Title: Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power
Author: Signorile, Michelangelo
Length: 408 pages
Genre: Non-Fiction, GLBTQ Rights, Sociology
Publisher / Year: Anchor Books Doubleday / 1994
Original Publisher / Year: Random House 1993
Source: The Strand
Rating: 5/5
Why I Read It: It looked interesting.
Date Read: 28/06/10
Rae who blogs at In The Forest is hosting a LGBT week from June 25th through to July 4th and I wanted to get in on the action. I thought I would read this book which I picked up at The Strand in New York and put my review up this week. Go check out Rae’s introduction post – she is reviewing some great books and hosting a number of great giveaways through the event.
Signorile starts by identifying the three areas where cultural and political power are centered and pressure is exerted to keep homosexuals in the closet. These three places are New York (media), Washington, D.C. (government), and Hollywood (entertainment / movies).
The first section relating to the media was the one which I found most interesting. In it Signorile talks a lot about his experiences growing up, which really shapes the rest of the book. In discussing the media and how it keeps people in the closet. He talks about how the silence on homosexuality hurts other homosexuals because they feel isolated and alone. Imagine knowing that your favorite stars, reporters, politicians, or others were gay / lesbian / bi / queer – for a young person struggling with their own sexuality that would make it seem a lot more acceptable and make their lives a lot easier. The silence around the issue makes people feel like they are alone, and makes it easier for groups like the Religious Right to demonize them.
It seemed to me that the American media didn’t report about the lives of famous queers because they saw homosexuality as the most disgusting thing imaginable – worse than extramarital affairs, abortions, boozing, divorces, of out-of-wedlock babies, all of which are fodder for the press. Homosexuality frightened straight editors and reporters because it forced them to realize just how many of us there are. The so-called journalistic ethics that they adduced against outing, I realized, were dreamed up a long time ago by straight white men to protect the world of straight white men. (pg 75-6)
Signorile also talks about the term outing itself. He talks about the history of outing and the controversy surrounding it. He makes a really great point, that really stuck out to me, on pages 77-8 when he says:
For me, the problems start with the word “outing” itself. It was Time, after all, that came up with the term, using it to condemn something they felt was wrong. And it is certainly a word that evokes violence – like “wilding”. I think the action should simply have been called “reporting”. We don’t have a special word for any other action that deals with revelation of truth, from describing a politician’s extramarital affair to writing about a Hollywood star’s latest love interest. So why should there be a specific term for this?
And isn’t that so true. “Outing” is not doing anything wrong. It is simply equalizing the reporting on homosexuality with that on heterosexuality. Talking about being homosexual in print or on television is not “delving into personal details” any more than it is to discuss the latest heterosexual love interest of any particular public figure. Another comment that Signorile makes is “How can being gay be private when being straight isn’t” (page 80).
Part 2 discusses power and sex specifically as it relates to politicians and gays in government. He discusses how closeted gay politicians often vote more anti-gay because they don’t want to be found out, and that these people have to be held accountable.
Part 3 discusses homosexuality in Hollywood and the lack of homosexual couples in movies and on television. Things are obviously improving since when this book was published in 1993, but we still have a long way to go. Studies quoted say that around 10% of the population is queer… so why aren’t 10% of characters, even just background characters, portrayed as anything other than heterosexual? And why are homosexual characters portrayed stereotypically or as evil?
One great quote that I can’t not include is from page 306 when discussion censorship. Signorile says:
Perhaps, as some liberals and civil libertarians would say, more speech is the best speech, and we have all become much too “sensitive.” Perhaps it is better to hear the extremes of all sides on a debate than no sides. This rationale, however, is utopian. It assumes that “more speech” also means that all sides are represented in the debate. Unfortunately, in this society – a capitalist one – that is not the case. “More speech” all too often means more hate speech, which, it seems, can always be mass-marketed and exploited.
The reason that hate speech is more marketable? The fact that so many homosexuals are still in the closet make the community seem smaller. Especially with so many of those in powerful positions staying in the closet making it more difficult for others to come out. As the author says on page 282:
And it is the industry that refuses to portray the reality of queer life and continues to demonize us, thus helping to keep homophobia firmly entrenched – which keeps power brokers from coming out, which keeps everyone else in the business from coming out, which keeps the actors from coming out, which keeps America ignorant of the many lesbian and gay lives of their favorite actors, which keeps homophobia so entrenched in larger society that Hollywood power brokers are afraid to make films about queers.
Another thing that I felt was really relevant today was the discussion about homosexuals in the armed forces. Signorile talks about the publicity that they had around that issue when they outed Pete Williams, the spokesman for the Pentagon, and how that really showed that their rules were wrong. Unfortunately Bill Clinton didn’t end up changing the rules, he simply implemented the ‘Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell’ policy. Now that policy is being questioned. If you want information about how and why that policy was implemented, this book has a lot of information on the subject.
In closing, when talking about many of the legislative battles being fought around the country for gay rights the author says, on page 341:
The desire to be “discreet” and unagressive is a product of the closet. As a tactic, it simply doesn’t work, because homophobes aren’t closeted.
But you know what, I think the world would be a much better place if we could closet the homophobes rather than the homosexuals. Just saying.
