🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 15 Mar 1995 23:47:14 -0500 Michael A. Schoenfield said:
>At 03:58 PM 3/15/95 -0500, Ken Robol wrote:
>>ditto!! Isn't this one of the problems with the country?
>>
>>On Wed, 1 Mar 1995 SALMORE@zodiac.rutgers.edu wrote:
>>
>>> What would the reaction be if someone said that there was
>>> an "ongoing debate about whether or not lesbian and gay
>>> scholars and researchers can meaningfully address the study of
>>> heterosexual life"?
>>>
>>> Maybe we should stop using names and just identify ourselves
>>> by our race, gender, sexual-orientation, religion, etc and just
>>> limit ourselves to studying others who are similarly pigeon-holed.
>=====================================================
>Living in Madison, Wisconsin I don't know how politically correct or
>incorrect the following statement will be, but what the h___.  Why not just
>identify ourselves as:
>
>1.   Homsapian,
>2.   Feline,
>3.   Canine,
>4.   Other Mammal,
>5.   Aviary animal,
>6.   Reptile,
>7.   Amoeba,
>8.   Other Animal,
>9.   Form of plant life, or
>10.  Other rock or non-life form of existence.
>
>This would certainly clear up alot of confusion and worriesa about so-called
>political correctness.
>
>Mike S.
>
>=======================================================
>Michael A. Schoenfield                             maschoen@students.wisc.edu
>Michael A. Schoenfield & Associates     (608) 238-6121  Voice
>University of Wisconsin - Madison
>2637 Mason St.
>Madison, WI 53705-3709
>

      Now that we are back to the angry white men thread, let's identify
bigots and bigotry for what they are or, better yet, let's discuss research and
scholarship. How much progress has the study of public opinion made in under-
standing the development of prime political identity? Why are people more will-
ing to articulate their negative views of homosexuals than of other minorities?

I urge those of you attending the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting
to attend the panel on which the results of the APSA study of the status of les
bians and gays in the profession will be presented. Some of my colleagues on
this discussion list might find the results enlightening.

Ken Sherrill