Here is a Boston Phoenix article by gay progressive Michael Bronski, published this week.
Bronski criticizes the mainstream gay population and the major activist groups for having abandoned, quite some time ago, the “sexual liberation” movement and Seventies-era interpretations of feminism.
Speaking for myself, I don’t miss those days much. But I was only 10 in the mid-Seventies, and the “sexual liberation movement” meant that my mother was running through boyfriends at the rate of at least one a year. I’m certain others have fonder memories and can explain whatever advantages the era and its goals had over today.
Bronski remembers, but his essay never quite spells out what he believes gays were working toward then, or would work toward now, as an ultimate goal, if not full spousal rights and nondiscrimination.
“Gay liberation” and “feminism” have far different meanings now than they did when Bronski came of age. Having been a profeminist antirape activist in the 1990s, I’m grateful for the change. I’m glad the group that I worked for was broader than any particular political alliance or ideology. And I’m angered when the labels and meanings of the past are used by culture warriors to mischaracterize people of the present.
I was in my late 20’s during the mid 70’s. I remember a time of great excitement and potential. Gay Liberation was not exactly about sex: it was about the potential and power of the individual gay person. Liberation encouraged each of us to open up to the world. To throw off the restrictions and conventions. To experience life and its mysteries.
This is very different from the vision of gays as part of yet more boring suburban couplehood. Will reflect on this and post later.
Dale • 8/5/03; 9:10:38 AM
Your points are taken Dale, but why downplay the historical significance of legalized gay marriage? I’ll start by saying I was born in 71 and more a child of the 80s, but I think Bronski’s article is out of touch on several points:
–He uses worst-case scenarios to call marriage a bad thing. He assumes because marriage is an “imperfect institution” and because our culture’s romanticized vision of marriage is indeed a myth that desire driven, make it up as you go alternatives will work much better and make people happier. If these alternatives were so promising why did they go out of style like so many other fads? He’s trading one myth for another.
— Bronski waxes rhapsodic over the sexual liberation of the 1970s yet doesn’t mention AIDS once, much less own up to the fact that AIDS and other STDs became and continue to be a problem largely because of the sexual movement of the 1970s and its ideology. He seems to have forgotten that as a culture we’ve been there, done that and it was not so grand as he seems to remember it.
–He fails to acknowledge how radical the reality of gay families living in suburbia beside straight families really is. He may find that boring, but to a large portion of the gay population this is a welcome development and he’s wrong to pooh-pooh it because it is not what gay liberationists envisioned when they were smoking dope at the bath houses in 1973. Most importantly he doesn’t seem to realize that this is perhaps a better transformation, a more realistic change to marriage from the inside out as opposed to overthrowing it.
Instead of romanticizing the past why not embrace the future and realize the goals may have mutated but not changed altogether?
Brett • 8/5/03; 10:24:17 AM
The Bronski article moved, so I updated the link.
After a second look, I have to give Bronski credit for describing in detail the meticulous theorizing and philosophizing that went on in those days. I see less of that today. The leading activists tend to be very pragmatic, focusing on tangible day-to-day concerns. And perhaps both the demographics and the theorizing have diversified so much that no single group of perspectives dominate, as early Seventies feminism once did.
I can understand why Bronski would look fondly upon years when people saw forward to potential and saw past restrictions and conventions.
Mike A. • 8/5/03; 10:07:51 PM
This philosophizing and theorizing continues today; check out RFD or White Crane Journal or any of the Goddess movements. The split here is a very old one, between accomodationists and liberationists. Like between Mattachine and Gay Lib. The accomodationists would say we are just like everyone else and won’t change marriage. The liberationists would say we are not like everyone else and of course we will change marriage. In some ways this is a difference in selfunderstanding and attitude. Which is in a way not historical but psycho-emotional.
Dale • 8/6/03; 10:06:28 AM
For those who think liberation is oldfashioned, that Bronski is just a dinasour. Check out these links:
http://www.whitecranejournal.com/wc01142.htm#57johnson
http://www.whitecranejournal.com/wc01141.htm
http://www.rfdmag.org/welcome.php4
http://www.spiralgoddess.com/SiteMap.html
This last has beautiful music donated by Ennya. Check out the Rainbow Grove.
Dale
Dale • 8/6/03; 7:49:49 PM
Thanks for posting those links, Dale. While spiral goddess is maybe a bit too out there for me, I highly enjoyed white crane journal and plan on revisiting that site. Much good food for thought there.
For the record, I do not think liberation is old fashioned. I take issue with Bronski’s curmudgeonly dismissal of the significance of gay marriage rights. I re-read his article and I still think he’s wrong-headed on many points.
Brett
Brett • 8/7/03; 11:43:52 AM
Thanks for the kind words. What did you think of RFD? Just curious. I would regard SpiralGoddess as being sort of mainstream LGBTQ2S spirituality. But then my opinion is the most influential spiritual leader our community has produced since Stonewall is Z Budapest. Also, I would place MCC and SoulForce at the extreme right wing of GLBTQ2S religion. Dale
Dale • 8/7/03; 10:33:08 PM
My guess is that no one here knows who Z Budapest is.
Dale • 8/7/03; 10:49:51 PM
I didn’t look through RFD to quite the extent of the other two. I didn’t get an immediate sense of what it is about. I’m open to learning more, but the site on a first glance struck me as being for people already in the know. What does it mean to be a faerie?
Can’t speak for anyone else here, but no, I have never heard of Z Budapest.
Best.
Brett • 8/8/03; 7:32:03 AM
RFD is the voice of the Radical Faerie movement. Faeries are a form of liberation focusing on spirituality and gender. This is the group Harry Hay started when he gave up on politics. Probably the best known RF group is the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence lead by Sister Missionary Position, in San Francisco. Check out Toby Johnson’s book ‘Gay Spiritualites’ for more information.
Z Budapest is a lesbian feminist teacher. She created the Goddess movement within feminism. Rightwing sources regard this as something that has begun to take over the churches. When you read people considering the femaleness of God, the idea started with Z Budapest.
Dale • 8/8/03; 9:13:55 AM
Here is a link to a Goddess lesbian site. The presentation is a Pagan one, but you can find these thoughts echoed in mainline churches, like the Reimagining moverment.
http://www.matrifocus.com/index.htm
Dale • 8/8/03; 10:20:25 AM