In
Search of Ordinary Joes
by
Andrew James
I am writing to complain about recent positive depictions of gay people.
Well, complain is too strong a word; I mean "express caution." Let me
assure you that I'm not part of the religious right and that I am myself
gay. The change in the portrayal of gay people in the last five or six
years has been breathtaking. I see the film Philadelphia as a watershed.
Sure, the hero was dying (gays in film and literature are often punished)
and pretty much asexual, but it was nevertheless nice, likeable Tom
Hanks playing the homosexual. There's been no looking back.
More recent, happier movies spring to mind, such as My Best Friend's
Wedding and The Object of My Affection. Gay characters in these movies
demonstrate "typically" gay traits: they're handsome, artistic, sensitive
and stylish. Rupert Everett in My Best Friend's Wedding was particularly
superb. These gay characters are not merely okay, they're better than
straight men. In fact, after these movies lots of women wanted a gay
best friend. That's where my problem begins. I think we are setting
too high a standard for what being gay means.
Let me say here that I am referring almost exclusively to gay men.
This is partly because it is the only experience I can even try to speak
for, and also because I don't think lesbians face quite the same problem
(they may have others). Ellen de Generes may or may not be funny, but
nobody suggests she's ideal. Straight men don't ask their girlfriends
why they can't be more like their lesbian friends, while the reverse
sometimes occurs, straight women complaining that their boyfriends don't
listen to them or window-shop as patiently as their gay pals.
I think we're crossing a line past which "gay positive" becomes, pardon
the pun, a straitjacket. Acceptance of gays is becoming too closely
linked with our good qualities. By all means, let's celebrate the achievements
of gay people - as we would anybody's. Sure, let's be proud of who we
are and what we accomplish. But if we're not careful, too much emphasis
on achievements will come back to haunt us.
Society should accept gays because human decency requires it, not because
gays are smart and sensitive and can cook. We shouldn't have to "deserve"
basic dignity and rights. We don't need a function any more than anybody
else does. It's like being a member of a family: you just are. We shouldn't
be included simply because parties don't plan themselves.
The images aren't much better balanced outside Hollywood films. This
may come from the theory that gay adolescents, unable to flourish socially
in their repressive heterosexist environments, sublimate their sexual
energy and work harder. This might explain the tremendous drive shown
by Olympic medallist Mark Tewkesbury, who recently came out. Andrew
Tobias, author of the classic Best Little Boy in the World, says he
sublimated sexual energy to excel in studies and athletics. Similarly,
political journalist Andrew Sullivan writes that repressed sexuality
explains his early academic success and status as a star debater. I
have seen other examples in organizations or schools starring gay superachievers.
I'm not suggesting that this isn't the experience of many gay men,
but we can be pretty sure it isn't everybody's. Not every gay adolescent
is an overachiever. Despite recent progress, growing up gay is still
for many an isolating experience. So consider the pressure for kids
who realize first that they're excluded from the sexual majority, then
feel inadequate even within the minority because they're not handsome,
smart, artistic, sensitive and well-dressed like all the gay people
they see. It's a recipe for self-esteem disaster.
I know that for a long time positive gay role models were scarce, but
we seem to be overcompensating. This isn't a problem that the media
can solve by returning 180 degrees to negative depictions. Frankly,
I'm ambivalent about the idea of a gay Roseanne, Married With Children
or The Simpsons designed to show that gays can be just as acrimonious
and slothful as anybody else. That's surely not the answer.
What we need now is for more ordinary gay people to be visible. I can't
begin to explain how many worlds away an Olympic swimmer would have
seemed to me when I was a teenager. It's not that straight kids don't
see straight athletes and other successful people, but they are also
surrounded, daily, by millions of ordinary straight people. Strange
as it might sound, we need more banal gay role models. What about someone
who might live on my street? What about a teacher or somebody's uncle?
Gay Pride parades, it's true, offer huge numbers of ordinary-looking
people; but by the time the gay teen has made it there, he's probably
well on his way. I'm concerned about reaching him when he's still in
his suburb or small town and the only gay people he sees are the stars
I've mentioned. He knows he's not straight, but he's not like them either.
Raising the profile of banal homosexuals... It's not going to be fabulous,
it's not going to be cutting edge, but I think it's got to be the next
wave of the gay movement.
Andrew James (not his real name) is a student at McGill.
|