[lit-ideas] Re: 2006 reading lists
- From: eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:18:45 -0500
Dear Stan,
Well, I'll *always* take someone concern and worry for me! Send thoughts to the
Universe for me--I'm always in need for something or someone! <wry look>
My main 'cute summary' was to showcase what I have seen as the reasons for the
discrimination. In my mind, at least, if you want to change something, you have
to understand what is driving the decision. (part of the 80/20 rule, maybe?)
While *I* may see the difference, I was trying to point out that there are alot
of people who do NOT. So, then I try to dig deep into figuring out why they
don't understand the difference. (Some of the reasons that I have come up with
are completely different from just 'they are bigots or homophobes' To me, those
definitions and that reaction is simply not helpful in terms of creating change
and often will have a result of further backing into a corner or stonewalling.
So, I try to go away from that and [particularly for the large percentage of
people who generally will want to be fair and are simply erring on the side of
'protecting'. When I look at that quality, I don't see someone who is
homophobic (in terms of the reasons for not having gays in boy scouts, for
example)--I see people who want to protect. They are very concerned that there
are boys who are gay who are not involved -- and that there are healthy normal
folk out there who just happen to have a gay sexual ori
entation. But, there IS confusion and I suppose my sharing what I saw as that
confusion and how I was trying to address that confusion was obviously not
clear. But, I see that their reasons may vary--some may have been abused as
kids, know others who were, not have a clear understanding of all sorts of
things...languaging, developmental stuff, people like the UMKC prof who goes on
the radio and speaks about things and NAMBLA's stating that they speak at gay
organized gatherings, genetics [if that is a part], etc.)
I did also mention that there are several ways to change things--and some of
them are by putting the outside constraints on things (like the national united
way to the national bsa) but sometimes it is also helpful to be more of the
'ambassador' type and explain to that percentage who is in the middle/on the
fence/unsure but knowing they want to keep those kids safe--that they don't
need to worry.
and, that is simply my style. It's not yours. I understand that--and when the
situation changes (in my belief <wry look>)--it will have come about because of
each of the methods involved. And, hopefully (in my mind) to showcase what
learning and growing and research can do--not just force or coercion.
I didn't mean to make 'cute summary distortions'. (well, cute and summary ones
might not be so bad. I'm not very good at the 'summary' part, though, so if I
managed that--you ought to know it was by accident! --and the cute part is
difficult because I usually go too deep...so that, too, surprises me. The
distortion bit, though--ouch!)
Best,
Marlena
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Spiegel <writeforu2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:56:17 -0500
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: 2006 reading lists
--- eternitytime1@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Although I just started this title found online
> because of the recent conversation about whether or
> not a pedophile is just a misunderstood person who
> is a victim of the age of consent laws
>I don't remember anybody saying that.
>Judy Evans, Cardiff
We said there was some blurring of pedophiles and gays. That doesn't mean
pedophiles are misunderstood. It means that homophobes have a habit of
calling gays pedophiles. They have blurred the difference because it serves
their homophobic needs.
If you're not homophobic, Marlena, (is that accurate?), you should see that
people who like to have sex with children are very different from
homosexuals. If you don't, then I'm concerned about you.
Do you see the difference? If you do, then don't make such cute summary
distortions.
Stan Spiegel
Portland, ME
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: 2006 reading lists
>
> --- eternitytime1@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> > Although I just started this title found online
> > because of the recent conversation about whether or
> > not a pedophile is just a misunderstood person who
> > is a victim of the age of consent laws
>
> I don't remember anybody saying that.
>
> Judy Evans, Cardiff
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
