The New Old Gay???
I'm sorry, but did I miss a memo? When did the gays stop loving show tunes and the lot? The "old gay" never really went away, did it? True, some urban centers have been experiencing "new gay" movements, but just because those new gays "get all the attention(?)" doesn't mean that the traditional mainstream gay culture just gave up and went home. It has been there all along.
I've been to a few piano bars in NYC, none of them recently. Their presence isn't a recent thing. And neither is their attendance by young gays either. Martuni's piano/martini bar in San Francisco (pictured) has been around for ages, and gays and straights of all ages continue to enjoy a night of camping it up with stiff drinks and musical theatre. So what's so compelling about this Observer article?
In a word: nothing.
There are a few quotes from the article that got me thinking:
"These days, the young gays of Williamsburg and the East Village—the ones who wear pointy shoes and tight cutoff shorts, who studied queer theory and dabbled in heroin at Sarah Lawrence or Bard or Wesleyan, hang out at bars like Metropolitan and Sugarland in Williamsburg or the Phoenix and Eastern Bloc in the East Village, and listen to Chromeo and Girl Talk and Le Tigre—get all the attention."
The gay Le Tigre fans are getting all the attention? From whom? Maybe it's a NYC gay press phenomenon, but the DC alternative queer scene isn't getting much face-time from the DC media, gay or straight. Plus, I'm really glad to know that I did heroin in college. Thanks, gentle author.
"If gays can be married and have children and live contentedly in the suburbs, or on the other end of the spectrum, do the same drugs at the same loft parties as their Oberlin classmates, and if everyone thinks AIDS is no more serious than diabetes, then, really, what’s the difference between the gays and the straights? By dialing back to and reinventing the old gay stereotypes, they may have the best shot at reclaiming gayness as something actually different."
Reclaiming gayness as something actually different? I really don't get the point of this. If you want to be different, be YOURSELF. People clinging on to old stereotypes because they want to be different are obviously not being very creative about it. If the only thing unique about you is that you're gay, you need to read a few books and develop a personality, Try striving for a unique identity. Try self-discovery. That's how you be "different." The difference between the gays and the straights is who we make out with, have sex with, not how many lyrics to Broadway shows we have memorized.
This article is nothing but a bunch of stereotypes layered with conflicting stereotypes. As we've said before, The New Gay isn't a prescriptive ideology, but an effort to get queers to think for themselves, express their individuality and live authentic, meaningful, self-reflective lives. We're aware that this might not be for everyone, which is why we're glad the "old gay" culture is still here, and honestly never left.
3 comments:
I read this Observer piece as well but the part that particularly outraged me was the false dichotomy the author sets up between her version of "old" and "new" gay. In her mind [and I am curious about your perspective Michael] there is a rigid line between showtunes-loving/camp-appreciating and Le Tigre-listening/self discovery-minded.
I consider myself to be of a more "new gay" mentality (as you describe "authentic, meaningful and self-reflective") yet still enjoy a number of classic ("old") gay cultural touchstones. There seems to be no contradiction there to me.
The difference between old gay and new gay isn't about clothes and bars and music but rather conformity versus individuality and, frankly, shame versus confidence.
What gay, new or old, wouldn't want to consider themselves authentic, meaningful and self-reflective?
I actually think all the events that are set up by TNG are fun and interesting, but I just don't like the understated assumption that TNGs are different (re: better) than TOGs. It doesn't strike me as too different from the reasoning that SAGs use.
There are just as many 'Am I wearing the right look?', conforming people that listen to The Ting Tings as there are that listen to Madonna (bless her heart). It's just people trying to let others know that they're special and unique (dammit).
It's all in good fun, I just don't want to see the same social divide that most gays go through anyway when they come out of the closet recreated all over again.
It seriously underestimates the lives of gays in decades past to think that they were all ashamed and conformist. (I don't think that's what you mean, michael, but it sounds a bit that way. Probably just the phrasing and the difficulty in the shades and meanings of these concepts.) Part of what we now view as conformity was a necessary accommodation in order to live the meaningful life that we all strive for. Shame and conformity are two parts of the equation of pre-Stonewall gay life (to pick an arbitrary, but popular, cut-off date), but they are overemphasized: part of the Mythology of the Pre-Liberation Gay.
I also think use of the "old gay" and "new gay" terms is confusing because it mixes in with stereotypes about older and younger gay men. I identify more frequently on a personal level with the ideas and attitudes of gay men older than myself; does this mean that I do not qualify under the label "new gay"? I've never identified with the term, but I write for the site: what does this mean?
In short: why labels (and thereby the article that Michael wrote about) are reductive and infuriating.
Post a Comment