I’ve seen and read fictional accounts of people who are bigoted against homosexuals, but turn out to be repressed homosexuals themselves.
Are there actual cases of this, or is it just a clever (but over-used) plot twist used in books and movies?
I wasn’t sure whether to put this in Gen Questions or Great Debates. I suppose it can be answered as a straight-forward question, like “yes, my uncle was like that”, so I decided on General Questions. Of course, I could see this turning into a debate that can be moved to GD at the moderator’s discretion.
Although it’s somewhat heretical to knock him in any way, I put Mel White foursquare in this category. White was a former speech-and ghost-writer for a number of prominent figures of the radical religious right, including Falwell and Robertson. I would also put Roy Cohn, conservative fundraiser Terry Dolan, former Maryland Congressman Robert Bauman and most of the gay Republicans I’ve ever heard speak publicly there. Well, maybe it’s not fair to include gay Republicans as homophobic; perhaps delusional would be more accurate.
:::sigh::: To be fair I shouldn’t leave the impression about Mel White that I have. He has come out and is, I believe, currently the “Minister of Justice” of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. He recently started an organization called SoulForce to counter some of the egregious statements and actions of the radical right. I still don’t like him regardless of how many “good deeds” he may have done recently, and I am heartily sick of the beatification by acclimation he’s gotten from large segments of the gay communities.
I have known at least two people who were like that. Both ended up coming out of the closet, and they seem much happier. I don’t think the behaviour you describe is particularly hard to understand.
People often lash out against the things that are most threatening to their sense of self. If you were gay, but did not want to be (and especially did not want to be viewed that way), wouldn’t you be likely to join in with all the other gay bashers to avoid suspicion?
It’s a form of self-abuse, really. Lash out at your own inner self by lashing out at those most like you.
I don’t know how valid this study is, but I once, uh, read about some researchers hooking up a bunch of men to a penis-girth-o-meter and showing gay pornos, and apparently most of those who were homophobic were aroused.
I did a web search and all I could find was a brief mention in the Skeptic’s Dictionary. Does anyone have any other sources I can look at?
Yeah, but it can be taken too far, and I think it has been taken too far by much of the homosexual community. It’s become such a stereotype these days.
“Oh, look. John Doe has a moral problem with (homosexuals/homosexual behavior/the homosexual rights political movement–take your pick), he must be repressed and in the closet.”
Just look at American Beauty. Certainly a quality film, but who didn’t see the revelation coming about the hardcore Marine father? It was obvious to me almost from the get-go. The second Hollywood starts to portray a character like this, you can almost bet it’s because he’s in the closet.
The truth is, people can (and do) disagree about various aspects of this issue, from polite political, moral, and biological debate to the hatemongers. Do we have to accept the hatemongers? No. But painting all or most of those who disagree with the conventional PC wisdom as closet gays, and calling them a “homophobe” just because they disagree with you, is no less a knee-jerk reaction than calling someone a fag because you don’t think he looks masculine enough.
GQ magazine had a short news story a few years ago about some university research in the U.S.A. somewhere. I don’t remember much about it but I do remember that I was impressed by the male sample studied. Being several hundred male students I figured the results might have significance. Anyway, there was a very clear correlation found between the degree of homophobia in male university students and the likelihood of future homosexual activity. The results clearly indicated that homophobes were more likely to be homosexually active.
I don’t trust much that I read in magazines but GQ has always been slightly cerebral and seems to have some traces of integrity.
If anyone is really interested in this research they could find the last five year’s issues of GQ in a library somewhere and track down this story.
You’re looking for an actual case? I’m surprised no one has brought up one of the most famous–J. Edgar Hoover.
I don’t have a problem with his preference. I have a major problem with how he persecuted others who shared his preference.
I don’t think your examples are as good as you claim. I recall reading an article about Robert Bauman, and he claims that he never spoke himself about homosexuality. He admits that he did a lot of smiling and applauding while other people condemned homosexuality, but he carefully avoided ever mentioning it himself. This still makes him a hypocrite, but he wasn’t going out of his way to be a hypocrite. I wonder if that’s true of the other people you list also. Did Roy Cohn ever himself condemn homosexuality, or did he just keep quiet while other people did? Did Terry Dolan himself condemn homosexuality, or did he just help other people who did?
The question was whether there were any homophobes who were repressed homosexuals. I stand by my inclusion of Bauman on that list. He was a staunch supporter of the Moral majority. He was a founding member of the American Conservative Union. I don’t have his voting record in front of me but I’m willing to bet he voted against the gay civil rights bills which were introduced during his tenure. Whether he himself ever spoke aloud on the topic of homosexuality strikes me as irrelevant. He spoke with his actions and his votes.
Homosexuals were purged during the McCarthy hearings, in which Roy Cohn was an enthusiastic participant.
What’s the difference? Silence in the face of oppression is collusion with opporession.
> What’s the difference? Silence in the face
> of oppression is collusion with
> opporession.
Consider the following scenario: A Jewish man is living in Germany just before the various acts suppressing Jews begin in the '30’s. He has moved far from where he was born and has no close living relatives anyway. His name isn’t particularly Jewish . Somehow, he is missed in the crackdown on Jews, and he plays along with the pretense that he is of Christian background. Throughout the next decade or so, he never does anything particular to encourage anti-Semitism, but he says nothing when he hears anti-Semitic remarks and goes about his business. He manages to maintain his pretense of not being Jewish throughout World War II and survives.
Would you call this man an anti-Semite? I wouldn’t. He is a coward and a hypocrite, but he’s not a anti-Semite. Similarly, if a homosexual rose in conservative politics (most of which he really believed in) by standing by and saying nothing when other conservatives attacked homosexuality, I would call that man a coward and a hypocrite but not a homophobe. (If he went out of his way to attack homosexuality, then I would call him a homophobe.)
You’re going to say, “Yes, but the Jewish man in Germany was just trying to save his life.” True, but the homosexual in conservative politics just was trying to save his political career. He truly believed in most conservative doctrine. (Incidentally, I’m certainly not a conservative. I’m just willing to say that people who I disagree with can be sincere even if they’re wrong.)