5 ms·

>Syrett also notes that despite their transgressive behavior, the men writing each other were generally quite conservative and uninterested in challenging the s

by swebs 8y ago

>Syrett also notes that despite their transgressive behavior, the men writing each other were generally quite conservative and uninterested in challenging the sexual politics of their time: “Though they were clearly not engaged in a struggle for gay liberation… these men organized in service of their own personal liberation and did so through corporate capitalism and not leftist political organizing.” ...ok? Just because someone likes dudes doesn't mean he wants to seize the means of production. Obviously capitalism has worked out pretty well for businessmen financially, so probably they'd be more likely to lean right-libertarian.

whatshisface 8y ago
It should be kept in mind that the departments that research this part of history tend to have a certain political viewpoint which allows things to be published that would be far out of place in other field's journals. They tend to allow direct political statements that would never be permitted in most professional academic publications. Imagine seeing a paragraph decrying, in harsh language, industrial environmental damage in a Nature article! Or a climate science paper railing against Republicans for denying it.
- Per_Bothner 8y ago
  I didn't see any "harsh language" or "railing" in the article. It had a definite point of view, but it was mostly pretty descriptive about an interesting historical sub-culture. "Hard science" journal articles often have a clear point of view too. I would be not surprised if an article about industrial environmental damage in Nature had a "certain political viewpoint" that such damage was bad, and we should avoid or mitigate it.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Let's not get confused about what "a viewpoint" means - sure, the viewpoint of An innovative anodic approach for efficient immobilization of an acetylenic triple bond via silicon‑carbon bond scission is that their approach for immobilization is innovative. That's different from what you see in the journals I'm talking about, which sometimes contain pieces of text written like a political organization's internal memoranda. The culture of doing that probably lead to the mention of capitalism vs. "leftism" at the end of the article. Why else would the author have brought it up, if it wasn't commonly seen as a relevant topic?
tomrod 8y ago
Left-libertarian is more likely, given their distrust of institutions but openness to capitalism. Right-libertarian is far more norm-preserving in praxis.
- freedomben 8y ago
  When someone says "left libertarian" they are usually referring to anarcho-socialism (they are not friendly to capitalism). Obviously people could use this term and mean something else, but the thought leaders in that space believe that the state of nature and man is not capitalism, but it's socialism, and that capitalism is only able to exist because governments create the conditions necessary for it. Thus the "libertarian" or elimination of government would bring about socialism. That's quite a contrast to that most libertarians and anarcho-capitalists believe. I can dig up some links in a bit (currently on mobile and in transit so don't have time right now)
  - tomrod 8y ago
    So I understand better, where in the spectrums would Bleeding Heart Libertarians fall?
  - nailer 8y ago
    > When someone says "left libertarian" they are usually referring to anarcho-socialism God no. Anarcho-socialism would be far left. Part of liberty is the freedom able to do your business without someone destroying it because they want to (anarchism, as implemented by it's followers), or 'siezing' it because they believe it is just to do so (socialism).
    - mintplant 8y ago
      I agree that left libertarianism is its own thing, but I don't think you know much about anarcho-socialism.
      - nailer 8y ago
        I know a large amount of self identified anarcho-socialists through the tech world and I know enough to understand the difference between what they espouse and how they act.
azernik 8y ago
There's more to it than that - these men were into their own personal liberation rather than helping change society to make their own underground organizing unnecessary. (I happen to think it's presumptuous to make that an obligation for members of oppressed groups, but okay.)
- intopieces 8y ago
  >obligation for members of oppressed groups, but okay. Presumptuous even to consider MSM to be part of the same oppressed "group." I understand that unity, as a minority, is essential for fighting the good fight. But, it's also important to recognize that not every MSM identifies as "gay," and behavior does not dictate identity. People must be free to identify as they wish, without judgement. Describe, don't prescribe. What makes this group of businessmen so fascinating is that they subvert the homogeny of the modern gay rights movement -- "you're one of us! Admit it!" -- and reveals a different kind of queer.
  - lainga 8y ago
    Indeed, I thought the origin of the MSM term was through people who didn't want to be associated with the gay-rights movement or politicise their identities that way.
    - azernik 8y ago
      No, it originated in the medical/scientific field. When trying to evaluate, say, the epidemiology of AIDS in the "gay" community, they realized that there were a lot of men who would deny being gay even in a confidential survey, but still had sex with other men and would admit that in the same survey. To be crude, they would often have these exchanges: "When's the last time you sucked a guy's dick?" "Last week." "Are you gay or bi?" "No." Which makes a lot of your study's results useless if you're keying on the second question rather than the first. Plus, you know, bi men make "gay" a bad term if what you're studying is the phenomenon of men having sex with men. So, they started using a category "men who have sex with men" instead of "gay men", and classified study subjects into those categories based on questions about specific behaviors rather than about identity. It's not a label invented by the people to whom it applies, and doesn't have much to do with politicization or activism (though of course MSM who don't identify as gay or bi are less likely to be politically active on LGBTQ rights issues, but many gay-identifying men also aren't politically active).
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
Hacker News: Incredulity and derision, the game.
foldr 8y ago
It's particularly odd given that capitalist societies tend to be on the cutting edge as far as LGBT rights are concerned (with, of course, many exceptions).
adjkant 8y ago
You took this as an assumption but I think it's more simply an interesting note. There's no value judgment being assigned by the language of the writing, they are simply noting that their method of personal liberation was an unusual/unexpected approach for the time compared to the rest of the gay community.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by swebs 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

It should be kept in mind that the departments that research this part of history tend to have a certain political viewpoint which allows things to be published that would be far out of place in other field's journals. They tend to allow direct political statements that would never be permitted in most professional academic publications. Imagine seeing a paragraph decrying, in harsh language, industrial environmental damage in a Nature article! Or a climate science paper railing against Republicans for denying it.

Per_Bothner 8y ago
I didn't see any "harsh language" or "railing" in the article. It had a definite point of view, but it was mostly pretty descriptive about an interesting historical sub-culture. "Hard science" journal articles often have a clear point of view too. I would be not surprised if an article about industrial environmental damage in Nature had a "certain political viewpoint" that such damage was bad, and we should avoid or mitigate it.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Let's not get confused about what "a viewpoint" means - sure, the viewpoint of An innovative anodic approach for efficient immobilization of an acetylenic triple bond via silicon‑carbon bond scission is that their approach for immobilization is innovative. That's different from what you see in the journals I'm talking about, which sometimes contain pieces of text written like a political organization's internal memoranda. The culture of doing that probably lead to the mention of capitalism vs. "leftism" at the end of the article. Why else would the author have brought it up, if it wasn't commonly seen as a relevant topic?

tomrod 8y ago

Left-libertarian is more likely, given their distrust of institutions but openness to capitalism. Right-libertarian is far more norm-preserving in praxis.

freedomben 8y ago
When someone says "left libertarian" they are usually referring to anarcho-socialism (they are not friendly to capitalism). Obviously people could use this term and mean something else, but the thought leaders in that space believe that the state of nature and man is not capitalism, but it's socialism, and that capitalism is only able to exist because governments create the conditions necessary for it. Thus the "libertarian" or elimination of government would bring about socialism. That's quite a contrast to that most libertarians and anarcho-capitalists believe. I can dig up some links in a bit (currently on mobile and in transit so don't have time right now)
- tomrod 8y ago
  So I understand better, where in the spectrums would Bleeding Heart Libertarians fall?
- nailer 8y ago
  > When someone says "left libertarian" they are usually referring to anarcho-socialism God no. Anarcho-socialism would be far left. Part of liberty is the freedom able to do your business without someone destroying it because they want to (anarchism, as implemented by it's followers), or 'siezing' it because they believe it is just to do so (socialism).
  - mintplant 8y ago
    I agree that left libertarianism is its own thing, but I don't think you know much about anarcho-socialism.
    - nailer 8y ago
      I know a large amount of self identified anarcho-socialists through the tech world and I know enough to understand the difference between what they espouse and how they act.

azernik 8y ago

There's more to it than that - these men were into their own personal liberation rather than helping change society to make their own underground organizing unnecessary. (I happen to think it's presumptuous to make that an obligation for members of oppressed groups, but okay.)

intopieces 8y ago
>obligation for members of oppressed groups, but okay. Presumptuous even to consider MSM to be part of the same oppressed "group." I understand that unity, as a minority, is essential for fighting the good fight. But, it's also important to recognize that not every MSM identifies as "gay," and behavior does not dictate identity. People must be free to identify as they wish, without judgement. Describe, don't prescribe. What makes this group of businessmen so fascinating is that they subvert the homogeny of the modern gay rights movement -- "you're one of us! Admit it!" -- and reveals a different kind of queer.
- lainga 8y ago
  Indeed, I thought the origin of the MSM term was through people who didn't want to be associated with the gay-rights movement or politicise their identities that way.
  - azernik 8y ago
    No, it originated in the medical/scientific field. When trying to evaluate, say, the epidemiology of AIDS in the "gay" community, they realized that there were a lot of men who would deny being gay even in a confidential survey, but still had sex with other men and would admit that in the same survey. To be crude, they would often have these exchanges: "When's the last time you sucked a guy's dick?" "Last week." "Are you gay or bi?" "No." Which makes a lot of your study's results useless if you're keying on the second question rather than the first. Plus, you know, bi men make "gay" a bad term if what you're studying is the phenomenon of men having sex with men. So, they started using a category "men who have sex with men" instead of "gay men", and classified study subjects into those categories based on questions about specific behaviors rather than about identity. It's not a label invented by the people to whom it applies, and doesn't have much to do with politicization or activism (though of course MSM who don't identify as gay or bi are less likely to be politically active on LGBTQ rights issues, but many gay-identifying men also aren't politically active).

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

Hacker News: Incredulity and derision, the game.

foldr 8y ago

It's particularly odd given that capitalist societies tend to be on the cutting edge as far as LGBT rights are concerned (with, of course, many exceptions).

adjkant 8y ago

You took this as an assumption but I think it's more simply an interesting note. There's no value judgment being assigned by the language of the writing, they are simply noting that their method of personal liberation was an unusual/unexpected approach for the time compared to the rest of the gay community.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]