There is A Homosexual in America. And He's a problem:
Beset by inner conflicts, the homosexual is unsure of his position in society, ambivalent about his attitudes and identity-but he gains a certain amount of security through the fact that society is equally ambivalent about him. A vast majority of people retain a deep loathing toward him, but there is a growing mixture of tolerance, empathy or apathy. Society is torn between condemnation and compassion, fear and curiosity, between attempts to turn the problem into a joke and the knowledge that it is anything but funny, between the deviate's plea to be treated just like everybody else and the knowledge that he simply is not like everybody else.
This is from Time magazine's issue of January 21, 1966. I can't even begin to unpack how far we have all come from these pre-Stonewall days, but Hendrik Hertzberg does a fine job in the New Yorker.
The only thing I'd add is to ask you to think about that bizarre third person singular. "The homosexual is unsure of his position in society. . . " "Society is torn between condemnation and deep loathing toward him. . . " This lumps us all into some undifferentiated whole, then puts us behind a grammatical wall from the author and the society he takes for granted.
And before you offer up a prayer of thanks that those days are gone, check out Matthew Rettenmund's analysis of Admiral Mullen's view of DADT at Towleroad. The Admiral says he wants to "give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times."
Matthew hits him with a sound blow that knocks the Admiral right back to 1966:
Pitting LGBT soliders against "our people and their families" begs the question: What about our people and their families, Admiral?
That is exactly the right question, and the Admiral ought to answer it -- even if only for himself. Why doesn't he view us as part of "his" people and "their" families?
While we're waiting, check out the Time article -- if for no other reason than to find out that we seem to have lost the "cuff-linky" bars our ancestors used to enjoy.
13 Comments for “Him. . . Us. . . Them”
posted by Infovoyeur on
I am glad this astonishing but touchstone TIME article has been called attention to. It suggests that “justice arrives, if she does, when she does and not because she should.” And that we are puppets dangled and danced by the strings of the Puppetmaster of society’s norms, mores, folkways. Read the full article, to see how, in a national magazine, a minority can be so roundly, soundly denigrated, disparaged, damned on all counts–psychological, political-legal, “moral-ethical,” human status–AND THAT WAS ALL RIGHT WITH PEOPLE THEN EVEN “LIBERALS” eh?… This article belongs in a Petrie dish as lab specimen of virulent disease. To show what can happen. (And “Justice remains present, as long as she does, not always as long as she of course should.”) [[ Of course–process can occur, and it’s reeassuring that today, finally, “perfection” of a sort has indeed arrived, in that no longer are any minorities or groups mistreated utterly without our knowledge, off the radar screen of sensitivity, as was the case here…]]
posted by BobN on
What people don’t realize is that the Time article was actually a step up…
posted by David Link on
Good point, BobN. Try to imagine what it was a step up from. . .
posted by Arthur on
Time came into my childhood home every week. It was required reading. Imagine reading the article as a suburban, protected, 11 year old who was just beginning to come to grips with his yet unnamed homosexuality. No one in the household talked about sex. My three brothers suspected I was homosexual, and treated me accordingly. My father thought the pulpit and society would, by the example of muscular Christianity, show me the error of my sissy inclinations. My mother was in a self imposed naïve fog.
But someone was actually talking about the deviants. Imagine reading this article and the joy of finding out there were people in the world just like you. That’s it, that’s it, that is what I am! But shuddup about it. That was a breakthrough for me.
posted by Parity 7-2521 on
The only thing I’d add is to ask you to think about that bizarre third person singular.
We would like to ask David Link why they found it necessary to employ this narcissistic and alienating “I” construction!? But they’ll get no argument from us that singular pronouns are a bizarre relic that any selves-respecting GBLTQ people ought to abhor.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Pitting LGBT soldiers against “our people and their families” begs the question: What about our people and their families, Admiral?
First, Admiral Mullen did not pit anyone against anyone — in a post-DADT context, “our people” would logically include gay service members unless Mullen specified otherwise, and he didn’t specify otherwise.
Second, notice Matthew Rettenmund’s reflexive (?) use of “LGBT.” Is he seriously prepared to argue that the military must make accommodations for transsexuals, as part of ending the ban on gays and lesbians? Or did he type this out of pure sloppy habit, knowing that he’s writing for a largely uncritical left-leaning audience at Towleroad?
Third: “begs the question”? Aaaaargh, me poor heart!
posted by Carl Hendrickson on
The problem, Thorbert, with your first comment is Admiral Mullen’s “our people and their families” comment was NOT post-DADT in context.
Secondly, The “T” in LGBT stands for transgender and why shouldn’t these Americans be welcome to serve?
posted by Throbert McGee on
For an example of someone ACTUALLY “begging the question,” see the closing graf of the Time article, which treats us to the rock-solid logic of Catholic theologians talking about sexual morality:
Roman Catholic thought generally agrees that homosexuality is of and in itself wrong because, as New York’s Msgr. Thomas McGovern says, it is “inordinate, having no direction toward a proper aim.” Even in purely nonreligious terms, homosexuality represents a misuse of the sexual faculty and, in the words of one Catholic educator, of “human construction.”
Got that? “Homosexuality is wrong because it is improper.”
That’s a textbook instance of “question begging” — a form of circular argument that is sometimes called by the Latin name Petitio principii.
Considering the way that Catholic conservatives tend to fetishize the Latin language and “classical education,” it’s kind of odd that 90% of their arguments on homosexuality and other matters of sexual morality tend to be one long, unbroken string of logical fallacies so ancient that they’ve had Latin names since before Caesar’s time.
Obviously, it’s just as wrong if an Orthodox Jewish rabbi (for example) resorts to petitio principii or ad numeram in trying to make a moral case against homosexuality — but there’s an extra-delicious irony when a Roman Catholic clergyman does it!
posted by Throbert McGee on
The problem, Thorbert, with your first comment is Admiral Mullen’s “our people and their families” comment was NOT post-DADT in context.
You’re half-right, Cral — Mullen’s comment was not clearly post-DADT. But neither was it clearly situated in the present where DADT is still policy. Is Mullen offering to advise Obama before DADT has been ended, or after it has been ended? Read the man’s words closely and you’ll see that the timeframe is ambiguous.
Given the ambiguity, the Admiral’s quote presents a sort of political Rorschach test to the reader.
Secondly, The “T” in LGBT stands for transgender and why shouldn’t these Americans be welcome to serve?
Maybe they should be welcome to serve, sometime later in this century. But I can guarantee you that, given today’s culture, the presence of “T” people would cause massive unit-cohesion and morale problems even among military personnel who are willing and able to accept “discreetly open” gays and lesbians.
I’m not quite willing to assert that integrating transgendered people into to the military is a total impossibility (that’s why I conceded that maybe it could happen someday in the future). But I am asserting that the T’s bring up whole new cans of worms that you don’t have with the LGB’s, yet Rettenmund’s use of “LGBT” breezily ignores this point — most probably because his position on DADT is informed entirely by gay political faddishness.
posted by David Link on
Throbert, we’re definitely on the same page about the proper use of “begs the question.” I’ve fought its misuse for the last year and a half now, and am throwing in the towel.
I do, though, think the Admiral’s words expressed a worldview that includes heterosexual soldiers as “us” and homosexual soldiers who aren’t “us.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
I do, though, think the Admiral’s words expressed a worldview that includes heterosexual soldiers as “us” and homosexual soldiers who aren’t “us.”
He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win —
We drew a circle that took him in.
posted by conejito97 on
in 1966, i was a skinny 15 year old boy in a small town in texas. i was searching for any and all info i could get my hands on to try and explain the feelings i had for my best friend’s younger brother. every book, magazine, etc I read told me the exact same thing–homosexuals are mentally unstable, go against gods teachings, are to be shunned and many other negative based, fear inducing b.s. call it stubborn or just hard headedness, but i just knew deep down inside that no matter what was said, i was a good person and thats all that mattered. i was one of the lucky few that never crawled into any closet. i went on to serve in the US ARMY during the Vietnam War, was pretty much out to my squad and platoon and really never encountered any sexual discrimination. Things have gotten better by a long shot and yet still in this day and age, gay servicemembers are still being thrown out just because of their sexual orientation. its sad.
posted by David Link on
Conejito97, and Arthur, too:
Thanks for sharing your experiences. They illustrate why we not only will, but must ultimately win. We really aren’t kidding about our own, fundamental truth about ourselves. People can try to ignore that or wish it away, or even fear it, but they can’t make it be any less true. And the people who are willing to accept this simple fact about us find that it’s really not that big a deal. As Throbert’s quote says, they can try to shut us out, but we will always be drawing that circle to take them in.