| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Edward Welsh wrote:
> I've been kicking an idea around for a while, and I wanted to put it out to the
> community: I'd like to start an organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
> transgendered (LGBT) AFOLs. A lavender brick society, if you like. It's seemed
> to me that "family" participation at fests and suchlike has been very sparse,
> and I'm wondering if it isn't the classic invisibility thing. Wouldn't it be
> cool if we all wore a little pink brick (or better yet, a lavender brick) on our
> fest nametag, as a subtle little "Yoo hoo, Miss Tallulah!" to those in the know?
> Call me an old-fashioned activist bitch, but it sure would make me feel a little
> more welcome in the community. Not that I feel particularly unwelcome--but I
> have felt a certain disconnect from time to time. A bit of visibility and
> awareness would go a long way in my book.
>
> In the larger scheme, I want to open a conversation about what it means to be
> queer in this community, but I'm not sure I want to have that conversation in a
> general forum. I'd rather participants opt into the conversation.
>
> To the administrators: Could we set up an LGBT AFOL newsgroup, perhaps in
> .people? I'd be happy to administer it. I don't imagine it would be
> particularly high-traffic, but it would provide a safe space in which to discuss
> issues I (and I suspect others) find interesting and important.
>
> Thoughts that pop into my mind: Has anyone used bricks to make a same-sex
> couple wedding topper? We could post "sodomy alerts" whenever Rev. Brendan
> finishes another Bible story touching on queer issues. Don't even get me
> started on gender representation in our hobby. But many of us create
> representations of entire societies, entire worlds. How do we populate these
> worlds? Which stories do we tell? This seems like rich fodder for all sorts of
> analysis. And look at other geek cultures. Pick any sci-fi or fantasy
> universe. All participants subscribe to the same rules--or at least they say
> they do--with expected (and unexpected) comformity (specifically,
> heteronormativity), as well as noncomformity. We don't have the same
> restrictions. The creative aspect of our hobby puts me more in mind of a
> communtiy of artists or writers. But they seem more serious, less spontaneous,
> less likely to graffito a men's room wall. The search for meaning in a
> community is one of the Big Questions.
>
> A few thoughts, anyway, that I'd love to pursue further. Interest?
> Administrative support?
>
>
> -Teddy
I let this roll around in my head for a day before posting a reply to this.
There are a few things I have to post about this and I hope to get them out.
1. I have to say this is the first time in my life I have heard anyone try and
tie sexual preference/orientation into Lego, and I am in my mid-thirites now.
Why on earth is it necessary to do so? Lego is about Lego - building things
with Lego, comparing designs, discussing colors, finding the pieces you need.
2. Why does everything now need to be sexualized? Why must everything have to
have off-topic or nothing-to-do-with subtopic areas? Why do we have to
balkanize ourselves into groups and cliques ("Didn't you know, Fred is that
"gay" space designer"../.."oh yes, NOW I see it in his designs, the purple, it's
gotta be the purple"...)
3. What does being straight or gay have to do with Lego? What does being
Jewish or Croation or Latino have to do with it? What does being Catholic or
Methodist or Latvian Orthodox have to do with Lego? Why does anyone care? What
does conservative or liberal, republican, democrat, green or libertarian have to
do with it? People don't come here to politicize lego. They don't come here to
proselytize lego. They don't come here to racialize lego. The posts are about
Lego.
4. People think they need such a group to be 'inclusive.' They deny the fact
that the GLBT Lego people are already as included in this community as much as
anyone else - black, white, agnostic, religious, straight, gay, animal-lover,
whatever. they just don't think they're included enough, and the result is a
group that actually becomes a vehicle for exclusion of others (who are not gay,
or who do not agree with homosexuality for any number of reasons).
5. I already saw in some of these posts people calling others "homophobic"
because they don't think such a group is a good idea. I find it amazing that no
two people even have the same definition of what constitutes 'homophobic'
behavior. In reality, 'homophobia' has a real definition, and that is 'an
irrational fear of homosexuals/homosexuality.' In today's polically correct
society, homosexualists have tried to take over the term and define it to be
'anything that is not accepting of whatever homosexuals want to do.'
Many people offered their explanations as to why they felt it would not be a
good idea, and none of the posts appeared to be homophobic in content (they were
not putting forth irrational, or explicitly hateful views, and no 'slang'
derogatory terms were thrown about). It all goes back to the fact that ANY
opposing views, rational or irrational, reasoned or not, are ALL cast as
homophobic, in the hopes that the label will stick and the person will shut up
and get with the program.
6. I can't believe that in 2004 I actually have to post a reply dealing with
homosexuality on one of my favorite Lego sites.
7. Can't we have just ONE sanctuary that we don't have to sexualize? Who
really cares what or who you like to sleep with? Do I care you may like to
sleep with an Elmo hand puppet on your arm? Do I care you are a cat person
(pet- wise or sexual-wise - just to be open minded)? Do I care you're a
card-carrying NRA or ACLU member? NO! And from reading the posts on this site,
virtually nobody else does either! I have never gotten a post about a ship or
sale I have posted, and instead of being about the ship or sale, gotten a
message having, "Hey by the way, are you gay? or left-handed? or over 6 feet?"
8. If you have to have a 'special' group within Lugnet that exists solely
because of a non-Lego characteristic (like sexual preference/oreintation), we
have the 'off-topic' section that such a post belongs in. I'd say the same
thing to those who would want to start up a religious Lego group, a gender Lego
group, and a political Lego group. Otherwise the only other logical step would
be to create a separate web site specifically designated for the GLBTI? crowd.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Lavender Brick Society
|
| I've been kicking an idea around for a while, and I wanted to put it out to the community: I'd like to start an organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) AFOLs. A lavender brick society, if you like. It's seemed to me that (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.people, lugnet.org) !!
|
207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
