MILITANCE & SEXUAL ORIENTATION:
NO MORE DOUBLE STANDARDS!!

"If they'd just be less militant, we'd be more tolerant" is a sentiment that has echoed through the ages whenever self-appointed elites have been confronted by subordinate groups challenging their right to privilege. It's a statement that's usually seen as quite enlightened by the speaker, but is exceedingly arrogant because it presumes that some individuals are born with specific rights, and that others may be granted some of those privileges, but only in return for "good behavior" (acknowledging their secondary status and the right of the elite to elevated rank, and by being sure to do nothing that makes the dominant group uncomfortable or angry). The latest incarnation of this philosophy can be heard on talk-radio shows in which same-sex marriage and the "militance" of those seeking full equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people is discussed.

But though "militant" has a standard definition ("vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause") decisions on what actions meet that criteria are subjective. So, since one of the most powerful weapons any dominant group can wield is control of language, it's no surprise the word (which implies something other than placid acceptance of the status quo) is used by them as a negative term, and applied to even the mildest protests of a subordinate minority, but is used to describe members of the favored group only under the most violent and extreme circumstances. For instance, in 1956, African-Americans demanding to ride in the front of the bus, or in 1960, to sit at whites-only lunch-counters, seemed "militant" to many Caucasians, despite few actions being as ordinary as riding a bus or eating lunch. But were the bigots who fought them also labeled "militants ?" Not unless they went so far as to use violence or the most incendiary rhetoric, in which case rabid segregationists and white supremacists could be publicly labeled as such.

The same process was repeated in regard to women's rights a few years later. Peaceful pickets and conventionally dressed marchers in parades were "militant women's libbers" for well over a decade, while those defending overt discrimination might be "traditionalists," "conservatives," or, at worst, "chauvinists," but never "militant males."

In the struggle against heterosexism, the pattern was identical. In the earliest days of the battle, even the most minor demands for an end to persecution were made by "militant homosexuals" while those who defended homophobia were never referred to as "militant heterosexuals," a phrase still totally unknown today.

But thanks to the persistence of activists and the inherent power of the idea of equality, many ideas and behaviors that were once considered "radical" in all three struggles slowly but surely became part of the "mainstream," and one prerogative after another was wrested from those with privilege.

If a "Stonewall" patron found themselves suddenly transported from the summer of 1969 to the summer of 2006, America at first glance would seem an unrecognizable place : Sodomy laws tossed out by the Supreme Court with a scathing rebuke, laws in 16 states protecting any employee from being fired due to their sexual orientation, 46 states allowing same-sex couples to adopt, two states allowing same-sex "Civil Unions," with "Domestic Partnerships" recognized by four more and D.C., 51% of "Fortune 500"

companies voluntarily extending health benefits to same-sex partners of employees, gay and lesbian characters no longer rare on TV (or all negative caricatures), 1/3 of Americans in general - but 53% of those under 30 - believing that ALL states should be like Massachusetts and recognize same sex marriage, and on an annual basis, huge parades in which "the love that dared not speak its name" is now shouted with exuberance, and as often as not, with big city mayors, Congresspeople, and even the occasional police chief riding along to lend moral support.

But once the culture shock had worn off and it became time to go about daily life, one thing would begin to seem depressingly familiar : Heterosexuality, in and of itself, still bestows many undeserved privileges and unearned rights on an entire class of people who, like all elites since time began, consider them a birthright.

But how many heterosexuals can be objectively described as "militant" ? In the case of popular Televangelists and other professional homophobes who spew fear, slander, and stereotyping as a rabble rousing fundraising device, it's an easy call. Easier still to label the ultra-militants : predatory, rogue psychologists whose "recruiting" techniques invariably involve welding self-revulsion and homosexuality together so that the only escape from this needless prison seems to be the fantasy of "conversion" to heterosexuality.

Since these extremists are such a tiny percentage of the heterosexual community, can't we assume "militance" is a very limited phenomenon ? No ! Our culture is so thoroughly saturated with heterosexism that most of it is invisible to those who benefit by it, and if the same standards of "militance" were used for heterosexuals as homosexuals, many people - even those who consider themselves supporters of equality - might be shocked. Though raw bigotry and the most insulting homophobic terms are now out of bounds for most people, and an encouraging number of progressives - especially the young - favor full equality, "don't ask, don't tell" seems to be the philosophy with the widest and deepest support in most parts of the country, with much of its popularity based on its seemingly harmless nature. But are the most enthusiastic proponents of keeping one's sexuality a private matter practicing what they preach ?

To see if this ideal is adhered to, let's do a simple exercise : Visit an ordinary office on an average working day. We're greeted at the door by someone who makes as garish and immediate a statement of their sexuality as possible by being sure to wear a wedding ring whose sparkle can easily flash across a large room with all the subtlety of a lighthouse beacon. So we not only know their orientation, but that they have a state sanctioned relationship with someone of the other sex. (Yes, I know many same-sex couples wear rings, but unless it's a ring that specifically denotes a same-sex partnership, with two male or two female symbols, etc., the usual assumption is that it's a heterosexual wedding ring or band, and that assumption is generally correct.)

Once the initial greetings are out of the way, we're taken on a tour of the office, where we note numerous photos on the desks which erase any doubt as to sexual orientation. Even the most "militant" poses (hugs and kisses) are not discouraged, as no one would give a second thought to their right to post a display of heterosexual affection. (And while we're at the desk, even in the 21st Century it might not be that unusual to see a nameplate for "Mrs. Smith.")

The bulletin board might have a notice or two of a bridal shower or an anniversary party, as both occasions, being celebrations of heterosexual love, are considered in universally good taste.

In the lunchroom, employees would be referring to their "wives" or "husbands," "girlfriends" or "boyfriends," (as opposed to "partners"), while unattached individuals would openly discuss details of their latest date with someone whose first name would instantly disclose their own sexual orientation.

Hardly a model for the "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy is it ? If someone were to greet a visitor at the door wearing a large ring with two male or two female symbols, have photos on their desk showing them in affectionate poses with a same-sex partner, or tell of their latest Saturday night exploit with someone of the same gender, wouldn't many Middle Americans see this as exactly the kind of "in-your-face militance" which sanctions a continuance of discrimination ? And with precisely 50% of all Americans still clinging to the belief that homosexual behavior is "morally wrong," this represents a very large group.

Of course, none of these acts are even remotely offensive or mildly "militant." All are normal, positive expressions of sexuality and as such should be encouraged. But they're no less normal and positive when done by non-heterosexuals. It's the endorsement - on any level - of the double standard that defines a "militant heterosexual." Now, when compared to the more aggravated forms of militancy, the kind of mild, everyday acts people unthinkingly do, and which reinforce the double standard of behavior

don't seem so damaging. But because the number of people who engage in them is so large, and they occur in so many places, they do comparable damage. (It's easy to dismiss or avoid viewing Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, not so simple to ignore a respected friend's or supervisor's raised eyebrow or not very well concealed discomfort at some minor violation of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.)

The fact is that from childhood on, every heterosexual is reassured and privileged in literally countless ways : From the grade- school valentines through the dances and proms, the automatic acceptance into any profession - even the military - and, of course, the assumption that once a life-partner is found, the state will be only too happy to give its official blessing along with several hundred specific rights which need not be fought for - or even thought about - until they're used.

Fortunately, there are many workplaces in America where the atmosphere is so gay-friendly and supportive that a single standard rules, and such places offer proof that equality is not the impossible dream that it would have seemed to our time-traveling visitor from 1969.

But in 34 states, our guest could still be fired on the spot for no other reason than revealing his or her sexual orientation, and even though that sort of outrageousness is exceedingly rare, with homophobia being closely associated with age, and seniority being so closely associated with power in a company, it means that anyone who is totally out of the closet may pay a price in terms of promotions or getting the best assignments. And that will remain the case until enough people of all orientations demand an end to such discrimination.

So perhaps what's needed as a good consciousness-raising exercise is an annual "Heterosexual Stay-In-The-Closet-Day." One day a year when for 24 hours sexuality is a closely guarded secret. Wedding rings are removed, desks are cleared of all hints of mixed-sex romantic relationships, spouses are "partners" and if a new acquaintance wonders about one's sexuality the only proper attitude or reply to a question is that "It's a totally private matter, and I won't discuss it with you." After just 24 hours of secrecy and evasion, there just might arise a twinge of frustration or anger. If so, that's good, because it means someone is feeling the inevitable results of a "benign" compromise with full equality. But it's also good that this exercise is only for a single day, because frustration and anger are not feelings which should become associated with healthy sexuality. So, the next day it's OK to go back to "normal," but with a new outlook : A realization that repressing sexual expression is a vicious and dangerous game. It's vicious because of the damage it does to the individuals involved, even in its modern "don't ask, don't tell" form. But it's also dangerous to pro-sexual people of ALL orientations, because homophobia only helps to reinforce the anti-sexual philosophy of the erotophobes. Once you say that sex is not a universally healthy, positive, life- affirming experience even when engaged in by freely consenting, responsible, unrelated adults, you've conceded some critical moral ground. Now instead of taking the offensive and demanding an objective reason for your opponent's condemnation of homosexuality as "immoral" you must now defend your own right to see pleasure and bonding as the primary reasons for sex, since archaic "sex-for-reproduction" religious dogma underlies opposition to homosexuality, non-marital and non-reproductive sex, and you've just validated one part of this belief system, so why not the rest ?

The fact is that equality is not "militant" or "radical." Double standards are both, and so the question of who is and who isn't a "militant" or "radical" heterosexual is easily answered by examining the gap between someone's own behavior and the standard they prescribe for others. Thirty seven years - just half an average lifetime - has brought about more progress toward eliminating heterosexism than has occurred in many previous centuries. But like any other malignancy, half, three-quarters, or even 99% of a cure is still insufficient, and leaves the original disease of prejudice with the opportunity to do more socially destructive work, or even come roaring back to life at its original strength. Recognizing how little bigotry needs to survive, and being determined to deny it any sanctuary at office, home, or social events requires starting with the most basic step : No double standards !!

AFeminist@aol.com Aug 20, 2006