Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbncc5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "The Invisible Partners"
Message-ID: <230@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 00:31:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.230
Posted: Tue Jul 23 00:31:45 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 00:29:12 EDT
References: <2135@pucc-h>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 51
Keywords: Warning: high exasperation content

> The book also discussed (in general) situations where the anima dominates the
> man.  (The author did not have sufficient experience studying women to talk
> much about the animus dominating the woman, but similar principles would
> apply.)  The result is a sort of homogenized, feminized masculinity.  Two
> manifestations of this dominance by the "invisible partner" are:
> 
> 1) Homosexuality.  If the masculine side (which naturally desires union with
>    the female) has been suppressed, the feminine (which wants the male) will
>    come out.  Many of the favorable qualities of the feminine may also come
>    out (e.g. I have done many theatrical productions with a man who is the
>    sweetest-tempered person I know, and I'm pretty sure he's gay).

Jeff, welcome back.  Too bad you haven't changed a bit in your capacity
to infuriate me and spread misinformation about gay people.  The idea that
being gay is somehow isomorphic with the manifestation of the feminine
is an old old canard, and totally discredited.  What's more your phrasing
is downright insulting: "...the feminine (which wants the male) will
come out ... Many of the FAVORABLE qualities of the feminine may ALSO come
out."   Gaaaakkk, spare us.  Wonderful, too, that you have discovered
a second classification for the "problem" of the "anima" so you needn't
be stigmatized with the "problem" of "homosexuality."

Note that I'm not arguing with the issue that some men may display
qualities which are traditionally considered "feminine", but rather that
1.) this reflects more on the classification system than on the person.
2.) this issue is entirely orthogonal to the person's sexual preference.

Why do I bother here?  Frankly, I don't know, for I'm losing patience.
Still, this kind of misinformation, whether malicious or not, needs to be
addressed and corrected whenever it is presented in a public forum.
Jeff Sargent, more than anyone else, has been responsible for foolish
statements about gay people in the midst of his public self-analysis.
Too bad Jeff seems incapable of showing sensitivity in this issue,
for he does it again and again and again and again...  

Flame, you bet this is a flame.  Jeff just can't seem to get away
from the "gay" thing, generally posed in the form of a statement about
gay people (invariably perjorative) loosely tied to an issue he is
currently struggling with.  We had to put up with this for MONTHS
last year, and I'm frankly sick of it.  

Hey, I must have left my "sweet-temper" at home.

[Sneak preview: I invite those of you interested in seeing stereotypical
Western conceptions of gay roles demolished to keep your eyes open for a
review I'm writing for net.motss of a scholarly anthropological collection
called "Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia."]
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA