
The Secret Gay Business Network of Midcentury America - lermontov
https://daily.jstor.org/the-secret-gay-business-network-of-midcentury-america/
======
swebs
>Syrett also notes that despite their transgressive behavior, the men writing
each other were generally quite conservative and uninterested in challenging
the sexual politics of their time: “Though they were clearly not engaged in a
struggle for gay liberation… these men organized in service of their own
personal liberation and did so through corporate capitalism and not leftist
political organizing.”

...ok? Just because someone likes dudes doesn't mean he wants to seize the
means of production. Obviously capitalism has worked out pretty well for
businessmen financially, so probably they'd be more likely to lean right-
libertarian.

~~~
azernik
There's more to it than that - these men were into their own _personal_
liberation rather than helping change society to make their own underground
organizing unnecessary.

(I happen to think it's presumptuous to make that an _obligation_ for members
of oppressed groups, but okay.)

~~~
intopieces
>obligation for members of oppressed groups, but okay.

Presumptuous even to consider MSM to be part of the same oppressed "group." I
understand that unity, as a minority, is essential for fighting the good
fight. But, it's also important to recognize that not every MSM identifies as
"gay," and behavior does not dictate identity. People must be free to identify
as they wish, without judgement. Describe, don't prescribe.

What makes this group of businessmen so fascinating is that they subvert the
homogeny of the modern gay rights movement -- "you're one of us! Admit it!"
\-- and reveals a different kind of queer.

~~~
azernik
In this case, though, they _did_ identify as gay: "But Syrett writes that the
50 letter-writers he studied identified as gay, at least privately, and did
not marry women. "

~~~
greglindahl
It's worth noting that remaining unmarried, in that era, was itself a pretty
loud social signal.

~~~
acjohnson55
I don't think that's really true, in the sense of signaling homosexuality,
even if being single was very slightly risqué.

~~~
greglindahl
It didn't 100% signal homosexuality, but it signaled that something was odd,
with homosexuality as a possibility.

I'll also note that a lot of gay people from that era report that they felt
pressured to be heterosexually married to fit in. I have a couple of friends
from a more recent era, currently in their mid 60s, who felt that pressure
when they were younger. One had "an arrangement" with his wife, and two "came
out" in their 50's and had extremely messy divorces.

