E-Directory of Lesbigay Scholars (An Invitation)
Ken Robol
On Wed, 1 Mar 1995 SAL...@zodiac.rutgers.edu wrote:
> What would the reaction be if someone said that there was
> an "ongoing debate about whether or not lesbian and gay
> scholars and researchers can meaningfully address the study of
> heterosexual life"?
>
> Maybe we should stop using names and just identify ourselves
> by our race, gender, sexual-orientation, religion, etc and just
> limit ourselves to studying others who are similarly pigeon-holed.
Michael A. Schoenfield
Living in Madison, Wisconsin I don't know how politically correct or
incorrect the following statement will be, but what the h___. Why not just
identify ourselves as:
1. Homsapian,
2. Feline,
3. Canine,
4. Other Mammal,
5. Aviary animal,
6. Reptile,
7. Amoeba,
8. Other Animal,
9. Form of plant life, or
10. Other rock or non-life form of existence.
This would certainly clear up alot of confusion and worriesa about so-called
political correctness.
Mike S.
=======================================================
Michael A. Schoenfield masc...@students.wisc.edu
Michael A. Schoenfield & Associates (608) 238-6121 Voice
University of Wisconsin - Madison
2637 Mason St.
Madison, WI 53705-3709
Ken Sherrill
Now that we are back to the angry white men thread, let's identify
bigots and bigotry for what they are or, better yet, let's discuss research and
scholarship. How much progress has the study of public opinion made in under-
standing the development of prime political identity? Why are people more will-
ing to articulate their negative views of homosexuals than of other minorities?
I urge those of you attending the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting
to attend the panel on which the results of the APSA study of the status of les
bians and gays in the profession will be presented. Some of my colleagues on
this discussion list might find the results enlightening.
Ken Sherrill
h...@unity.ncsu.edu
> ... Why are people more will-
>ing to articulate their negative views of homosexuals than of other minorities?
>
>I urge those of you attending the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting
>to attend the panel on which the results of the APSA study of the status of les
>bians and gays in the profession will be presented. Some of my colleagues on
>this discussion list might find the results enlightening.
I won't be there - but I have some ideas on this, based on my
experiences in moving from the North-east US to the South-east US and
living through a major change in public opinion and behavior. I'm
thinking of the changes regarding articulation of negative views of
Black Americans during the 1959 - 1974 years.
During this time span people became much less willing to articulate
negative views, to cast racial slurs, to use the N-word, ... It had
become socially unacceptable to speak in that way - and rather than such
negative language receiving explicit or implicit support, or even benign
neglect - it caused the speaker to be shunned in most circles. Not only
in well-educated circles, but in the general population.
(Yes, I know there were exceptions - but I think I'm accurately
reporting the overall mood of the populace as accurately as can be done
in such a short summary.)
Therefore my conclusion to the initial question is that this reflects
that there is a sense on the part of people that negative views of
homosexuals are more publically-acceptable than negative views of other
minorities. Following this thought, I would further conclude that this
sense of public acceptance does accurately reflect the public mood.
In effect, the articulators of these negative views have conducted
their own polls, and do understand the reactions that their negative
views will evoke.
--henry schaffer
MJOH...@center.colgate.edu
Without disagreeing in the least with the general points you have
made, I am very dubious about the validity and reliability of the APSA
survey you mention. I received one, as a dept chair, and thought it a very
poorly-designed instrument. Even if I had wanted to respond, which I did not,
I would have had no way to answer most of the questions since I have (and wish)
no systematic knowledge of my colleagues' or students' sexual orientations (nor
do I make any decisions on that basis, one way or the other). I would imaging
those responding are to a significant extent unrepresentative of the larger
profession, by way of self-selection and political outlook, and I wonder
about the accuracy of their responses to most of the items.
I didn'
I didn't fill out the survey, or return it to the APSA. I do have an
open mind on the fundamental issues here, however, and think it might be a good
idea for you (or whoever) to summarize the major findings and discussions
at the meeting-either to be sent to those who are interested (sign me up),
or posted for the group.
Thanks for the invitation--
Michael Johnston
Colgate University
Michael A. Schoenfield
>Ken writes:
>> ... Why are people more will-
>>ing to articulate their negative views of homosexuals than of other
minorities? I urge those of you attending the Midwest Political Science
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
In response Henry Schaffer wrote:
> Therefore my conclusion to the initial question is that this reflects
>that there is a sense on the part of people that negative views of
>homosexuals are more publically-acceptable than negative views of other
minorities. Following this thought, I would further conclude that this
sense of public acceptance does accurately reflect the public mood. In
effect, the articulators of these negative views have conducted
>their own polls, and do understand the reactions that their negative
>views will evoke.
--------------------
I wrote sort of a quick smart-a__ed posting earlier as I get somewhat
irritated with pigeonholes, i.e., why can't gays and lesbians study
hetrosexual relationships? Why not, Margaret Mead studied another of other
cultures, which were pretty alien to her own. From my observations (am I
making a P.C. mistake because I'm a happy hetrosexual?) many so-called
homosexual relationships look pretty much like hetrosexual relationships,
with the same love, problems, issues, etc. In talking to my friends, who
happen to be homosexual in their personal orientation, they confirm that the
lifestyles are pretty similar -- and I've been married three time (not such
a great batting record myself, but am doing pretty well in my third). What
is the difference?
The only thing that I can identify is that of social acceptance. I suspect
that it must be similar to individuals who entered in inter-racial
relationships before they became socially acceptible. An adopted uncle of
mine was gay and he remained in a monogoneous relationship for about 40
years (he finally commited suicide because of non-acceptance from his
biological family). Acept for his alcoholism, he was a famous writer (you
would probably recognize his name) and cook. When I was growing up, I never
recognized that he wasn't in a "normal" relationship, i.e., I figured he was
pretty happy with his best friend (that's how I'm doing so well in my third
marriage -- I married a friend). Why wouldn't someone who is gay or lesbian
not be able to be an insightful political scientist, anthropologist,
sociologist, attorney, physicist, etc. I deem this to be a pretty silly
argument.
Now when we address prejudice thats another subject all together. For the
life of me, I can't understand prejudice against homosexuals. Perhaps it is
based upon people not being secure in their own sexuality? (a thesis
perhaps which needs testing). Jealousy -- one individual I watched at a
neighbor's party was raging against Mondonna being a lesbian (?), and I
finally guessed that he had a thing for her but had no chance of ever
meeting her much less "scoring." I would hope that psychologists could
identify the psychosis or whatever which drives some people to "hate" others
for biological differences.
Just some thoughts for discussion or contemplation or to be thrown away.
Ken Sherrill
I was not suggesting that students of LGB politics study family structures --
although that might interest some of our colleagues. I would raise questions
of this sort:
Why are people prejudiced (or not prejudiced) toward LGB people?
What is the nature of mass attitudes? Are such attitudes structured? By what?
Are they related to political participation, turnout, electoral decisions, etc.
What are the mechanisms by which LGB people come to view themselves as a politi
cal class? Is it related to political identity or consciousness? How does it
comparre to our understanding of ethnic and racial politics?
Do LGB people share a sense of common grievance? Is there a political agenda? H
ow widely is it accepted? What structures it? Is it related to partisan
behavior or attitudes? How does such a sense of shared grievance develop?
What sorts of jurisdictions enact non-discrimination legislation? How does that
fit into our more general theories of same?
What about legislative roll-call?
What about congruence between leaders and followers?
Why does it push buttons for the radical right?
How does discovery of sexual orientation fit with our theories of socialization
into politics?
Is there an identifiable gay vote?
Why does there seem to be a relationship between sexual orientation and posi-
tion on a left-right continuum?
How does one pull a good sample of LGB people?
What are the consequences of the assumption of universal heterosexuality on
the psychological, social, and political development of lgb people?
And so on.
One need not be a homosexual to study these questions.
Ken
Michael A. Schoenfield
I have not shortened or edited your comments as I find them insightful and
right on que as to the need for further research into this population. From
some studies that I have seen (for instance NY Times/NBC Portrait of the
Electorate), they tend to be Democratly oriented, but this appears not to be
a strong partisan orientation, as opposed to Blacks. From news accounts,
several gay/lesbian people connected (biologically) are well connected with
Republican leaders and have strongly conservative partisan orientations
themselves (Republican). Perhaps I am also influenced by a former
Congressional candidate I did some work for who played to the gay / lesbian
community and I tried to tell him that his assumption of partisan
homogenitity is ill infomed -- he figured it out when he got trounced at the
polls. From my experience, gay/lesbian friends of mine are pretty much
across the board regarding ideology, mores, social values, religion, race,
education, lifestyles, etc. In other words, they appear, at least to me, to
be pretty much normal homosapians (no puns intended).
My wife and I were talking about this tonight and what is the difference
between a homosexual relationship, and me being sexually oriented towards
slender or fat or bald or blond or dark haired women. Seems to be to be
pretty much what turns someone on. And from my anti-war experience in
prison, I can attest that a number of gay men I met were very macho (one was
the former heavy weight lifting champ in the Midwest). That was the only
point I was trying very seriously to make. Perhaps we, as a society, make
too much over things that are really none of our business (my preference).
I however am curious if orientation does have an effect on policy or other
forms of decision-making? And what efect does it have on attitudes such as
self-esteem, empowerment, etc. I find these interesting psychological
questions, with potential policy ramifications.
Mike S.
=======================================================
=======================================================
Eric Norman Lehot
identification and insight in addition to experience in being from that
constituency and identifying with that experience....this only adds to a
richer perspective....just as the most prominent scholars in african
american studies tend to be but not exclusively african american....the
real question is, ken, why is thihs such an issue for you?
On Thu, 16 Mar
Ken Sherrill
reply to him privately, but all mail to him bounces. Sorry to take up bandwidth
I'm tempted to tell him that I've studied minority politics, ethnic politics,
and political intolerance for over 30 years.
I'm tempted to tell him that, like all homosexuals, I must be compulsively
addicted to all things sexual and perverse.
The truth is that the rampant bigotry and ignorance that began the angry
straight white men thread is infuriating.
Let's stop it.
Eric Norman Lehot
person arguing with you..