The Attack Queers: Liberal Society and the Gay Right

by Richard Goldstein

For most of its history, the American gay movement has been part of the democratic Left. Gay liberation’s founders were Communists, and its activist core is still overwhelmingly progressive. But in recent years, a more affluent group of gay men has begun to make its mark. Though they are a minority in the queer community (which includes people of all races, classes and genders), conservatives have become the loudest gay voices in the mainstream media. With their withering contempt for feminism and radical politics, these ‘gayocons’ are changing the movement’s public image. Unless their rise is met by a persuasive critique, they may also alter its heart and soul.

The Attack Queers offers such a critique. It describes how the gay Right agenda differs from the one the queer community has long embraced. Never abandoning its analysis of the complex relationship between homosexuals and liberal society, the book examines the conflict between liberationists and assimilationists that has raged since the Stonewall era, and explores how political success tipped the balance and facilitated the rise of the gay Right. Finally this book offers an alternative to gay conservatism grounded in queer humanism, a distinct sensibility that has been a major force in progressive thought for more than a century.

Genres: Politics, Queer, Nonfiction, LGBT, Theory, Cultural, Queer Studies

112 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 2002

Reviews

[6655321 · Rating 2 out of 5]

i guess my problems with this book are:
1) it sort of tries to forge a middle ground between assimilation and liberation without really thinking through that, if your thesis is "covering how homocons work" focus on that, its your strength
1a) the problem is that the thesis is sort of... self evident, coalitional assimilationist politics work by throwing under the bus people who are not "mainstream"
2) there is an overfocus on Camile Paglia and Andrew Sullivan and a lack of focus on the climate that gave rise to "homocons" or alternately Goldstein focuses too much on psychologizing
2a) i almost forgot: "like race" vs. "like Jews" arguments about how to understand sexual/gender deviance (over-focus on gay men naturally) rather than looking at homophobia/hetrosexism/transphobia/cis-sexism/enforced gender norms as distinct things that are informed by other oppressions
2b) just to repeat: what i said in 2a, this really irks me
3) so this book gets sort of repetitive
4) although its probably worth reading because it only takes like... 2 hours to blaze through it, 3 if you don't pay a lot of attention to reading, 1 if you skip the self evident parts

[Flossie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Honestly should have put it down when I saw it was written in 2002, but alas. I read about half of it, but its politics was totally confusing, I literally could not tell if he was critiquing liberalism or embracing it. Also even though he literally *interviewed James Baldwin* he still kept acting like race and sexuality were two different things. Funny to read something that happened after Lawrence was arrested but before the Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v Texas. But yeah, it’s just a confusing snoozefest with nothing to offer me. Not gonna finish it xoxo ❤️

[Patch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though it offered interesting perspectives of inner gay discourse, it felt a little ramble-y at times. But I did enjoy it for what it was, a personal view of developing gay politics in a post 9/11 world.

[Katie]

Dissertation book

[Zefyr · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick and dirty intro to the competing desires of assimilation and queer-distinct identities/visibilities among queer/gay/trans/etc folks. Goldstein's insights on queer politics are much stronger than his insights on the politics of race and class, so a grain of salt is good, but it's still a worthwhile read for those wanting a quick intro to why, for example, being straight and saying you like Andrew Sullivan won't win you every homo's allegiance.

In the 1970s, when sex was the emblem of liberation, this urge to create a mirror-image produced a new gay type known as the clone. He was out, proud, and very middle-class, and the culture he crafted was dedicated to the pursuit of exclusivity. In addition to the traditional array of leather bars, wrinkle bars (for the chronologically challanged), hustler bars and such, there were now blond bars, clubs where patrons had to squeeze past barriers designed to weed out the overweight, discos with steel mesh staircases to keep out drag queens in high heels, and plenty of chic gay venues with quotas for women. Though the disco culture was ostensibly defined by what novelist Andrew Holleran called "the democracy of the dance," this egalitarian aspect of clone life couldn't compete with the need to be part of an elite. The result was a polis of the pumped. Yet, as narcissistic as this society seemed, it wasn't just driven by vanity. Clones were attempting to create status in the only way out gay men couold in those days: through sex and style.

[Tucker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I initially read this when it was first published in 2003 as The Attack Queers: Liberal Society and the Gay Right and enjoyed reading it again in 2011 under its new title, though I didn't realize I was picking up a re-read! Its premise is somewhat complex; I posted a summary to Dead Men Blogging. Isn't just about "liberals" vs. "conservatives." Author maintains that there are multiple ways of being gay (none is the real, true way) and the best kind of society would let people live the way they prefer. Dances around the question of whether those policies should be called "progressive" (in service of "social justice") or "libertarian" (in defense of "individual rights") and doesn't try to answer that definitively.

[Grace · Rating 2 out of 5]

This had a really journalistic style, with some neat articulations of things I've already thought about, but it didn't really present me with anything new--Goldstein writes in the forward that it's written for straight people who know little about the queer community & gay people who know little about progressivism, so I should have realized then it wouldn't do that much for me since I'm neither of those. Throughout most of the book, I found myself wishing it had footnotes--I'm sure Andrew Sullivan, Camille Paglia, and others probably said the horrible things Goldstein said they did, but I really wanted specific evidence of this. I was also bothered by his occasional use of the t-word. The title also really didn't capture the book for me, but apparently it was rereleased as Homocons The Rise of the Gay Right, which is much more fitting.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

The arguments (or lack thereof) in this book are very poor, laughably poor. If you like junk that abandons logical argumentation and standards of reason and relies primarily on ad hominem attacks then read this book. Even if you find Paglia and Sullivan's arguments wrongheaded or even appalling, you should contend with their arguments, rather than descending into name calling.

The distinction between race and Jewish identities to compare with non-heterosexual identities approaches offensive.

This book should only be read as an example of how to avoid logical fallacies and poor reasoning.

[Jocelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit old, but since I was reading _Stonewall_ at the same time, it really drove home that the main division in the queer movement is assimilation.

[b · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this kinda gutless, and dated, and maybe just not distinct enough to keep my attention. Seemed like a good premise but the followthru was lacking. Glad to be done with it.