Dispatches

“I don’t want to watch a gay man tell me about the war.”

This odd admission of stultifying prejudice was spat out boldly and proudly by a friend of mine during a speculative conversation about rumors of Anderson Cooper’s supposed homosexuality. His argument failed to “close the loop,” to borrow a term from electricity. The point exists that Cooper may be a homosexual, which is connected to the point that he will discuss the war, because it is an ongoing news story of crucial importance. Then, somewhere else lingers the opinion that a man who is sexually attracted to other men should not discuss the war or at least, should not be given attention when doing so.

That bias floats in the atmosphere unconnected to the other two points by any logical or rational reasoning. It depends solely on a liberal interpretation of an anti-gay stereotype that presupposes that a gay man is the absolute antithesis to any topic or activity that is masculine.

The stereotype and refusal to watch Cooper or some hypothetical openly gay journalist discuss soldiers, terrorism, and bombing campaigns is required to preserve the existence of a basic duality that places the holder at the ethos of masculine expression by virtue of his heterosexuality, and those who “adopt alternative” (the assumption that the lifestyle is both adopted and alternative is also defined by the basic dualist holder) “lifestyles’ (another phony term coined by basic duality thinkers: If it is a lifestyle it is a choice, and therefore alterable, and therefore something that can either be supported or opposed by ‘mainstream” society) are by virtue of that “lifestyle” distinctly outside of that ethos and thereby separate from the basic dualist, whose masculinity thrives upon a negative definition: “I may not be able to say what it is, but I know that it has nothing to do with homosexuality.”

Considering that war is viewed as the epitome of machismo it cannot be in the hands of ‘dainty queers,” on the battlefield or in the newsroom. But, of course in reality, a person’s sexual preference has absolutely no effect on his or her ability to report or analyze the news, war related and otherwise, in an intelligent, fair, and eloquent fashion.

Discussion over.

Now, what must be considered are the social implications and consequences of the anti-Cooper or anti-hypothetical openly gay war correspondent sentiment. It does spell out good news for the homosexual community. The best way for me to articulate this is to go back to the University of St. Francis ” a small, liberal arts, Catholic college in Joliet, IL, from where I recently graduated.

Two years ago, a small, well organized, group of students formed the “Gay-Straight Alliance” and attempted to receive official “club status,” which would entitle them to school funding. The conservative Catholic sect among alumni and the board of trustees effectively denied them approval and sent the message that homosexuals are a fringe group that belong on the margins with crystal clarity and megaphone audibility.

Before the decision was ominously handed down to the student government, an organization that I founded and chaired, the “Council for Social Activism,” held a rally/town hall meeting in support of the GSA. Much to my relief and happiness, the overwhelming majority of students who not only attended the CSA town hall, but were enrolled at USF, supported the GSA in their quest to earn full club status and school funding. It signaled that the public consciousness had elevated, at least among young people, to a level that accepted homosexual people as they are (none of this insulting and condescending “love the sinner, hate the sin” inanity that the club’s opponents repeated ad nauseum), and invited them to enjoy the same legitimacy that the Black Student Union, Latino student organization, and College Republicans enjoy. I would soon discover that youth consciousness may have risen above out right hate mongering and subjugation, but it still views homosexuals as freaks, only now they are freaks who deserve an exhibit at the zoo.

As a heterosexual male, I do not directly deal with the consequences of anti-gay hatred, stereotyping or humor. However, I am more privy to it, and get a better idea of how deep and thick it is in American culture, because those who express it expect me to nod my head in agreement or laugh with them.

While I was a college student who lived on campus, not a day went by that I did not hear the word “faggot” employed to describe a gay or weak man. “Gay” was the popular term for anything that was un-cool, and homosexual students were also mocked, almost always in secret, by almost all male students, including those who were on supposed good terms with the gay student propped up as the butt of the joke.

Actual lesbians, not girls who make out for the benefit of drunken ogling men, were seen as ‘dykes,” “bitches’ or men themselves. Frat and jock types could expect beastly groans of laughter when one of them pretended to be gay, placing his hands on the hips of an unsuspecting male student and proceeding to simulate anal sex, in a wild and cheerful manner.

One must remember that these scenes I describe did not transpire in a high school locker room somewhere in the Deep South, but in a highly-ranked liberal arts college, 20 miles south of Chicago.

Certainly, an adjunct instructor who I befriended observed this behavior. After the last class of the semester, he told me he was a homosexual, and when I asked him why he did not tell me earlier, he meekly said, “I wasn’t sure how you would react. I did not want you to end our friendship.” This shocked me considering I had spoken in support of gay rights and wrote about it a few times during the course of the semester. But, something about the feeling behind his words shocked me even more. Although I had other gay friends, I never realized how degrading and demeaning it must be for a good person to go through their life rightfully paranoid about how people will react to something that is innately part of their identity, and harms no one.

Imagine how that fear and anxiety are multiplied when one is not only dealing with their family, friends, and colleagues, but a mass television audience.

Gay television hosts, professors, and students can be confident that the number of people who “love the sinner, but hate the sin” is decreasing, as fewer people seem to consider homosexuality a sin. However, hordes of people, including college students who are supposed to be more progressive, hold the ignorant and narrow-minded position that homosexuality is a sign of weakness among men, freakish femininity among women, unnatural, and gross.

Pop culture has a tendency to keep this phobia and prejudice alive by only portraying stereotype versions of gay people. From “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” to “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” to the infamous Chrysler ad that featured a “fairy” who transformed a tough guy into a weakling who embodied homosexual stereotypes, the coverage has improved over depicting gay people as pathological and destructive, and it is better than a complete blackout, but it reinforces the “It is gross and weak” mentality.

While there are notable exceptions ” “The L Word,” “The Sopranos” depiction of the male-male affair between Vito and “Johnnycakes” ” most of the gay characters in pop culture are props for an easy laugh, and usually the exceptions only prove the rule.

“Brokeback Mountain” was controversial, and caused much debate, unlike most gay stories precisely because it challenged the gay stereotype, and the basic duality that it rests on. It oys who in spite of probably being tougher than most American men fell in love, and demanded identification and empathy from both gay and straight members of the viewing audience. “Philadelphia” had the same effect, but more importantly arguably the most all-American rock star of all time, Bruce Springsteen lent his voice and talent to the project in the form of the Oscar and Grammy winning song, “Streets of Philadelphia.” It will take more Springsteens, Gyllenhaals, and Ledgers, men with bona fide masculine credentials to vocalize their support for the gay community through creative and political expression to solve the basic dualist problem and challenge America’s exiguous and poorly defined conception of homosexuality.

Similarly, an openly gay news host would challenge America, but in ways more profound and effective than “Brokeback Mountain” and “Streets of Philadelphia.” Citizens do not need to trust the characters on “The L Word” or in “Brokeback” nor must they trust Ellen in order to be entertained by her. But, it is essential that they trust their news anchors and analysts. Therefore, a homosexual news-talk host would force America to trust and admire gay people with an important and serious task or blatantly display their bigotry like drunken college students in a dorm room.

The day of the openly gay news host will inevitably arrive, most likely before the day of the openly gay soldier, and long before the day of the openly gay presidential candidate. Only then will we learn if our culture has opened to become more sophisticated and tolerant like it claims or if Edward R. Ward (a writer and friend of mine) is correct when he says, “We preach diversity, but we don’t really want it.”