🚀 go-pugleaf

bg> Bear Giles
gs> Gary Strand

gs> If I feel I'm not welcome, I don't push the issue - why do others?

bg> Look at all of the articles espousing Christianity on the pagan newsgroups.
    *sigh*

  And I'm sure Christians aren't happy with all the anti-Christian folks "pol-
  luting" their groups. And of course men in soc.women, straights in soc.motss,
  &c &c.

bg> Claiming that a LBG group could exclude _all_ straights is excessive,
    but it doesn't seem unreasonable for the group to exclude individuals 
    (regardless of sexual orientation) who are there for reasons contrary 
    to the charter of the group.

  I take FoA as seriously as I do FoS - ie, any group can exclude anyone for
  any reason. Period. No rationalizations necessary. 'Course, said group might
  catch some heat, but nothing of a court-ordered sort.

gs> And men have been (as I said) excluded (and ejected) from IWW fora. If the
    CRs exclusion of homosexuals is wrong, the above two things are wrong.

bg> What happens afterwards?

  In the case of the TBTN march, separate-but-allegedly-equal accomodation was
  made. As for IWW, not a thing - zip, nada, zilch. Not a single threat of
  withdrawal of public monies. Quite frankly, if the lesbians and friends of
  the IWW fora are going to exclude men because of their gender, then they
  shouldn't complain when the men of the CRs exclude them. But they do, of
  course, because they're hypocrites.

bg> It's one thing if a group ejects the "undesirables" and faces no conse-
    quences, it's very much a different thing if they do so and face substan-
    tial penalties from an oversight organization.

  So far as I know, nothing was done, 'cept an article in the Daily about it.

bg> I don't remember what happened with the IWW forums, but I do recall the
    group of "wimyn" who protested sexism by glueing little penises on their
    noses and drawing on their exposed breasts... [...]

  Ah yes, most amusing. I still have that Daily floating around. And yes, it
  was terribly amusing when the photo was sold to Playboy - probably not what
  they had in mind. 

  Ahhh, the insouciance of college-age protest. Seems very important and ac-
  tive at the time, but mellows into silliness with age...
-- 
Gary Strand
gstrand@indra.com                                http://www.indra.com/~gstrand