[sub](NOTE: my aim here is not to offend. The word “culture” is the closest word I can think of to express the salient concept behind this question.)[/sub]
How far back can open acceptance of homosexual culture in San Francisco be traced? What are the origins of this acceptance? Was there a developed, above-ground culture of homosexuality in the Bay Area, say, 100 years ago? 75 years ago? 50?
Why might it have happened in San Francisco, but not in, say, Denver or Atlanta or Milwaukee? What factors were at work?
My initial thought was that San Fransisco’s status as a port city may have been a factor. Other American port cities such as New Orleans and New York seem to also be open to homosexual culture.
I have no idea if this is true, but years ago, “Mother Jones” magazine did a cover story on this very issue, and their theory (take it with a grain of salt) was that the U.S. military was largely (though unwittingly) responsible for turning San Francisco into Gay City, USA.
They said that, over the years, whenever a U.S. Navy sailor or other serviceman in the Pacific was “outed,” he was shipped back to San Francisco, where he was given his dishonorable discharge. According the the “Mother Jones” thesis, these ex-servicemen often chose to stay where they were, rather than return home in disgrace.
I am going to point you in the direction of a reference book: Gay by the Bay, by Susan Stryker et. al. It’s a history of homosexuality in the San Francisco area, and should answer all your questions and more.
I would like to summarize the key points for you, but unfortunately I seem to be unable to locate the book at the present time. Maybe we should have unpacked sometime in the last three months…
FWIW, I would think it’s just the city’s historically generally liberal attitudes (since the 1930’s) towards just about everything. This would be despite or in spite of the official attitudes of the powers that were at the time.
AFAIK, SF still had gay hangouts as late as the 1950’s and 60’s that were subject to frequent police raids on “moral charges”. I remember my dad telling me that Union Square was called “cannibal island” (by straights) becuase it was a gay meeting place, and that he thought it was awful that the cops couldn’t get rid of the “queers” despite the cops sending detectives there al the time. IIRC, it was in the late 70’s or early 80’s that the SF cops raided “Peg’s Place” just because it was a Lesbian bar.
I think it’s partly to do with California’s generally more open attitude (dating from the gold-rush frontier days) and partly because SF is such a beautiful highly cultured city. Aesthetics seem to be far more important to homosexuals than most other people, I don’t think this is just a stereotype. Homosexuals aggregate to seek partners because they are such a small minority overall and they have apparently always flocked to cities. There is a very interesting late medieval text on the situation of residual Algebrisian (sp?) heresy in the south of France which mentions this. Certainly the other cities you cite don’t compare in aesthetic appeal and you tend to find more per capita homosexuals in cities like New Orleans, New York et. than cities which have merely economic incentives to recommend them. The greater acceptance is probably at least as much a function of the greater number of homosexuals as of the original tolerance of the city. Homosexuals are very active in cultural life and this has great influence.
From a combination of intelligent draft picks, smart trades and picking up quality free agents over the years, plus a first rate farm system for developing young players.
Of course salary caps could undermine years of development.
FWIW here in the Midwest I’ve noticed that the old river ports, both large, like St. Louis, and small, like Paducah, tend to have a more thriving (although often deeply closeted) gay culture than non-river cities of the same size. Something strikes me about places that have a comparatively large number of transient men in town on a regular basis, but I really haven’t formulated a hypothesis.
• San Francisco is a port city. Port cities (New York, New Orleans), with their large populations of transient males, tend to have a larger population of homosexuals.
• San Francisco was the major embarkation port for millions of U.S. troops heading to the Pacific Theater in World War II, and likewise the port of disembarkation after the war was over.
• San Francisco is part of the Western U.S., and like much of the West, it has ignored conventional Eastern ideas of morality. The first white settlers of New England were Puritan Separatists. The first English-speaking settlers of California, and in particular San Francisco, were fortune hunters.
Actually, Atlanta has a fairly large visible gay population - at least by Bible Belt standards. It’d be hard to open a gay bar anywhere in Georgia 10 miles outside of I-285, but the Atlanta gay community is pretty visible. I suppose a gay community would do better in large cities, simply because being a small percentage of the population it would be harder to find dates in a smaller population. It’s sometimes hard enough for single straight guys to find dates in small town Georgia… :rolleyes:
the infamous raid on Peg’s Place (1980?) was by a bunch of drunk rookies, not an planned operation.
Nevertheless, the SFPD’s handling of the case was an excercise in trying not to inflame larger (liberal) community, while still keeping the backing of the old money crowd (who elected Dan White).
The SFPD looked stupid AND bigoted - elections followed, and things eventually got better.
Comment on post by Walloon:
“The first white settlers of New England were Puritan Separatists. The first English-speaking settlers of California, and in particular San Francisco, were fortune hunters.”
Yes, I also have frequently heard that CA is different in this regard in that it was not settled by relatively homogenous boatlaads of people (Puritans, Cavaliers, Hugenots, Catholics, whatever) but rather by people arriving more as individuals and having to form new communities, learning to get along with the differences in the process.
MsWhatsIt, thanks for the reference. Is Gay by the Bay available in wide distribution so that I might find it in a library or bookstore?
partly_warmer – “important” in the sense of “renowned, recognized, well-known”.
Walloon – point taken about the Western U.S. But why is San Francisco so well-recognized for it’s homosexual community, while Seattle, Las Vegas, and even Los Angeles aren’t? And what of conservative Texas?
MadScientistMatt – I’m sure just about all cities and towns in the U.S. have SOME king of homosexual community. But there seems to be political influence and social acceptance that the homosexual community enjoys in San Francisco that homosexual communities in most other U.S. cities do not. So, whence the differences? And how long have these differences been in place?
I thought someone would see L.A. as a bad example.
I am aware that L.A. has a significant homosexual subculture. I am not sure if they are as collectively “powerful” as their peers in San Francisco, but it seems reasonable to assume they are close.
Originally posted by bordelond
Walloon – point taken about the Western U.S. But why is San Francisco so well-recognized for it’s homosexual community, while Seattle, Las Vegas, and even Los Angeles aren’t? And what of conservative Texas?
…’‘Other cities on the creativity index are more surprising.
Texas is not a state generally thought of as a bastion of
tolerance or technological innovation. But three Texas
cities - Austin, Dallas and Houston - rank among the list’s
top 10. (New York City placed a respectable ninth.)’’…
…’‘Austin is a growth miracle.It has a great university and has long been a lifestyle mecca for gays and bohemians’’…
