In a conversation in comments, Basketcases went back and forth about how obvious Sal might be to his coworkers; how aware were people in 1962 that someone they knew might be gay?
I think the answer is that people recognized gays as a joke in movies, but most did not recognize the same thing in their own lives. “Those” people over there couldn’t possibly be a part of my world. When people report knowing a gay person, they are less likely to vote against civil liberties for gay people. (Hence the political value of coming out.) So, in a time when there were so few liberties for gays, we can assume most people didn’t realize they knew (or were) “one of them.”
But that’s not what I want to write about.
I had this thought that maybe being oblivious to gays around you is part of straight male privilege. People with less privilege in society have to be more sensitive to subtle clues. Gay men need gaydar, not because it gets them laid, but because it keeps them from getting outed, beaten up, or killed, if they make a pass at the wrong person. Straight men have the privilege of assuming everyone is straight and never risking their lives with that assumption.
To a certain extent, straight women have to have some gaydar. Not just because they are in a less-privileged position, but because society in 1960/62 (and today) tends to define a woman by her relationship status. So she has to choose wisely. Just as she has to be sensitive to small cues about whether or not a man is married (does he have a pale line where a ring would be? is he aware of domestic rituals that bachelors don’t know about? does he always phone from the office, never from home?), she is better off knowing the cues about whether a man is gay.
Photo courtesy of AMC
The whole thing about Pillow Talk is that Doris Day knows the gay cues. Stereotypical ones, sure: He likes recipes. He’s attached to his mother. But she knows them. Because knowing how to pick a man is a skill a woman needs.
In 1962 a man can make a play for a woman, get rejected, and move on to the next woman. He doesn’t need to know why, and he doesn’t need to pay attention to subtle cues that give him inside information. But a woman doesn’t have the same privilege. Peggy is upset about always picking the wrong boys because she’s supposed to be able to know these things. And knowing these things protects you: Against unwanted pregnancy and social shame. And she doesn’t have the privilege that straight men have, of picking and then shrugging her shoulders and moving on.
So I think that obliviousness is a sign of privilege; owning the world and expecting the world to behave accordingly. I don’t, in truth, know if this is my best theory ever, but it does sort of stick in my mind.
23 Responses to “Oblivious to the gay”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I'm not sure I understand your premise that straight males are privileged in the sense that there is little risk in relationship seeking.
I'm a straight male and I certainly don't have the privilege that everyone I pursue is available to me. I have been interested in women that were involved in a relationship and some that were gay -both unbeknownst to me at the time. It's always been a risky venture for everyone concerned.
I have a younger brother who's gay and he has similar risks. Yes, I will grant you that his safety is at a higher risk than mine, but he doesn't take any unnecessary chances in pursuing a mate any more than I do.
Discrimination is another matter. It's completely unfair that I have many privileges in other areas that he doesn't, e.g. civil rights, marriage, work, etc.
Like I said, maybe I didn't understand your premise.
You know, Deborah, that is a really good point — a great theory, actually, and one that has support. I've seen studies of "white privilege," and that "obliviousness" is usually mentioned as an indicator. Actually, I think it applies to all the "isms" we experience in society. If something doesn't apply to you, why bother yourself with the details of what it means to be that way. "Who cares? It's not my life" — it's the life of an other.
Bronco, all relationships carry risk, but as a straight male, the privilege of your social standing is not at risk by making a play for the wrong person. You don't lose privilege by making the mistake. Whereas a gay man? Different.
Maybe I am oblivious, but I still don't understand 'the privilege of [my] social standing is not at risk.' Maybe you have an example?
I asked my brother to read your post and he says he doesn't get it either. He said that he felt a bit insulted that he is supposed to have a different social standing or is somehow less privileged because he is gay.
Re: #2
I just watched this great documentary The Order of Myths (it's available at Netflix on demand) and it's one of the best examples of "white privilege"/ obliviousness I've ever seen. It's about the segregated Mardi Gras celebrations in Mobile, AL and all of the old money white people (the Dyckman-Campbells of the South) insist that things are separate because both communities want it that way and it's just tradition. Meanwhile you see that the only people of color at the white events are the waitstaff, and learn that the white Mardi Gras queen is descended from the owners of the slave ship that brought the black Mardi Gras queen (a teacher in the all- black public schools)'s ancestors to the U.S. – illegally I might add, he tried to sneak the slaves into the country in 1859 while the transatlantic trade had been made illegal in 1807.
Back to the original post- I think some straight men might have a form of gaydar (whether or not they identify it as such) in deciding whether or not a guy fits in. Awhile back I was in a discussion about how so much of maleness has to do with conformity to whatever the group standard is. Sal already has enough, uh, differentness- Italian, an artist, creative- to throw the others off, but I wonder if a more white bread guy like Ken behaved like Sal, if it might set off alarms.
The other gay guy in the office, Kurt is also different even before you get to his orientation and was in fact hired for that differentness- European, young, creative, weird dresser, etc.
@BroncoRoger:
I think Deborah was referring to men in 1962 with regard to their risks/social status. In 1962, white men knew that they could have anyone they wanted. If one woman rejected them, they could move to the next chair over and probably be accepted. Women wanted to get married back then. I think men could feel pretty assured that whomever they asked would say yes. Now? Not so much. Women have too many choices, and one of them is not to marry at all.
Thanks, hullaballoo. I was reading it as an observation about things as they existed then and today. I see that social mores were much different with respect to pursuing relationships in 1962. I still think there was a degree of difficulty for straight males then also. There were significant peer pressures and parental pressures that are not as much in play today. Overall, I don't think those social differences are as stark today.
BroncoRoger,
I think that another part of what D.Lipp is saying is that in 1962, a man hitting on a woman and getting turned down risked nothing more than ribbing from friends, while a man hitting on the wrong man in 1962 risked becoming a pariah — e.g., the reaction at S-C to Kurt announcing he was gay.
I should add that you still get cases like Matthew Shepard even now, but the perception that it would have been even more common in 1962 kept a lot of people closeted.
Speaking of obliviousness…
My mom worked in a department store in a big city pre Mad Men. She had gay co-workers. She also knew jazz musicians who used pot and heroin, another non-secret. (Mom got around, apparently). I’m not saying everybody at the time was as tuned in as Mom, but in a creative field like advertising, you’d have to be pretty oblivious to be oblivious.
Hullaballoo: You link doesn’t work.
Sorry. Try this one instead.
Karl,
Thanks for your explanation. I understand there were/are risks in relationship seeking in the gay community. I also understand homophobia existed back in ’62 as it does today. I had just never heard the characterization as ‘straight male privilege.’
Well, I think that in the 60s, there was less understanding of behavior where, in the case of Salvatore, because his (by today’s standards) overtly feminine demeanor was interpreted as dashing, debonair and other-wordly (beautifully set up by the switchboard operator who found him attractive) and since he had a wife, there was no reason to think of him any other way.
I think the scene, where Salvatore’s wife breaks down and weeps at her husband’s indifference to her is one of the highlights of the series so far. It’s penetrating on many levels, partly because the wife is suspecting his distance but cannot identify it yet. Very powerful.
Bronco, “privilege” is a concept discussed a lot in political discourse. A seminal essay about white privilege can be found here: http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
And here’s one about straight privilege: http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm
Your brother, as a gay man, has less social privilege than you as a straight man. He is faced with prejudice, is considered “lesser” by some people, lacks the right to marry, can legally be discriminated against in some places and circumstances, and has to make a conscious decision about whether or not to allow others to know his orientation. Lacking social privilege doesn’t make him lesser in my eyes, it’s a reality of our culture.
We could equally talk about male privilege, white privilege, Christian privilege, able-bodied privilege, etc.
This is fucking stupid. “Privelage”? White males have “privelage?”
Sounds like liberal whiny fucking victimization to me.
Deborah, thanks for the references. Now, I understand your perspective a little more clearly. Thanks for setting me straight… so to speak.
Re: #17…
Q.E.D.
^LOL. That one I understand after having suffered through 4 years of Latin many years ago.
Hullaballoo, I’m leaving #17 intact because you cracked me up.
I liked Peggy’s little friendship with her gay co-worker, although a lot of the regular Mad Men recappers panned it for being stereotyping when he made her over. But whatever, Peggy needs some fun people around her…
If some straight women had gaydar, might some of them have set it aside if they were at risk of becoming an old maid, unmarried and pushing/past 30? In that pre-Stonewall era it was not uncommon for gay man to have wives, and some of those women must have had some idea about what was going on.
It would be a bad, cheap, “Three’s Company” kind of move, only in reverse, to have Peggy marry Kurt. I do beleive that “Mad Men” is better than that.
I agree with JS. Peggy needs more fun people in her life, and Kurt is just the person to introduce her to them. He must have a straight friend that’s perfect for her. Who knows, in season 3 we might see Kurt take her the villege to go to a coffe house and meet his friends.