And now for something completely different -- except not

[tim]

We feel that statements such as “We are everywhere” and “Dykes rule!” could evoke an uneasy response in women who are not yet comfortable with Lesbian culture. It seems potentially self-defeating that the first exposure for many incoming students to Wellesley’s Lesbian community occurred in the form of anonymous, ubiquitous graffiti, rather than in the personalized non-threatening atmosphere of a Straight Talks workshop. -- Wellesley News op-ed, 1988

I find this to be a great illustration of the meaning of the terms "tone argument" and "concern trolling". 23 years later, it seems ridiculous to us, the idea that the obvious truth "We are everywhere" could be seen as hostile or alienating, as something that could legitimately strengthen someone's learned homophobia rather than undermining it. When you make a similar suggestion now -- when you tell someone that they're turning off potential allies by being so angry, or that you don't have a problem with someone's way of demanding their rights but someone else might think they're being too (hostile, aggressive, blunt, sexually explicit, bitchy, demanding, strident, selfish, all of the other qualities that privileged people flaunt) -- can you consider how you're going to look 23 years from now, with the benefit of hindsight?

Comments

[photomonk2.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I was on campus at the time of the incident described in the op-ed. I was part of the group that wrote the stuff quoted there. There were many things chalked around campus, as well as posting of construction paper pink triangles all over the place. Our motivation was not to enrage but to express pride and visibility. And the campus EXPLODED. This became a Very Big Deal.

The event happened late at night and at the time I was not out to many people. The controversy was so heated, that then-Dean of Students Molly Campbell called for an open meeting for discussion. I sat at the corner of the people who did it and the people who were there to discuss it. Because of one person in the room who was unable to understand our motivation, I spoke up and said "we did this..." and was suddenly a new Big Dyke on Campus. People close to me who didn't know were uncomfortable for a while but got over it (or shifted away, but honestly I do not remember those people so if that happened, they must not have been important to me).

In the end, without it's being the original intention, the campus grew a lot out of that action and lesbian visibility was a bigger conversation. Hopefully it started a trend that made i easier in each passing year for students to come out and be visible. My understanding of campus life now is that being gay is actually kinda cool and certainly no big deal (at least generally speaking. i wouldn't be surprised if there were some more conservative students who would rather not deal with it).

It is easy to look at that tiny slice of what happened, through the op-ed, and gloss over the event. But I can tell you from eye witness perspective that it was a huge thing on campus a the time. Yes, it seems silly now. But for those of us living through it at the time, it was not in the least bit silly. There was no way for us to have any lens 23 years into the future. And I am sure it did harden some people's homophobia. But we need to be concerned with what happens in the moment in cases like this, not try to filter it through some unknowable future lens. I chime in on this so as to highlight the significance of the event, and not let that be lost in a short quote (even with the longer context provided through the link attached).

[tim]

That's really interesting; thanks for providing the perspective from someone who was there! If you wanted to, I bet Wellesley Underground (where I got this from) would repost this or anything else you wanted to submit to them about that time.

What I thought was ridiculous was the reaction that the op-ed writer had, just to be clear. I was trying to say that now, we can see that slogans like "we are everywhere" do not, in fact, make people more homophobic. So, since we have the benefit of hindsight about that question, what can we learn from that that we can apply right now to analogous situations?