Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Here's an interesting quotation I though fitting for this conversation on the demise of lesbian spaces, loss of community acitivism, and assimilation and merging into greater society for GLBT people:

"My freedom shall be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles.  Whatever diminishes constraints, diminishes strength.  The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees oneself of the chains that shackle spirit."  Igor Stravinsky


Interesting, eh?

---

---

The thought of pulling in walls simply for the challenge makes me uncomfortable. Sounds like a deliberate martyr. At face value I see a potential healing philosophy. But I think it's a subterfuge, if not deliberate, still a dangerous theory, when applied. I dont find the thought of his process at all empowering. Further, in any single practical application I mentally apply it to, it fails. With the lone exception of its being a corporate motto for progressive masochists, martyrs in general or "victims". It eerily reminds me of someone who spoke of this type of "philosophy" incessantly. Imagine any alpha/omega relationship and where one or the other has allowed the domination to absorb the others personality, physicality, psyche? Or, where the omega as Igor seems to suggest, pulls those shackles closer intentionally. Igors into sado-masochism no matter which or what type of scenario I apply his quote to. It's a little more complicated (the quote) than the AA population "taking back" the "N" word. IMO. I don't think there's a healthy, quick fix for saving gay. Not without reintroducing or continuing to stimulate some of the addictive, psychosexual, adverse behaviors that went along with the "outness" of the 60's and seventies. A gay stimulus package, lol. That's what's needed. But a healthy channeling of the energy that comes from anyone that wants to be set free. I don't know. But it seems to me that coupling and staying home, even eschewing small groups of relationships beyond the walls of the primary one is what will kill any partnering. Someone is going to cry "foul" once they realize they've "picked" their own brains to death and now they need to insert the outside world again. If we never let it go from our relationship it doesn't ever need to appear as if the relationship just wasn't "enough". We need something. Bring back the eighties, please.  

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

I had a very heated argument with a lesbian on this very subject a couple of years ago. Of COURSE lesbians can get HIV AIDS! And they can get a lot of other life-threatening diseases, too, if they're not careful. But where are the disseminators of this information? Where are the fund raisers to spread the word, and provide support services? Not in "our" shared community, for damn sure. And it ticks me off, but then I get over it, and realize that we as lesbians need to start doing a little more for us now. We need to be caregivers of us. And we're kidding ourselves if we think we're going to have the support we gave in the 70's and 80's reciprocated by the men in our community --


there are organizations, national ones even, but they do a very poor job of letting people know they are there. in past times we might see the flyer on the bookstore wall but with no specific centers those things are often missed. lesbians have very specific health concerns and areas where we are at greater risk than het women. and youre right there are some very big issues that lesbians need to be aware of smoking and weight issues and the diseases that arise from those are the leading health concerns as well as a higher risk of some gyno cancers.




 the men in either pants or dresses. I say that because my experience was that the ones in dresses were the most active in the fund raisers back in those days. My admiration for them, the "drag queens" remains untarnished in that regard.

theres a lot of misogyny in the gay male community. i got a chuckle watching the movie milk because this is joked about. and its something ive had a hard time with over the years. i seem to tangle with gay men a lot. its a personality thing. or a power thing. could be either but there often tension there.


Can you IMAGINE!?!? I used to go "down the hill" as many weekends as I could to help them hang drapes, or do some other stuff around their house just to listen to the stories of their blended lives. I look back now, and think what a pain in the tush I must have been, and how generous they were, really, with their time.

wow. what a great experience for you and for them. it sounds like they enjoyed you also! and to have someone as a role model who was living a nice loving life is about as good as it gets.

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Here's an interesting quotation I though fitting for this conversation on the demise of lesbian spaces, loss of community acitivism, and assimilation and merging into greater society for GLBT people:

"My freedom shall be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraints, diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees oneself of the chains that shackle spirit." Igor Stravinsky


Interesting, eh?

---

hmm yep, very. im gonna sit with that last line a bit.

 

---

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 I know where the "mixed" clubs are in town. I've been to them plenty of times, and they're fine. Inasmuch as they do exist, I don't see any good reason for forcing a lesbian bar (or gay bar, for that matter) to become mixed too.

The truth is we're different. ::GASP!::

Different in a lot of ways, as individuals, and genders. We have (now) different activist causes; lesbians were the first to dive in of support of our gay brothers when AIDS first began to surface, and we stayed with it a long time. I don't see it being reciprocated in terms of breast cancer, and other primarily lesbian concerns, though.

Maybe that's OK at this point. Maybe, because energy has a finite value, it's good for women to step away from the "nurture everyone but yourself" philosophy, branch off and put their energies towards women's issues now. I think I feel this way because of a combination of the times changing, and my own personal changes, combined. In the world of nightclubs, survival is about economics as much as anything, and when women are on equal footing with men financially, then perhaps more women's spaces will begin to sprout anew. Until that time, at least we do have the internet, where the overhead is reasonable, and we can create spaces such as this for women. FWIW, I will use the administrative tools available me to keep it that way, if it ever comes to that.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 11:19, 2009-01-12

---

Men, in general, have largely and finally begun to "come out" for the fight to end Breast Cancer. It took alot of work, but their wives, daughters, mothers, co-workers, friends began dying, or became ill, gravely and seriously ill. It isn't a lesbian thing, or even simply a woman thing. The impact on families, careers, society in general was too big to ignore. That, combined with the three men (sic) who now have developed that cancer they have decided to jump in, advocate and fundraise. Now, gay men? In general, no. I personally don't know of any social movement or needy cause that they are attached to that's not directly intended directly or other to benefit themselves. 

---

I may not have been clear with my words; if not, my apology. I do know a lot of men are supporting breast cancer research, and I know too, breast cancer is not exclusively a women's issue, and certainly not lesbian women. It does impact us, though, and with all the research, and media attention, women are still dying from it at a somewhat alarming rate. There are also STDs fairly exclusive to lesbians, which result in cervical cancer. I didn't even KNOW about these things, until someone very close to me developed cervical cancer, but I can sure regurgitate an almost encyclopedia-like history of the HIV-AIDs virus.

I easily worked over the span of several years, a thousand AIDS benefits. I did volunteer work at Phoenix Shanti in it's earliest days, until my energy was more intimately needed -- until I had to spend that energy with friends who were dying. 

I don't regret a moment of that activism, nor would I dream of doing anything differently. And? Absolutely the fight continues, absolutely there is a resurgence in young gay men, which horrifies me. But? There is a very clear public awareness of HIV AIDS now -- the shabby little holes where we used to care for our dying brothers are now much much better funded, and appointed.

Back then, in the early days, of the first outbreaks, we really didn't know what caused HIV AIDS, and so we didn't know who got it, or why. I remember there was a rumor floating around for a long time that it came from using poppers, which were popular inhalants which accelorated the heartbead and blood flow. The thing was, silly as it seems in retrospect, at first, it seemed that ONLY homosexuals got AIDS, and very quickly, that was narrowed down to gay men. While lesbian efforts were, on one hand, greatly appreciated within the community, there too was this underlying sense of resentment, I think, from a lot of gay guys who (rightly) felt it horribly unfair that ... well, frankly put, they were dying, and I wasn't. I absorbed some of that resentment, and felt some guilt about it. They were right, of course, it didn't seem fair. And too, this created a subtle crevice between homosexual men and women, because the sense was (or at least so it often seemed to me) that we, as lesbians, couldn't really know, or understand that which our male counterparts were experiencing. 

I have a card, a greeting card from that time, that I bought for myself. I bought it because it stirred such great resonance in me at the time. There's no writing, no words on either the outside, or inside. It's just a picture of a school bus, crowded with kids, pulling away, and a puppy sitting forlornly on the sidewalk, watching it go. I related to that puppy, and I didn't know why that had to be.  

My point, I guess, was that ... well? In my metropolitan area of over 4 million people? There is (count 'em) ONE lesbian cancer group, and about eight participants. ONE. It's a support group, period. Contrast that with HIV AIDS groups, and support systems, and ... sheesh. Even safe sex information is pretty exclusively aimed at men. I'm astounded at the misconceptions regarding things as simple as dental dams. I think there remains a dangerous unspoken (and sometimes spoken, much to my astonishment) that lesbians don't get AIDS.





I had a very heated argument with a lesbian on this very subject a couple of years ago. Of COURSE lesbians can get HIV AIDS! And they can get a lot of other life-threatening diseases, too, if they're not careful. But where are the disseminators of this information? Where are the fund raisers to spread the word, and provide support services? Not in "our" shared community, for damn sure. And it ticks me off, but then I get over it, and realize that we as lesbians need to start doing a little more for us now. We need to be caregivers of us. And we're kidding ourselves if we think we're going to have the support we gave in the 70's and 80's reciprocated by the men in our community -- the men in either pants or dresses. I say that because my experience was that the ones in dresses were the most active in the fund raisers back in those days. My admiration for them, the "drag queens" remains untarnished in that regard. You're right, though -- there are men involved in the breast cancer fight. I just don't see gay men as a group embracing anything for lesbians the way we did for them, and while I never did anything expecting reciproation those couple of decades, it woud be nice to see some sort of equal interest in issues more generally specific to women now. I caution myself, and like to believe that there might have been something more like that, had not the guys who woud have been most active in it died.

I've been out of the GLBT community loop for a while now. After working in the bars for a long time, I have no desire to spend time in them, except on special occasins. I'm not familiar with what the 20 somethings are doing these days. Maybe they are working on things like the legalization of gay and lesbian marriage and adoption. I hope so. I hope they're involved in something, and involved with older gay and lesbian people as well. I hope that in part, because frankly, it is a "good" experience, and a contributing factor to the ongoing preservation of our history as a community. A lot has been written about "us" but really, I see so much of our history as still a largely oral history, which needs to be passed down from generation to generation. I've mentioned before, I'm sure, the lesbian couple in Sedona whom I met in the early seventies. They'd been together 50 years. Can you IMAGINE!?!? I used to go "down the hill" as many weekends as I could to help them hang drapes, or do some other stuff around their house just to listen to the stories of their blended lives. I look back now, and think what a pain in the tush I must have been, and how generous they were, really, with their time. They had a beautiful home -- incredibly warm and welcoming, filled with lots of "arty" stuff. The fire in the fireplace always seemed almost a "of course" thing. Dinner with them was a celebration -- flowers were picked from Mib's garden for the salad ... cherry creations were set ablaze for desert -- and this was just "dinner" for them. :) For me, a college kid bustin' my hump to put gas in my old pickup, it was a step into a wholly different world, and a world which I wanted to join. Mostly, they taught me it was "OK" to be what I was. Sounds so elementary now, but there weren't a lot of role models for me at the time, and I am so grateful for the gift of their presence in my life, limited as it was. This is another aspect of "community" which I think deserves preservation, and which, as we do become more homogenized, we are in danger of losing. I would love to live long enough to see the dawn of the day when young gay and lesbian people don't even entertain that "what's WRONG with me!?!" agony. I would like to live long enough to see the day when it's "Oh! Guess I'm a lesbian! Hunh!" I doubt I will realize that dream, though, and until that time, I do think there's a need for "the community/"  

---

After work I'll defrock the veil of "anon" and share my thoughts on some of your very important points. Otherwise two quick things. The first is I believe we're suggesting similar things in saying that maybe, men in general, either don't have the compasssion or motivation to involve themselves in anything unless forced to or with the idea that it directly impacts themselves, their physical self. And even then, it's all about what makes them happy, satisfied, momentarily pleased. I don't think the g.p. of gay men were nearly as concerned for themselves until they were afflicted, carriers, full blown AIDS patients. I KNOW they weren't, my dead best friend Joseph is testimony to that. And there ARE deadly health concerns for lesbians, well, non child bearing women in general, that NOBODY wants to take on as a cause. Cervical cancer is just one. 

As for the highlighted area above? I predict we all will live to hear those words, sadly imho the statement will end with "because you fought so hard to be just like one of us, now that's all you are". Now what?

---

Here's an interesting quotation I though fitting for this conversation:

Anonymous wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 I know where the "mixed" clubs are in town. I've been to them plenty of times, and they're fine. Inasmuch as they do exist, I don't see any good reason for forcing a lesbian bar (or gay bar, for that matter) to become mixed too.

The truth is we're different. ::GASP!::

Different in a lot of ways, as individuals, and genders. We have (now) different activist causes; lesbians were the first to dive in of support of our gay brothers when AIDS first began to surface, and we stayed with it a long time. I don't see it being reciprocated in terms of breast cancer, and other primarily lesbian concerns, though.

Maybe that's OK at this point. Maybe, because energy has a finite value, it's good for women to step away from the "nurture everyone but yourself" philosophy, branch off and put their energies towards women's issues now. I think I feel this way because of a combination of the times changing, and my own personal changes, combined. In the world of nightclubs, survival is about economics as much as anything, and when women are on equal footing with men financially, then perhaps more women's spaces will begin to sprout anew. Until that time, at least we do have the internet, where the overhead is reasonable, and we can create spaces such as this for women. FWIW, I will use the administrative tools available me to keep it that way, if it ever comes to that.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 11:19, 2009-01-12

---

Men, in general, have largely and finally begun to "come out" for the fight to end Breast Cancer. It took alot of work, but their wives, daughters, mothers, co-workers, friends began dying, or became ill, gravely and seriously ill. It isn't a lesbian thing, or even simply a woman thing. The impact on families, careers, society in general was too big to ignore. That, combined with the three men (sic) who now have developed that cancer they have decided to jump in, advocate and fundraise. Now, gay men? In general, no. I personally don't know of any social movement or needy cause that they are attached to that's not directly intended directly or other to benefit themselves. 

---

I may not have been clear with my words; if not, my apology. I do know a lot of men are supporting breast cancer research, and I know too, breast cancer is not exclusively a women's issue, and certainly not lesbian women. It does impact us, though, and with all the research, and media attention, women are still dying from it at a somewhat alarming rate. There are also STDs fairly exclusive to lesbians, which result in cervical cancer. I didn't even KNOW about these things, until someone very close to me developed cervical cancer, but I can sure regurgitate an almost encyclopedia-like history of the HIV-AIDs virus.

I easily worked over the span of several years, a thousand AIDS benefits. I did volunteer work at Phoenix Shanti in it's earliest days, until my energy was more intimately needed -- until I had to spend that energy with friends who were dying. 

I don't regret a moment of that activism, nor would I dream of doing anything differently. And? Absolutely the fight continues, absolutely there is a resurgence in young gay men, which horrifies me. But? There is a very clear public awareness of HIV AIDS now -- the shabby little holes where we used to care for our dying brothers are now much much better funded, and appointed.

Back then, in the early days, of the first outbreaks, we really didn't know what caused HIV AIDS, and so we didn't know who got it, or why. I remember there was a rumor floating around for a long time that it came from using poppers, which were popular inhalants which accelorated the heartbead and blood flow. The thing was, silly as it seems in retrospect, at first, it seemed that ONLY homosexuals got AIDS, and very quickly, that was narrowed down to gay men. While lesbian efforts were, on one hand, greatly appreciated within the community, there too was this underlying sense of resentment, I think, from a lot of gay guys who (rightly) felt it horribly unfair that ... well, frankly put, they were dying, and I wasn't. I absorbed some of that resentment, and felt some guilt about it. They were right, of course, it didn't seem fair. And too, this created a subtle crevice between homosexual men and women, because the sense was (or at least so it often seemed to me) that we, as lesbians, couldn't really know, or understand that which our male counterparts were experiencing. 

I have a card, a greeting card from that time, that I bought for myself. I bought it because it stirred such great resonance in me at the time. There's no writing, no words on either the outside, or inside. It's just a picture of a school bus, crowded with kids, pulling away, and a puppy sitting forlornly on the sidewalk, watching it go. I related to that puppy, and I didn't know why that had to be.  

My point, I guess, was that ... well? In my metropolitan area of over 4 million people? There is (count 'em) ONE lesbian cancer group, and about eight participants. ONE. It's a support group, period. Contrast that with HIV AIDS groups, and support systems, and ... sheesh. Even safe sex information is pretty exclusively aimed at men. I'm astounded at the misconceptions regarding things as simple as dental dams. I think there remains a dangerous unspoken (and sometimes spoken, much to my astonishment) that lesbians don't get AIDS.





I had a very heated argument with a lesbian on this very subject a couple of years ago. Of COURSE lesbians can get HIV AIDS! And they can get a lot of other life-threatening diseases, too, if they're not careful. But where are the disseminators of this information? Where are the fund raisers to spread the word, and provide support services? Not in "our" shared community, for damn sure. And it ticks me off, but then I get over it, and realize that we as lesbians need to start doing a little more for us now. We need to be caregivers of us. And we're kidding ourselves if we think we're going to have the support we gave in the 70's and 80's reciprocated by the men in our community -- the men in either pants or dresses. I say that because my experience was that the ones in dresses were the most active in the fund raisers back in those days. My admiration for them, the "drag queens" remains untarnished in that regard. You're right, though -- there are men involved in the breast cancer fight. I just don't see gay men as a group embracing anything for lesbians the way we did for them, and while I never did anything expecting reciproation those couple of decades, it woud be nice to see some sort of equal interest in issues more generally specific to women now. I caution myself, and like to believe that there might have been something more like that, had not the guys who woud have been most active in it died.

I've been out of the GLBT community loop for a while now. After working in the bars for a long time, I have no desire to spend time in them, except on special occasins. I'm not familiar with what the 20 somethings are doing these days. Maybe they are working on things like the legalization of gay and lesbian marriage and adoption. I hope so. I hope they're involved in something, and involved with older gay and lesbian people as well. I hope that in part, because frankly, it is a "good" experience, and a contributing factor to the ongoing preservation of our history as a community. A lot has been written about "us" but really, I see so much of our history as still a largely oral history, which needs to be passed down from generation to generation. I've mentioned before, I'm sure, the lesbian couple in Sedona whom I met in the early seventies. They'd been together 50 years. Can you IMAGINE!?!? I used to go "down the hill" as many weekends as I could to help them hang drapes, or do some other stuff around their house just to listen to the stories of their blended lives. I look back now, and think what a pain in the tush I must have been, and how generous they were, really, with their time. They had a beautiful home -- incredibly warm and welcoming, filled with lots of "arty" stuff. The fire in the fireplace always seemed almost a "of course" thing. Dinner with them was a celebration -- flowers were picked from Mib's garden for the salad ... cherry creations were set ablaze for desert -- and this was just "dinner" for them. :) For me, a college kid bustin' my hump to put gas in my old pickup, it was a step into a wholly different world, and a world which I wanted to join. Mostly, they taught me it was "OK" to be what I was. Sounds so elementary now, but there weren't a lot of role models for me at the time, and I am so grateful for the gift of their presence in my life, limited as it was. This is another aspect of "community" which I think deserves preservation, and which, as we do become more homogenized, we are in danger of losing. I would love to live long enough to see the dawn of the day when young gay and lesbian people don't even entertain that "what's WRONG with me!?!" agony. I would like to live long enough to see the day when it's "Oh! Guess I'm a lesbian! Hunh!" I doubt I will realize that dream, though, and until that time, I do think there's a need for "the community/"  

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

It's hard to look at the staying power of establishments for homosexual men vs. women, without seeing an underlying cause to be inequity in the workplace. As long as men continue to make more money than women, they're going to have more disposable income which may be channeled to those venues, keeping them afloat. Speaking very generally, men, homosexual men, also don't typically have the same financial commitments as do women (kids, to mention but one.) Finally, I think the basic difference in the sexual drive (not sure that's the correct phrase) between men and women comes into play as well. Maybe it's the ... I dunno ... attraction towards monogamy? It seems to me, speaking VERY generally, women are, as a gender, more prone to seek out monogamous relationships than are men, and the sex drive is more channeled into those relationships. The bulk of the women who do the bar scene are, it seems, looking for a partner they can stay home with, and not have to go to the bar any more. Guys weren't the ones who had the potlucks, for the most part. It was the women, and more often than not, it wasn in their homes, where they didn't have the same kind of prohibitive overhead. I don't recall any "meat racks" in lesbian bars back in the 70's, but there were plenty in the bars for the guys. So? The reasons for going there in the first place were different, based upon gender, to some extent. 

---

i would have to agree here...many women, including me, dont find bars or clubs all that appealing when one is in an exclusive situtation with someone...and why i think many dont go as much when in a couple situation.  i like to go out, and when i am single i go out a lot....however, being with someone changes that....we can go out for dinner as the main event and then back home without feeling the need to go anywhere else...instead of meeting at the bar for a drink after work or whatever, i much prefer having her come to my house after she gets out of school, giving her a back massage, tucking her in for a nap while i make dinner, waking her up to eat, cleaning the kitchen and folding clothes while she does homework, putting the kids to bed and then having our "couple" time, to the whole breakfast gig while she showers and sending her off in the morning....i find real enjoyment out of doing the normal mundane things that are oh so much more fun having someone to share them with as oppsed to a bar.....so while it is fun to go out, i do think most women, whether lesbian or not, prefer more low key, partner type activities and hence why many, when in a relationship, dont frequent bar-type venues when coupled....now, on the other hand, special events and festivals, fairs, house parties, pot lucks, game nights and such are great..!..particularly as part of a couple...

Psych Lit wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah, GLBT establishments are disappearing, and I too grieve their loss. Here in my town, though, they came and went pretty regularly back then, though, too. There were, of course, the "standard" ones which had staying power, but the word in the 70's was that if there was a cool place in town for a gay or lesbian person to go for dinner, you'd better go quickly, because it wasn't going to be there in a month or so.

in these parts the male clubs have all stayed for decades. its the womens spaces that have disappeared. im thinking it has to do with the internet. with the ability to connect with people online there is less of a need to form and protect places in the community. add to that the growing tolerance of gays and lesbians and what now all seem to be mixed clubs and it doesnt seem like theres much of a market. my annoyance tho is that that tolerance should have quotes around it because our entrance is at the whim of the het community and at the expense of our own culture



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the internet probably contributed greatly, but also, I think we're witnessing a new breed of lesbians who frankly don't value, the way you and I do the specialness of a "woman's" space. These days, when lesbians get together it seems the first thing the want to do is bring men in -- and I think we first saw that happening on the internet, and I know there was a scuffle about it on the "AOL Gay and Lesbian: Lesbians: Women Who Enjoy Thinking" board. Clearly this was a space created for women, and yet some felt it almost mandatory to integrate it with men, and not even gay men. It seemed crazy to me, at the time, and still does inasmuch as there were a MILLION boards at the time where interacting with men was readily available, and precious few where women could gather by themselves. Even when the man began using derogatory slurs like "t*at" towards the women posting there, he was still coddled by many women, and some blatantly flirted with him. It was a somewhat astonishing thing to observe. "Separatist" was slung at any and all who objected, which causes me now to wonder if the exact definition of "separatist" doesn't bear some re-examiniation, and perhaps a more narrow description.

The first (and only other) time in my life I was called a "separatist" was by a guy in the GLBT theatre company I helped create. The male/female ration was pretty steadily 7-3 the entire life of the company, and sometimes not even that high. I was in one male directed, male produced show, where there were eight men, and I was the only woman. Even so, in a subsequent show, a newcomer to the group got angry with me over something and called me a separatist. LOL. I wasn't a separatist then, and don't consider myself one now. I interact with men all the time, and my love for "Mr. Carrot" is apparent to all who have been paying attention. Even so, I like the fact that there are places where I'm in the company of women. Does that make me a separatist? I don't think so. Perhaps to some, it does, but that's their problem.


Was Virginia Woolf a separatist, was she espousing that philosophical bent when she wrote "A Room Of One's Own"? Women, just like men, are benefitted by having their own terrain as well as the shared spaces. It really seems to boil down to a question of balance, doesn't it. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that in thinking more about things like the demise of lesbian gathering places, while looking at external causes, it hit me that perhaps the main, real cause is an internal one, and that some lesbians still have some ... "need" to be in the company of men, even if it's where they gather to meet with other women.

My contention is there's a time and place for everything, and usually that's indicated by the sign on the door. If a place is open to all, then that's cool, but if it's a special place set aside for a particular group of people, be it gender, age, size, and yeah, even race -- if, for instance, black lesbians want to have their own AOL message board, at this point in our national evolution, is that not to be accommodated and respected? "Separate but Equal" was an insult to its self in the 50's -- now? Not so much so, I think. I mean ... I think there can be SOME places where "separate but equal" is possible, and in those cases, perfectly fine. Lesbian bars would fall into that category. Have I ever taken a man into a lesbian bar? Yeah, I have. Do I now regret it? Yeah, I do. If I had it to do over again, I'd make a different choice now. I chalk it up partly to youth, and the fact that I didn't recognize then the importance of the preservation of "scared space" (using the term perhaps too loosely). I know where the "mixed" clubs are in town. I've been to them plenty of times, and they're fine. Inasmuch as they do exist, I don't see any good reason for forcing a lesbian bar (or gay bar, for that matter) to become mixed too.

The truth is we're different. ::GASP!::

Different in a lot of ways, as individuals, and genders. We have (now) different activist causes; lesbians were the first to dive in of support of our gay brothers when AIDS first began to surface, and we stayed with it a long time. I don't see it being reciprocated in terms of breast cancer, and other primarily lesbian concerns, though.

Maybe that's OK at this point. Maybe, because energy has a finite value, it's good for women to step away from the "nurture everyone but yourself" philosophy, branch off and put their energies towards women's issues now. I think I feel this way because of a combination of the times changing, and my own personal changes, combined. In the world of nightclubs, survival is about economics as much as anything, and when women are on equal footing with men financially, then perhaps more women's spaces will begin to sprout anew. Until that time, at least we do have the internet, where the overhead is reasonable, and we can create spaces such as this for women. FWIW, I will use the administrative tools available me to keep it that way, if it ever comes to that.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 11:19, 2009-01-12

Psych Lit wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

You're right Owl, it isn't likely I will ever be aboard the Obama RR, that would be the one that shadows the train that took Lincoln to Washington for his inauguration. He's no Lincoln, and his arrogance appalls me. Matter of factly I wasn't that impressed with Lincoln anyway. I do know one thing, we have no way of knowing what Lincolns thoughts would have been regarding the Department of Commerce issuing a bailout for tv conversion boxes.


did you catch any of 60 min tonight? there was a segment on commodities speculation that was excellent. for all of us who wondered what the hell was happening out there some of the answers just fell into place.

---

I never watch 60 Minutes, but I happened to catch that segment last night and it caught my attention.  I heard something about oil prices and speculation in the stock market and had to watch.  It's not the first time I've heard that speculators caused the rise in gas prices, but I'm not sure I entirely buy that.  I can see it as a contributing factor, but not THE reason.  I really think it was a combination of things - OPEC, foreign demand (both the war and other countries), and domestic issues, such as speculation and our own supply v. demand.

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

I am pissed about this issue becoming another area the feds are expected to provide cozy entitlements. Mail the boxes to each household? Shipping, theft, fraud, etc. It reaks of a scandalous program. Wraught with fraud. I never supported it. In the event of an actual emergency there is going to be very little more than STAY INDOORS or GO TO THE NEAREST SHELTER that wll be the advised course of action. That information can be retrieved from a 5 dollar RADIO available at Walmart or The Family Dollar Store. AM panic is always accessible. And cheap. There's always standing in the middle of the road screaming emergency, that may be coming. Who knows?

Anyway, I may have overused the word fickle when referring to BO's very real concerns over the "most vulnerable" and their lack of converter boxes, through their fault or the governments now lack of coupons. I still stand fimly that there was MORE than sufficient time to accomplish the conversion in a financially reasonable and timely fashion. Period. However, fickleish may be more appropriate and this I suggest because the majority of the available television channels accessible to the "most vulnerable" will remain the ones that are still in the honeymoon stage with this man who has defied his "one prez" at a time rule. And if he can speak so strongly in URGING congress to extend the deadline one would think he could muster a word or two about what's up in the middle east. It belongs to him, after all, in about a week. Doesn't it?

As for fickle, I just think BO wants his face and his fans streaming his face and H*O*P*E on the likes of NBC as frequently as possible. <BD



Oh, c'mon. You can't be serious when you say that.

-------------------------------

Cause honestly, in the event of an emergency I am either at work, asleep, or tuned into some cable show and have no clue theres a big storm or catastrophe unless I'm on tuned into a local broadcast affiliate anyway. I don't think there would have been any ill feelings by the 8 million forementioned had the conversion not ever included a Federal discount card to offset some of the costs. The cards were valid for ninety days beginning the date you requested them. People just don't know how to plan for their futures, and that's not ever going to be resolved or a light bulb moment on a half dozen tv stations during the normal day.

You're right Owl, it isn't likely I will ever be aboard the Obama RR, that would be the one that shadows the train that took Lincoln to Washington for his inauguration. He's no Lincoln, and his arrogance appalls me. Matter of factly I wasn't that impressed with Lincoln anyway. I do know one thing, we have no way of knowing what Lincolns thoughts would have been regarding the Department of Commerce issuing a bailout for tv conversion boxes.

---

Well? This isn't exactly the same kind of "bail out" we've been seeing, really, is it, because the plain truth is, there are plenty of people who either couldn't afford, or just didn't want or need to change from analog to digital TV, just the way it is with cable TV. Those who did, or who had the means did so a long time ago. The thing is, they didn't ask for "more" but with the federal government stepping in, and taking away the legality of analog TV, something was taken from them, and largely, without their consent -- something that's been around for seventy some years.

What's next? The government will "outlaw" land lines, and everyone must get a cell phone, whether they can afford it, or not? I know a lot of seniors who have basic service on land lines -- runs 'em (with taxes and fees included) less than $20.00 a month. And yeah, some of those same people have 19" BLACK AND WHITE television sets, with which they're perfectly content. Do we really NEED 26 channels instead of 12, anyway?

Less government? If we had less government, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because we'd still have BOTH digital and analog television, and wouldn't need coupons or anything else. You know, just like it's been for a long time now, and would have remained, had the government not interfered. But they did, so call it a "bail out" if you wish, but I don't see it that way. Not in the way Wall Street got a "bail out." And yeah, I'm with you, Psych -- it would have been far better to have some sort of government contract with some coverter box manufacturers. I know for dang sure this little box of junk didn't cost $50 to put together. It's not that different from photo radar speeding tickets: the only ones getting rich from those things are the photo radar companies. I'm all for stimulating the economy, but to demand everyone anti up the same amount of $ whether they want to or not, is a hardship to some, whether people choose to believe that, or not. Besides -- the issue now is that even if people DID plan well, and had decided they'd get their coupons February 1, in AMPLE time to get the converter box by the February 17 deadline -- which is an arbitary date, and as such, COULD be changed -- but now, the government is saying "oops! We don't have any more coupons! We didn't figure it right, so I guess too bad for you!"

"Cozy entitlements?" We're not talking a post-bailout shareholder's meeting in the Bahama's. We're talking about access to the outside world for a great many people who might not otherwise have it. The government has imposed AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE upon the American people. That they're willing to pick up a part of the tab for that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Even with the coupon, people still have to shell out an extra $10 for something for which they didn't ask. Calling the coupon a "bail out" for people in the position of having to spend extra money for something they never wanted is along the lines of getting excited about the great price you got on a three legged elephant.  

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

You know, when SF started issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, Barny Frank opposed it -- opposed it, because he believed it wasn't the "right time." I don't know that he was right, but I do appreciate his logic. The question about timing seems to be around when you best stand a chance for success. That said, I think sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omlette, and perhaps the time was right, even if the first gesture was ultimately turned back. It was the first inroad which lead to prop 8's coming to a head, and which has paved the way for a supreme court to finally kick down the door of discrimination, and that wouldn't have happened otherwise. We can't underestimate, though, the impact the SF marriage license had on the passage of prop 8.

ahh barney. hes not alone in this. i get mailings from all sorts of glbt resources who have sent the same message. can you imagine barney frank saying to african americans in the year 2008 that they would have to live with the abridging of their civil rights because the time wasnt right? in 1954 or even 1968 this might have played but in 2008? we're talking about an agenda to set in place by those who think we're evil where the final game plan is to amend the consitution to make sure that we never have those constitutional rights. seems to me that this should be a no brainer for anyone. are we going to wait politely until they succeed? we, as a nation are not in the bizness of diminishing anyones civil rights...or are we? it is our own inherent uncertainty of our collective worth that allows us to think this is an ok idea. weve internalized that hatred and oppression and think we need to beg for parity. makes no sense to me. first we have to believe it for ourselves and when we hold those truths to be self evident for ourselves the idea of wait and see will become, who are you, mr frank to speak for me? how bout mr frank you do your job and protect all of your constituents with equal vigor? the constitutional protection of rights isnt designed for the benefit of the majority rather its for those who are outside of that majority so that their civil liberties arent subject to the will of whoever happens to be in power a lesson that those who currently enjoy that majority will face for themselves within 25 years.

I'm truly not being obtuse here, but ... what's the difference? I mean specifically. Other than with whom we sleep and fall in love, how are we "different" from everybody else, excepting our individual uniqueness, which isn't limited by sexual preference. Are we really our own cliches, which are in the queer handbook?

no, not ontuse at all. i am enjoying your views and as always i have to sit and think a bit after i read what youve written. my position is that  we are the protectors of the legacy of ideas that first formed those who would go on to seem cliche. we are the "keepers of the flame" for our culture and our history and we need to preserve that for all who follow. we are, just by nature of who we love, the defenders of sexual freedom, freedom of association, freedom to have the govt keep its bloody hands off of our bodies and out of our bedrooms. those sisters and brothers who now seem cliche are the front lines of the war on difference.  our difference is important. its only from the outside that some things are visible. our lens on the world is not the same as that in the het world and i fear that by embracing those same values we will soon lose our "other sightedness.". we've each crossed a line that is taboo in their world and in doing so tilted the framework of what the collective we holds as truth. if what they think they know about us is clearly untrue then what else that is given to all of us as everydayness is also up for rethinking. this is only possible if we hold onto all that we are in the spectrum of our community embracing the both the cliched end and the more conservative end. what i fear is that we marginalize those who do fit the cliche by turning away or separating ourselves as we move into the community at large and that doesnt even cover the aspect of the directional move. we move into the dominant culture. is it a move toward the extinction of our culture?

While I was working for ACLU, a guy came into our office who'd been kicked off the police force. Why? He didn't want to tell even me, at first,
,,, it was just that "dawning on him" thing. For that, and that alone, he was fired. We took the case, and the courts ruled then, that a "state of being" alone could not be outlawed... but acting upon that state of being sure could be, still.

and how wonderful it is that the aclu picked up this case tho the results were unfortunate. and this is what im talking about. i think that we can demand our rights while remaining true to ourselves. we neednt sweeten it up to make it go down better with the het community. the problem imo is with them not with us. they are the ones in need of change. we may not always win but we should take on the battle with no apologies for who we are.

You said in another post: "Look what happened to Rosie, when she started acting like herself." I don't think Rosie's ... let's call them "problems" came about because she is lesbian. I think they're about an abrasive and irratic personality in a "teamwork" environment.

i think the things that rosie has said since coming out have been framed to show that shes abrasive and erratic. look at the differences in whats been said about elizabeth hasslebeck. nobody has suggested that shes in need of mental health care as has been suggested of rosie tho she is as if not more loud, argumentative and abrasive. i do tho think that the reaction to rosie is indeed a reaction to her sexual orientation. when rosie was americas sweetheart everybody loved her but when rosie came out and opened her mouth about who she really was and what she really thought it was framed as tho she is somehow unblanced. thats not a new phenomenon tho and its a framework that is familiar to lesbians especially lesbians who challenge the male power structure.  they can tolerate the elizabeths of the world because they champion that power structure but never the loud dyke with the ovaries to speak her mind!


 Whoopie is thriving there, and as far as I'm concerned, she might as well be a lesbian. I know she's not, and I don't argue that at all. I certainly don't think, or mean to imply she's closeted, or anything, but her politics are dead-on correct for the GLBT community. (And hell -- what lesbian couldn't fall in love with HER?) :)

and shes careful with what she says in a way that elizabeth doesnt have to be. i like whoopie. i think shes wonderful but i do think she plays it too safe.

Yeah, GLBT establishments are disappearing, and I too grieve their loss. Here in my town, though, they came and went pretty regularly back then, though, too. There were, of course, the "standard" ones which had staying power, but the word in the 70's was that if there was a cool place in town for a gay or lesbian person to go for dinner, you'd better go quickly, because it wasn't going to be there in a month or so.

in these parts the male clubs have all stayed for decades. its the womens spaces that have disappeared. im thinking it has to do with the internet. with the ability to connect with people online there is less of a need to form and protect places in the community. add to that the growing tolerance of gays and lesbians and what now all seem to be mixed clubs and it doesnt seem like theres much of a market. my annoyance tho is that that tolerance should have quotes around it because our entrance is at the whim of the het community and at the expense of our own culture

It's hard to look at the staying power of establishments for homosexual men vs. women, without seeing an underlying cause to be inequity in the workplace. As long as men continue to make more money than women, they're going to have more disposable income which may be channeled to those venues, keeping them afloat. Speaking very generally, men, homosexual men, also don't typically have the same financial commitments as do women (kids, to mention but one.)

very true and also the discrimination towards lesbians in the workplace especially lesbians who have that big L on their head. 

  Guys weren't the ones who had the potlucks, for the most part. It was the women, and more often than not, it wasn in their homes, where they didn't have the same kind of prohibitive overhead. I don't recall any "meat racks" in lesbian bars back in the 70's, but there were plenty in the bars for the guys. So? The reasons for going there in the first place were different, based upon gender, to some extent.

yes this is also true. i do think that women want those spaces tho, if only to go out and have fun dancing or to have a quiet drink with a partner. i remember the move away from bars, the concern that too many of us were having health problems as a result of the drinking and smoking in bars and the move to bring social activities out of that environment. and when that happened there were a lot of alternatives in bookstore locations or those potlucks.  i agree that the majority of women prolly are looking for a relationship but i also think that there are a lot of women in relationships that want that connection to the whole or friendships, social activities etc.  the few things that are left usually generate high demand. look at the cruises. those are very pricey and yet they always seem booked. have you seen the movie milk yet? i wondered while watching it why we dont have movies about lesbians changing history? 


I do appreciate the validity in your observation, Psych, and agree with it, generally. The demise of the gay theatre was of personal interest to me, and I've long and often thought that we did our job "too well" back then, and achieved our goal of assimilation, and while that had benefit, there too was a loss which we'd not anticipated.

exactly...sigh,,

speaking of which are you familiar with the violet hour? im reading it tonight and im sitting with it a bit. id be interested to know what you thought of it if youd either done it or read it?
r

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

Well, yeah, but too, there are still 8 million households without converter boxes or cable TV, and they've run out of the coupons, and in this economy, not everyone has $50-80 to shell out for the converter box, and so it is tied to the economy, if you look at it from that POV.

I don't think he's working on this in lieu of anything, just in addition to, and really, I think it shows concern for Americans not in the upper economic tier, and is a kinda cool thing. JMO

---

I absolutely do look at it in that light. That's why those who did not prepare well over a year ago for this very highly publicized change are really stretching my sympathies or empathy whichever when it comes to this deadline. I ordered one box. I, like many, procrastinate on some things. On the day it expired, but all the same I placed the phone order for one box. Just in case. Anyone who procrastinated up to the 17th of Feb (the day I'm to fall in love btw) was not prepared by the 17th of February 09 was never going to be prepared for it. That doesn't mean an act of congress should be taken. Sorry, That's my opinion, there was plenty of time. Even without the coupon program, to set aside some spare change if needed. I think he's showing a fickle, not humane, side of himself.

---

Fair enough. I don't see how supporting a postponement of the arbitrary deadline "fickle" of Obama, though. And too, there were people who did apply in time, but again, the government didn't have a coupon for them.

I think a part of the problem was that if this was something one needed to budget for, and there was a three month expiration date begininng the day the coupon was mailed, a lot of people held off in order to make sure they'd have the funds before the coupon expired. Of course, it you got laid off during that time frame, you were basically just screwed.

---

personally im thinking that the most efficient way to have done this was for the govt to mail one converter to each household. they could have engaged some manufacturer to do the job for a fraction over cost which would have lowered the cost to taxpayers to practically nothing. 

i do think its a matter of national security that each household has access to information in a time of crisis and the quickest way to accomplish that is over the television. the second or third or however many you want should be on the homeowner but the first? im thinking that is a necessity. especially to use on those lil battery operated emergency tv sets. since its been snowing nearly non stop for a month here and weve had 2 major ice storms to boot ive been discovering the joy of no power about once a week.  at least with the emergency tv ive had access to the news to know whats going on and when i might expect to have the power restored. in a time of weather extremes all over the country this seems like something that is mandatory and if the govt and or the people are not ready then delaying it seems a good idea.

i get the idea of why people feel that procrastinators bumping up on the consequences is a learning experience but the ignorance of others in a time of crisis might impact on everyone, even those who followed the rules in a timey manner. 

there are places in this country where there is no cable or sattelite access and prolly no best buys or circuit cities in a 200 mi radius.

but back to the running out of coupons. isnt that just one more f uck up for an admin that has dropped the ball on nearly everything that its touched. even if they didnt want to mail the converter boxes why not mail the flippin coupons?

 

BoxDog wrote:

---

---

I doubt this will be received well, but it's my opinion that BO appears "fickle" in this issue until every single troop is returned safely to this country, the budget is balanced, crime, education, employment and any other number of issues are addressed.

I doubt you'd "forgive" him even if he did all that in week one.
You still haven't explained how/why it's "fickle."

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Whoopie is thriving there, and as far as I'm concerned, she might as well be a lesbian. I know she's not, and I don't argue that at all. I certainly don't think, or mean to imply she's closeted, or anything, but her politics are dead-on correct for the GLBT community. (And hell -- what lesbian couldn't fall in love with HER?) :)


-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 07:42, 2009-01-10

---

Mary Cheney.

The invisible lesbian with the perfectly invisible partner and their (Marys) invisible gabee boy. 

---

LOL. True. Funny, I'd forgotten about her. I should probably preface my future comments with: "OTHER THAN MARY CHENEY, what lesbian..."

Will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with her, once Pops retires.

He is going to retire, yes?? Gawd, I hope so.
I can see a few hunting in the tundra trips with the Palins every now and again, though -- I mean, wouldn't that be a politically savvy move on SP's part?

POLITICALLY savvy.
I SAID that.

---

For which though? For her to align herself with Dick, or Mary?

---

Well, I meant Dick, but I don't know as I'd ever use the words "align" "Dick Cheney" and "hunting trip" all in the same sentence, and call it "wise." :)

---

Might be a good time for her to cozy up to an invisible lesbian though. Like legitimizing those mythical ones she referred to in her 6 week stomp. The ones she couldn't actually produce faces, names or stories of, but she "knew" them and "tolerated" them all the same...Then again, her gayspeak is really not that far off from bo's, really. Hell, he seems to think the switch from analog to digital is more important than the crisis (again) in the middle east, or really just about anything else. Is he that afraid his image will not be available to MILLIONS if they haven't hooked up a converter box? Really, what a priority. To the best of my knowledge there's no J*O*B called watching television, yet he's URGING Congress to move the February conversion date to allow MORE TIME for the "most vulnerable". Gimme a break. Oops, streaming thoughts all over the place here. 

---

Well, yeah, but too, there are still 8 million households without converter boxes or cable TV, and they've run out of the coupons, and in this economy, not everyone has $50-80 to shell out for the converter box, and so it is tied to the economy, if you look at it from that POV.

I don't think he's working on this in lieu of anything, just in addition to, and really, I think it shows concern for Americans not in the upper economic tier, and is a kinda cool thing. JMO

---

I absolutely do look at it in that light. That's why those who did not prepare well over a year ago for this very highly publicized change are really stretching my sympathies or empathy whichever when it comes to this deadline. I ordered one box. I, like many, procrastinate on some things. On the day it expired, but all the same I placed the phone order for one box. Just in case. Anyone who procrastinated up to the 17th of Feb (the day I'm to fall in love btw) was not prepared by the 17th of February 09 was never going to be prepared for it. That doesn't mean an act of congress should be taken. Sorry, That's my opinion, there was plenty of time. Even without the coupon program, to set aside some spare change if needed. I think he's showing a fickle, not humane, side of himself.

---

Fair enough. I don't see how supporting a postponement of the arbitrary deadline "fickle" of Obama, though. And too, there were people who did apply in time, but again, the government didn't have a coupon for them.

I think a part of the problem was that if this was something one needed to budget for, and there was a three month expiration date begininng the day the coupon was mailed, a lot of people held off in order to make sure they'd have the funds before the coupon expired. Of course, it you got laid off during that time frame, you were basically just screwed.

BoxDog wrote:

---

Might be a good time for her to cozy up to an invisible lesbian though. Like legitimizing those mythical ones she referred to in her 6 week stomp. The ones she couldn't actually produce faces, names or stories of, but she "knew" them and "tolerated" them all the same...Then again, her gayspeak is really not that far off from bo's, really. Hell, he seems to think the switch from analog to digital is more important than the crisis (again) in the middle east, or really just about anything else. Is he that afraid his image will not be available to MILLIONS if they haven't hooked up a converter box? Really, what a priority. To the best of my knowledge there's no J*O*B called watching television, yet he's URGING Congress to move the February conversion date to allow MORE TIME for the "most vulnerable". Gimme a break. Oops, streaming thoughts all over the place here. 

---

Well, yeah, but too, there are still 8 million households without converter boxes or cable TV, and they've run out of the coupons, and in this economy, not everyone has $50-80 to shell out for the converter box, and so it is tied to the economy, if you look at it from that POV. And too, not everyone in this country has a computer. If there were to be a national crisis, wouldn't TV be the best way to contact the most people the quickest? I mean... isn't TV still our most accessible contact for that kind of "news bulletin" thing?

I don't think he's working on this in lieu of anything, just in addition to, and really, I think it shows concern for Americans not in the upper economic tier, and is a kinda cool thing.
I have mixed feelings about the whole "MUST switch to digital" thing anyway. I don't really understand why it has to be a law. It does seem a bit of a hardship to families already struggling right now, especially in light of the fact that the government has run out of funding for the coupons. It might be different if people had ASKED for a change, but they didn't, you know?

I don't know about where you live, but gasoline jumped up $.20 a gallon here in the last three days. It's goin' back up, and FAST this time. My Mom bought her groceries Wednesday, and sort of shook her head when she got home, saying she spent a hundred dollars more this month than last month, and she didn't get any more this month. It's true. I didn't have the heart to tell her she actually got LESS this month. $50 isn't something quite as easy to drop for families in this current economic crisis as it was a couple of years ago. Especially not at the rate the unemployment rate is growing. In a hospital where a friend works, they just laid off 23 managers yesterday. That's in health care, which really, is one of the most stable employers around! My household utilities have tripled in the last year. I just got an electric bill higher than it was summer before last, when I was cooling the house. Last year my natural gas bill ran about $12 a month. THIS month, it was $40, and I not only don't have a washer and dryer hooked up, or the furnace lit, but I'm not even running hot water! The only appliance in my home that's been using gas this past month is my stove. Even so. Last month too, my "averaged out" electric bill jumped from $44 to $78 -- and that was with the rate increase they'd applied for being refused by the courts! I'm (obviously) not using very much (translation: ANY) water right now, but my water bill was still $40 -- $30 of it is to watch the garbage truck drive by once a week, and taxes. Heaven knows what it will be come summer when I'm running the cooler and watering the lawn! (Oh, and washing clothes, and TAKING SHOWERS, should that day ever freakin' return....) I think about people who are also facing these rises in the cost of living, who've also just been laid off because their company folded, business is down, or the company has just made cut backs. Then, I think about their kids. $50 is a lot of money to a lot of people right now.

JMO

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 16:32, 2009-01-10

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

You said in another post: "Look what happened to Rosie, when she started acting like herself." I don't think Rosie's ... let's call them "problems" came about because she is lesbian. I think they're about an abrasive and irratic personality in a "teamwork" environment. Whoopie is thriving there, and as far as I'm concerned, she might as well be a lesbian. I know she's not, and I don't argue that at all. I certainly don't think, or mean to imply she's closeted, or anything, but her politics are dead-on correct for the GLBT community. (And hell -- what lesbian couldn't fall in love with HER?) :)


-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 07:42, 2009-01-10

---

Mary Cheney.

The invisible lesbian with the perfectly invisible partner and their (Marys) invisible gabee boy. 

---

LOL. True. Funny, I'd forgotten about her. I should probably preface my future comments with: "OTHER THAN MARY CHENEY, what lesbian..."

Will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with her, once Pops retires.

He is going to retire, yes?? Gawd, I hope so.
I can see a few hunting in the tundra trips with the Palins every now and again, though -- I mean, wouldn't that be a politically savvy move on SP's part?

POLITICALLY savvy.
I SAID that.

---

For which though? For her to align herself with Dick, or Mary?

---

Well, I meant Dick, but I don't know as I'd ever use the words "align" "Dick Cheney" and "hunting trip" all in the same sentence, and call it "wise." :)

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

You said in another post: "Look what happened to Rosie, when she started acting like herself." I don't think Rosie's ... let's call them "problems" came about because she is lesbian. I think they're about an abrasive and irratic personality in a "teamwork" environment. Whoopie is thriving there, and as far as I'm concerned, she might as well be a lesbian. I know she's not, and I don't argue that at all. I certainly don't think, or mean to imply she's closeted, or anything, but her politics are dead-on correct for the GLBT community. (And hell -- what lesbian couldn't fall in love with HER?) :)


-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 07:42, 2009-01-10

---

Mary Cheney.

The invisible lesbian with the perfectly invisible partner and their (Marys) invisible gabee boy. 

---

LOL. True. Funny, I'd forgotten about her. I should probably preface my future comments with: "OTHER THAN MARY CHENEY, what lesbian..."

Will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with her, once Pops retires.

He is going to retire, yes?? Gawd, I hope so.
I can see a few hunting in the tundra trips with the Palins every now and again, though -- I mean, wouldn't that be a politically savvy move on SP's part?

POLITICALLY savvy.
I SAID that.

---

For which though? For her to align herself with Dick, or Mary?

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

You said in another post: "Look what happened to Rosie, when she started acting like herself." I don't think Rosie's ... let's call them "problems" came about because she is lesbian. I think they're about an abrasive and irratic personality in a "teamwork" environment. Whoopie is thriving there, and as far as I'm concerned, she might as well be a lesbian. I know she's not, and I don't argue that at all. I certainly don't think, or mean to imply she's closeted, or anything, but her politics are dead-on correct for the GLBT community. (And hell -- what lesbian couldn't fall in love with HER?) :)


-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 07:42, 2009-01-10

---

Mary Cheney.

The invisible lesbian with the perfectly invisible partner and their (Marys) invisible gabee boy. 

Anonymous wrote:

---

 

---

Owlie: Yeah ... I sometimes miss my youth too .. ;))

---

I see this as so much more than the passing of our youth but that within the span of just one generation we have lost so many of the things mentioned here by Psych. I can't believe that in 25 years we have all but lost womens (no Y needed) city softball leagues, Thursday night queer bowling, two totally gay beaches complete with a bathhouse, beer garden, live music joint, dinner, dancing and a nightclub above it. Nearly all of the 34 (?) gay cabarets and clubs, bookstores, "outfitters". In two counties. There seems to be a small surge again, but once again it's the boys clubs. I don't know what happened to gay women, or frankly, where they are. But, gay for a day, just doesn't sit well with me. I can't imagine the look on the faces of todays youth when they hear stories that such places existed. Because no matter how much we wish for basic equality and similar respect in legal matters we would also like to know or take refuge and comfort in a few places where we know there are like oriented folks. Queer As Folks.

 

---

exactly and while assimilation seems to be the way to go i think its fair to note that we have assimilated into them not the other way around will and grace and ellen or the queer eye boys or the boys on hgtv excepted. but look at the het overshadowing in those. will and grace were a nice couple and im sure the hets that watched figgered theyd come to their senses some day. ellen is not the queen of controversy, shes funny and polite and shes also careful to tone it down so that shes palatable to the hets. look what happened to rosie when she started being herself. i really get a sense of loss at whats gone missing. like bd says the young ones wont have that. what they have is an assimilation and tolerance in the community at large. not the same thing but its a great way to defang the queer community. the only thing i can relate it to is that its like when mickey ds and kfc  and coca cola went on the world corporate road trip taking over and replacing all of the original cultures encountered.

Psych Lit wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

nd i miss getting excited by the appearance of a cris williamson or a holly near or a ferron at the local music hall and cruising while waiting in line to get in . i miss the political energy, strident lesbian philosophies and even the separatists god bless them.

---

Yeah ... I sometimes miss my youth too .. ;))

---

but...but why should energy and passion be confined to youth?
It shouldn't be. Nor do I believe it necessarily is. Those things you mentioned, though, are largely things of a time past -- that was the 70's. :) Now, passion and energy are directed elsewhere -- perhaps, in part, because those efforts thirty years ago or so were so successful. Back then, we didn't have lesbians on TV, and certainly not with their own shows! And can you imagine trying to find producers for "Brokeback Mountain" or "Milk" back then?  




and really the young ones these days dont have a lot of that going on for them. from my window into their world it seems a passionless place, well not just youth the whole of the world seems taken over by the joyless existance of the pod, minds made numb by blinking info shot into their brain day in day out.
Yeah, but that's from our perspective. I confess there are times I want to light a fire under college students, and get them out in the pickett line, but then again, some of them are already there, just for different issues. The immigration thing, here, for instance, has garnered a lot of public protest; much of it coming from college kids.

Back then, we, as a community, were largely concerned about being outed at work and losing our jobs. Today, Obama is focused on overturning "DADT" in the military, and the California Supreme Court has agreed to review Prop 8 for its constitutionality. That didn't happen without activism.

With me, it was "the tube" the "boob tube" truth be told. My Mom could NOT wrap her brain around anyone sitting and doing nothing else for an hour or two other than watching TV. She, of course, came up during the hey-day of radio, and so could listen, and do something else at the same time, and she resented the fact that watching TV meant you did nothing else (like clean your bedroom.) Really, it's all relative, isn't it? :) I don't know about you, but I was pretty darn married to my transistor radio, as a kid. Isn't an MP3 player just an updated version of that, really? :)

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

Psych Lit wrote:

---

nd i miss getting excited by the appearance of a cris williamson or a holly near or a ferron at the local music hall and cruising while waiting in line to get in . i miss the political energy, strident lesbian philosophies and even the separatists god bless them.

---

Yeah ... I sometimes miss my youth too .. ;))

 

---

but...but why should energy and passion be confined to youth? and really the young ones these days dont have a lot of that going on for them. from my window into their world it seems a passionless place, well not just youth the whole of the world seems taken over by the joyless existance of the pod, minds made numb by blinking info shot into their brain day in day out.

speaking of which id better get to work. lol  

Z/2Z  over and outta here:)

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

Ah, but that can be so exhausting, can't it. Seriously. Sometimes, you just WANT to let all that stupid stuff just disappear, and ignore it. Sometimes you just WANT to believe that the majority of people will do the "right" thing. I know I get that way, sometimes, anyway. Sometimes I totally forget that my being lesbian is A.) of any INTEREST to anyone, and B.) that anyone would have a PROBLEM with it. I forget about the busybodies always getting in other people's "bidnes." I forget the haters even exist, sometimes. Perhaps too often. I mean ...hate me 'cause my dog barks. Hate me 'cause my lawn's too high ... hate me for any number of things, if you must, but A.) make it about something I can CHANGE, and B.) make it about something which concerns YOU. Otherwise? Why not just live and let live.

i prolly have a different viewpoint on this. while id hate to go back to being reviled, i MISS the edge, i miss the view from outside. there was an energy in that edge that is missing in the land of so what lesbianism. i miss potlucks and naked chain wearing lesbians marching in the parades or the diva trannys. or political pdas. i miss bookstores that were community centers, softball teams and bars where every night was womens night, instead of every other sunday unless the boys need the bar for something else. and i miss getting excited by the appearance of a cris williamson or a holly near or a ferron at the local music hall and cruising while waiting in line to get in . i miss the political energy, strident lesbian philosophies and even the separatists god bless them. 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

So now she isn't a married black het and she's pissy about being a second class citizen? Well? I take issue with that.


Why?

---

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 21:09, 2009-01-08

---

The hypocrisy of ojecting to "discrimination" only when you're swept up as a "victim" or have a vested interest in the inequality. It's hypocritical and counterproductive to seamless efforts and movements toward education in legal but "wrong" discrimination. In my opinion.

BoxDog wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

You know? I think most people in California just didn't believe Prop 8 would pass. Maybe they got complacent the way I sometimes do, when I post regularly on lesbians message boards with like-minded people.

You can sometimes just forget that it's really an "issue" and forget too, that there are people who think it SHOULD be. I would imagine that's what happened with a lot of people this last election cycle. The reminder again, as always, is to remain ever vigilant, I guess.


"Well, what are we going to DO about it!?!?!"" -- Naomi Harward -- fiery and feisty to the end :)






-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 19:37, 2009-01-08

---

I think many people in CA and across the globe were surprised after the votes were counted. That's what I call poor strategizing. The LGBT community had ALL the money, the resources the foot soldiers. I think you may be mistaken in suggesting complacency and it's role in this. Given the sheer volume of Black Christians at the polls, combined with the BO phenomenon it would pass or fail ( I honestly can't recall which is which) again next week, next year, in four. As long as the weight of the stats is on the side of the African American Christian community toss in a few Mormons a couple of snake charmers and OBAMA on the same election day and that gay bill is dead in the water. I would bet good money. Polls have shown that. Polls may only be numbers to some, they aren't to me. Every single candidate has said the words "marriage is between one man and one woman". Every single one of them.

The old saying "Lead by example" comes to mind, but they actually did.

---

The polls showed that prop 8 was won by while Republican males and anglo church goers -- not by the black community. It passed by a margin of over half a million votes, and would not have been defeated even if the black community would have come out strongly in favor of defeating it. The same is true with the Arkansas gay adoption bill -- Anglo church goers supported it by a margin more than double of the black community there.

"Divide and conquer."

I would imagine the Christocrats in this country -- not all Christians, but the Anglo evangelical religious right, who talk the talk, but seem unable to walk the walk would love nothing more, than to see a huge rift between our two communities.

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

You know? I think most people in California just didn't believe Prop 8 would pass. Maybe they got complacent the way I sometimes do, when I post regularly on lesbians message boards with like-minded people.

You can sometimes just forget that it's really an "issue" and forget too, that there are people who think it SHOULD be. I would imagine that's what happened with a lot of people this last election cycle. The reminder again, as always, is to remain ever vigilant, I guess.


"Well, what are we going to DO about it!?!?!"" -- Naomi Harward -- fiery and feisty to the end :)






-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 19:37, 2009-01-08

---

I think many people in CA and across the globe were surprised after the votes were counted. That's what I call poor strategizing. The LGBT community had ALL the money, the resources the foot soldiers. I think you may be mistaken in suggesting complacency and it's role in this. Given the sheer volume of Black Christians at the polls, combined with the BO phenomenon it would pass or fail ( I honestly can't recall which is which) again next week, next year, in four. As long as the weight of the stats is on the side of the African American Christian community toss in a few Mormons a couple of snake charmers and OBAMA on the same election day and that gay bill is dead in the water. I would bet good money. Polls have shown that. Polls may only be numbers to some, they aren't to me. Every single candidate has said the words "marriage is between one man and one woman". Every single one of them.

The old saying "Lead by example" comes to mind, but they actually did.