Posted by Flyguy on January 25, 2005
In Reply to: The justification of defining posted by Lewis on January 24, 2005
: : : : : : : : : Not that there's anything wrong with them*, but when was it politically correct , and required, to have Gay and Lesbian Organizations on campus? In my days, I would have formed a strictly hetrosexual organizations (and established the entry requirements for woman who were to be inducted), but an organization based solely on sexual orientation was frowned upon. When did this expression become not only OK, but required?
: : : : : : : : : *thanks to the Seinfeld writers.
: : : : : : : : I guess you'd have to read a history of the gay liberation movement to find out when. As to why, there is strength in numbers. Heteros don't need the support of an organization because they aren't oppressed. Gays and lesbians are.
: : : : : : : There was a report on our local public radio station, interviewing high school students who were members of their respective high school Gey and Lesbian Organizations. It caught my ear because one student was from our town, a progessive college town. As I suspected, our high school was a model of tolerance. No problems. On the other hand, students from city schools (Chicago) reported considerable harrassment and threats of violence ... but from a surprising source: their teachers.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Is there a phrase in here somewhere?
: : : : : Ah. Point well taken.
: : : :
: : : : "Not that there's anything wrong with that" as a qualifier is interesting. If only Larry David were here to answer the question of whether it was first used on Seinfeld....
: : : I'm sure they discuss that on the DVD sets. We have the first and are working our way up.
: : Lexi, the purpose of this site is to discuss the meanings and origins of English phrases. Your question would more likely find an authoritative answer at a cultural history or sociology forum. If you know the names of any national gay/lesbian campus organizations (sorry, I don't), their websites would be good places to start. Eventually you might find a statement like "The first chapter of XXXX opened at the University of XXXX in 19XX."
: It makes me wonder, it does.
: To me, it appears discriminatory to add certain labels to people when unnecessary and, IMO, the whole 'save the vegetarian gay whales' lobby has a lot of counter-productive discrimination at the core. If somebody is in the public eye for something they have done, there appears no justifiable reason to use adjectives such as 'black' or 'gay' when describing them, unless that is relevent to the activity concerned.
: To me, writers adding such adjectives suggests that they think that the subject should be evaluated with that in mind, rather than simply as a person.
: the guy who used to cut my hair fitted the gay sterotype - he was fashionable, had a soft voice, was an hairdresser and had worked as an aircraft flight attendant. when I had him cut my hair, his being gay (or not) was not part of the job description or person description - it was irrelevent. if it were reported that he was promoted to senior lecturing to trichiological studies at the local college, his sexuality would be irrelevent in the same way that Elton John's piano playing is unaffected by his sexuality - yet the press often refer to it, when writing about aspects of his life and work to which it has absolutely no relevence.
: if I have an X-ray, it matters not one jot whether the radiologist is 'gay', or that my business account manager at the bank is 'black'. to me, in most circumstances such adjectives add no relevent meaning.
: perhaps I am missing the benefits of affirmative action, but adding those adjectives when it is not relevent is surely unhelpful discrimination and I think we should avoid it in our own writing.
: just a thought.
I absolutely agree with Lewis. Why a sexual preference has to be part of a label is beyond me. It's as if those who prefer oral sex could set up a special pleading, and have publicly announced clubs and meetings.