Re: coming out

["Ronald W. Garrison" <rwgarr@intrex.net>]

K Bacon wrote:
> 
> I accept the fact that it's your "$0.02" worth, but I am getting sick
> of
> having to type the same message repeatedly to to one person after
> another,
> when it seems they don't bother reading any of the previously typed
> emails.
> ONCE AND FOR ALL...I (and most of the others, I *assume*, who prefer a
> gay
> interpretation) are NOT saying that Kate herself intended 'coming out'
> in
> the sense of a person 'coming out' as gay or lesbian.  I've made this
> clear
> a number of times before.

>         I just find it incredible the amount of debate we've had over
> this
> particular interpretation.  *I* am always curious to see what others
> feel/think about a song (or whatever), but I don't feel some sort of
> need to
> then inform people afterwards that their opinion is just an
> 'assumption', or
> 'a bit of a stretch', or unreasonable.  I may disagree with people,
> but
> especially in the case of music, I *expect* that we will differ on
> interpretations - that's life!!
>         Why some emailers here feel they have to go out of their way
> to
> ridicule or 'disprove', or describe the 'unreasonableness' of my (and
> others') interpretation instead of just letting me (and others) enjoy
> the
> song how we want is beyond me...of course the fact that some people
> have
> *only ever* gone out of their way in *this case* to disprove a *gay*
> interpretation would have *NOTHING* to do with homophobia, would it
> guys :)
> 
> [of course, if you (refering to a couple of people on this list...)
> had read
> and understood Squidly's email of October 7, then there would have
> been no
> need for these few weeks of squabbling]
> 
> Oh well, hoping this is drawing to a close, and waiting for someone
> else on
> this email list to send in an interpretation *they* have about another
> Kate
> Bush song :)
> Kim
> (and yes, I'm also assuming my name *grin* :)) )

============================
I read kerry's post just before yours, and all I can see he's guilty of
is--perhaps--covering a bit of old ground. It was pretty mild-mannered,
all in all. You, sir, are, on the other hand, guilty of *extreme*
defensiveness. It is completely unquestioned that you can hold whatever
opinion you wish about the origins of any piece of art(although there
are even bounds to that, obviously, if your interpretation casts
aspersions on the artist's character, competence, etc.--but it doesn't
look like any of that applies here.) But if one of us chooses to point
to certain pieces of *evidence* in support of our opinions--real things,
such as the real activities of Wilhelm Reich, a real book by his son, or
a real quote by Kate--that is also our right, and I for one will not
apologize for exercising that right, or for insisting on the correctness
of my doing so--even if the opinion in question should eventually turn
out to be wrong.

I didn't even want to get into this whole thread, as it seems mostly
pointless; but it really gets under my skin when it's suggested that
someone is being fascistic, or homophobic, or whatever, just because of
holding and expressing an honest opinion, or for believing in the value
of some sort of objective reality. And by the way, I don't put much
stock in that brouhaha about "poltical correctness"--my (well-known)
views are that most of that is blown far out of proportion--but your
comments cause me to think that mythologies such as PC do have at least
some small basis in fact.

--Ron

-- 
http://www.intrex.net/rwgarr/