Friday, November 27, 2009

'The Gay Shame In Us All' by Dan Brophy

Today a rally for same sex marriage will take place in Melbourne City on the steps of the State Library.

Protest, though important as a way of raising awareness, to me wont do enough, as even the most open-minded and accepting of us are still suffering the affects of thousands of years of homophobia engrained in the collective consciousness.

‘Gay Pride’, the banner ideal, is a purely hypothetical notion. So far we have gotten to the stage where we identify homosexuality as ‘acceptable’, that there’s ‘nothing wrong with it’. This unfortunately caps our understanding of it’s importance at the mere point that it should be ‘allowed’. What many don’t understand, even the gays themselves, is that their place in society is crucial.

Even amongst the gay-friendly enclaves of inner-city gen-Y, we are still not convinced it’s more than OK to be gay.

A few years ago, university lecturer friend of mine told me that there is an fundamental scientific difference between the brain of a gay male and the brain of a straight male. It lies in the corpus callosum – the space between the left and right hemispheres of the brain.

The corpus callosum of a gay male brain is wider, meaning that when motor neurons are firing from one side to the other, there is “more room for emotion to get in the way of the decision making”. A straight male’s hemispheres are closer together, meaning their decision making is more “mechanical”.

The brain of a gay male is therefore more closely resembling the brain of the heterosexual female. And for lesbians, their decision making is more “mechanical” rather than “emotive” due to a similarity with the heterosexual male.

I have often reassured recently outed gay guys by sharing this anecdote, so that they should think of them self as super-human rather than handicapped, as they present the greatest strengths of a man in physicality, and the greatest strengths of a woman in mentality.

Unfortunately we are living at the tail end of an era in which civilization has denied the feminine principle. Christianity turned the Pagan celebration of a “Mother Earth” into a “Heavenly Father” and continued to disavow women through witch burnings and the relegation of women to the duties of the home.

Even now, the most homophobic cultures are the ones in which women are seen as secondary to men, the most obvious being Middle Eastern and African.

There is shame associated with boys who are camp or ‘act gay’, when in actual fact they are just acting feminine – a trait which is seen as weak or flawed because somewhere along the way we were taught that being a woman was weak and flawed.

A common ‘bible belt favourite’ argument against the acceptance of gay is that homosexual sex is “unnatural” because it doesn’t eventuate in reproduction.

A theory I’ve encountered suggests that gays are meant to be responsible for giving birth to a different type of sociological function, that of new ideas and ways of thinking.

Without the fundamental drive to procreate getting in the way, the homosexual is liberated to pursue a life dedicated to the creation of thoughts and ideals which beautify and change the world.

There is a reason why the arts are filled with homosexuals - it’s just them enacting the destiny as prescribed to them by creation itself: to be creative, to create life, but in ways in which we haven’t yet known it.

Leonardo DaVinci and Michelangelo are prime examples: both clearly responsible for dramatic leaps in human consciousness, both documented as having relationships and fascinations with men – as seen in the adoration of the male form in their work: sprawling homo-erotic murals that play out like renaissance era Calvin Klein campaigns. Ironically enough, all commissioned by the Church.

There’s a reason why the gay brain is formed as it is: more available to the emotive decision making of art and creation. There’s a reason why homosexuals exist in society, as an antidote, a means to balance the hetero-centric ideal which has reigned for the past twenty centuries, this masculine principal which has left the world in the state it’s currently in.

Today’s rally may eventuate in the acceptance gay civil unions in this country, but until gays learn to harness their strengths and recognise that they have an important role to play in the society’s evolution, rather than begrudge themselves the celebration of their strengths, ‘gay pride’ will be something that exists only in a colourful flag or on a parade route.

We would be better united if we were better as individuals.

7 comments:

  1. Hey Disco,

    I understand where you are coming from with the whole gays have a fundamental purpose in supporting the arts. Unfortunately I think this ‘more emotional’ perspective is narrow minded and in itself homophobic. For years women in the workplace and indeed gays have been denied access to high powered positions within organisation on the basis that their decisions will be too emotionally driven.

    I am a research analyst in a large organisation and I make important decisions free from emotion on a daily basis. Being openly gay in a masculine heterosexual office I have found to be quite difficult. One of the major reasons for this is that without any cause or reason I have this ‘Gay = Emotional +/Or Unreliable’ stereotype placed upon me. This has lead to a number of my work colleagues to remain closeted within their profession, which from my perspective is just absurd.

    I think the afore mentioned stereotype often leads gay people into professions such as the arts so they will be more accepted and free from this kind of persecution.

    My dream is that one day gays can live in a world where they not only have equal human rights, but are seen as a diverse group of individuals free from stereotype.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm pretty skeptical about that scientific rationalisation of gay people having different brains to straight people though, and saying that therefore gay guys have more feminine traits and lesbians are more masculine. I think those things are stereotypes that do exist, but are largely socially constructed. Imo gay people span the same spectrum of behavioural/personality etc traits as straight people. And plenty of gay guys are as butch as the butchest straight guy, and plenty of lesbians are as femme as the most traditionally girly hetero girl anyway. But yeah, I really think those things are gender stereotypes that hopefully will be seen as antiquated when society finally manages to evolve more and destroy this oppressive concept of gender. It would be good to live in a world without that limiting binary, where everyone was allowed to have their own gender unique to themselves - "a thousand tiny sexes"!

    I understand why people want to do it, but I think it's kind of a limiting path to go down to try and use science alone to explain sexuality. I think it's more complicated than that and there are more factors involved.

    I do really agree with you on this point though:

    "So far we have gotten to the stage where we identify homosexuality as ‘acceptable’, that there’s ‘nothing wrong with it’. This unfortunately caps our understanding of it’s importance at the mere point that it should be ‘allowed’. What many don’t understand, even the gays themselves, is that their place in society is crucial."

    I mean heteronormativity is obviously the dominant paradigm at the moment, and I for one would shudder to think what a world without an LGBT movement that provides a challenge/alternative to that would be like. I mean hopefully it's on the road to changing now, but that's what society used to be like and still is in a lot of places. That would have to be the most homogenous, boring, oppressive world ever. I also think it's interesting that you mention that in general the societies that are still the most hostile towards homosexuality are also those that are more oppressive for women. Patriarchy and homophobia are obviously deeply intertwined. TBC…

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also think that this 'acceptance' of the validity of homosexuality is a great step (of course there’s still a long way to go and it hasn't been achieved itself yet) but at the same time I think we have to be cautious that we don't just continue to perpetuate the heteronormative paradigm, with homosexuality just being a parallel to that and mimicking heterosexuality.

    Like you use the example of the rally for same sex marriage – I think that within the LGBT community there is a hierarchy whereby those who mimic or assimilate more into heterosexual society are placed at the top, eg. gays or lesbians who are in a monogamous relationship who strive for married life and acquire children, thereby creating their own family unit and mimicking heterosexual values, and those that do not, eg. queer individuals who perhaps do not identify with any gender, intersex individuals, transsexuals etc. are relegated to the bottom.

    So I guess what I’m saying is I believe same sex marriage to be an extension of heteronormativity. While it’s a great achievement in equality for gays to get that right, I hope that ultimately people try and create alternatives to heteronormativity, not just mimic and perpetuate it. Say for example marriage, I think that it is extremely important that any radical sexual movement keep in mind marriage is only one way of organizing sexuality and organising companionship.

    So yeah, I definitely think that recognising/celebrating homosexuality is a crucial step for society to evolve past the concept of heteronormativity, I don't think it's the final step though. I like the phrase that "labels are for cans not for people".

    I didn’t realise this comment was so long until it told me I had to post it in 2 lots, sorry lol. Though I'd be interested to know whether you've experienced that hierarchy within the queer community and your opinion on marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, its a really well written argument. A bit of advice though. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but a few times you have used the word " ideal" where you should have used the word " idea"

    ReplyDelete
  5. So gays should prance around making "art" and lesbians should fix cars while straight women become hysterical and straight men beat each other up?? Your arguments are poorly informed, naive and dangerous. Of course the wider community must be more tolerant and accepting, but this includes you and the gay community as well. Many young gays and lesbians feel no affinity with their "community" precisely because it doesn't reppresent them in any way. They aren't interested in being told how they should be and they dont want their sexuality to define themselves. Not every gay is a pretty, white, eastern suburbs, promiscuous disco fag. And many certainly dont want to be either.

    Your quaint little diddy about the corpus collusum is not only unfounded scientifically, but its also as offensive as early "science" which "proved" caucasians superior to black because their skull size was bigger.

    Comparing DaVinci to Calvin Klein?? Please get off your high horse and get yourself an education before your next post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thealchemist,
    I doesn't surprise me that every facet of the corporate world isn't (yet) entirely embracing of the strengths of women and homosexuals because it is an extension of an institution that has denied the validity of women and homosexuals that is as old as Roman civilisation itself.
    I don't think gay men gravitate towards 'arty' professions because they want to be "free from persecution", I would assume persecution exists everywhere in society and their gravitas towards creative careers are due to a deeper longing within them as opposed to a fear and avoidance. Maybe you're right, though.

    And David6724, my argument is not to suggest anyone should hold back from doing anything they desire to do: I would like to encourage as many lesbians to make art and gays to fix cars as possible.
    You might like to think that there is no scientific difference between homo and heterosexuals - I don't see how this is possible, as to suggest so is to return to that other gay cliche of it being a 'choice'.

    If there were a difference, why not embrace those differences and use them to our own benefit? Why try and be a square peg in a round hole (so to speak)? Why not celebrate the notion that as a gay man you will be more available to different sort of understanding? This doesn't govern what you will do with this understanding - whether it be fix cars or make art - both are necessary parts of our existence and both can be done brilliantly and beautifully.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And Simon
    I have experienced hierarchy in every community I have been involved in: the high school community, university communities, film making circles, amongst friends. We are all involved microcosms reflecting little Orwellian 'Animal Farms', it's just a product of human ego that we should define ourselves by what we are in comparison to other people. The notion of 'self' itself is ego in it's purest form and ultimately counts for nothing.

    You were talking about acting butch versus acting straight. While I wouldn't begrudge anyone the right to act as themselves, I can't help but see these identities as coping mechanisms, they are not the real person. All people are all things, we all have the potential to put forward the part of ourselves which associates us with an already established identity. And humans are so tribal by nature, it doesn't surprise me that we subconsciously want to link ourselves to a tribe. I think we all do that through football teams and the bands we love and the width of our jeans. But there's no way this could account for the whole person.

    And as for marriage: My theory with a lot of perplexing stuff like this is: life's hard enough as it is - if you want to get married cause it fulfils a fantasy you have: perfect. I personally find that the notion of marriage gels nicely, though it may not in future. I come from a family where the parents could not be happier in love, so that to me is a wonderful ideal. But how awful it must be to abide by someone else's idea of happiness.

    ReplyDelete