Aslong as a large percentage of the American population belives that there are no differences between men and women (the equality nuts) George Gilder's common sense will have little effect. The Vegetible Liberation Movement is coming next, (come to think of it, they have some natural allies among the screwier feminists).

Are you sure his name isn't "Gelder"? Sounds to me like he's got some sort of castration complex - civilization by henpecking.

Guess you have to be a gay feminist savage to be a real man these days.

Tony-

You don't believe that the traditional roles of women have had a civilizing influence? Visit a late night gay bar and tell me that.

Tom: Can you supply any evidence that "a large percentage of the American population believes that there are no differences between men and women."

The rest of you: Can you produce any anthropological evidence that gender roles are constant throughout all the world's societies? Because without that, George Gilder's views on the matter are fairly irrelevant.

Tom: Funny you should mention that, I'm headed off to the SF Eagle tonight to see Sub Arachnoid Space. You might like it: manly men, manly women, and even a few heteros. But no, it's not particularly civilized: it's a biker bar, all macho and sweaty and rowdy, and chock full of gay feminist savages. Just the way it ought to be.

In short, yes, I believe that women have a "civilizing" influence, but I'm more inclined to call it "servitude". Being queer, and thus not wrapped around the fingers of the opposite sex, it seems a lot less appealing. Of course, that's what alarms conservatives so much: that gays and feminists are like wild animals, unconstrained by civilized norms. And some of us are. But the truth is, civilization can't survive without its opposite, either; if we didn't exist, you'd have to invent us. Otherwise you'd die of boredom.

If you have not heard Johnny Cash's version of "The Man Comes Around" (which I think is Orrin's reference), you owe it to yourself to give it a listen.

Tony-

Manly gay men? Look, growing up in New York City and working for a number of years in an industry focused on the arts I've known and still count among my close friends any number of men so inclined, I'd be the last person to deny them their fun. Calling the behavior "civilized" is something else. "Manly" is all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Where you're going tonight sounds an awful lot like 10 Lansdown Street. A gay bar we use to hang out at occasionally in Boston during college. The best dance music where great looking girls congregated since they felt so safe. Circa 1974.

jt-

The radical base of the Democratic party is what, 25% of registered voters?

Rick:

Cash's reference is to Saul/Paul.

J.G. The anthropological record is overwhelming in demonstration of the principle that successful cultures have gender roles we in the West consider appropriate.

If you look hard enough (and fast enough, because maladaptive cultures burst like soap bubbles when they contact the adaptive), you can find almost every possible cultural experiment. Polyandry, human sacrifice, cannnibalism, ritual homosexuality, state ownership of the means of production--there is almost no idea so bizzare that it has not been tried sometime, someplace.

Cultural competition insures the extinction of maladaptive folkways, for all that we try to maintain them as anthropological curiosities, sort of like giraffes in zoo-parks.

Tony:

But surely you'd then allow civoilization to oppose it's opposite.

J.G.:

Society changes gender roles, is his precise point.

Lance: right on the money. The irony of the argument is that "gay liberation" creates far more "civilized" men than the alternative. Before Stonewall, men learned the hard way that the trappings of polite society were a lie, and if the experience didn't destroy them, they were hardened and radicalized as a result.

Once you break free from the moorings of the conventional, anything is possible - and homophobia, which did the hard work of cutting those lines, is precisly what created the independent conscience and strong individualism that makes homosexuality so scary to conservatives. The forgotten history of homosexuality is the history of the bohemian, the criminal, and the counterculture. And nothing destroys a counterculture quite as well as assimilation.

In truth, while I cannot dismiss the reduction in violence that gay liberation has brought about, I genuinely miss the spirit of the pre-Stonewall gay man, who through my own experience strikes me as a kind of cultural superman, one that can come about only through alienation and self-discovery. With homosexuality being "normalized" in mass culture, I suspect that the flowering of independence and creativity that evolved from the battle of the sexual orientations is coming to a close. So I say to homophobic conservatives: bring it on! Your battle is unwinnable; every blow is a strike against your own values, and all you do is make us stronger.

Tony:

The religious certainly haven't forgotten that homosexuality is barbaric.

Tony:

Perhaps you could help answer a question here. I maintain the vast majority of gays are born with their orientation every bit as fixed as a heterosexuals.

OJ, on the other hand, blames it on mom. Or dad; it isn't entirely clear.

Based upon your experience, and the other gays you know, what is your conclusion?

Tony-

You are a real romantic. The convergance in time of the sexual and gay liberation movements has resultd in the deaths of many homosexuals. The politicaly correct filter that has been placed over the reality of the lifestyle hasn't helped unless the illusion of equality is more important than lives. Of course, among rationalist types, illusion has always taken precedence over the natural order of things when the priorties are as amorphous as "equality" and "liberation". Equal to whom? Liberation from what? In cases like the active "gay liberationist" lifestyle among men or the abortion on demand crowd the answer to the second question appears to be human nature. Dangerous stuff.

The rest of you: Can you produce any anthropological evidence that gender roles are constant throughout all the world's societies?

All you have to do is marry a person of the opposite sex. Married men and women are under no illusion that the sexes are equal. The stereotypes described in "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" are so recognizable to every married man and woman as to be beyond debate.

Tony: The truth that civilization is but a thin and friable crust dates back much further than Stonewall, nor was it limited to homosexuals.

Jeff:

It amazes me that this is still a question at all. There are a wide variety of kinds of sexuality, and some guys can swing either way, but the vast majority of men that call themselves "gay" are wired that way from beginning to end. I knew I was gay before I knew what sex was.

More importantly, even the most well-intentioned efforts to alter a man's sexuality tend to be nothing more than pure, futile misery. Ministries that have tried this are now giving up; leaders of the "ex-gay" movement regularly turn up in gay bars. For every ex-gay you can find, I'll show you two more ex-ex-gays whose journey through forced heterosexuality was pure hell - for both them and the women they ill-advisedly tried to romance.

It's all very fine and dandy to be straight and married and say "don't do that" to gays and lesbians. Sexuality is like air; it doesn't matter until you aren't getting any. Denying a human being their sexual nature is simply cruel. Conservatives could do a lot to advance their goals of social responsibility by recognizing that fact.

In the comment that remarks that sexual liberation has "resulted in the deaths of many homosexuals", yes, it certainly has. As if that escaped my notice... "gee, half the friends I had ten years ago are dead, I wonder why?" I mean, DUH. The problem is obviously not a lack of social stigma and stern Christian judgment. There is a lot to be said for the conservative perspective on sexuality, but if you alienate people from it by condemning their innate nature and asking them to do things - like forcing themselves straight - that are in essential conflict with their mental health and well being - that message is going to fall on deaf ears.

So you've got a bunch of men that are persecuted to the point where they are forced out of the very same stable social structures that help encourage responsible sexuality, and what happens? Well, exactly what you've been seeing for the past thirty years.

Tony:

Yesterday you were rebels and criminals. Today you're helpless victims?

OJ:

He has been there, you haven't. Your terse dismissal is astonishingly arrogant and, frankly, offensive.

Tony:
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I knew I was heterosexual before I knew was sex was; my brother knew he was gay just as early. The problem fundementalist religionists have is that their book says homosexuality is immoral, a meaningless concept unless some degree of choice is involved. The notion that God actually made people that way on purpose puts their theological applecart straight into a ditch.

Hence the hand waving and denying people the rights to their own life story, a la OJ knowing you better then you do.

What's worse, it leads to rank hypocrisy. In another post, OJ insists belief in God is essential to prevent viewing human life as fungible. One week after advocating stoning homosexuals to death.

Jeff:

it's a dismissible posture.

Totally different topic.

OJ--FYI, as I was typing the previous post, a tool-tip like window popped up advocating some role playing game. It could be on my end (firewalled Mac 10.2 running Firefox), or those DRB spammers are at it again...

Jeff:

I'm an unfirewalled Mac running 10.2 & Firefox and have never seen one, but I'll keep an eye peeled. Thanks.

RE: dismissible posture.

Congratulations: you, absent any knowledge whatsoever to counter his, just called him either a liar or delusional.

Why isn't that offensive?

Because it is either a lie or a delusion.