The Ultimate Brokeback Forum

Poll

What period of gay history would you like to discuss first?

The fifties and sixties - before Stonewall
9 (50%)
Early Gay Liberation 1969 - 1975
2 (11.1%)
Political awakening 1975 - 1981
0 (0%)
The onset of AIDS 1981 - 1996
6 (33.3%)
Post Protease Inhibitors 1996 - Present
1 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Voting closed: February 24, 2007, 01:59:08 AM

Author Topic: Gay History -- How We Got Here  (Read 518293 times)

Offline Nax

  • The Captain Underpants Enigma
  • Tech Support
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 16012
  • A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    • naxfun.com
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #435 on: May 10, 2007, 04:10:48 AM »
Hey Jack here's my take.....

Bi, by its very nature is in the most awkward position of all, that position probably has less understanding by the general populace than any major sexual sub group - neither one thing or the other in many peoples book.  I and I'm sure you, can understand that many men who now declare themselves gay have had relationships with the opposite sex and the reasons for this are many-fold - social pressure, the true nature of their sexuality denied etc. 

I think certainly in the campaging days of the 70's there was a certain stigma in the gay community concerning "bisexuality" and I think again that was an educational thing, it was easy to align oneself with the "gay campaigns" as by their very names and nature they indicated one element of the sexual spectrum.  That did start to change in the late 70's/80's (certainly with organisations I was involved with)

The true bisexual is thought by many as a cop out for being gay - which you and I know not to be true.  I took me a long time to really understand the concept of attraction to both sexes (let alone attraction to the opposite sex being 100% gay).  The truth of the matter is IMHO is that we cannot pigeon hole people into convenient categories (OK it can make understanding easier) as it's a multi-coloured sexual landscape out there  ;)

Offline tfferg

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 17677
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #436 on: May 10, 2007, 05:46:35 AM »
I wonder if the reality of bisexual men was too threatening to many gay men of the time. In the '70s, gay men were working to establish their identity and legitimacy as gays, overcome the widespread homophobia in society and their own internalized homophobia and it was all very recent and probably tenuous.

It reminds me of the time I was working in a secondary school with newly-arrived non-Englsih speaking immigrant teenagers, who were very much a small minority. The school was very Anglo-Celtic, but there was a large minority of locally-born sons of non-Anglo immigrant families. The recent arrivasl were ostracized and subject to racist discriminationand persecution to the point of violent assaults if they tried to make friends with the mainstream boys or join in their games in the playground. The nastiest, most violent behaviour was on the part of the second-generation kids from immigrant families. I came to understand that they couldn't be seen to associate with the new arrivals because it would threaten their acceptance and assimilation by the Anglo kids and their wn sense of identity. At that time, mutilcultural attitudes had not become as widespread as they have since in Australia.

I imagine the 70s gay rejection of bisexuals may have related to a similar dynamic.

Offline Jack too

  • Membership_deactivated.
  • Experienced
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
  • Not this grim really - it's a govt photo.
    • Not-Kansas
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #437 on: May 10, 2007, 09:19:22 AM »
Bisexuality in the 70's, etc.

To some degree, Jack, I think that this statement of yours:
Quote
IMO most of the men labeled bisexual are either gay and in the process of coming out or straight guys open enough to be curious and actually 'check out the other side'. I think "genuine bisexual men" are fairly uncommon, IMO.
   
goes a long way, perhaps, to addressing the question you closed with:
Quote
Why did so many gay men have problems with bisexuals? Was it because so many claiming to be bi were really gay and coming out? Was it because so many who couldn't admit they were gay sought refuge in the term bisexual? These attitudes comments and mockery were  ENDEMIC among many many gay men during the 70's in NY, all over the place, it was as if they finally had a chance to dish out what they themselves had recieved, to an even smaller and more vulnerable group....

I would agree with your description of the difference between the appearance and/or claim of bisexuality, versus those many fewer men who essentially are bisexual, and not on a trip to somewhere else or masking their gayness.  The result, of course, was - and continues to be, I am sure - a great deal of confusion on the part of the gay male observer of "bisexuality."  I use the quotes to draw attention to the difficulty in separating the various groups you indicate.

There were also those men designated as "trade" in the Fifties, Sixties and early Seventies, which can further complicate perceptions.  In my experience this term was reserved for those guys who would hang out with gay men or pick up gay men in the interest of getting a BJ, but who were adamant about being straight. 

(The difference between trade and bisexuality was not always clear.  It certainly wasn't to me in the late Fifties, and in my mind I lumped the two sets of people together as one.  A gay saying that I clearly remember from the Fifties and early Sixties was: "Today's trade is tomorrow's competition.")

But to go back to your statement I quoted above, I think if gay men experienced most "bisexual" men they encountered as later having a gay identity; then it may go a long way toward explaining their lack of credulity and hostility when encountering someone who was bisexual.  Plus, I think the idea that bisexual men were not interested in reciprocal sex was very common too.

My own social experience with men who said they were bisexual was, and is, very limited.  I'd say from the late Fifties to the Eighties I knew perhaps four or five.  None of them were personal friends, but several were good bar friends and had many gay friends.  For a brief while in the early Sixties I peddled my butt in Times Square while out of work.  I was picked up by a couple of guys who claimed to be married and bisexual, and they were interested only in me giving a BJ.  This further reenforced my idea that bisexual men were not interested in reciprocal sex with other men.  For that reason, in the late Seventies, when for the one and only time a bisexual man made a physical pass at me in a dance club I cut him off.  Though I had zero problem with taking an exclusively receptive sexual role with a gay man, I had no interest in doing it with someone whom I thought expected it as his due.  I was not there to be "used" unless you paid.

There can be a somewhat comparable situation in regard to race.  As you can see from the photo I am white, except that that should be "white."  I have one black African greatgrandparent.  This was not something l learned of until quite late in my life.  However, by the usual majority American norms I am, thus, not white.  Most white Americans take this ancestry as a curiosity, though a few have gone into the most convoluted explanations to demonstrate how truly my being "not white" really must mean something other than what it does.  However, those African-Americans who are brown or black complexioned and/or have other black African physical features are sometimes quite hostile.  I can understand why:  In no way has my life been impinged upon by having black African ancestry, on the contrary I, and my mother's entire family, enjoyed all the perogatives of whiteness. 

In both situations, the racial and the sexual, there is a problem of confusing categories plus the perception that one may have been able to enjoy the privileges of the oppressor while not really "deserving" them.

There is a lyric that has just come into my mind.  Didn't Nina Simone have a song with the line, "Oh lord, don't let me be misunderstood...."  With all due respects to anyone's deity, that prayer is in vain.  If it's not one thing, it will be another.  If not about bisexuality, it will be about drag or intersexuality.

Jack (too)




Never trust anything called "the movement."

Offline Brokeback_1

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5671
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #438 on: May 11, 2007, 12:58:21 AM »
You guys deserve enormous respect for taking on a very difficult question. The 70's in some ways were awful if you were bi; it's gotten better since, but that decade still makes me wince. It was nasty in so many ways! It didn't get better until the end of the 80's.

They just couldn't figure out guys who had relationships with both sexes and didn't lie about it.

Thanks, those were damned good answers. If nobody minds, i'm going to quote from them to my friend in the FDNY. He too would love to read them.
There was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe but nothing could be done about it, & if you can't fix it, you've got to stand it

Offline Jack too

  • Membership_deactivated.
  • Experienced
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
  • Not this grim really - it's a govt photo.
    • Not-Kansas
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #439 on: May 11, 2007, 12:54:11 PM »
Gay organizations in the late 70's.

By the end of the decade one of my friends used to kid about what he called "those little envelopes,"  i.e. – fund-raising letters from gay organizations.  The National Gay Task Force had been founded in 1973 by Dr. Howard Brown, the former NYC health administrator under Lindsay, who came out publicly after he left office.  Lambda Legal was also established in the same year after a tussle in court.  The kick-off benefit for SAGE (Senior Action in a Gay Environment) occurred  in the Fire Island Pines in '77. SAGE was the only organization oriented to gay seniors and sought to provide gay-oriented counseling and events for this age group.  In 1980 the Human Rights Campaign Fund was established.   There were beginning to be enough gay-related groups of all sorts in the city that a community center would soon be feasible.  And local straight politicians courted gay voters, at least in those election districts where they formed a large demographic group.

Jack
Never trust anything called "the movement."

Offline michaelflanagansf

  • Forum Librarian and buckle bunny
  • Team Cullen
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27643
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #440 on: May 11, 2007, 04:26:03 PM »
Here's a review of 'The Boys in the Band' from the Advocate.  I've been looking around to see if I can find any indication of protests over the film - this certainly doesn't indicate that there were any in Los Angeles.

A general question here - by the time I started reading 'The Advocate' (77 or so) it had something of the feeling of being stuffy - not edgy at all.  Does anyone know when it started moving in that direction?

Article follows:

Filmed 'Boys' winds up just a nasty exhibition
(no author given)
Advocate May 12-26, 1970
pg 16, 18

National General Corporation ushered in 'The Boys in the Band' with considerable hoopla at their new theatre in L.A.'s Westwood Village.

I took my straight, old mother as sort of counterweight to the impact of the film, figuring to measure her square world against the yardstick of author Mart Crowley's inspiration.

This arrangement brought the picture into a rather frightening perspective.  Director William Friedkin appears to be more concerned with shocking the heterosexual public than in honestly presenting the play in film terms.

On stage at the Huntington Hartford, the actors labeled each other, 'cunts,' 'pricks,' and threw away lines like 'Fuck you!' with a light airy touch that permitted the ironic humor to shine through.  On the wide screen, each epithet is spat, snarled, hissed and whined with the force of a sledgehammer (and in massive close upse, yet).

This technique renders Crowley's brilliant analysis of the gay world less a rapier-like dissection of foibles and a more nasty, ugly and repellent exhibition.  No attempt has been made to expand this piece beyond, perhaps, the clever titles and the lantern-lit, rain-drenched, balcony patio.  Instead, the camera darts around the single-set apartment and moves from spoken line to eye reaction among the nine participants.  And, as the action progresses, Friedkin darkens the mood and the film grows uglier and uglier to hear.

Crowley, serving as his own producer, was bound and determined to make the most homosexually explicit movie ever to break through the barrier of general distribution.  Strangely enough, there is almost no nudity (a brief glimpse of a derrière stepping into a shower is all).  There is no love demonstrated, and even the dancing is screened behind a red filter.  But every one of Mr. Crowley's lines is punched out like little phrases on a privy wall and articulated with rare gusto as if they were gems for posterity.

Excellent Acting

With this kind of closed-in, heavy-breathing technique, the actors play their isolated big scenes and emerge as extraordinary performers in a flamboyantly exaggerated vehicle.

Some of the performances are far better than there is any right to expect.  Kenneth Nelson's Michael is always exciting to watch, often coming across as a younger version of a male Bette Davis.  When he collapses in hysterics at the finish, he cinches an Academy Award nomination next Oscar season.

Peter White's straight Alan is equally moving in its way, a beautifully modulated performance - tender, wise and touching.  Leonard Frey's Harold is far more strident than his stage conception of the part but still on target.  Cliff Gorman's Emory is several light years too broad all the way through, but his telephone conversation with his dentist love will bring tears to your eyes.

When the lights went up, my dear old straight mother said as we left the theatre: "Who needs to see such a depressing film?  I go to the movies for entertainment."  If this reaction is indicative of the mainstream of the straight world, the movie is in for serious difficulties.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl R. Popper

Offline brokebacktom

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4371
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #441 on: May 11, 2007, 09:11:50 PM »
I feel that 'The Boys in the Band" is one the best films dealing the issue of being gay. It was funny, poignant and full of great acting. i would like to see a remake. But only if they keep the truefulness of the film's approach to total openness. Yet with Hollywood's constant destroying old greats, I guess the best thing is to leave it alone.

Offline Jack too

  • Membership_deactivated.
  • Experienced
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
  • Not this grim really - it's a govt photo.
    • Not-Kansas
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #442 on: May 12, 2007, 03:59:36 AM »
I feel that 'The Boys in the Band" is one the best films dealing the issue of being gay. ...

An acquaintance sent me this comment about his impression of the film: "I was very young when I first saw that movie. I was alone and troubled by who I was because then not only was it mental shit, but criminal.  When I saw that movie, I thought to myself, I may as well commit suicide than be like that screaming bunch of misfits and unknown to me that was what I did.  I locked the closet door.  It took years to see life differently.  I hate that movie even today.  I tried watching it recently and still hated it."

I had seen the play, have never seen the film.  The play was an accurate, if highly concentrated, reflection of the attitudes that prevailed in the group of guys into which I came out into in 1959.  It was an odious, self-hating, soul-destroying segment of the gay subculture, being in it was like someone had sucked the air out of the room.  Thankfully, oh so thankfully!, after about ten months I escaped it into a somewhat better adjusted, happier group of young men.   

Though initially shocked when I moved to NYC by the wave of police oppression that had commenced there in '59 and lasted more or less until '66, it did have the very positive effect of producing a far better balanced gay subculture, I think.  I found the BITB atmosphere diminished quite a bit, there was a far wider mix of guys in the few bars that were open and gay men had far less tolerance for bitch queen spew when everyone's back was to the wall.  Under duress the atmosphere was actually improved.  And the various winds of change that blew through the Sixties inevitably brought more light and air into the gay subculture.

So many changes were occurring, and I remember one funny, but telling incident at a party in Cherry Grove, Fire Island early in the Sixties.  At this particular party the obligatory Judy Garland songs turned into a marathon when a drunk commandeered the phonograph - the notorious "gin and Judy" syndrome. Some of the younger guys - at least those who weren't into drag numbers and celebrity worship - groused among themselves about the lack of popular music.  "Hasn't anybody here heard of the Marvelettes!?" one guy complained in loud disgust.   

The Fifties (and even the Forties) and the we-are-all-Bette-Davis posturing were slower to die in Cherry Grove than in the city.

By the time the BITB film came out the people I knew and the places I went to in the city already made its world seem antique.  But it is, I think, the same kind of provocative landmark on the gay landscape as Uncle Tom's Cabin is on the race one.

Jack



« Last Edit: May 12, 2007, 10:10:20 AM by nycnotkansas »
Never trust anything called "the movement."

Offline Brokeback_1

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5671
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #443 on: May 12, 2007, 04:08:22 AM »
TBITB depressed the hell out of me
There was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe but nothing could be done about it, & if you can't fix it, you've got to stand it

Offline Jack too

  • Membership_deactivated.
  • Experienced
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
  • Not this grim really - it's a govt photo.
    • Not-Kansas
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #444 on: May 12, 2007, 10:33:05 AM »
Handwriting on the wall.

Early in '78 I tricked for a few weeks with Billy, one of the regulars at a neighborhood bar. He had been rather stocky when I had slept with him, after awhile I saw him around less often when I went out – he had a boyfriend, I heard.  When I did run into him he had lost quite a bit of weight.  Then in 1980 a mutual friend told me that Billy had been very sick for quite a while and had gone to live with his sister. He said the doctor had told Billy that he could not determine what was wrong with him specifically, but that he could not find no way to reverse his diarrhea, wasting and fatigue and that he was not optimistic about the outcome.

In the summer of 1979 I took a new friend, who had never been to Fire Island, out to Cherry Grove for a week. It was my first time back to the Island after a gap of three summers.  While we were out there we met a group of guys that we liked and hung out with, and we saw them occasionally in the City after the summer.  That winter one of them, Ed, became ill with "a rare cancer", which a close acquaintance of his said gave him "spots".  The doctors said that it was a not often seen disease, but hardly ever a fatal one. It was called  Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually  restricted to elderly men of Mediterranean background. Bill was Irish, in his fifties. Quite unexpectedly he died within a very brief time. The doctors were quite puzzled, I was told.

Jack 
Never trust anything called "the movement."

Offline michaelflanagansf

  • Forum Librarian and buckle bunny
  • Team Cullen
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27643
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #445 on: May 12, 2007, 11:12:15 AM »
"The Boys In The Band" depressed the hell out of me when I was in high school, before I knew any other gay men.  Back then I thought it was a bad film.  It has improved with age, IMHO.  Part of this had to do with my knowing that there were a broader range of gay men than were depicted in the film (an understatement) and partially because it is a study of a particular part of (some) gay male psychology - the 'self-loathing' part.  Given that I've recently met a large number of men who didn't come out till later in life I don't think we're entirely out of the woods so far as that type of attitude goes (although admittedly many of the men I know who came out later had serious external concerns such as discrimination that affected their decisions and self-loathing may have had little to do with it in their case).

What I tend to think about the movie is that it is an interesting view on a certain group of gay men (aspiring upwardly mobile bar queens) which probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with 'gay identity' in general any more.  But just like 'Looking For Mr. Goodbar' raises interesting questions from a feminist perspective, I think that 'Boys' raises interesting questions about how some gay men are self destructive (and how they externalize that to try to tear down their 'friends').

I also think we've reached a stage where we can talk about these things and not worry about 'if it's good for the gays' (to quote Vito's analysis where he compares internal critiques to the way Jewish people analyzed things as if they were 'good for the Jews').  I think it's a good thing and it shows we've matured as a community and realize that it's a big gay world out there and there are a whole lot of different sorts in it.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl R. Popper

Offline brokebacktom

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4371
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #446 on: May 12, 2007, 12:43:59 PM »
I feel that 'The Boys in the Band" is one the best films dealing the issue of being gay. It was funny, poignant and full of great acting. i would like to see a remake. But only if they keep the truefulness of the film's approach to total openness. Yet with Hollywood's constant destroying old greats, I guess the best thing is to leave it alone.

OOOPPSS!! what I forget to say was it was on the 'gay lifestyle' and gay Sterotypes. I still found it to be moving and strong. Mostly the acting.

Offline Jack too

  • Membership_deactivated.
  • Experienced
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
  • Not this grim really - it's a govt photo.
    • Not-Kansas
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #447 on: May 15, 2007, 06:59:58 AM »

What I tend to think about the movie is that it is an interesting view on a certain group of gay men (aspiring upwardly mobile bar queens) which probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with 'gay identity' in general any more.  But just like 'Looking For Mr. Goodbar' raises interesting questions from a feminist perspective, I think that 'Boys' raises interesting questions about how some gay men are self destructive (and how they externalize that to try to tear down their 'friends').

I may misunderstand what you mean by the term "upwardly mobile."  To me it describes people who are working their way up the socio-economic ladder and for whom this project is a real possibility or likelihood. 

My take is that the bitch-queen syndrome developed  as often as not as a substitute for the lack of upward mobility possibilities, and more specifically for the lack of being able to accomplish this as who one really was, i.e. - a gay man.  A few men, Lincoln Kirstein comes to mind, had the money, personal stability, and the social cachet to rise to powerful positions despite the fact that their homosexuality was an open secret.  I had one close friend, Frank, who came from similar circumstances - his father had been a famous figure in the upper level of our national government early in the 20th century, he was very well educated and connected and had more than average financial resources.  His barely masked homosexuality did not block his development professionally or socially.  And, I think, as a result the over-the-top, non-stop bitchiness such as one sees in BITB played almost no part in his personality, nor in that of his equally fortunate gay friends.  Why should it have?  Their sexual orientation had proved to be no impediment as long as it was handled discretely.

Another group of upward mobile gay men that I met in NYC was a small clique, who despite humble origins and no financial means, but through cultivating the proper social image - dress, manners, etc., were in the process of acquiring wealthy fiancees from the Social Register set.  They were, at least when I knew them, having a good deal of success climbing the social ladder, and in their gay lives expressed none of the BITB bitchiness and hostility. 

(Then, of course, you had gay men who had no particularly great career or social aspirations that met with frustration.)

However, this coincidence of luck and social skill is not widespread, and many men with reasonably decent educations and perhaps even better than average intelligence would find themselves blocked in the mainstream het world having to totally pass for straight in order to maximize their chances for success.  Otherwise in the Fifties and Sixties one ended up, as women did, limited and controlled by straight males. 

It was a bitter paradox, I think, that gay men in those decades were perceived as female wannabes or quasi-women by straight men, and that in turn so many of them turned to the role of viper-tongued Bette Davises and Joan Crawfords as a fantasy rebellion.  But it was a style of rebellion that confirmed the original stereotyping, and so the circle was made.

Thus, I am inclined to think that the behavior is (oftentimes) about frustrated aspirations of upward mobility. 

And I don't feel that it is surprising that some men, unwilling to try the passing act, pursued successful professional and social careers in fields where they served women, who, of course, "served" men, i.e. they became courtiers to courtesans in a sense, a world in which heteronormative masculine behavior would have been an impediment and even a danger.

Jack

« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 12:29:39 PM by Jack too »
Never trust anything called "the movement."

Offline Jack too

  • Membership_deactivated.
  • Experienced
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
  • Not this grim really - it's a govt photo.
    • Not-Kansas
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #448 on: May 15, 2007, 12:31:37 PM »

What I tend to think about the movie is that it is an interesting view on a certain group of gay men (aspiring upwardly mobile bar queens) which probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with 'gay identity' in general any more.  But just like 'Looking For Mr. Goodbar' raises interesting questions from a feminist perspective, I think that 'Boys' raises interesting questions about how some gay men are self destructive (and how they externalize that to try to tear down their 'friends').

I may misunderstand what you mean by the term "upwardly mobile."  To me it describes people who are working their way up the socio-economic ladder and for whom this project is a real possibility or likelihood. 

My take is that the bitch-queen syndrome may have developed as a result of the lack of upward mobility possibilities, and more specifically for the lack of being able to accomplish this as who one really was, i.e. - a gay man.  A few men, Lincoln Kirstein comes to mind, had the money, personal stability, and the social cachet to rise to powerful positions despite the fact that their homosexuality was an open secret.  I had one close friend, Frank, who came from similar circumstances - his father had been a famous figure in the upper level of our national government early in the 20th century, he was very well educated and connected and had more than average financial resources.  His barely masked homosexuality did not block his development professionally or socially.  And, I think, as a result the over-the-top, non-stop bitchiness such as one sees in BITB played almost no part in his personality, nor in that of his equally fortunate gay friends.  Why should it have?  Their sexual orientation had proved to be no impediment as long as it was handled discretely.

Another group of upward mobile gay men that I met in NYC was a small clique, who despite humble origins and no financial means, but through cultivating the proper social image - dress, manners, etc., were in the process of acquiring wealthy fiancees from the Social Register set.  They were, at least when I knew them, having a good deal of success climbing the social ladder, and in their gay lives expressed none of the BITB bitchiness and hostility. 

(Then, of course, you had gay men who had no particularly great career or social aspirations that met with frustration.)

However, this coincidence of luck and social skill is not widespread, and many men with reasonably decent educations and perhaps even better than average intelligence would find themselves blocked in the mainstream het world having to totally pass for straight in order to maximize their chances for success.  Otherwise in the Fifties and Sixties one ended up, as women did, limited and controlled by straight males. 

It was a bitter paradox, I think, that gay men in those decades were perceived as female wannabes or quasi-women by straight men, and that in turn so many of them turned to the role of viper-tongued Bette Davises and Joan Crawfords as a fantasy rebellion.  But it was a style of rebellion that confirmed the original stereotyping, and so the circle was made.

Thus, I am inclined to think that the behavior is (oftentimes) about frustrated aspirations of upward mobility. 

And I don't feel that it is surprising that some men, unwilling to try the passing act, pursued successful professional and social careers in fields where they served women, who, of course, "served" men, i.e. they became courtiers to courtesans in a sense, a world in which heteronormative masculine behavior would have been an impediment and even a danger.

Jack


Quote
Never trust anything called "the movement."

Offline michaelflanagansf

  • Forum Librarian and buckle bunny
  • Team Cullen
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27643
Re: Gay History -- How We Got Here
« Reply #449 on: May 15, 2007, 03:47:09 PM »
Jack, you make very good points - I will comment more on them either tonight (when I get home from work) or tomorrow.

I think that rising expectations vs. upward mobility aspirations may have something to do with this all.

Of course I just thought they were dumb in the 70s.  But then again I was marxist then - Izod shirts and Karl Lagerfeld cologne didn't seem to be priorities to me (and I always thought that the people who wonder why they weren't were a bit dull).  As you can imagine, this led to many interesting conversations in the bar.  :D :D :D

And, in part, explains why I spent a whole lot more time with lesbians than gay men.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl R. Popper