PFLAG party image from ErinGirlSpy.zaadz.com Queer, Isn't It?“You Know, They’re All Alike”[16 February 2007] Even the most die-hard homosexual would probably be a little disconcerted should his or her doctor flit into the room exclaiming, "Girlfriend! Your X-rays look faaabulous!"
By Michael AbernethyRecently, PopMatters added a feature allowing readers to post comments about the articles and reviews on the site. After the publication of my column “The Ugly Duckling Has Two Daddies”, one reader, Aaron Jason Silver, posted a lengthy comment in which he argued, “Many of the stereotypical behaviors concerning the gay culture I believe are true and I believe it is time that we, as gay people need to own up to many of these behaviors…”. Silver’s comments had absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of the article, which was about homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, and his thoughts seem to be a response to the teaser for the article, not the article itself. Still, Silver raises an interesting point. He has written a book entitled “Why Do Gay Men Do What They Do”: An Inside Look at Gay Culture, which purports to shed light on gay culture in hopes of allowing straight culture to better understand homosexuals and their behavior. I haven’t read the book, so Mr. Silver will have to forgive me if I misstate his position, but he seems to believe that by playing into stereotypes about homosexuality, the gay community is responsible for creating the confusion and false perceptions prevalent in the straight community. Silver is not alone in supporting this position. However, I respectfully disagree. ![]() Image from TheCloset.TV To buy into the premise of the argument, one must believe that a large percentage of the homosexual community models stereotypically gay behavior. However, such an assumption is questionable. Several recent television shows, among them Bravo’s Boy Meets Boy and Lifetime’s Gay, Straight, or Taken?, have been built around the premise that distinctions of who is gay or straight are increasingly difficult to make in today’s society. There are countless gay men and women who lead quiet, unassuming lives, from doctors to plumbers to students. They appear as “normal” as the presumably heterosexual guy or girl next door, whatever “normal” might be. In fact, they may well be the guy or girl next door. These members of the gay community often fly below the radar. They don’t flaunt their sexual orientation because they consider that aspect of themselves to be only one part of their complex personalities. For instance, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has 70,000 members, representing LGBT doctors and medical students. One could also look to the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals, National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, The National Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association, National Gay Pilots Association, and Gay Real Estate Agents. It is hard to imagine that most members of these organizations would achieve high levels of success by playing into the stereotype of the flighty, feminine queen or no-nonsense diesel dyke. Even the most die-hard homosexual would probably be a little disconcerted should his or her doctor flit into the room exclaiming, “Girlfriend! Your X-rays look faaabulous!” Likewise, those who do not belong to professional organizations often must keep a low profile in terms of their sexual preference. One can easily imagine the amount of harassment that a “stereotypical” gay man would receive on a construction site, in a factory, and driving a garbage truck. Additionally, butch lesbians would face unfair obstacles in traditionally female occupations, such as hair-dressing, nursing, and secretarial work. Professional success, whether it be blue or white collar in nature, too often depends on conformity. If there is a significant population of LGBT individuals who don’t fit into the established stereotype of homosexuality, why do such labels get such wide attention? Much of the fault lies with the media, which too often presents false information or refuses to challenge blatant stereotyping when it has the chance. In January of this year, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation released its annual report of those in the news media who tolerate or perpetuate anti-gay language. Among those cited were MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (for cracking sophomoric Brokeback Mountain jokes on Don Imus’ show and for allowing noted homophobe Ann Coulter to spew hate terms unchallenged on his own show), The New York Post (for publishing two anti-gay editorial cartoons in a three week timespan), and MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson (for referring to a transgendered teacher as “crazy” and “unstable”). It is troubling to think that supposedly objective television media sources would allow slurs against the homosexual population to air. But they are even incorporated into our comedy. An advertisement for CBS’ new sitcom Rules of Engagement features David Spade saying with disdain, “That’s SO gay.” It is hard to imagine CBS airing a similar line: “That’s SO black.” Slurs against African-Americans, Hispanics, or other demographic minorities would most certainly be challenged, and activist groups would rightly denounce their use. One need only ask Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington if the gay and lesbian population is offended by derogatory language aimed at us. Topping GLAAD’s list, however, was Time magazine, for its publication of Focus on the Family leader James Dobson’s article “Two Mommies is One Too Many”, a response to the pregnancy of Vice-President Cheney’s lesbian daughter, Mary. Dobson was criticized for misquoting his scientific evidence, taking material out of context, and selecting only research and quotes which supported his position, without giving a full overview of all scientific data. After the publication of the article, two of Dobson’s sources reportedly contacted him to demand he no longer cite their work and lambasted his distortion of their positions. Psychologist Carol Gilligan told Dobson in her letter, “Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.” (“Experts Say Dobson’s Time Column Distorted Their Research to Denounce Same-sex Parents”, Media Matters, 14 Dec 2006) Although unforgivable, it is not difficult to imagine Dobson distorting the truth to promote his agenda; it is not as easily understood why a reputable periodical such as Time would print such mistruths about the role of gay parents (the magazine did print a counter-argument a week later, but only on-line).
These mistruths are repeated with such frequency because playing up the gay stereotype solidifies opposition to gay rights legislation. Studies published in Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology measured the responses of individuals with the personality of Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) to gay stereotypes. RWA individuals have three primary characteristics: submission to authority figures, aggressiveness against various persons, and a desire for the enforcement of social conventions. In other words, individuals who are likely to accept the positions of fundamental Christian and ultra-conservative leaders without question. The studies found that the more RWA individuals were exposed to gay and lesbian stereotypes, the more likely they were to actively oppose social and legal acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights. (Stones, Christopher R., ” Anti-Gay Prejudice among Heterosexual Males: Right-Wing Authoritarianism as a Stronger Predictor than Social-Dominance Orientation and Heterosexual Identity”, Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 2006; Whitley, Bernard E. Jr., “Right-wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, July 1999; Haddock, Geoffrey; Zanna, Mark P.; Esses, Victoria M., “Assessing the Structure of Prejudicial Attitudes: The Case of Attitudes Towards Homosexuals”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Dec. 1993) Thus, the greatest tool Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, Ann Coulter, and other anti-gay forces have in solidifying a core constituency to campaign and vote against equal rights proposals is to perpetuate the mistruths and lies inherent in stereotyping. It’s an ages-old propaganda strategy, one that was used to oppose civil rights legislation in the ‘60s and to justify the internment of Asian-Americans during WWII. Hitler relied on it to get neighbor to turn against neighbor in Nazi Germany, and Al-Qaeda uses mistruths and lies to vilify democratic societies. And, to be fair, it’s the same ploy gay activists and hardcore liberals use to malign conservative Christians. All this is not to suggest that gay and lesbian stereotypes don’t have some element of truth to them. Of course there are sex-obsessed, lisping, limp-wristed gay men and short-haired, flannel-wearing, masculine lesbians. And it is true that members of certain professions—fashion design, for instance—are more likely to be gay. There are also gay pedophiles. There are homosexual individuals who are over-zealous about shoving their sexual orientation in others’ faces. There are gay men and women who engage in kinky and dangerous sexual practices. One could also make the same arguments about the straight population. Yet, no one believes that because dumb jocks and gold-digging blondes really exist means that all heterosexual blonds – natural and not—into those categories. Nor does anyone believe that the fact that most pedophiles are straight or that some straights are into domination sex means that all straights are child-molesters or participate in kinky sex acts. In 2006, ABC reporter John Stossel and producer Gina Binkley put the notion of stereotypes to the test in their report, “Gay Stereotypes: Are They True?” The report features Northwestern University psychology professor Michael Bailey, who acknowledges that some gay men are more effeminate that their straight counterpart, but goes on to argue, “There’s no obvious reason why sexual orientation should be associated with how masculine or feminine one is, but it is in our species.” In conjunction with 20/20, Bailey arranged for a dozen strangers to mingle with five straight men and five gay men for an hour, then make guesses as to who was straight or gay. The participants guessed correctly only 60 percent of the time, and the one man who most thought was straight was in reality gay. ![]() As Dr. Bailey’s experiment suggests, Mr. Silver is correct to a certain extent in asserting that some heterosexuals are confused by gay stereotypes. But that population of heterosexuals is decreasing as more homosexuals from all walks of life and of all personality types emerge from the closet. Those who remain confused reflect their own ignorance more than anything else, whether that ignorance be from leading secluded lives or from ignoring mounting evidence counter to their world view. There is no need for gay men and women to change who we are, as there is nothing wrong with who we are—regardless of whether we appear to fit into others’ stereotypes of us or not. Queer, Isn't It?
Neil Patrick Harris: The Other SortBy Michael Abernethy05.Nov.09 Neil Patrick Harris is riding high these days. But in years past, if the average person sitting in his or her Barcalounger knew a TV star was gay, it would have been disastrous for both series and star.
Sitting on the MountaintopBy Michael Abernethy15.Oct.09 Did Obama calm the rash of criticism regarding his inaction on gay rights with his recent speech to the Human Rights Campaign?
Like ‘The New York Times’—with a Pink Boa and a TiaraBy Michael Abernethy18.Aug.09 Local LGBT papers are a vital part of our community. They bind us together, and they have played a major role in the development of that community. If only they were more inclusive. |
|
Comments
Interesting article. I just had a discussion about this very subject. I agree that as more people come out, more progress will be made. However, I think that the movement in its noble quest to gain equal standing has slowed success by differentiating gay culture from straight culture. Take the gay pride parades, for example. It is great that these events get some press for the movement but I think it confuses those that the movement is trying to win over for their cause. I can’t imagine a middle aged farmer in Nebraska has ever felt “pride” that he was straight. I am straight and I have never been necessarily proud of that fact. This issue of “pride” gives credence to those that wish to separate homosexuals from the rest of the country. Maybe the movement should concern itself with trying to stress that sexual preference is a minor aspect of an individual. I realize that I may be making too much of the gay pride parade but I think it speaks to a general theme in the movement. Then again, I could be horribly mistaken.
Comment by Jake from Wisconsin — February 16, 2007 @ 12:57 am
I would agree with you for the most part in the argument that (1) the gay community is comprised of MANY folks who don’t fit the stereotype and (2) the media is largely responsible for perpetuating the stereotype.
What I found odd was your primary focus on extreme right wing mouthpieces (TIME magazine excepted, though the published article in question was of that ilk). Isn’t it kind of a no-brainer that these fools are going to distort facts and outright lie to spread their hatred? Not that they shouldn’t be exposed for the assholes they are on a regular basis, but in the context of this article, it seems like your missing out on highlighting a bigger problem.
I’d say the biggest perpetuator of the gay stereotype, and arguably the more influential, are the entertainment media outlets that (presumably) aren’t seeking to defame the gay community—your “Will and Grace”, your “Queer Eye”, your fashion correspondents on any number of TV “news” shows. And it’s not just the Pat Robertsons of the world who show the most flamboyant participants of a gay pride parade. Low-key just doesn’t sell, and that tends to be the bottom line in the media, regardless of politics.
On one hand, the above entertaiment vendors bring the gay community into our living rooms; that’s a good thing. But by focusing on the “gayest” of personalities (the two TV shows you referenced are an exception to the rule and run on cable to boot), there is this creepy zoo-like lens that viewers in the straight community have to look through (“Oooh, look at the gay man. Isn’t he so sweet and funny and craaaazy over-the-top?”)
So while straight viewers might be more open to accepting homosexuality, their view of homosexuality is still extrememly skewed (and that’s how we end up with the “SO gay” jokes as well).
Then, to further compound issues, most human beings, regardless of sexuality, are subject to that desire for acceptance - sometimes the more weak-willed of us will make unfortunate sacrifices for that acceptance. Does that mean I think that there are some young gays out there who will play into the stereotype because that’s what they think will garner acceptance? Absolutely. I’ve seen it happen. Is it a widespread problem among the gay community? As a straight man with admittedly limited exposure to that community, I honestly don’t know.
But as an open-minded straight man not completely immune to the power of media suggestion, I’d look to the (supposedly) liberal entertainment media as the most influential painter of gay stereotypes.
Comment by Dave Dierksen from Austin — February 16, 2007 @ 11:47 am
First of all, I would like to say that I’m not the best at leaving comments on articles. Usually my messages are incredibly long winded and unfocused. So I’m going to try my best to stay on topic and articulate, as a fellow queer, my issue with this essay, or rather, its gay-assimilationist stance.
I have never fully agreed with the idea that all gay people had to do to be fully accepted into society was simply change the statement, if you will, from “You Know, They’re All Alike” to “You Know, They’re Just Like Us.” I feel (without digressing too much, lol) to take such a stance, as a community, would be to ignore some of the more ‘unpopular’ aspects of the community, such as the transgendered, the more ethnic amongst us, and certainly the the more “faggy” and “dyke”-ish members.
In my experience with people in my own community, I’ve met various professionals (and non-professionals) who varied in terms of their own gender non-conformity. And while many of them dealt with the odd-person out who focused on their sexuality or mannerisms more so than the quality of their work or labor, more often than not it was the latter that mattered to their bosses far more than the former.
With that said, the idea that a GLBT person should maintain an air of “normalcy” (really, emulate their hetero-counterparts) to work their way up the corporate ladder—to “fly below the radar”—seems a bit odd, if not slightly discriminatory. It was sort of saddening to see, like in most assimilationist-type writing, a kiss off of the Fems and Butchies without a real examination of where these mannerisms have com from historically and how they have shaped our community. Yes, the mainstream media has a history of zooming in on every drag queen and dyke on a bike and leather daddy in a gay parade. But let’s be real: would a gay parade really exist without the people who have had to deal with the stigma of being social pariahs, even to this day in their own communities?
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that as a ‘community’, shouldn’t the goal be towards making sure that all of us are equally recognized as valid members of said community rather than certain members pushing those aside who can’t (or refuse to) blend in as well as others?
Again, thank you for tolerating my hot mess of a response. ^_^
Comment by Neo_Vincent from Richmond, VA — February 16, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Homophobia is evil, and people who hate gays or demean them are criminals, and should be jailed
Comment by Jake from Scotland — February 18, 2007 @ 8:47 am
As a homosexual who doesn’t at all fit the gay stereotype, I loved this article. For years, I remained closeted, and in denial of my homosexuality, mostly because I didn’t “seem” like a homosexual (never mind the strong physical attraction towards men - I don’t have a lisp or a fantastic sense of fashion, so I’m clearly not gay). When I finally came out of the closet, most of my friends wouldn’t even believe me.
So, the question I have is, what do we do? I’m almost positive the gay community will be at least slightly more accepted as actual, unique people if the less-flamboyant of us were just more recognizable to the public at large. Somehow, those of us that aren’t obviously, visibly homosexual need to become much more visible.
Comment by Frank Weidner from Madison, WI — February 18, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Bravo on the article. I really think that as more “unflamboyant” conservative gay folks become more visible, these stereotypes are going to get put increasingly in perspective. Hell, eventually maybe flamboyant gay folks might be noticed for their flamoyance before they are noticed for their sexual orientation, if that makes any sense. (When a straight guy is an aggressive asshole, we don’t say, “what a hetero,” even though that guy is being a super stereotypical heterosexual dude.)
I do want to emphasize though, that it bugs me that some people have such a problem with flamboyant gayness- particularly male flamoyant gayness. I don’t know why it should be a compliment to say about a gay person that “you really can’t even tell!” Sure, mincing around and saying faaaahhbulous in an operating room (to use your example) would be inappropriate, but I don’t see how that behavior has anything to do with being gay or even with being effeminate. That sounds more like a person who is just a schmuck. If I needed an x-ray, whether the doctor had a lisp would be the least of my worries.
I don’t want to sound nit-picky. The point of your article is spot on. I just want to assert that nothing is wrong with gay folks who do live up to lot of the stereotypes. There’s nobody as funny as a catty queen, as any catty queen can tell you. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Comment by jamie — February 19, 2007 @ 7:03 pm