I attended two lectures at UC-Berkeley (in the same day, no less!) where the "teleological conception of history" was rejected, of course, without explanation.

I can see how a scholar of African politics, when confronted with the barbarism of European colonizers, could question the idea that Europeans are more advanced. To this I would respond that the veneer of civilization is thin, and that despite societal progress, human nature is constant. Europeans made many cultural improvements (what a claim!) that other civilizations did not (heresy!) and yet underneath it all, they were/are still humans. Yet, to honestly believe that there is no real progress -- "everything is relative," my favorite self-contradicting statement -- seems incredibly naive and nihilistic.

Proving that real progress does exist seems to me an incredibly easy task. I believe that progress can be demonstrated just as Darwin demonstrated evolution, yet I am constantly perplexed that my instructors never deal with this. Darwin based his theory on an equally simple observation; that observed speciation among finches means that life could have changed as such all the way up and down the biological chain, across time. The single link, just the beaks of finches, created a theory that toppled everything.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to see that many of my teachers' teachings can be explained not through their ideas but rather from a simple maxim from professor A. James Gregor that "the spokespeople [academia, highbrows/intelligentsia] of an advanced industrial society typically reject the society." The post-industrial paradox: rejecting a society while living off its benefits. As another of your readers questioned of his feminist friends, which other society would you prefer to live in?

--Greg Ludvik

- - - - - - - - - - - -

HOMOSEXUALITY

I have only really been involved in a "lesbian relationship" for a little over a year now and found that the subculture is barren and lacking in sparkle. OK, so maybe it's because I am used to guys, or perhaps it's that I am simply used to gay guys, but these women that you frequently meet in bars/clubs, or those lousy soccer games (please don't get me started!) do not have any personalities!

I mean I really enjoy my women friends, and I definitely find a lot of women attractive, but these are typically straight gals. And they are all tough bitches. So what I'm asking in this round Sally Struthers and back way is : "If for some unfortunate reason my girlfriend and I break up am I going to have to go back to the men's department, or am I stuck with picking through these "womyn" who country line dance to Sarah McLaughlin?"

I joke. I realize that not all gay women are Peppermint Patty! But being somewhat young I guess I find it disconcerting when I don't even relate to the masses that are in my age group. Perhaps you can give me suggestions on how to initiate conversations with these women, since my zippy Versace references are greeted with confusion or annoyance. Anyway, thank goodness I'm not in the position to engage in any more than conversation with these gals!

--Still wearing my brassiere, Selena Schreyer

- - - - - - - - - - - -

As a young gay man living in L.A. and working in entertainment, I certainly have box seats to the political-correctness game, which seems to take the place of independent thought in all of my circles (This view is surprisingly better than the one I had in the early '90s at Northwestern, and I thought that was bad).

Witness the Dr. Laura fiasco. I personally think she is in need of a good lay, but she is entitled to her views, and if she can get someone to listen, syndicate, advertise and promote that view, well more power to her. And gay men and women everywhere have the right to protest that view, as we have. But let's not get hysterical!

You can't imagine the silence that ensues after I make this point at mostly gay dinner parties. My favorite question to them, "Have you ever listened to her?" No, of course not. I am then accused of being self-loathing. Please. I agree her views can be construed as dangerous, but many ideas and notions are dangerous, this is not a reason to stifle them. Protest all you want, better yet, get your own radio show, but let's hear what the wench has to say!

--Casey Bloys

- - - - - - - - - - - -

While watching the C-Span coverage of the March on Washington, it seemed to me that the gay rights movement has been overwhelmed by wealthy privileged white women. I begin to suspect this when I first noticed that the Human Rights Campaign Web site slogan "Working for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights" puts lesbians first. I figured this was a subtle message that lesbians run the show and the march on Washington proved it.

I watched an almost endless parade of white celebrity women interspersed with a few tokens. Everyone bitched and moaned and the whole scene was incredibly dull. Where are the strong male leaders of the movement? I did not see any. I am sure there are gay "alpha males", but they do not seem to be interested in leading the gay rights movement.

I suspect the answer lies in your theory of gay male cruising and the pursuit of the rush of sexual energy which is the real allure of male homosexuality and is the main agenda for most gay men. It transcends political and social agendas and is so wrapped up in the unique nature of male sexuality that it is beyond the understanding of Elizabeth Birch and her celebrity girl friends. It will always keep the real men at odds with or at least bored by the safety-crossing-guard mentality of the current gay rights movement.

I found it interesting that Anne Heche told the Washington gathering that she had been straight for 27 years and then turned gay when she met Ellen. The HRC claims that all gays are born that way, that it is impossible to switch your sexuality, and that conversion therapy is cruel and damaging. Did Anne, in failing to study her HRC talking points, speak a blasphemous truth?

--Mark Haley
Dallas

Brilliant Careers: Sound and Vision Audio and video highlights of our Brilliant Careers profiles