We need to dismantle the myths of homophobia

[IndianaGreen]

We need to dismantle the myths of homophobia

Author: Dee Myles
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 12/15/05 09:28

It took the ascendancy of the extreme right and their backward views of same-sex relationships to force many of us to realize that Marxists have to produce and popularize an in-depth analysis of sexuality and gender. This question was brought to the front burner by the extreme right’s use of the issue of homosexuality to provoke a backward backlash amongst the masses of people.

Homophobia can be seen as various extremes of rejection of people involved in or inclined toward relationships based on same-sex intimacy. Heterocentricism is more tolerant but still assesses same-sex desire and relationships through the heterosexual experience, which leads to a denial of the present reality of the homosexual experience.

We have to strengthen our ability to help counter the extreme right, and minimize their ability to divide and conquer using this issue as a wedge. We can utilize a Marxist analysis to shine a light on the human experience of same-sex relationships across space and time. This approach is important because it dismantles the myth that everything has always been the same as it is now. That is a fundamental untruth.

Unless we challenge ourselves to pursue such an analysis, we walk around with the assumption that human beings have always and everywhere been heterosexual and that homosexuality is a new deviation.

Even though Frederick Engels, in “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” introduced the notion, taken from the ancient anthropological record, of group marriage where all members belonged to each other, we assume that heterosexuality was the underpinning of those relationships. Evidence now suggests that same-sex intimacy was as natural in the distant past as we think opposite-sex intimacy is today. In other words, the evidence suggests Engels was right possibly beyond even what he understood himself.

It was just 1,000 years ago that the tainting of same-sex intimacy became widespread, particularly in Europe.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8284/1/299/

[waiting for hope]

1. I think a lot of homophobia

comes from the disinformation that homosexuals are in the same group as pedophiles, the ignorance that if your child comes into contact with someone that is gay, they will be tainted and be lead down the homosexual path...it's kinda sad really that in todays world of instant information that so many people as so ignorant to history and the differences between homosexuality and child molesters.

[pinto]

2. I humbly choose to opt out of a Marxist defintion of my sexuality. Thanks

[Lex]

3. Was there a "definition" of sexuality in that piece?

I missed it (which is possible).

[pinto]

5. I probably ought to have said "politicization" of my sexuality.

That's a more accurate response to the polemic cited.

[Trillo]

6. I don't know anything about Marxism, but,

it seemed to me one point of the article was that our sexuality has already been politicized.

It strikes me that the organization of Bonobos might be one area to study for clues as to how to "keep the peace."

[IndianaGreen]

7. The persecution of your sexuality is most definitely political!

Much of the opposition to the Human Rights Ordinance that Indianapolis just passed, which banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, came from African-American churches. Why was that? These same churches had supported Clinton during his Presidency, Gore in '00, and Kerry in '04. Why would members of a community that had themselves been the targets of discrimination and intolerance oppose giving LGBTs the same human rights that they had fought for? Why would they join the white Christian right in opposing the enactment of laws making crimes against LGBTs hate crimes? Why would they fail to see the illogic of their position vis-a-vis gays in that if a black were murdered for the color of his skin it would be called a hate crime, but if the same black man were murdered for his sexual orientation it wouldn't.

Dee Myles does not answer those questions in her article, but at least she points out how the rightwing has successfully exploited those factors that makes us different in order to keep us from uniting into a common front.

How does the LGBT question relate to other problems of inequality?

Besides class, the major inequality questions today revolve around national and racial oppression, the status of women and youth.

Taking the African American community as an example, we have seen an organized thrust by some African American ministers against LGBT rights and equality. One group of ministers went so far as to say they would stand with the KKK on this question.

With Bush’s faith-based money as the undergirding, the political agenda of the extreme right on homosexuality and abortion is being promoted in the African American community. Their promotion of anti-homosexual attitudes in conjunction with other issues succeeded in moving some African Americans to vote against their own interests in 2004, translating into a small increase in the African American vote for Bush (in some communities the vote increase was said to go as high as 18 percent or more).

We must find ways to help counter the influence of this thrust in the African American community and other communities of the nationally oppressed.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8284/1/299/

During my own work with fellow LGBTs in fighting fascist efforts to amend our state constitution to forbid marriage rights to gays and lesbians, I am often astonished at the insularity of our community, and an inability to see that our struggle to achieve equality is part of the greater effort to fundamentally shift the power structure in our country. Those responsible for discrimination and persecution of LGBTs are the same people that use military might to suppress popular revolutions in Latin America and elsewhere, and have not hesitated to use force against our own citizens in order to keep themselves in power.

We have been so well conditioned to react with a Pavlovian reflex to any mention of Marxism or socialism. This is no mere accident of culture, but the end result of a process of indoctrination that began the moment a child is exposed to our educational system and our churches. This is the same process that teaches that loving someone of the same sex is an affront to Creation itself.

The Socialist Party USA's Queer Commission outlines the nature of the struggle for equality:

Under capitalism, the economic system is patriarchal, where the bosses make the decisions for the majority, and the people have little power over their own lives. Dominance and control are the rules of conduct, and are nurturing behavior is suspect and derided. This patriarchal system is not only the cause of traditional sex roles; it is also dependent upon their exploitation.

Homosexuality is a threat to those roles because it provides a nurturing bond between members of the same sex, rather than the domination of one sex by another. Therefore, as gay men, we are not living up to our "masculine potential," and as lesbian women, we are guilty of transgressing the "inferiority" of our femininity. Furthermore, persons who are bisexual, transgender, intersex or don't identify with any of these categories, are also left at the whims of hatred and discrimination.

Also, a capitalist economy functions best when there is a labor surplus forcing to many workers to compete for too few jobs, thus lowering wages: without children we fail to support this economy, and to the capitalists, we can be seen as a threat.

The early liberationists at stonewall recognized the danger that this system posed to the free expression of our lives and formed anti-patriarchal, mass democratic organizations, such as the Gay Liberation Front. Eventually, they were replaced by a new generation of more centralized groups dominated by upper middle class white males for whom acceptance by the mainstream population replaced liberation as the goal of their struggle.

The result of this was the growth of a theory that might be called liberation through accumulation. In short, we would secure our freedom by emulating the successful people of the capitalist society, thus demonstrating that we are just the same as them, except for the way we love; any political action would be subtle and address the legalities instead of realities of a situation.

However, this philosophy is ultimately self-defeating because it is egocentric and anti-democratic, and seeks to gain freedom from oppression by supporting a system that is inherently oppressive. It may be personally enhancing, but it is in no way liberating, because it doesn't address society's negative views toward homosexuality: instead, it creates a token acceptance based upon material accumulation.

http://www.sp-usa.org/queer/queercom.html

[pinto]

8. Good point. Thanks. I'm not adverse to socialist constructs, I've just

always viewed them in economic terms, ie, an equitable allegation of taxation revenues. I've always seen socialism as an engine of the state to allocate resources across the social spectrum, to the broadest benefit. Other than that, I don't think the state can "enforce" "mandate" or "make" social equality happen outside of specific legislation, ie, hate crime laws, rights to marriage, protection in the workplace, etc. That's what they're supposed to do...for all of us. Equally.

We may be talking parallel arguments, but I just don't expect a political entity to make my sexuality - in and of itself - an issue. Nor do I require it.

We expect the state to be a certain arbiter of equality. And that equality has an element of "blindness" if it is to be real. So, my opportunity, say, to marry my boyfriend, is as possible as my sister's opportunity to marry hers. The deciding factor ought to be legal age, and nothing else. That's my standard.

Does that make any sense? I kind of stumbled around it all...

[tatertop]

4. Please summarize your point