Fevered Homophobia Finally Counterpunched - gaycitynews.com | gaycitynews.com Fevered Homophobia Finally Counterpunched - gaycitynews.com | gaycitynews.com

Fevered Homophobia Finally Counterpunched

The Penguin Classics edition of “On Being Different” includes a foreword by Dan Savage and an afterword by Charles Kaiser.

BY TIM TEEMAN  | It was a little-known but significant brushfire in modern gay rights history, its protagonists Joseph Epstein and Merle Miller cleanly delineated into baddie and goodie, homophobe and hero, the hero now accorded the laurel of his words published as a Penguin Classic with book-ending praise by author-activist Dan Savage and author-historian Charles Kaiser. But coming to Epstein and Miller fresh, the bad guy emerges as the more fascinating — not least because he’s still alive with a large question mark over how repentant, or not, he is.

In 1970, Epstein wrote a pugnacious but pained denunciation of homosexuality, “Homo/ Hetero: The Struggle For Sexual Identity,” in Harper’s magazine, in which he described gays, or “homosexuals” in the parlance of the day, as “cursed… and I am afraid I mean this quite literally, in the medieval sense of having been struck by an unexplained injury, an extreme piece of evil luck…”

The most “terrifying” of Epstein’s statements for Miller was: “If I had the power to do so, I would wish homosexuality off the face of this earth. I would do so because I think that it brings infinitely more pain than pleasure to those who are forced to live with it; because I think there is no resolution for this pain in our lifetime, only, for the overwhelming majority of homosexuals, more pain and various degrees of exacerbating adjustment; and because, wholly selfishly, I find myself completely incapable of coming to terms with it.”

For Miller, who died in 1986, that statement embodied “genocide, with a humanizing afterthought. Would it not be as human to wish all blacks off the face of the earth because of the pain?… All Jews?”

Harper’s was supposedly a liberal magazine and Epstein a liberal (or repeatedly claimed to be in his article). When a friend tried to justify Epstein’s vicious diatribe, Miller interrupted him: “Look, goddamn it, I’m homosexual, and most of my friends are Jewish homosexuals, and some of my best friends are black homosexuals, and I am sick and tired of reading and hearing such goddamn demeaning, degrading bullshit about me and my friends.”

When the New York Times Magazine published Miller’s response, “What It Means to be a Homosexual,” in January 1971, Kaiser recalls: “Nothing like this had ever been printed in a newspaper like the Times before.”

It may have been almost two years after the Stonewall Riots, with gay activism in tactical transition from the quiet doggedness of the Mattachine Society to the bracing fire of the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), but this was still a time when 63 per cent of the population believed “homosexuals were harmful to American society.” Miller wrote the article “against the advice of every friend I had or have, homosexual and straight”.

A brilliant mix of reportage and personal testimony, it encompasses Miller’s youth in Marshalltown, Iowa, sexual discovery with the young itinerants who rode the trains, through to his attempts to closet himself, then embracing his sexual identity and observing the radicals of the GAA, sitting in at Harper’s magazine to protest the Epstein piece and confronting politicians, demanding equal rights.

Miller dispatches every anti-gay prejudice of the time, most notably around questionable psychiatric diagnoses and the insidious conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia. He writes he would have preferred to have been born straight, though this seems less self-hating and more an understandable gasp of his generation, and he writes afterwards: “But then, would I rather not have been me? Oh I think not…”

He forecast that discriminatory laws would fall first, “private acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality will take longer.” Now, public opinion far outpaces faltering legal and political advances; indeed, it is leading change. Today, the “demeaning, degrading bullshit” Miller was responding to is less frequently seen, and more vigorously countered when it is.

After it was published, Miller was too nervous to go to the store, but when he did was congratulated. Strangers thanked him. He is rightly the hero, but Epstein’s juicy, transfixing, and — please don’t throw vegetables — wonderfully written essay deserves a full, fair reading; the Penguin edition would have profited from its inclusion. His anger seems rooted in first being approached by older men in Chicago (“I was sixteen but looked more like twelve”). He is offended when an army buddy doesn’t reveal his homosexuality, seeing this as duplicity rather than a result of fear. He agonizes, analyzes, questions; his 17-year-old stepson reveals straight teens see gay experimentation as “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

Epstein is characterized as an undiluted homophobe; he isn’t. Anti-gay laws are “barbarous, not to say illogical: when committed by consenting adults, homosexuality is a crime without a victim, and for this reason alone the onus of criminality should surely be lifted.” He acknowledges that “fag” and “queer,” which he uses, are “in intent every bit as vicious as ‘kike’ or ‘nigger.’” He spends a revealing evening with Elliot, “the hairdresser of a lady friend of mine,” who asks “what I felt about homosexuality for myself. I told him, sexually, it repelled me.” That repulsion fuels his prejudice and so many others’; his essay is an anguished, tortured confessional, a delirious distillation of how homophobia blooms.

Epstein is like a drunk, lurching from benign stupor to flailing rage. By the last Grand Guignol paragraphs, he rails at himself: “Why can’t I come to terms with it? Is it fear of the latent homosexuality in myself… Do I secretly envy homosexuals…? (apparently because we have no responsibilities). At the end, a hailstorm of frogs is raining down: “Cursed without clear cause, afflicted without apparent cure, they are an affront to our rationality…”

And for his finale? “Nothing” his four sons could do “would make me sadder than if any of them were to become homosexual. For then I should know them condemned to a state of permanent niggerdom among men, their lives, whatever adjustment they might make to their condition, to be lived out as part of the pain of the earth.” One almost wishes at least one had turned out gay, if only to challenge his father to live down the sheer awfulness of those words.

Epstein, now 75, is a contributing editor at the conservative Weekly Standard and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. He was “unavailable for comment” when I tried to speak to him, so I sent three questions by email. Did he stand by his original piece, or regret it or any aspect of it in hindsight? Had his views changed or evolved over the years? And would he write about the subject again, now that Penguin is republishing Miller’s landmark essay? No answer.

Strange the columnist who’s lost for words, unless perhaps he realizes some of his most famous words now have an indefensible, rank stink about them. Buy Miller’s book to be moved, but keep an eye out for Epstein. He must be itching to return to this fray, if only to stop his nemesis from acing him so resoundingly from beyond the grave.

ON BEING DIFFERENT: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL | By Merle Miller | Penguin Classics | $13 | 96 pages

Dan Savage, who wrote the foreword to this Penguin edition, Charles Kaiser, who wrote the afterword, and Victor Navasky, publisher of the Nation magazine, appear at Barnes & Noble, 2289 Broadway at 82nd Street, on October 10 at 7 p.m. The store’s phone number is 212-362-8835.

Tim Teeman is US correspondent of The Times of London.

 

8 Responses to Fevered Homophobia Finally Counterpunched

  1. Perry Brass October 13, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Tim Teeman left out some interesting facts about the notorious (I'm using that word rather than use "disgusting," or "revolting") Joseph Epstein piece in Harper's, 1) Harper's at the time was edited by Midge Decter, the wife of Norman Podhoretz—they can be called the "first couple of neo-Conservatism" and both are
    dyed-in-the wool homophobes—among other attributes I won't print here. 2) GAA pulled off a Zap against Harper's and "Midge" herself for publishing this piece. 3) The piece ends by Epstein saying that he'd rather see his sons dead than queer. Epstein went on to a distinguished, rewarded career as the editor of The American Scholar, the magazine of Phi Beta Kappa, and is still considered one of the most powerful and respected people in American letters, which goes to show you exactly where academia and "high art" still are in America. 4) The piece had horrible effects on a generation of American gay men and young people, especially thousands of students who read Harper's as a "liberal" magazine. It was remembered for decades, and still pops up in conversations among men of a certain age who were absolutely shocked by it when it first came out. The best thing was that Decter and Podhoretz always clung to their First Amendment rights to defend the piece, yet Harper's under them (and it was very much under their control) would never have printed any kind of rebuttal. They did want homosexuals wiped off the face of the earth. I still loathe Epstein for writing this, but Decter and Podhoretz are even lower, and remained that way. They both went on to very high esteem in the Reagan White House, and still stand at the pinnacle of conservative intellectualism (which, believe it or not, does exist). Perry Brass, author of King of Angels, A Novel About the Genesis of Identity and Belief.

    Reply
  2. Claude April 26, 2013 at 1:33 am

    The judgment that Epstein's essay is "wonderfully written" is absurd. It is fascinating in the way an open wound is fascinating. It is revealing of the ugliness that is Epstein's psyche. It is interesting in that it reveals the festering homophobia of a supposedly cultivated man in the way the anti-Semitism of cultured Germans of the 1930s is interesting. But, no, the essay is not "wonderfully written." It is a piece of trash that no respectable editor even in 1971 should have published. Epstein is a sad and pathetic little man who has been given a "pass" for his homophobia far too long.

    Reply
  3. Stuart Baanstra April 26, 2013 at 6:12 am

    Rather than "terrifying", I find Epstein's work challenging. It has a raw truth about it, probably due to its reflection on biblical sentiment about homosexuality, particularly a jewish one. It's not so much a "baddie" versus a "goodie", but an academist, albeit a religious one, versus a visionary. Whether "cursed", "an extreme piece of evil luck…", or "wish[ing] homosexuality off the face of this earth", Epstein is clearly relating modern-day homosexuality to its roots in religious text. Even, looking back, if "63% of the population believed 'homosexuals were harmful to American society'", how does that really differ today when the vast majority of the population continue to identify as straight?

    Miller, in contrast, "confronting politicians, demanding equal rights", confers a somewhat distorted expression of equality if the modern-day fight for gay marriage is espoused as the litmus test for homosexuality's acceptance. Acceptance it is not, if the queer lobbyists trade off gay people marrying in exchange for a clause in anti-discrimination law, albeit it somewhat obscure, that allows religious organisations to continue to say that homosexuality is immoral. Nowhere is that clearer than Miller dispatching "anti-gay prejudice" conflating "homosexuality with pedophilia", when the bible doesn't actually mention anything about age restrictions on sex, whether gay or straight. It seems we're busy removing the "demons" surrounding homosexuality, rather than challenging a majority population that says its straight whilst, at the same time, failing to acknowledge that ancient texts describing homosexuality as an abomination are a principle factor determining human sexuality.

    In other words, it's not so much Epstein who is "drunk", but society.

    Reply
  4. Jay May 12, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Stuart Baanstra: it is not gay activists who "allow" religious organizations to continue to say that homosexuality is immoral. It is the Constitution of hte United States.

    As far as Epstein's ugly little essay, I agree with Brass and Claude above. It is not "wonderfully written." It is ugly and loathsome and Epstein is a pathetic little creature who practiced homophobia quite openly all during his far too long career as editor of American Scholar. He boasted that the word "gay" never appeared in the journal during his 24-year-tenure.

    Reply
  5. Stuart Baanstra May 12, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    Jay, I find your comments on Epstein more one of personal attack than addressing the issues. As for saying "it is not gay activists who 'allow' religious organisations to continue to say that homosexuality is immoral", they [gay activists] allow the First Amendment to stand when signing off on gay marriage. They could always refuse.

    Reply
  6. Jay May 31, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    Stuart Baanstra, when you succeed in rewriting the Constitution to prohibit the free exercise of religion and speech, then get back to me. Meanwhile, instead of criticizing gay activists, you would be better occupied criticizing homophobes.

    Reply
    • Stuart Baanstra June 1, 2013 at 2:21 am

      How's this for "gay activist", Jay? Try Ken Davies, an Australian gay activist who helped organise the first Sydney gay Mardi Gras. Ken believes in being open about his sexuality. Yeah, so open he boasts that all his lovers are married heterosexual men. Now if Ken's not being homophobic, I don't know what is!

      Not to mention Merle Miller, who didn't come out until he was in his fifties. Seems he didn't like Joseph Epstein because he just told it how it is.

      Reply
  7. Jay June 1, 2013 at 9:57 am

    Stuart Baanstra, so here you are defending a pathetic little man who thought homosexuals were cursed and should be wiped off the earth. Do you also defend Goebbels? I head a lot of his friends thought he was nice. He also thought a group of people were cursed and should be wiped off the earth. Nice company you keep.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two + four =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>