Newspaper Page Text
• * A v f AA'i- s->
VIEWPOINTS
FROM THE EDITOR
Words and Meaning
Note: If you have not read the letters
from Julie Powers and Chuck Ross imme
diately below, we'd suggest you do so
before reading this.
I have a theory about letters and phone
calls responding to something we have
published: one response suggests that we
have piqued interest. When two folks (not
working as part of an organized campaign)
express similar views I suspect that there
are more. If three or more people (again
un-orchestrated) take the time to write or
call and share like feelings, that probably
means there are a lot of readers who see the
matter similarly.
Ms. Powers and Mr. Ross are the only
readers who sent letters about their respec
tive subjects, but several others did call or
drop by and mention their concerns.
Ms. Powers' letter brings up a issue with
which we deal daily: how do we present
facts in a way that the largest number of
readers can glean the most information
about a subject?
We know from our readers’ survey and
talking to readers that negative images and
stories that deal with personal or very
inside issues are not popular. In general we
try to avoid printing them. But one of the
purposes of a newspaper is to serve a
chronicle of the events. Ten years from
now when someone needs to know how it
is that lesbians and gay men became so
powerful in the Democratic Party of
Georgia, pieces like the one we ran a few
issues ago about LEGAL—which could be
called "inside" or even "personal"—
become an important part of our ability to
understand history.
We ran three pieces on Pride this year: a
news story about the (external) political
machinations of the event; an editorial by
KC Wildmoon on some of the problems
with the event; and my article which, with
its accompanying pictures, was intended as
a general overview of the happenings at
Pride. With that we hoped to provide a bal
anced record of this year's event.
From some readers points of view we
flunked. Several said that our "negativity"
was out of place; Ms. Powers feels that I
am "hypersensitive, poised to pounce and
find fault." From her perspective, no doubt,
that's so.
Had I sat with a group of friends at
Pride—not walked around and watched
and listened as I did—I might not have
noticed the things that I reported. But part
of our responsibility to the community is to
report as many points of view as possible.
The article that annoyed Ms. Powers and
others was an attempt to do that.
For the record: I had a really good time
at Pride this year; my experience was, in
the majority, positive. I didn't find Angela's
music "lesbian,” someone else did—I
reported what I heard. I don't feel that I
"slamjed]" Angela [or Sam Baker], both of
whom I know and respect; again I reported
what I saw and heard.
It would be easy to dismiss a trio of
complaints about this article as the hyper
sensitivity of the readers—albeit one that
takes the exact opposite direction of mine.
Certainly that is part of what's going on.
The other part is that, obviously, I wrote
the piece in a way that made it difficult for
some readers to separate my observations
of the feelings and actions of
others—which were mixed—from my
opinions—which were overwhelmingly
positive. I apologize for that and promise to
pay closer attention in the future.
Speaking of sensitivity! I felt like a
(slightly jaded) innocent who runs into an
angry grizzly bear while strolling down a
primrose path when I read Mr. Ross' letter
about our use of the word "queer" in these
pages.
Almost every gay or lesbian person with
whom I have regular contact uses words
like "queer," "dyke," and "fag" to describe
themselves and their friends in ways which
connote personal and political power.
Power that has been reclaimed from our
oppressors. Look at the story on page 2
about Queer Nation chapters popping up all
over the country. Don't all gay/lesbia
n/homosexual people feel the same way
about these words? Obviously not.
Again, three complaints in a week lead
me to feel that our use of such words to
describe ourselves and others deserves
some thought. Toward that end we have
begun work on an article about the subject;
it is scheduled to run in September.
In the meantime let me assure readers
that—except in quotes—we never have,
and will not, use words like queer when we
feel that the writer's intent for the word(s)
is anything other than positive.
The issue here is not dissimilar from
the ones that Ms. Powers brings up: how
do we provide the most accurate possible
chronicle of our community and make it
available to the broadest possible group of
readers?
Because these words are so powerful,
positive and important for many of our
readers, we cannot simply banish them
from our pages. But we hear what Mr. Ross
and others are saying, too. We trust that our
policy about their usage will assure both
groups of readers, at least for the time
being, that our intentions are good.
In order that we might better understand
the use of such labels, their implications
and the power that they hold, we ask read
ers to share their feelings and experiences
(positive or negative) about these words
with us. We will not publish these as let
ters to the editor, but rather incorporate as
many as possible into our planned story on
the subject; please be sure to include your
phone number so that the writers may con
tact you.
We will publish, as letters to the editor,
creative suggestions about how to honor
the needs and feelings of readers like Mr.
Ross and those who are proud to be be
called queer.
Love may make a family, but it's dia
logue that makes a community. I want to
thank readers for the numbers of interesting
and provocative letters we have been
receiving. We try to print them all, but
sometimes space constraints prohibit that.
In order that we might publish the greatest
variety of letters, please keep your missives
as short as possible—one page double
spaced is ideal, no more than two please.
And be sure to include a phone number.
Two Different
Prides
Editor:
In response to Gary Kaupman's feature
article entitled Pictures of Pride in your
July 5, 1990 issue, we were very surprised
by Kaupman's observations and disap
pointed that he seemed to focus on the neg
ative aspects of the Pride Day celebration.
Kaupman mentioned women in leather
"glaring" at "sissy types" and sissies flinch
ing in return. He felt it necessary to com
ment on what he called Sam Baker's
"overtly sexist" introduction, knowing that
Sam Baker is probably no sexist. Men were
moaning, Kaupman tells us, about Angela
Motter's "political protestations," when nei
ther myself, my partner or our group over
heard any such complaints or moaning, nor
did we see any glaring or flinching.
In my opinion anyone who is not so
politically hypersensitive, poised to pounce
and find fault would have realized that
Sam Baker and Angela Motter's comments
were innocent and well meaning.
The real pisser, however, was when Mr.
Kaupman added, "and the fact that her
(Angela Motter's) music was...so...well
lesbian."
Come on, Gary. Was this really neces
sary? What is it exactly about Ms. Motter's
music that is so...well...lesbian? Is it sim
ply because Ms. Motter was performing at
a Gay/Lesbian event? And would her
music be perceived as being so...well...
lesbian if she were performing for a hetero
sexual crowd? I think not. I also think it
was in extremely bad taste to slam Motter
who is a regular and quality contributor to
the Southern Voice.
Mr. Kaupman mentioned in his article
the divisiveness that so often seems to be
the cornerstone of our community, and I
believe that it is attitudes like this that per
petuate that divisiveness.
After reading Kaupman's article we
began to wonder if perhaps Mr. Kaupman
attended a different Pride Day celebration.
The celebration we attended was positive,
reassuring and fun. We came because we
are not ashamed of the choices we've
made, and we left proud of those choices
and proud of our community.
Julie R. Powers
Marietta
Derogatory
Editor:
I am appalled at your usage of the word
"queer." For years this has been a derogato
ry word applied to homosexuals. Your
usage in a gay newspaper does not sudden
ly make it acceptable. Do you not know
how homosexual men struggled with the
New York Times to convince that newspa
per to use the word "gay"? It took years
before they finally printed that three-letter
word.
In one article you say "...Court is 'sad
dened' that Queers are setting poor exam
ples for kids in the tennis world." You, too,
are setting a poor example with your lan
guage. And I am saddened.
You urge readers to report hate crimes.
If I were walking along a street and a
truckload of teenagers drove by shouting
"Queer!" at me, this would be labeled a
hate crime. You are guilty of this same
crime.
Do you think that African-Americans
want to go back to being termed "col
ored"—or worse? Do you think women
want to be labeled "chicks"? Believe me,
there are not many men who wish to be
called "queers." If Senator Helms called us
"queers," a shout of protest would echo
throughout the land.
You may find your usage of this deroga
tory word amusing. It isn't.
Chuck Ross
6
Southern Voice/August 2,1990