By
Various
November 13, 2009
I am not a regular UW student. I am an international student from Japan and am part of the Jackson School of International Studies. Even though it has been one and a half months since my arrival, I am still struggling here, in addition to my poor English.
Nonetheless, I really enjoy life at the UW and Seattle every day. One of the most interesting events for me now is service learning. Some might know what this is, some might not.
Service learning is a kind of volunteer work, in which students engage in some work at NGOs, companies and so forth. Most of the jobs relate to human rights.
Now, I am working at Save Darfur. Some might know this large organization. This organization tries to let people know about the conflict in Darfur. Historically, Sudan has had many conflicts, but we are focusing on the genocide by Sudanese government, started in 2003.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was established by the United Nations in 1964 to combat human-rights violations.
But it has been more than 40 years since that declaration, and there are still devastating massacres happening around the world. One of them is going on in Darfur and few people know about it.
In the United States and Japan, people are living without any worries about getting killed in daily life. But people in Darfur have to worry about their lives and futures.
We are living in the same era, the same earth. But is it reasonable to have completely different conditions because we live in different places?
After coming to the United States, I had more chances to learn about Darfur than when I was in Japan, and last night, I went to the Sudanese culture event which was supported by FIUTS.
There, I had the opportunity to talk with Sudanese people. That was precious time.
Then, I recognized that people from Sudan were so kind, and everyone taught me about Sudanese culture.
I was impressed by their kindness, so much so that I cannot believe that the main actor of genocide in Darfur is also Sudanese.
I believe that all governments in the world, even if they are regarded as evil, must have some justice. They enact some policies because they have some reasons. But of course, some governments might go the wrong way.
In that case, us people who are living in the developed world should support others through humanitarian support and encourage them to follow the right way.
I want make sure that not only governments help the people of Darfur, but that you do too. Awareness is important to provide support to Sudan.
Begin first by knowing.
Naohiro Tamaki
JSIS, sophomore
International student from Waseda University in Japan
In response to “More amour: kiss-in, stereotypes out,” by Zachary Gussin, Nov. 4, 2009
Dear Editor,
Those in the LGBTQ community consistently complain that their opponents on same-sex marriage and other issues are simply hateful or fearful. But being on the other side of these issues, as are most Americans, I have always known that the truth is far more complex. What the LGBTQ people neglect to consider is opposition based on a rightful distrust of handing over our society’s defining characteristics to an out-of-control class of its citizens with a regretfully low sense of decency. I will give you a very clear example to support this view: Zachary Gussin.
On Wednesday, Nov. 4, Zachary published an opinion piece about an LGBTQ event known as a “Kiss-In.” To introduce the event Zachary told a story of how he overheard some fellow use some derogatory name for gays towards Zachary. He admitted to then sauntering over to this fellow, grabbing the guy’s ass and then trying to play like he was coming on to him. This obviously disturbing admission prompted me to comment on The Daily’s Web site. Zachary comments in the article how “immature” it was of him. But my comment was that this was beyond childishness. This was sexual assault. If a heterosexual male had done anything like this to any female in order to humiliate her, sexual assault charges would undoubtedly follow.
Now, in the real world (those outside the LGBTQ community) we do not tolerate sexual assault. So I was very surprised when I posted my outrage on the Web site, only to find that Zachary had three admirers who celebrated Zachary’s message and dismissed my own. None of them spoke out against Zachary’s criminal behavior. It appears that this low level of respect for the decency of others is rampant in the LGBTQ community. If I’m wrong, the LGBTQ community has a lot of work to do to prove I’m wrong. The messages LGBTQ supporters left on this board speak volumes toward my point.
So my challenge is this: If the LGBTQ community wants to be treated respectfully they must overcome the perception that they have a problem with decency. Speak out against outrageous behavior within your own ranks when you see it. Don’t excuse it. Condemn it!
If you don’t speak out, the rest of the world will; perhaps not in the vocal manner of Zachary Gussin, but more quietly (such as in the voting booth).
The type of behavior that Zachary Gussin exhibited will never win the hearts and minds of the American people. It only helps to cement the prejudiced attitudes.
Brian Cox
Mechanical engineering
In response to “UW ‘Wrimos’ take part in National Novel Writing Month,” by Celina Kareiva, Nov. 6, 2009
“I think it was a really good experience because I learned that writing doesn’t need to be great or well-composed prose. It’s about output and accomplishment.” If the above quote doesn’t perfectly capture the underlying problems behind the fallacies of the all-American 24-hour news channel, the yellow journalism of The Huffington Post, and ultimately, the inherent flaw of National Novel Writing Month (NNWM), I quite frankly don’t know what would. Thank God Hemingway was trying to write the one true sentence, and not, as the organizers of NNWM would have it, the longest sentence.
Kenneth Transier
Freshman
In response to “The space between,” by Elizabeth Brady, Nov. 10, 2009
I’m not sure which event Elizabeth Brady attended last week, but she certainly didn’t describe the Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) Fall Social: 80’s Remix that I was at. Maybe there were an antisocial few who just stuck with their friends and cohorts to eat their pizza and drink their beer, but most attendees could be seen mingling throughout the night, and by 7 p.m., almost everyone was on the dance floor. At the end of the night, when we announced that we were about to play our very last song, there was widespread disappointment, and some people needed more than a little encouragement to get them to leave.
Our president, Jake Faleschini, led a group of about 20 students in the “Electric Slide,” while I found myself bumping into new faces and having a blast as we all tried to figure out the correct steps and turns of the “Cha Cha Slide.” Some students played the wander-around, talk-to-new-people and try-to-guess-their-program game, and most of us made many new friends. We took a lot of photos, soon to be on our Web site, which those wondering what they missed should check out. Other than Jake’s dancing, you’ll see groups of excited grad students, gloriously garish costumes, and more.
We were very pleased with the evening — several students told us it was the best on-campus [social] they’d been to in years, or ever. We put special effort into helping students meet new people, including name tags, a dance floor, free food and drinks and competitions. These help, but at the end of the day, putting on a great party only really achieves this goal if those present choose to reach out and say “hi” to someone new. Most who attended put in a little effort and had a great time. We’re surprised that Elizabeth wasn’t able to. Maybe she just left before things really got going.
Lindsay Morse
GPSS secretary
In response to “The left and the right are in cahoots against you,” by Greg Albert, Nov. 10, 2009,
Dear Editor,
I agree with Greg Albert that both Democrats and Republicans squander taxpayer dollars, and it’s time to “rise up” against a system where the “rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
The problem is not government in and of itself. What if U.S. officials prioritized spending our tax dollars on health, education and welfare instead of investing them in corporations that make mega profits off of war and illness? And what about taxing the rich to pay their fair share for human services? Policies like that would be considered left in stark contrast to the current administration.
There is money for government-run health care. Medicare and Medicaid dollars, along with Social-Security funding, come out of workers’ hard-earned wages over a lifetime. Take insurance and pharmaceutical company profits away, and the United States could provide health care for all.
As the U.S. Congress debates the fate of federal heath-care reform, a community tribunal will be held in South Seattle on Saturday from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Rainier Community Center to take testimony on the impact of a 43-percent budget cut to the Washington State Basic Health Plan. Sisters Organize for Survival, a campaign of Radical Women, invites everyone to participate and hear the testimony of Basic-Health recipients, people with disabilities, medical providers, immigrant workers and low-income parents. More information can be found at www.radicalwomen.org.
Mary Ann Curtis, Campus Radical Women
UW staff member
In response to “I don’t understand your umbrella, Ella, Ella,” by Zachary Gussin, Nov 12, 2009
As someone who has lived in Seattle for the entirety of her life, I have to say I was slightly appalled at reading the commentary on umbrella usage at the UW. While I share a dislike for umbrellas, the idea that Seattleites don’t use them because it doesn’t rain enough is quite mistaken. Rather, we choose to don a nice raincoat because the fast-changing weather so often contains rain, that short of keeping one with you at all times whether or not it looks like it will rain, there is no way to always have an umbrella when the sky opens up.
In Seattle, we get closer to 150 days of rain annually, rather than the 40 mentioned in the article. Though true that our precipitation does come in the form of Cascade hairspray, which simply puts a nice sheen of mist on your hair, quite frequently it is a deluge of water pouring from the sky that causes ditches to overflow and basements to fill. When in Rome you do as the Romans do, so while in Seattle, just grab a waterproof coat, because it does work. A coat has the added perk of keeping you warm as well as dry (unlike an umbrella), and doesn’t force the people around you to dodge and swerve to escape being poked in the eye. Any Seattleite needs to learn to embrace the rain, because it sure isn’t going anywhere. The best way to do this: Get a raincoat.
Kim Smith
Freshman, chemistry
In response to “I don’t understand your umbrella, Ella, Ella,” by Zachary Gussin, Nov 12, 2009
Dear editors,
That someone would entitle an opinion piece, “I don’t understand …” and follow that by naming the topic not understood, then proceed to attempt a rational argument against this misunderstood topic, seems to me certifiably stupid. But, this is what Zachary Gussin has unabashedly done in his own university’s newspaper.
His argument (reworded from my original tantrum): No Seattleite uses an umbrella, and thus, no matter who you are, you shouldn’t, either. He has merely two points upon which he expounds that are, in some miraculous way, supposed to persuade those umbrella-wielding do-wrongers to adopt other forms of dampness prevention.
Point one: Seattle’s mild rainfall does not necessitate the use of an umbrella.
Point two: Umbrellas do not have the wherewithal to endure windstorms.
His answer, then: Wear a North Face jacket, a parka, or a rainproof ponytail (versus a ‘perfectly coifed hairdo’ that leads a person to an umbrella in the first place, according to Mr. Gussin).
Lest anyone actually take the author seriously, I, as a native who uses an umbrella, thought it appropriate to address his solutions.
Firstly, light rainfall is the quintessential condition for an umbrella. The whole lure of the umbrella is its versatility to open and shut without a fuss, to be pulled from its narrow home and used as needed. This, then, frees the person from needing to wear heavy and/or waterproof clothing that might not conform well to the famously varying weather patterns of the city.
Secondly, Mr. Gussin makes the outlandish, hallucinogenic comparison of a jacket’s protection of the body to an umbrella’s protection of the head. What are you trying to say, Zachary? Are we supposed to protect our bodies or our hair?
Thirdly, there exists an alien breed of people who take the bus. I am one of them. Waiting in the rain on a Sunday in an increasingly dampening garment is no fun. I’m not sure how frequently Mr. Gussin visits bus stops outside of the U-District, but I can guarantee him that shelters are a luxury. Of course, all true Seattleites know that.
Fourthly, there is a very important element absent from Mr. Gussin’s argument: the cost. Those few not bothered by such a triviality are welcome to hightail it to REI to pick up their North Face for $199. But those who work to earn their living, those who don’t have so much to spend, can get to their nearest drug store and purchase an umbrella for less than $15. And what if it blows away? I can buy a dozen more for less. As for his Gore-Tex proposal, unless you fall into the former consumer category, don’t even consider it, not as a replacement to an umbrella.
Afterward, in what he might consider an intelligent satirical twist, he offers the only good uses of an umbrella. Instead of entertaining, what he’s doing is only confirming that “every” Seattleite (never defined, by the way, in the article — The Daily may consider running such an article instead of this garbage) is an uncritically self-centered whiner with an insular attitude toward trends that didn’t blossom in his fiercely clenched city. Consider his “evidence of intelligence” when citing the Boeing-Microsoft-coffee triumvirate.
Thankfully, this opinion article must be a joke. After all, we’re in the penumbra of midterms, we’re exhausted, and we’d like something light and funny to read. Besides, what serious newspaper would run such a fundamentally flawed article about umbrellas except as a joke? More importantly, what serious writer would write something so foolish, so crybaby-esque and unfounded? Apparently a Seattleite.
Thank you,
Brian Fink
Junior, communications
67 Comments
#1 Nick CK
on November 13, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I hereby call to make marriage an institution reserved for people who don't belong to any group or demographic containing a member who has committed sexual assault.
#2 Kuzma
on November 13, 2009 at 10:16 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
That's not what he was talking about, asshat. The thing is that he openly flaunts the fact that he sexually assaulted another man. And everyone's OK with that?
If gay people want to be taken seriously as responsible members of society, they can't pull this kind of shit. This is exactly the reason why people are having such a hard time gathering support for gay marriage.
Sexual assault is not OK! No matter if you're gay or straight. Brian is completely right. If I grabbed a girl's ass because she called me a name I disagreed with, I'd be in a heapload of trouble.
No double standards!
#3 Pascal Clark
on November 13, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Brian has a point about Zachary's behavior. Zachary's pass at the homophobe was not exactly mature, and likely did nothing to change the homophobe's bigoted opinion of gay people. Was it sexual assault, though? Perhaps it was on paper, but I just can't summon the same kind of outrage that Brian has.
Is it fair, though, to demand supporters of the gay community to be shining moral examples for their cause? Why should gay people have to try extra hard just to convince the rest of America that they are decent human beings who deserve respect and legal rights? Black people did the same thing during the Civil Rights movement, turning the other cheek and keeping their cool, even in the face of irrational hatred. It wasn't easy, I'm sure, but it was the right thing to do.
Such a moral struggle has very little to do with gay people and much more to do with people like Brian Cox. It's strange how Brian has developed such a strongly negative impression of the gay community, to the point where he demands to be proven wrong. I can't speak about his personal experiences or mindset, but I believe that cultural divisions are driven by the absence of empathy. When we don't feel connected to people of a different group, we fear them. Dislike and mistrust follow naturally, but the true opposite of love is fear, not hatred.
We humans are a pitiful lot. The struggle to overcome fear of the other is difficult, perpetual, and necessary.
#4 Brian Cox
on November 13, 2009 at 11:06 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
"Why should gay people have to try extra hard just to convince the rest of America that they are decent human beings who deserve respect and legal rights?"
...because Pascal, as of right now, not one of them has condemned this sexual assualt which was done 'in their name', and many of LGBTQ community ACTIVELY excuse it!
The rest of humanity is fairly consistent when it comes to condemning this sort of behavior. Go read the original board for the referenced article. The LGBTQ community actively defends this sort of behavior. So yes, you actually COULD speak to my personal experience. Just go read their comments.
#5 bl
on November 13, 2009 at 11:09 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
"Was it sexual assault, though? Perhaps it was on paper, but I just can't summon the same kind of outrage that Brian has."
Nice double standard there.
#6 Nick CK
on November 13, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
What he did was wrong. And supporting it is wrong. But to make the leap that therefore these people, and lots and lots of other people, don't deserve equal rights is crazy, and I wager that you would find a reason to oppose gay rights no matter how much or how little support there is for his actions.
#7 Nick CK
on November 13, 2009 at 11:51 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Remember the recent story about the "anti-consent" Facebook group created by U of Sydney athletes? Clearly, athletes shouldn't be allowed to get married. Neither should Australians! Let's go all out. Deprive men in general of the right to marry.
#8 Kuzma
on November 13, 2009 at 12:08 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Marriage is not a right. And homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage exists for the purpose of raising children, for the purpose of a family. And contrary to what the LGBTQ community will say, a family is not a circle of friends who loves each other.
Outside of Seattle, an overwhelming majority of people agree with my viewpoint and rightly so.
#9 Nick CK
on November 13, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Thank you for that information, Kuzma. I will be sure to let my future children know that they are not a part of a family.
#10 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
So four people openly approved of the behavior and that makes 'many'? I agree with Brian that this wouldn't have been acceptable if a man had grabbed a woman. There's no question that Zach's behavior was immature and misguided. In fact, my first response when I saw the article was, "PLEASE don't do the gay community these kinds of favors."
Pascal's remarks also resonate with me. On this issue and many others, progressives have found the need to be on their best behavior lest anyone use their actions against them, while conservatives left and right act hypocritically and somehow get away with it. Everyone can try to be perfect, but it's true that passion about the issue and frustration with this eternal uphill battle can make people a little hot-headed or misguided in their attempts to make SOME impact.
However, using this incident to justify homophobia is just as wrong. Yes, homophobia. Brian Cox says that the "real world" exists outside of the gay community. Really? I'm sure there are at least a few gay people with whom he interacts every day in the real world, whether he realizes it or not. These gay people have very real world concerns - finishing school, keeping a job in this economy, raising a family. Why do you think they are fighting for the very real-world rights that come with marriage? Do you think it's just to get in your face, to grab your ass? Perhaps a less self-centered approach might be in order.
It is right to call out people who behave badly. It is wrong to ascribe their behavior to the intent of a community at large or to use it to justify discrimination.
#11 Pascal Clark
on November 13, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Brian,
In addition to Kristin's observation, I would like to point out that only one of them explicitly claimed to be homosexual (although I find Mike's comment suspicious, considering he refers to himself as a 'homo').
So that makes me critical of how you extrapolate those responses to discredit the entire LBGTQ community.
#12 Brian Cox
on November 13, 2009 at 12:56 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
When I say "real world" ... let me expand on what I mean. You do, of course, realize that the vast majority of the world is exclusively heterosexual and, while they may know and work with homosexuals or others of the LGBTQ community, they are not a part of the LGBTQ community and must make evaluations of the community by how they behave as a whole.
My contention is that the view that most Americans have made by watching the behavior of this community is that those in the LGBTQ community do not have the same decency values that the rest of Americans have. Have you never seen a Gay Pride parade? And here on this issue I must judge the response of those who are very disturbingly quiet. So far the strongest rebuke that the people who side with the LGBTQ community can make is that Zach was "immature and misguided". My contention is that a group of people not from the LGBTQ community would be outraged and call for criminal charges. And, because of a lower sense of respect for the decency of others, those of the LGBTQ community have nothing more than a "roll of the eyes" as expressed in the tone of Kristin's comments.
As far as the homophobia charge...you're not qualified to understand my emotional state at the time of writing this Letter, Kristin.
#13 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 1:26 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I'm not rolling my eyes - I'm frustrated by the behavior. I'm sorry I'm not bringing the hammer down, but I'm not sure what you would have people do. Should charges be filed? I would be happy if Zach would write an apology letter, but not taking it directly to the dean's office doesn't mean that I approve of it.
I have indeed seen Gay Pride parades. I have also seen beauty pageants, frat parties, lad mags, and Hooters restaurants. The point has also been made even convicted rapists are still allowed to marry. I'm not saying that any of this behavior is right - but I'm saying that using it to justify a position on whether legal rights should be granted or not is asinine.
My charge of homophobia was not about your emotional state. I am aware that "phobia" implies fear, but like many words in any language the word has a greater meaning. Classifying the LGBTQ community as "outside of the real world" sets up a classic dialectic in which you comfort yourself by insisting that gays are somehow not attached to real world concerns. Why would you do that, other than that you might get some gay on you?
Please do not preach to me about the "decency values" of the rest of Americans when even as we read these words there are champions against gay rights whose own behavior has been recently revealed to be . . . less than decent.
#14 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 1:27 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
(After all, as Kuzma wrote: No double standards!)
#15 Kuzma
on November 13, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Consider this, there was no one posting about how the "Anti-consent" facebook group was justified. No one said that their behavior was OK or tried to excuse it.
However, quite a few people shirked off Zach's behavior as no big deal, even encouraged it. How is this not indecency on the part of homosexuals?
And by the way, gay pride parades are absolutely disgusting. Much more disgusting than any frat party or Hooters I've ever been to. I've only been to one, but I must have seen at least 50 cocks as well as numerous sex acts performed in public. All while children watched.
Disgusting..
#16 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 1:58 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I'd venture to say it was "much more disgusting" because you are homophobic. Tell me, if a woman flashes her breasts on Bourbon Street, do you cheer? Are you immediately repulsed? Do you look around for any children watching?
I'm not suggesting you try to like men's genitalia any more than you do, I just suggest that you be aware that your own discomfort with men's genitalia affects whether you find something "disgusting" or not.
You've mentioned your presence at this parade before - why were you there? It's obvious you had preconceived notions about what you would see there, so frankly Kuzma, your opinion about whether gay pride parades are disgusting is one that comes with several caveats and is thus utterly unconvincing.
#17 Kuzma
on November 13, 2009 at 2:06 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Once again, you're trying to justify behavior that is simply not acceptable. I don't try to justify anyone unacceptable behavior. Whether it be Zach's or the people that participate in the gay pride parade or anyone else's. Zach should be arrested for what he did and if he grabbed my ass, you bet I'd press charges.
No wonder people have such notions about homosexuals. Stop rolling your eyes and shirking off disgusting behavior such as sexual assault. See Zach's behavior for what it really is.
#18 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 2:22 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I'm curious about your claim. Let's try this one: Is it acceptable behavior that Catholic Charities would threaten to stop helping the poor if a gay marriage initiative was passed?
#19 Kuzma
on November 13, 2009 at 2:23 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Totally off topic and irrelevant
#20 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 2:28 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
And you know what, Brian? In your "real world" not everyone stands as firmly as you claim against sexual assault. I would refer you to the thirty senators who voted against Senator Al Franken's first bill, which protected the rights of rape victims.
#21 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Right, Kuzma. You mean indefensible and unjustifiable. I'll be glad to see the day when you can enter into these conversations with a little bit of intellectual honesty and integrity.
#22 Pascal Clark
on November 13, 2009 at 2:47 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Again, Brian, you're extrapolations are based on precious few data points and select high-profile spectacles. You repeatedly refer to people as if they only operate in coordinated groups - that is, gays are uniformly indecent and disrespectful, while "a group of people not from the LGBTQ community" (presumably all straight people) "would be outraged and call for criminal charges."
You refuse to accept that even within the LGBTQ "community" there is vast variation in personality and opinion. Also, would it surprise you to know that not all straight people are nearly as concerned as you are about an isolated incident of assault? And why has this incident suddenly become a referendum on the entire gay rights movement?
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that this argument is really only about you -- your outrage and your need for gay people to justify themselves as members of society.
#23 Brian Cox
on November 13, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I'm a native of Minnesota. So I happen to know that Al Franken's first bill had nothing to do with rape. It was Service Dogs for Veterans Act (S 1495). If you are referring to the Amendment which he attached to the Defense Appropriations bill...the reason most Republicans objected to the Amendment is that it was merely a gift to the Lawyer lobby. It is an anti-freedom Amendment which restricts attempts to use private arbitration of matters in the work place regarding sexual discrimination.
To imply that this means that Republicans are OK with rape ...? ... I'll chalk that up to an "over-the-top" comment...
#24 Kuzma
on November 13, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
If you honestly cared about respect and decency, you would be outraged by what Zach has done. But you're not, and that tells me that you as representatives for the homosexual community don't have respect and decency.
Calling a guy a faggot is nowhere near as bad as sexually assaulting him.
#25 Brian Cox
on November 13, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Pascal. I'm offering this view of the incident as a means for the LGBTQ community to understand how they are viewed; hopefully to the result that they will speak up more and condemn extremely poor behavior of this kind. My main concern in this letter is not that you win over the public to your cause. I don't believe we are in any danger of that ever happening.
My main concern is that you clean up your act for your own sake and for that of society as a whole. If you want to simply evaluate why you think I have my opinion ... Ok, go ahead. I really don't NEED you to do anything. I am simply offering you a formula of how to better present yourselves. So far, no one in the LGBTQ community has embraced my plan. Instead they are simply angry that anyone has an opinion that disagrees with their own (as if they hadn't noticed yet that most people do). And to that I say ... "and my opinion remains unchanged."
#26 Kristin
on November 13, 2009 at 3:15 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Brian, thank you for correcting me on the amendment/bill issue. At any rate, I certainly don't think my comment was over the top. You're accusing the entire gay community of endorsing sexual assault, yet you find it over the top that using the same method I might attribute a similar endorsement to those who actually actively voted against protections against it?
At any rate, it's all moral relativism, and it's all about what people decide to get outraged about. As you can see, Kuzma has even handily listed a few points on his own scale of morality. I, for instance, have a huge problem with people calling guys "faggots" because I know that it's more than just words - it fosters a climate of disrespect and inflammatory language that I find unacceptable. In the same breath that Kuzma accuses me of caring about respect and decency, he defends (out of thin air, it seems, since until then no one has brought up epithets or slurs - does this mean that Kuzma is afraid someone who has heard or seen him do such a thing will bring it up?) the use of word relative to that which he thinks disgusting.
Again, Pascal makes an excellent point - if you really think that the behavior of people who disapproved of Zach's actions and did nothing, or the behavior of people at Pride parades, is representative of the GLBTQ community at large, you are choosing to accept a very narrow definition. Why not focus instead on the many more members of the gay community who do admirable things? Thanks for the concern and the formula, Brian, but I'm pretty sure adult members of the GLBTQ community know how to behave. Your condescending attitude and moral high horse, on the other hand, could use some fine-tuning.
#27 Kyle S.
on November 13, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.(Renton, WA)
I agree with the sentiments of Kristin (#26) and Pascal (#22)with respect to Brian's overall tone and motivations for writing this response.
It is too bad too, because there is good social commentary going on in this response on how Gustin's actions point out a double stadard on the gravity given to sexual harrasment on women as opposed to men. There is something to be said for the fact that Gustin felt comfortable enough to put this story in the paper even when it describes him handeling a situation in a way that was totally inappropriate, wrong, and even punishable by law. I definately don't think he would have put it in the paper if it involved him hadeling a similar scenario involving a woman who had slighted him in the same way. Indeed, I think he would have been much less likely to choose to handle it in that way!"Two wrongs don't make a right" is what comes to mind for me when I think of how Gussin decided to handle this scenario. It certainly does not help his friends, me, or the GLBTQ rights movement.
It is just too bad that the overall motivation of the response seems to be about bashing and talking down to the GLBTQ community rather than giving voice to an otherwise legitimate concern brought up by Gussin's behavior.
#28 Lyn
on November 13, 2009 at 8:12 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Hmmm... it seems to me Brian's point is being missed. He is merely pointing out, for the benefit of the LGBTQ community, that it would be more helpful to the LGBTQ cause if other LGBTQ's condemned Zach's - and all indecent and disrespectful behavior. Instead, the outraged LGBTQ's have only said it was "immature" or "misguided" which falls very short of condemning it. All indecent behavior should be condemned, regardless of the group with which you identify.
#29 Rebecca_F
on November 13, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.(Denver, CO)
I don't think a woman publicly uncovering her breasts is cool, but neither do I think it is as offensive as forcibly touching another person in a sexual manner without their consent.
I don't think calling someone a f----- is cool, but neither do I think it rises to the same level as sexual assault.
Use of slurs such as the one mentioned are distasteful, counter-productive, and unethical. However, I would still uphold the legal right to use such offensive language as a matter of free speech (generally speaking - please see note below).
[Obviously, there are a lot of variables, depending on the context of the slur, whether it is spoken to an individual or as part of a speech or essay, the relationship of the persons involved, the manner in which it is spoken, what else is said . . . etc. I do NOT intend to defend threats.]
An insult is not the same as an assault. You do not have the right, under any provocation, to use another person (non-consensually) as a sexual objection. Even a convicted felon has the right not to be sexually abused.
And let me say this clearly: I'll take the head of any man who grabs my butt on a silver platter, whether he does so for personal pleasure, political intimidation, retaliation, a warped idea of "education", a warped idea of "religion", or some other reason. Is that clear?
I didn't read the original article (perhaps I should do so), but I find the description of sexual assault related here disturbing. I do not assume that all American GBLT would behave, encourage, or defend such behavior. I hope that the majority of American GBLT would not. [As a side note, I do not intend to imply, by using the term "American GBLT" that identifying as straight or GBLT makes anyone more or less American. I don't know much about the GBLT community internationally, but I'm guessing there could be significant cultural differences between a gay person from the U.S. and one from, say, Iran. Therefore, I am focusing my comments on those here.] If, in fact, several people identifying themselves as members of the GBLT community defended this assault and no-one identifying themselves as such denounced it . . . Well, if you don't feel that kind of behavior represents you, it would be reassuring to the rest of us if you would just take a couple minutes to tell us that you find it reprehensible, too.
I may add additional comments later, but I think this will do for now. I think Kyle (#27) had some interesting thoughts. Lyn (#28) had a good point, "All indecent behavior should be condemned, regardless of the group with which you identify." I might have said something about violence, since the term "indecent" could mean different things to different people and not necessarily non-consensual or violent . . . but we should all reject sexual assault, right?
#30 Rebecca_F
on November 13, 2009 at 10:57 p.m.(Denver, CO)
We may never know for sure whether they isolate or mix. But one thing is clear, the folks at GPSS tend to be a bit defensive.
#31 Kyle S.
on November 14, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.(Seattle, WA)
Going on from where Rebecca left off, it is disappointing that those that commented on Gissen's article rushed to defend Gissen's behavior at all and as fast as they did.
As a gay man, I take offense to the downright adverserial and condecending tone Cox takes in his response. He also seems awefuly comfortable with jumping toward sweeping generalizations about the GLBTQ community at large that I don't think he would be as comfortable making with other demographics.
BUT Cox is NOT wrong about his appraisal of the situation. There is good reason for him to be upset about Gissen's behavior, and it was even more outrageous that Gissen was comfortable enough to put this in the University's newspaper! As said before, Gissen would not have been defended so readily under almost any other circumstances.
I hope anyone reading the comments are able to look past the grit of Cox's language, which undermines whatever good faith effort he was making in calling foul on Gissen's behavior and those who defended him.
#32 Matthew Z.
on November 14, 2009 at 7:10 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
First: what Zachary did you stupid, offensive, harmful to the LBGTQ cause, and probably illegal.
Second: "an out-of-control class of its citizens with a regretfully low sense of decency." The same was said of feminists. The same was said of blacks. And even ignoring the disturbing relationship your statement holds with historic bigotry, generalizing from one person, or from a parade of them, to an entire group is a stupid thing to do. Moreover, I'm certain that you agree with me. Do KKK members represent all white people? Does Glenn Beck represent all Republicans? Does Robert Mugabe represent all African political leadership? And while we're on the topic of out of control, we should probably ask ourselves which side has more often resorted to violence. I'll bring a list of people who have been assaulted or killed because they were LGTBQ, you bring me a list of people who suffered the same because they were straight.
Third: I wish I didn't, but I have to disagree about the inevitability of sexual assault charges if a woman were treated like Zachary's victim were. I'd expect a slap and disgust, but the courts would be mired in lawsuits if legal remedy were sought every time the straight community transgressed. Worse, I wouldn't necessarily expect strong condemnation from the individual's peers either.
Fourth: The last two sentences you wrote are absolutely true, and I agree wholeheartedly.
And lastly, because I prefer to be bluntly honest when possible, I think that you are contorting your reasoning in extraordinary ways to cover your prejudice against this particular group. I'm not sure if you're entirely aware of it. And yes, I know I sound a little arrogant here, but I want to express my opinion directly because I believe it is relevant.
#33 Matthew Z.
on November 14, 2009 at 7:12 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
The Daily comment pages need an edit feature. Replace "you" with "was" in my first sentence.
#34 John H
on November 15, 2009 at 3:54 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I just really liked Brian Cox's letter.
Double standards can get frustrating very quickly.
And this entire thread is very entertaining.
#35 Mario L.
on November 15, 2009 at 10:04 p.m.(UW Campus)
Brian: I wrote to thank Zach for writing the article in support of the Kiss In. It was great to have media outreach through The Daily for SOLE's efforts.
Your arguments can be subtracted to be 3 people who defended Zach's behavior, because I wrote to thank him, but I did not excuse his behavior, and proceeded to give you an example of an outrage going on that day (the tragic death of an officer, my he rest in peace), far exceeding the kind of outrage I couldn't understand you were going through.
Kuzma: To be known as the voice of intolerance and negativity, I do not know how you can suffer your own words. They are so poisonous and unsound.
Everybody: Thank you everybone for providing this dialogue; it has opened my eyes to some issues I did not notice readily and to also to be more fair with people I disagree with.
Kristin: You have a wit not to be contested with.
Kyle: Great points.
Matt: Agreed. Though I don't think Zach is stupid, an idiot, etc.
Lynn: Thanks for making Brian's point understandable.
Rebecca: Great input!
#36 Mario L.
on November 15, 2009 at 10:06 p.m.(UW Campus)
correction: everybone change to *everybody* wow.
#37 Jake F
on November 16, 2009 at 3:21 p.m.(Spokane, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Brian,
I'd just like to offer a few facts for you to chew on. According to a number of polls taken this year (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_o...), only roughly 30% of Americans oppose any kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples. On the other hand, roughly 40% of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage and 25% of Americans are in favor of same-sex civil unions.
These general feelings were exemplified in the November when 53% of Washingtonians voted to approve the legislature's decision to extend same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, except the right to marry (despite a statistically proven tendency for people to vote "no" on referendums that they do not understand). Most Washingtonians clearly did not believe, as you apparently do, that the actions of one misguided young man represent an entire, diverse community of people.
So please do not try to pretend that you represent some sort of moral majority here. This is not about what Seattle thinks as opposed to what the rest of the country thinks. This is about living up to the most fundamental principles of our democracy as embedded in our Constitution and guaranteeing all people equal rights and protections under the law.
#38 Rebecca_F
on November 16, 2009 at 5:26 p.m.(Denver, CO)
In response to #37, I have two comments:
1) Whether same-sex relationships should be granted the same, or more similar, legal standing to opposite-sex marriage is a separate question from whether homosexuals are more prone to sexual assault than heterosexuals. This is not to say that a claim of homosexuals tolerating and/or engaging in sexual assault might not be used as an argument against same-sex "marriage" (or domestic partnerships, civil unions). But the two issues do not necessarily stand or fall together. Please don't confuse them. Many people do oppose both same-sex "marriage" and sexual assault. I would hope that the majority of those opposing same-sex "marriage" would oppose sexual assault, and I would hope that the majority of those supporting same-sex "marriage" would also oppose sexual assault. If you don't oppose sexual assault, there is something really, really wrong with you.
2) Have you looked at the county-by-county results for Referendum 71? If you exclude King County from the results, instead of being approved by 53%, it would be being rejected by 53%.
#39 Brian Cox
on November 17, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
My Letter had nothing to do with the logic of whether Same-Sex Marriage should be rejected or accepted. We can discuss that in another forum, perhaps.
But this is about helping you understand the opinion of the majority of Americans, and perhaps helping you adjust to it. I never said, "Aha! Three people weren't outraged ... this proves homosexuals are indecent." What I did was use the example to help you understand the bigger picture.
Maine residents, Oregon residents, California residents and residents of many other states agree: America does not need to hand over its defining characteristics to the LGBTQ community. And I believe if you recognize a consistent pattern of behavior in the LGBTQ community that is...less than desirable...it might be good for them to hear it.
And, yes, I see a consistent pattern. No other group wears their sexuality on their sleeve like the LGBTQ community. No other group repeatedly engages in the public displays of indecent sexuality that the LGBTQ community throws in society's face via "Gay Pride Parades". So I didn't bring up this incident as some sort of proof; only as an example of a bigger picture. But it does illustrate what I'm saying very well: The LGBTQ community doesn't respect the decency of others in the same way that the rest of society does.
#40 Rebecca_F
on November 17, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.(Denver, CO)
#39
If this doesn't relate to same-sex marriage, would you like to elaborate on what "defining characteristics" the good people of California, Oregon, and Maine don't want to hand over "to the LGBTQ community"?
I do realize that there is some difference between these issues, as I myself pointed out (see #38). It is possible (at least theoretically) to be disgusted by public displays of (homo-)sexuality, and still support same-sex "marriage"; or visa versa to oppose same-sex "marriage" and not be disgusted by many (or perhaps any) such displays. It is also possible to be disgusted by such displays, but fail to see "a consistent pattern" of them being enacted by GBLT. And as I pointed out before, it is possible to oppose same-sex marriage without arguing for such a pattern.
#41 Brian Cox
on November 17, 2009 at 8:18 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
It does relate to same-sex marriage. But it isn't THE argument for it. It was only meant to compare the rejection of same-sex marriage to other issues.
If I had to sit down and write a letter about why same-sex marriage should not be accepted, it wouldn't look like this one.
#42 Rebecca_F
on November 18, 2009 at 2:34 p.m.(Denver, CO)
Brian, I think I understand the distinction that you are making. Thanks for the clarifying!
#43 Jake F
on November 18, 2009 at 8:13 p.m.(Spokane, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
#39: My comments were aimed at the following comment:
"Marriage is not a right. And homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage exists for the purpose of raising children, for the purpose of a family. And contrary to what the LGBTQ community will say, a family is not a circle of friends who loves each other.
Outside of Seattle, an overwhelming majority of people agree with my viewpoint and rightly so."
Trying to help ME see the bigger picture?! Ha! That's pretty funny. Your sad homophobia is far from the big picture.
#38: I wouldn't call 53% an overwhelming majority. And no, King County was not the only county that voted in favor of Ref. 71. Every county in the Puget Sound except for Pierce voted in favor.
#44 Rebecca_F
on November 18, 2009 at 8:55 p.m.(Denver, CO)
#43
1) I did not call 53% an "overwhelming majority". It is, however, the same percentage as the statewide results in favor of expanded domestic partnership benefits, which you apparently found worthy of citing.
2) I did not claim that King County was the ONLY county that voted for approval of Referendum 71.
3) Actually, Pierce is NOT the only Puget Sound county to reject Referendum 71. Mason County is also rejecting Referendum 71. [Note: The vote counts are not final. I am working off of the running tallies available on the Secretary of State's website.]
4) Your earlier comments (#37) were addressed to "Brian"; however, your more recent post says they "were aimed at" comment #8, who identified himself as "Kuzma". ???
#45 Kuzma
on November 19, 2009 at 9:08 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting a traditional view of marriage. This does not make a person a homophobe. Gay people should have every right to be gay, but marriage should always be between a man and a woman.
Marriage is one of the most important institutions of our country and is worth protecting, not degrading to meet the demands of an immoral minority of people.
#46 Kyle
on November 19, 2009 at 11:08 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Kuzma, I don't understand how you can justify marriage as one of the most important institutions of our country when it has a 50% failure rate among heterosexuals. By your logic, divorce should be illegal as to "protect the families". What is so wrong about two people - ANY two people - wanting to express their love for one another in a meaningful way that is recognized by everyone (including the government) as a long-term commitment?
And your answer can't have any bearing on the person's sexuality or it is by nature discrimination. The only possible argument is "because the Bible says so", and in that case I invite you to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52Ol...
#47 Kuzma
on November 19, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Your argument is pretty typical. Marriage is a broken institution so let's degrade it even further. What you don't realize is that a lot of people are very dedicated to protecting this institution. Many ministers won't marry two people unless these people go through 6 or more months of couples counseling beforehand. This is done in order to make sure the marriage is successful. Similar counseling is offered for couples with marital problems.
Allowing gays to marry won't solve anything. There's nothing wrong with two people expressing their love for one another. But marriage is between a man and a woman and exists for the purpose of nurturing a stable family unit. Gays can't form a stable family because two people of the same sex can't reproduce.
I don't believe in gay marriage and I would never vote to allow it. I'm supported by an overwhelming majority of the United States.
Have your civil unions if you so choose, but marriage will always be between a man and a woman.
#48 Matthew Z.
on November 20, 2009 at 1:59 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
"Gay people should have every right to be gay, but marriage should always be between a man and a woman.
Marriage is one of the most important institutions of our country and is worth protecting, not degrading to meet the demands of an immoral minority of people."
You don't find it at all disconcerting to suggest that the minority be withheld from a governmental recognition in marriage for your own personal religious comfort? Even if you aren't religious you used the word "immoral" in a way that qualifies as religious regardless.
It is your political opinion that marriage is an important institution that is worth protecting, but you cross the bounds that are allowed in the first amendment if you suggest that your religion should restrict the rights or privileges of others. If you really cared about the legal foundations of our country you wouldn't be promoting law based on religion like you are.
Drop your religious views from the equation and try to support preventing people from joining in a union that doesn't affect you in the slightest. Try to find a way to claim that without advocating oppression. At least Mr. Cox is making an effort, however flawed his reasoning may be.
#49 Matthew Z.
on November 20, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Degrade it further? Check Massachusetts, where the divorce rate has declined to 1940 levels after gay marriage was legalized. If you're going to make a claim that might seem bigoted you might want to at least make sure that it's correct as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-w...
Not everyone in an opposite sex relationship can have children either. Should women after menopause not be allowed to marry? Should sterile individuals be denied that right? Couples that simply don't want children? You're likely going to answer that those groups should be allowed to, which means that you are, in fact, not supporting marriage because of any family raising powers. You simply don't like gays and want that dislike to be coded into law.
It's not so long ago that people would have said that marriage will always be between a man and a woman of the same race. It was supported by the vast majority of Americans as well, and was just as hateful as your position is today.
#50 Kuzma
on November 21, 2009 at 1 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Well, good luck with calling people hateful for not agreeing with your viewpoint. I simply support a traditional view of marriage. By the way, so does your beloved Obama.
Don't worry, gays will never be granted the right to marry. And the Defense of Marriage Act will not be struck down.
#51 Rebecca_F
on November 22, 2009 at 10:36 p.m.(Denver, CO)
I'm sure Thomas Jefferson and company would have been interested to hear that being endowed with rights by a Creator is politically irrelevant. At least that Declaration was written before the Constitution, so they didn't break any [American] laws. What a miserable waste of life, fortune, and sacred honor. Eh?
- Rebecca Faust
faust3@q.com
#52 Rebecca_F
on November 22, 2009 at 10:43 p.m.(Denver, CO)
I'm assuming, Matthew, that you would classify arguments referencing a "Creator" as religious?
#53 Bonnie
on November 25, 2009 at 1:13 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I have to say, it appears that it is Mr.Cox who is not residing in the "real world". Every day, women are sexually assaulted in the same manner described in Mr.Gussin's editorial: This happens in bars, clubs, on buses and the very hallways of our university. Where is the outrage? Where are the criminal charges?
While Mr.Gussin certainly did not do any favors to gay rights, it is a sad fact that his behaviour is not so much representative of the LGBTQ community but our society as a whole: gay, straight and everyone in between.
#54 Ao_Ding
on November 27, 2009 at 8 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Would you have written the same article if Zarchary was straight?
#55 Rebecca_F
on November 27, 2009 at 10:41 p.m.(Denver, CO)
Actually, if you refer back to Zachary Gussin's article, it appears that he is straight. So not to answer for Mr. Cox, but it appears that the answer is "yes, exactly the same". LOL
#56 Matthew Z.
on November 28, 2009 at 11:12 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
@Kuzma: Your reasons are what are hateful. The viewpoint itself could theoretically not be, but given the reasons that most adopt it for it's quite rare to find such a person. Also, Obama is wrong on this particular issue so long as marriage remains the primary legal state recognition of union. As for DOMA, conservatives have a terrible track record of winning on social issues in the long run (interracial marriage, the role of women, child labor, the death penalty, etc.). If you're ever a grandfather your grandkids will think of you in the same way that all of us think of our elder relatives who still don't trust dark people.
@Rebecca_F: I would think that Mr. Jefferson would be happiest seeing his wall of separation between church and state maintained. I do find "Creator" to be religious, but the founding fathers made a clear effort to generalize it significantly, and given the time period that attempt was admirable. And the Declaration has never been used as law in this country, excluding only that period where we were whipping the British (with a bit of help).
#57 Rebecca_F
on November 28, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.(Denver, CO)
The Declaration is not "law" in the same sense as the constitution. There is no [U.S.] law which will require you to believe in a Creator generally, let along any particular Creator. However, the arguments laid out in the constitution, including inalienable rights bestowed by God, is the theoretical basis for our nations founding and (at least indirectly) for all future American Law. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that the same Founding Fathers who risked their lives to protect rights which they claimed were given to them from above, still believed these rights came from above when they provided us with the Bill of Rights. Your argument seemed to tend toward delegitimizing any political position which was based, in the minds of it's proponents, on their religious beliefs - or, to put it another way, on how god (or God, gods, goddess, goddesses, etc.) would have it be. By this argument, the rights our founders fought and died for could not now be upheld for the reasons they upheld them. The government cannot force you to accept a religious view. However, you cannot exclude those whose views do contain a religious element from participating in government. For those who hold a (for lack of a better term) "seriously religious" perspective, you cannot separate religion from politics, because God is the ultimate Authority and Reason, period. Any law, not just issues you think of as being religiously colored like "gay marriage", can be seen viewed through a religious lens. E.g. The Bible teaches that murder is wrong because God made man in his image. Would you contend that Christians shouldn't participate in the law-making process on that issue either because their views are based in religion?
On a separate not, please do not assume that all of us have racist grandparents of whom we are ashamed. I am proud of my family and no, my grandparents don't have any problem with members of other races. (My great-grandparents died prior to my birth. For obvious reasons, I don't know the political views of everyone in my family tree from before I was born.) How did you manage to identify opposing inter-racial marriage as conservative, anyway?
#58 Rebecca_F
on November 28, 2009 at 12:23 p.m.(Denver, CO)
Or child labor for that matter? Unless you mean family farming . . . in the great agrarian tradition.
#59 Matthew Z.
on November 30, 2009 at 6:15 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
And of course they had every right to believe that their rights did spring from some higher power, but there's a reason why the preamble has also not been viewed as a source of law.
My position on this matter is more or less the Lemon test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v....). Any action undertaken by the government regarding religion must also have a secular purpose, must not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and must not excessively entangle government with religion. If someone is advocating for a law based solely on their religious beliefs then yes, I believe that their political stance is illegitimate seeing as how we don't live in a theocracy. Their opinion is obviously valid, but as a means to alter the laws of this country it cannot be considered. I do not believe that the founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution solely or primarily for religious reasons.
So help us all if there are people out there who oppose murder for the sole reason that their religion tells them to. Such people are free to vote based on their beliefs because the reasons behind how one votes are not subject to constitutional limitations, but our laws and legislators are. Those legislators must, as a matter of law and, I believe, practicality and justice, discount primarily religious arguments in the process of carrying out their jobs. Establishing a law because a religion requires it certainly fails the mandate of the Establishment Clause.
I misspoke with the grandparents comment. I intended to say that he will be viewed in the same manner that anyone who happens to have such relatives tends to view them, not imply that all grandparents are racist.
I view liberals and progressives as the same thing, and view conservatives as opposing both. For me there's a progression: reactionary - very conservative - conservative - mildly conservative - moderate-mildly liberal - liberal - very liberal - revolutionary. As I view the topic supporting interracial marriage began as a revolutionary concept in centuries past, and is finally nearing moderate status today. Opposing it began near moderate status and has shifted through conservative to reactionary. I find it curious that you don't consider opposition to have come primarily from social conservatives.
Child labor in the industrial sense (as I intended to mean it) is more complex in the continuum given that capitalism was at one point the radical position, so in a sense the progressives supported child labor by promoting industrialization. But the drive to prohibit child labor also eventually came from progressives, and it was conservative opponents who viewed such laws as unneeded.
#60 ao_ding
on November 30, 2009 at 11:36 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Rebecca there is nothing in Zachary's article that indicates his orientation. He simply did not identify as "gay." He could have just as easily identified with a variety of other titles that come with LGBTQ or none at all. But that is besides the point, the problem I am having with Mr. Cox's article is that he seem to be associating sexual assault with the LGBTQ community. To quote Mr. Cox wrote:
"If a heterosexual male had done anything like this to any female in order to humiliate her, sexual assault charges would undoubtedly follow."
The distinction of "heterosexual" vs. none is confusing. Why does Mr. Cox need to make this distinction at all? If this article is focused on the issue of sexual assault (as it claims to be) then it shouldn't matter whom the participants of assault are. More so it should matter even less what community they identify with. Instead Mr.Cox continuously use LGBTQ and sexual assault in conjunction to associate the two with each other. To quote again Mr. Cox writes:
"Now, in the real world (those outside the LGBTQ community) we do not tolerate sexual assault. "
Now here it seems that Mr. Cox is saying that the LGBTQ, or anyone who is a part of it (eg. Mr. Gussin), is apparently; pro assault. This is NOT true. The LGBTQ views harassment on the same level as the "real world" and is very much so subjugated to the same laws as anyone else. The LGBTQ does not have its own laws and if assault charges are to be filed it would get the same treatment. One might argue then 'why was Mr. Gussin allowed by the LGBTQ to assault said person?' Bottom line is, the LGBTQ did not allow it, no one said 'sure Mr. Gussin go ahead and grab that boys ass.' The LGBTQ allowed it just as much as the "real world" people allowed it. Did it ever occur to you that Mr. Gussin is equally part of the LGBTQ as anywhere else? Is he really just a one dimensional person whose sole purpose in life is with the LGBTQ? The answer is no, and the same could be said of everyone in the LGBTQ.
Using Mr. Cox's argument focusing on other labels I could just as easily say this; Mr. Gussin is part of said religion/race, what he did was wrong so all people of his race like to harass to each other because they are all indecent. After all I did see one do it and it is perfectly fine to generalize that everyone of the same race participates in these immoral actions.
The question is, have you or Mr.Cox actually met people of the LGBTQ? More importantly met them outside of their label? The LGBTQ is a community full of PEOPLE, with FEELINGS, it's not a unanimous mass of sludge bent on sexually assaulting or demoralizing people. It has straights, bis, lesbians, queers, gays, christians, islamics, agnostics, african americans, hispanics, asians, caucasians, and what have you. Each has their different beliefs, and goals just like everyone in the "real world" because it IS everyone from the real world. We are just like you, deal with it.
#61 Rebecca_F
on December 1, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.(Denver, CO)
PART I
ao_ding
My intent in pointing out that Gussin wasn't necessarily GBLT, was not necessarily to defend Cox's argument. I do oppose same-sex "marriage" and did oppose Referendum 71. However, Mr. Cox himself noted that the argument he made was "not THE argument" against same-sex marriage, and it is certainly not the argument I would have chosen for that either.
In fairness to Cox, a member of the campus community wrote about a recent sexual assault he committed at a Kiss-in, in retaliation against a [presumably straight] male whom he overheard making a derogatory remark. This writer was also telling us about a Kiss-in which would be held on campus, which he intended to attend. So here is Mr. Cox, a straight male member of the UW campus community who apparently opposes homosexuality (or at least gay marriage?) . . . and to make matters worse, a few other people - likely also from UW - make comments supportive of that writer, and no-one except Cox himself commented to condemn the assault. I can see where perhaps Cox felt threatened . . . or perhaps he did want to make a point and just thought this illustrated it well. (I'm not Cox, so I don't really know for sure what he was feeling when he wrote this letter-to-the-editor.)
That being said, there are many GBLT in the Seattle area and elsewhere who had nothing to do with this situation and it would be unfair to assume that they all support sexual assault. Given Cox's argument, I think it was fair to point out that Gussin may well not have been GBLT (not including straight allies in that), although the assault did take place at a GBLT event. Please look at the totality of my comments on this thread, especially #29. (Note that comment #30 was directed to Morse's letter-to-the-editor and does not relate to Cox's letter-to-the-editor.)
#62 Rebecca_F
on December 1, 2009 at 11:22 a.m.(Denver, CO)
PART II
You asked a couple of questions regarding my (and Cox's) interactions with GBLT.
1) "The question is, have you or Mr. Cox actually met people of the LGBTQ?"
I have no desire or ability to answer that question for Mr. Cox. But as far as myself, yes, I have.
2) "More importantly met them outside their label?"
Meaning? When is a GBLT person "outside their label"? When they're in the closet? When they're not at a "GBLT event" (however that may be defined)? When the person meeting them doesn't care about their sexual orientation and doesn't make an issue of it? When the subject of discussion doesn't relate to sexuality?
You concluded, "[The LGBTQ] has straights, bis, lesbians, queers, gays, christians [sic], islamics [sic], agnostics, african americans [sic], hispanics [sic], asians [sic], caucasians [sic], and what have you. Each has their different beliefs, and goals just like everyone in the 'real world' because it IS everyone from the real world. . . ."
Did you by any chance mean ". . . it is some of the people from the real world . . ."? Because if LGBTQ means everyone, then it is a meaningless designation. I also find it interesting that you included straights on your list. Typically, I would understand this designation to contrast with straight, unless "allies" are included, at which point it becomes a sort of political designation.
- Rebecca
#63 ao_ding
on December 1, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Rebecca, the fact that sexual harassment happened at a LGBTQ event is about as significant as it happening in the work place or school. Sexual harassment does not discriminate between place, people, or gender it can happen anywhere and to anyone, but by consistently focusing on that it was at a "non-straight" event you're pushing the idea that sexual assault is de facto with the LGBTQ.
We do not need these negative labels forced upon us (eg. "indecent"), they are demeaning and dehumanizing.
When I asked have you met a, say gay person, outside of their label this is the exact thing I am talking about. What I mean is have you ever met a person that you liked only to change your views of them after you have found out they were gay? The person is the same person before and after, but as soon as they are labeled gay they are suddenly associated with the negative labels that are forced upon the word. He is then dehumanized and considered immoral and inferior. This is exactly what is happening here, the equation used here is LGBTQ == Sexual Assault = Indecent, when in reality the two formers have no formal connection to each other what-so-ever.
Also I am surprised that in your comment on #29 you downplayed the seriousness of using discriminatory language when according to Federal Law, discrimination based on sex, race, and sexual orientation (etc) is equated with sexual harassment. Calling a gay person the "f" word is not free speech it is slander, and is also sexually derogatory in nature. Here at the UW we do not tolerate harassment or discrimination.
Finally, no I did not mean "some" I mean it is the real world. Gays, Lesbians, Bis are everywhere, occupy nearly every country and race imaginable, they are not localized in a magical LGBTQ land. By using "some" you are implying the idea of "the other," and attempting to isolate what is by nature integrated into this world. You are seeking to draw out, label, and quarantine what you do not find as acceptable, so you can dehumanize, and ultimately destroy them. It's not about morality, or goodness. It's social genocide.
#64 Rebecca_F
on December 1, 2009 at 10:16 p.m.(Denver, CO)
"social genocide?" What the heck?
I did NOT say that I think sexual assault is characteristic of GBLT people as a demographic group. In my last comment, I was merely suggesting that given the context of this particular instance of sexual assault (including the way in which the victim was targeted), I think it is understandable that someone in Cox's position might have felt a little threatened when they read about it. There is a difference between having a subjective feeling of nervousness or anger because of a situation close to you, and having statistics which scientifically support a generalization. I understand this difference. Perhaps you and Mr. Cox do not. I was not the one who wrote the letter-to-the-editor. Please keep me and Mr. Cox straight (no pun intended).
As for your comments about the real world, I am getting the impression that we are not on the same wavelength. I understood your comment that LBGTQ = real world, if taken at face value, to mean that everyone in the real world is LBGTQ. My correction was that only some people are LBGTQ. I did not deny that they were a part of the real world. But they are not all of it. I certainly do not identify myself in any way as a part of that demographic, and I feel pretty real.
Finally, coming to your point regarding certain derogatory language, I believe that you have a poor understanding of First Amendment law. I already acknowledged that whether it was protected might depend on the contextual factors. But regardless of whether it is illegal to call someone that or not, I still stand by my assertion that it doesn't rise to the same level as sexual assault. That doesn't mean that I would find such language socially acceptable or that I would want to hear anyone called that.
#65 Kuzma
on December 3, 2009 at 8:54 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Rebecca makes a great point. Calling someone a faggot may indeed be rude and distasteful, but at the same time it's perfectly legal. Sexual assault, on the other hand, is not.
#66 Brian Cox
on December 4, 2009 at 10:56 a.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Wow! I didn't know this thread was still active.
#60: "The distinction of "heterosexual" vs. none is confusing. Why does Mr. Cox need to make this distinction at all? "
I was setting up the tone of my comparison. Mr. Gussin was hiding behind the role of a gay man in his illustration. So my comparison was intended to separate the act committed from the roles which the original story used.
Also you say:
"Now here it seems that Mr. Cox is saying that the LGBTQ, or anyone who is a part of it (eg. Mr. Gussin), is apparently; pro assault."
No, no no! I made it very clear. I had been discussing this situation on the dailyuw.com boards with members of the LGBTQ community. And I was disturbed by their lack of outrage. I NEVER EVER EVER said, implied or hinted that the LGBTQ community is pro-assault. I simply was pointing out that they were ALL willing to look the other way when it was done by Mr. Gussin. THAT is the source of my outrage!
And you say:
"The LGBTQ is a community full of PEOPLE, with FEELINGS"
Of course they have feelings! Don't be silly. In fact, my complaint in this letter was that they (apparently) don't have enough feelings for the right things. When they hear people complaining about their lack of outrage, they don't say to themselves, "Yes, we should be more concerned with the rights of people who are abused in this way."
Instead they say, "Oh no, someone is speaking negatively of the LGBTQ community. We'd better defend the LGBTQ community."
So, yes, they obviously have feelings. Or they wouldn't have posted at all.
#67 Rebecca_F
on December 4, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.(Denver, CO)
It is right to be disturbed by what happened, the chevalier manner in which this criminal related his actions, and the lack of outcry. The former two (what happened and the shameless narration of it) would be disturbing under any circumstances. As for the former, if there was very little activity on the Daily's website and very little feedback to anything else they published, I might just put it down to low readership or some such.
But especially given the extreme negative reaction which content negative to the GBLT community - but not involving criminal behavior - has received, I think Cox is correct in noting a double standard. I think that upholding this double-standard involves probably some GBLT (people identifying with a non-straight sexual orientation) but also some straight members of the campus community (many of whom might be described as "allies", but who in any case, are not gay). I say this for two reasons: First, on occasions when there has been substantial outcry in the campus community, the participants in this outcry were not solely GBLT. Second, on this occasion, non-GBLT have had the same opportunity to decry Gussin's conduct as GBLT have had, and the general hesitancy to do so remains significant.
However, Mr. Cox, I think if your goal was to solicit outrage and solidarity against sexual assault, you would have found a less accusatory tone more successful. I strongly suspect some would have offered stronger statements of their disgust at sexual assault if they didn't feel they were being required to also play defendant for themselves and/or others who weren't involved in the assault.
Furthermore, I think we should be cautious with our generalizations. Something is wrong: We must not be blind. But somehow we must also be fair to individual homosexuals (or bi/trans-sexuals) who may be very much opposed to sexual assault and for whatever reason - maybe they weren't at the rally or didn't see what happened, maybe they don't read these blogs, maybe they thought it would be obvious that this behavior didn't represent them and didn't feel the need to get involved in a big online discussion of it - haven't weighed in. We've also had at least one person identifying himself as a homosexual who has condemned Gussin's behavior (#31).
- Rebecca
Post a comment