heard was praise and the positive
effects Rogers had on their self-acceptance and acceptance of others. I
heard that from many people of all creeds, race, sexual orientation, etc,
from the Intenet, TV and print. Those personal testimonials, and my own
experiences, are the best proof for me. After all, these are coming from
the mouths of gay men. I accept that he may not have had the same effect on
you, but as long as he benefited the vast majority without any obvious or
mass exclusion, Fred Rogers has shown himself to be the friend to all,
including gays, that I've always felt him to be.
Sam Damon
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [GN] Was Mr. Rogers Anti-Gay?
>
> >ever give a homophobic message? Did he ever give any reasons for kids to
> >respect gays any less than other people?
>
> Why, yes, of course...in his silence about gay people...and by
> portraying stories and songs in traditional boy/girl fashion. This pap
> then brainwashes children to accept ONLY male/female pairing in the
> normal world.
PROOF? Once more, show me ANY studies ON CHILDREN of the age targeted by
Fred Rogers which shows this "brainwashing" (yet another histrionic word)
mechanism at work.
Your logic is amazingly flawed. No study to my knowledge has shown that
primary exposure to one paradigm causes "children to ONLY" accept these
examples, and discriminates against examples that don't fit. Using your
logic, the concept of CURIOSITY would not exist because these children would
see no reason to seek out new experiences since by definition, new
experiences would not fit what they have already been exposed to. Curiosity
is indeed a hallmark of this age group, showing how wrong you are. Piaget
again.
What you're missing is this: there is NO psychological mechanism which
would automatically make someone reject something that s/he has not been
exposed to. ESPECIALLY in children. Please name this mechanism if you can.
As an example, will a child reject a dog just because s/he has never seen
one? No. Indeed, the ASPCA recommends that a parent monitors any new pets
because the child tends to get too friendly while the dog is still fearful,
causing attacks.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>PROOF? Once more, show me ANY studies ON CHILDREN of the age targeted by
>Fred Rogers which shows this "brainwashing" (yet another histrionic word)
>mechanism at work.
Mr. Rogers' childrens show is identical to most others...in that they
follow the hetero-pairing role in their plays, tales, skits and games.
I am not singling out Rogers per se, but I am saying that his show
perpetrates silence about gay people, and thus is just as culpable as
all other kid shows, for bypassing the necessary social tools for
acclimating them to the normalcy of homosexuality.
This is brainwashing by omission of mentioning anything good about gay
people, or even mentioning anything about gay people at all. This,
despite these shows having absolutely no problem with educating
children about being decent to all *other folks who are different from
them. By never including gays, we are then demonized by default. This
lack of providing healthy gay role models, allows the homophobic
forces easy access to poisoning kids' minds...and those of adults.
The proof is in the pudding: homophobia rages on. It is fact that in
those cultures where the public are exposed regularly via the mass
media, to decent aspects of gays, that they are much more likely to
accept gays as equals. Of course, the reverse is true: the more gays
are repressed in a society, the more homophobia prevails...violence
and death againsts gays becoming an acceptable part of the social
fabric.
If Mr. Rogers had done anything on his show to promote positive
attitudes about gays, you bet there'd be an attack on him by the
Religous Reich. But such an attack would be *proof that Rogers had
done something favorably for gays. This attack never came, because
Rogers never assumed any responsibility for educating children in this
matter.
You are merely being an apologist for Mr. Rogers and his ilk. There is
*no excuse for any childrens show that serves to educate kids about
accepting different people, to exclude gays.
>Your logic is amazingly flawed. No study to my knowledge has shown that
>primary exposure to one paradigm causes "children to ONLY" accept these
>examples, and discriminates against examples that don't fit.
No study? There have been a plethora of studies comparing gay
awareness in groups, vs. no awareness. Each and every time, the latter
group always harbored much more hatred towards gays. This is because
the matter is not one of a single paradigm...but a conglomeration of
paradigms that shape young minds' attitudes about the world they live
in. And one of these paradigms is sorely missing: gays as normal.
>Using your
>logic, the concept of CURIOSITY would not exist because these children would
>see no reason to seek out new experiences since by definition, new
>experiences would not fit what they have already been exposed to.
This aspect of curiosity has NOTHING TO DO with the issue at hand:
which is your claim that non-exposure to gay people does not do harm
to gays. There is no way a curious child would consciously seek out
gay people in order to be exposed to their way of life...since the
child is likely to be raised with *no awareness of gays.
You are a sophist: clever with words, no matter the lie.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>I would much rather have an ongoing show
>that preached generalized acceptance than a show that showed gays and then
>faced abrupt cancellation.
There, now you said it: you'd gladly accept continued repression of
gay people, if that's what's needed to protect all other minorities,
in general. You accept this limit to our freedom: willful scapegoat
for the sins of others.
I rebel against such a viewpoint on what it means to be gay. The only
way I see, to our liberation, is to push forward against this wall of
homophobia until it crumbles. This means all people who know better,
and who have access to childrens media entertainment...have a
responsibility to educate kids about gays being normal. But since the
media, as well as most every other resource, accepts the status quo as
it is ("don't rock the boat; if we fight for gays we're liable to lose
the rights of everyone else")...we will remain second class citizens
in perpetuity.
I say: if gay rights comes at the cost of others' rights...well, let
them be damned, for there must be something rather wicked about them,
if that is their outcome. IOW, if we gays dare demand equal rights, we
will be the cause of the destruction of our society. Do you really
fall for this? Can you spell "Lame-O"?
And isn't it about time that we stop allowing our gay sisters and
brothers to be sacrificed to the maws of Hetero-Molech? If more
sacrifices there must be, isn't it time that heteros start taking the
hits for a change? After all, they created this monster!
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Sam Damon
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [GN] Was Mr. Rogers Anti-Gay?
>
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:58:55 -0400, "Sam Damon" <sdc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >I would much rather have an ongoing show
> >that preached generalized acceptance than a show that showed gays and
then
> >faced abrupt cancellation.
>
> There, now you said it: you'd gladly accept continued repression of
> gay people, if that's what's needed to protect all other minorities,
> in general. You accept this limit to our freedom: willful scapegoat
> for the sins of others.
I challenge you to *quote* where I said that I'd "gladly accept continued
repression of gay people." First of all, I wrote "would much rather have"
in the context of two difficult choices. In what language does that imply
"gladly accept"?
Secondly, you are once again ignoring the premise I wrote: namely that
generalized acceptance for human beings is beneficial to all, inclduing
gays. You however, see it as two exclusionary choices, a theory that you
have given without any logical argument or proof. Then you claim that I
"said it." I never compared gays to "all other minorities." You are the
one who continually play separatist, not me.
Don't use your premise to refute my argument. That's a grave error in
formal logic. To prove a a error in logic, you must use the premise give by
the person making the argument. So if you want to prove my argument false,
show me by using the premise I set forth. Alternatively, you can agree that
my logic is sound but that my premise is false. Yet not once have you done
either. I will match you scientific reference for reference, if you'd like.
If you'd like argue this another formalized way, I can translate the
argument to a game theory matrix. Without using mathematics, unless you
want to, what I am saying is this: I'd much rather have continual benefit
for all people, including gays -- than a short spurt of gay representation,
and then no benefit for anyone (aka cancellation). When one considers that
memory is reinforced through repetition, the value of a few shows (aka
spurt) is pretty poor, thus get a relatively low weight in the game matrix.
The mathematics is pretty clear; it's matter of the premise. But you have
not given any reasons to change the premise of the mathematics. Indeed, if
the opinions on gaynet and elsewhere is representative, no amout of
mathematical manipulation would support your view.
Sam Damon
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [GN] Was Mr. Rogers Anti-Gay?
?
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:56:19 -0400, "Sam Damon" <sdc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >PROOF? Once more, show me ANY studies ON CHILDREN of the age targeted by
> >Fred Rogers which shows this "brainwashing" (yet another histrionic word)
> >mechanism at work.
>
> Mr. Rogers' childrens show is identical to most others...in that they
> follow the hetero-pairing role in their plays, tales, skits and games.
> I am not singling out Rogers per se, but I am saying that his show
> perpetrates silence about gay people, and thus is just as culpable as
Silence is not perpetuated, it just is. Censorship is perpentuated, but
silence is not equal to censorship. Once more, silence is not equivalent to
homophobia. Nor is it homophilia. It is neutral. As an example, not
voiting says nothing about the way I feel about any of the candidates.
> This is brainwashing by omission of mentioning anything good about gay
"Brainwashing by omission"??? Where do you get these terms and concepts???
I just looked my psychology text and saw no mention of it. Nor can I find
it in PsychLit nor Medline, the two largest medical databases for
researchers in healthcare. In fact, I can't even find it on the Web. You
are making up psychological concepts that have no basis in research or
science.
> The proof is in the pudding: homophobia rages on. It is fact that in
No, as a medical researcher, I need more than "the pudding." I want proven
facts, citations and statistics. C'mon, the Web is out there, truly
democratizing research. I need to see references in child developmental
psychology (yes, there are at least 2 journals devoted to that) because we
are, after all, discussing Rogers' target audience. You profess a need to
change the situtation yet you don't take the time to do research other than
to quote your own opinions.
And you have not told me how any gay organizations such as GLAAD -- and more
importantly, how YOU -- have tried to change Fred Rogers' show which you
find so objectionable. What was their response when you ask them to include
more gay characters? How many times did you contact them?
> those cultures where the public are exposed regularly via the mass
> media, to decent aspects of gays, that they are much more likely to
> accept gays as equals.
Once more, you are railing against society when this discussion is about
Fred Rogers. Using your logic ad absurdum would lead us to philosopher Carl
Hempel's famous paradox in confirmation theory. He argued that logically,
finding a yellow windbreaker, for example, helps prove that all crows are
black. (to see how, read "Confirmation," by Wesley C. Salmon, in Scientific
American, May 1973, or ask me privately) Your argument, when taken further,
would also say that Campbell Soup labels perpetuate homophobia by not
showing gays. Same for Coca Cola cans. How about Hormel packages (despite
the fact that James Hormel is openly gay and contributes a lot to gay
causes)? How about Revlon, which is usd by many gay makeup artist and has
given money to AIDS, but has never had ads with gays? Using your logic,
*all objects* that don't display a gay person is guilty of contributing to
homophobia, and their owners can be accused of being "anti-gay" (see the
subject heading). So how many objects do you have in your home that don't
display a gay person? Since they are owned by you and you are at power to
paste on a gay photo, are you not "anti-gay" for not doing so???
> Of course, the reverse is true: the more gays
> are repressed in a society, the more homophobia prevails...violence
> and death againsts gays becoming an acceptable part of the social
> fabric.
Your argument here is unclear, possibly making a statistical error. The two
factors are most likely covariant and not causal. Regardless, I see no
connection to Fred Rogers as he does not repress gays. Once more, silence
is not active. Repression is active.
> If Mr. Rogers had done anything on his show to promote positive
> attitudes about gays, you bet there'd be an attack on him by the
> Religous Reich. But such an attack would be *proof that Rogers had
> done something favorably for gays. This attack never came, because
> Rogers never assumed any responsibility for educating children in this
> matter.
Yet somehow so many of us credit him for helping us become more tolerant
people, including toward gays. Are we stupid? Delluded? Uneducated?
Illogical? You need to explain why you are the only person here expressing
these views of Rogers. The proof of your "pudding" lies in the opinions of
the people here and elsewhere, we were affected positively gaywise.
You just can't accept the fact that intelligent people can disagree with you
without being "brainwashed," by "omission" or otherwise. I full accept you
as someone who sincerely do not feel that Fred Rogers had a positive impact
on his views of gayhood. But you can't accept that we sincerely feel that
had a different effect on us. Gays are homosexual, not homogenous.
> You are merely being an apologist for Mr. Rogers and his ilk. There is
> *no excuse for any childrens show that serves to educate kids about
> accepting different people, to exclude gays.
Fred Rogers need no excuses or apologies from me. I certainly would not
apologize to you. Since no sin has been committed, and much good has been
done, I come to offer praise, not to apologize. Indeed, if you can show me
where I had any apologies in my writing, I will offer you an apology.
You, on the other hand, are bitter. Perhaps not so much about Fred Rogers,
but about the fact that you did nothing to include gays on the show. No
letters, no phone calls. Well, ranting about it now won't help; his show has
stopped production. You're the one who needs to live with this guilt for
the rest of your life ... for his show will re-air time and time again, for
generations to come.
> >Your logic is amazingly flawed. No study to my knowledge has shown that
> >primary exposure to one paradigm causes "children to ONLY" accept these
> >examples, and discriminates against examples that don't fit.
>
> No study? There have been a plethora of studies comparing gay
> awareness in groups, vs. no awareness.
Again you ignore my words. Note that I wrote (quoting you), "children." Go
ahead, cite me ONE study out of the "plethora" that fits the criteria I
stated above.
Heck, I'll make this easier for you. As someone who has done research in
homophobia, I will even let you get away with showing me just one ADULT
study showing exactly what is stated above -- namely, the "primary exposure
to one paradigm causes [one] to ONLY accept these examples, and disciminates
against examples that don't fit." Your plethora reply was, after all, a
response to my words, no?
Go ahead, just one. I'm going to our medical library on Thursday. Give me
one citation out of your "pleathora," and I'll analyze the study, gratis.
> Each and every time, the latter
> group always harbored much more hatred towards gays.
Ah, changing the words again. First off, none of these studies deal with
developing children. Most were taken from college campuses. Secondly, your
sensationalistic and inflammatory use of "hatred" is not what the scales
primarly measure. They measure negative (and positive) attitudes, not
hatred. For example, of the 4 points on negative side of the Riddle
Homophobia Scale, the worst is "Repulsion," and the vast majority of
respondents do not fit there. This instead of using loose terms like "much
more hatred," why don;t you give me the statistical signficance of its
findings? None of the studies I remember off the top of my merit an
interpretation of "much more hatred." Don't forget -- you used the word
"group," so please don't simply show me statistical outliers. Prove me
wrong.
Henrek (or was it Gorsek?) opined that thinking of homosexulity as wrong
and neccesary to change is not equal to hatred, or even the classic phobia.
Most researchers now agree.
Secondly, no homophobia scale I'm aware of measures if one "ONLY" (your
word) accepts examples that fit the paradigm of primary exposure" to the
exlcusion of others. Even the extensive 25 question "Wright, Adams, and
Bernat Homophobia Scale" doesn't do that. Indeed, Adams cautions, "Since
there is no universally accepted definition of homophobia, the scales
currently in use may not measure all aspects of homophobia." Yet despite
this lack of universality, you use absolutist terms like "each and every
time" and "always."
Go ahead, just one study.
> This is because
> the matter is not one of a single paradigm...but a conglomeration of
> paradigms that shape young minds' attitudes about the world they live
> in. And one of these paradigms is sorely missing: gays as normal.
Ah, so now we're back to children again. You CANNOT mix child psychology
with adult psychology, especially when it comes to the development of
attitudes.
As for the single paradigm, it was you who wrote that it was single paradigm
by giving the example of "boy/girl." Once more, no one disagrees that an
exposure to positive gay images is good -- but you have not given any
semblance of logical argunent showing why Mr. Rogers is "anti-gay" ( keep
looking at that subj heading). You go all over the place, talking about
adults, and society and made-up psychology, but refuse to talk about the
issue at hand. Simply put, not doing the preferred thing (by preferred, I
mean preferred by some gays, not necessarily the general populace) is not
equivalent to doing the hurtful thing. And my simplistic game theory
argument shows that he perhaps did the optimal thing, given the existing
options.
> >Using your
> >logic, the concept of CURIOSITY would not exist because these children
would
> >see no reason to seek out new experiences since by definition, new
> >experiences would not fit what they have already been exposed to.
>
> This aspect of curiosity has NOTHING TO DO with the issue at hand:
> which is your claim that non-exposure to gay people does not do harm
> to gays. There is no way a curious child would consciously seek out
> gay people in order to be exposed to their way of life...since the
> child is likely to be raised with *no awareness of gays.
Again, you are avoiding any academic discussion of the topic. This is
frustrating because you refuse to quote the part I was replying to. Let me
do it for you. You wrote: "and by portraying stories and songs in
traditional boy/girl fashion. This pap then brainwashes children to accept
ONLY male/female pairing in the normal world." In other words, you wrote
that because Rogers only shows a certain example ("traditional boy/girl
fashion"), children will "ONLY accept" that example as normal. To rephrase,
children would reject (aka not accept) any examples that they had no prior
exposure to.
[tell me here if my rephrasing is correct. if not, where did I make the
logical mistake???]
If that made-up psychological mechanism exists, then curiosity would not,
because curiosity, by definition, is the exploration of something that was
not in one's prior experience. If one automatically rejects things where
there was no prior exposure, learning becomes impossible. yet that's what
you're suggesting: that children will "ONLY accept" the "male/female
pairing" because that is all they've been exposed to. The use of the word
"ONLY" is your major mistake.
These supposed psychological principles you use so absolutely simply don't
exist.
> You are a sophist: clever with words, no matter the lie.
Well, I can't say the same for you: Neither clever with words, logic nor
proven facts.
As for the words, I can thank you for much of it for I quoted from you.
Go ahead, just one study.
Bob Metcalfe
Given the wholesome, super-clean, prissiness of Mr. Rogers and his show,
I think it might make more sense to refer to him as Auntie Fred, rather
than anti-gay.
bob
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Given the wholesome, super-clean, prissiness of Mr. Rogers and his show,
>I think it might make more sense to refer to him as Auntie Fred, rather
>than anti-gay.
Well, if you accept the 50s-fashion "closet humor"...you then throw
Rogers into the same mix as Liberace, and other hetero-subservient
queer celebrities. Sure, call him "Auntie Fred"...but if you do, you
should then also call him hypocrite. Accepting such a double-standard
is retrograde to our cause, slipping back to the pre-Stonewall riot.
How very comforting!
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
GIA Campaign
growing up.
-Robert
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Support a long overdue cause!
The Declaration of Gay Independence!
Read it! Sign it! Pass it on!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> From: Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com>
> Organization: Blue Rose Militia
> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 09:15:00 -0700
> To: gay...@queernet.org
> Subject: Re: [GN] Was Mr. Rogers Anti-Gay?
>