h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Birkenstocks are very comfortable sandals that aren't great to look at.

But here's the thing. A woman can wear any number of outfits, and they are not necessarily "tribal markings." These include bluejeans, shorts, reasonably long skirts, sweaters, shirts, and less uptight suits. She is simply assumed to be a woman, which would be the case no matter what she wears (unless she is impersonating a man). Why is plaid suddenly off-limits? And why is it assumed that lesbians have no desire to dress in different ways, when straight women clearly do?

I lesbian Nobel Prize winner would indeed be branded as a lesbian, both by the mainstream press and the niche press that serves the gay community. It would probably be published as an oddity in the former, and a triumph in the latter.

And violence is indeed served upon women who appear to be lesbians, and certainly on men who appear to be gay -- whether they are in fact or not. There are straight men who have genetic diseases that force them to walk funny, and they are often attacked in school for looking "swishy" to other men. Is this sort of stereotype fair or productive?

See, told you I'd make you cross.

Plaid doesnt translate very well, transatlantically. Here, if anything, it means 'tartan', a Victorian invention to make Scots look strange.

Come on, Frag., lifes not that bad. People don't really go around attacking Lesbians and Gay Men. Sure, it happens sometimes, in small towns, late at night, when drink is taken, but so do lots of other things. I was beaten up for going out with a girl!

And, nobody is restricting the 'rights' of Gay people to wear what they want. You're putting the case for the prosecution when there are no defendants.

And, kids in school will attack any 'outsider', perceived or real. Kids are horrible to each other. Always have been, always will be.

You're probably right about the press. I shall spend my time away thinking of a better example!

Well, if your goal is to make me cross, all you have to do is try pretty hard. Actually, though, I enjoy a good debate.

And I'm surprised you really believe people "don't go around attacking Lesbians and Gay Men." They certainly do, or someone must. An awful lot more of them are attacked when compared to the rest of the population.

According to Justice Department figures, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are third after those based on race and on religion. In fact, only half of US states keep track of these crimes and send figures to the Dept of
justice. If they all did, then results would show that there are more hate crimes based on sexual orientation than on religion and almost as many as are based on racial prejudice. About 40% of the reported hate crimes that result in rape, murder, or victim hospitaliation are based on sexual orientation. So those that do occur to gay people are more violent on average.

When an awarded psychologist in California did a local study, he found that 1 in 5 lesbians and 1 in 4 gay men said they were the victims of a crime based on their sexual orientation within the last 5 years. These ran the gamut from assaults and rapes to robberies, thefts, and vandalism. 1 in 5 gay men said they had been threatened with violence, chased, or both within the last five years -- based solely on their orientation. Most of the instances went unreported because the victims expected more prejudice from local authorities and police officers instead of aid.

Also interesting, the University of Georgia did a study on the age-old theory of "latent homosexuality." They used a questionaire with multiple choice and write-in answers to gauge prejudice towards gay people. The college men volunteering for the study who scored high enough to indicate they condoned open violence towards gays were put into a room with porno tapes and electrodes taped to their nether regions. Almost all of them got erections while watching gay porn, compared to a small minority in the control group who didn't voice prejudice towards gays. The response to straight porno was about the same for both groups. After watching gay porn, follow-up questionaires by the prejudiced group were even more vitriolic and many of them expressed an immediate desire to visit violence upon gay men.

And I never never meant to say that anybody was restricting the rights of gay people to wear what they want. I said that if they don't wear what accounts to a social code wardrobe, they are not recognized as gay or lesbian by some casual passers-by. This basically means there is nothing they can wear that will reduce prejudice by people they don't know.

I will deal with quite a few points here, so forgive me if they seem unconnected.
The georgia study gives good evidence for something that is already well known anecdotaly, That the most severe people who are predjudiced against gays are actually closset gays using their anti gay stance as protective colouration.
The subject of rape is irrelevant to how you are dressed, irrelevant of what rapeist defenders try to say. As rape is not a sex crime, but is a control crime, anyone who fits the group, and is in the wrong place at the right time, will be the victim, however they are dressed.
The earlier point about general semantics and checking the assumptions, anyone who has a reasonably small amount of training in it will automatically spot the dodgy assumptions very quickly, and once there are a few percent of the population of any group trained in it, the rest of the group can't avoid picking up the terminology and starting to use it as well.
Anyone trained in GS has an immediate advantage over someone not trained in it, so all ofthe clever people who encounter it tend to end up learning it eventually. And as I say, as soon as the percentage in a group s more than a few percent, it sneaks in through the back door, giving the group an advantage as well.

Pheroneous - I thought the lunatic fringe was the sort of haircut I invariably end up with.

Ah Q, I remember it so well, fringes, waves, brylcreem, sideburns. Hair (mine) is not what it was. Incidentally, I discovered that the cork tree is of the (holme) oak family. I daresay you know your own geneology, so I suppose I'm just showing off my botany, as I can't think of the relevant pun...something about feeling 'at holme in a bottle'...

...with a bottle???

I think the fumes are getting to you Pheroneous.

Perhaps you need a walk in the open air, through a lovely little grove of trees perhaps....

In my Birkenstocks.

Now, in the place where I am there are many old ladies, and a few old fashioned Cobblers, a particularly dusty one of which has a 'Birkenstock' sign in his window, and sell a few of their strange sandals. This is what I thought of when Frag mentioned then as a Lesbian 'badge', and coloured my reaction.

Last weekend, I was in the fashionable quartier of Covent Garden, and what did I see. A whole Birkenstock shop. Full of bright trendy shoes. I have therefore, due to lack of diligence, due to stereotypical assumptions, due to sweeping generalisations based on partial evidence, jumped to the wrong conclusion. I am thoroughly ashamed. An eroneous philosophy regarding footwear.

The problem here, you see Q, is not too little fresh air, but too much. I have indeed been walking in groves, in this case of the aforementioned cork trees. (Put a stopper in it, old chap!)

Is it me or has the conversation dried up a bit on this thread?

Perhaps now is the time to review what (if anything) we have learned about the opposite sex.
*Sits back, folding branches across trunk and waits with the patience only a tree or rock can attain*

how about "both are happy to argue"?

I think we dried some time ago, mighty Q, but there has been so much intelligent discussion in this thread, its a shame to let it go. It is the most interesting stuff I have got involved with on H2G2, thus far.

Yes, MRD, agree to disagree might be the way forward.

I would say that sex does get in the way of understanding, but not half as much as many other things, and vive la difference (s)

Now its your go.