What do you think?
Rate this book
Has the Gay Movement Failed?
"Martin Duberman is a national treasure."
—Masha Gessen, The New Yorker
The past fifty years have seen significant shifts in attitudes toward LGBTQ people and wider acceptance of them in the United States and the West. Yet the extent of this progress, argues Martin Duberman, has been more broad and conservative than deep and transformative. One of the most renowned historians of the American left and the LGBTQ movement, as well as a pioneering social-justice activist, Duberman reviews the half century since Stonewall with an immediacy and rigor that informs and energizes. He revisits the early gay movement and its progressive vision for society and puts the left on notice as failing time and again to embrace the queer potential for social transformation. Acknowledging the elimination of some of the most discriminatory policies that plagued earlier generations, he takes note of the cost—the sidelining of radical goals on the way to achieving more normative inclusion. Illuminating the fault lines both within and beyond the movements of the past and today, this critical book is also hopeful: Duberman urges us to learn from this history to fight for a truly inclusive and expansive society.
—Masha Gessen, The New Yorker
The past fifty years have seen significant shifts in attitudes toward LGBTQ people and wider acceptance of them in the United States and the West. Yet the extent of this progress, argues Martin Duberman, has been more broad and conservative than deep and transformative. One of the most renowned historians of the American left and the LGBTQ movement, as well as a pioneering social-justice activist, Duberman reviews the half century since Stonewall with an immediacy and rigor that informs and energizes. He revisits the early gay movement and its progressive vision for society and puts the left on notice as failing time and again to embrace the queer potential for social transformation. Acknowledging the elimination of some of the most discriminatory policies that plagued earlier generations, he takes note of the cost—the sidelining of radical goals on the way to achieving more normative inclusion. Illuminating the fault lines both within and beyond the movements of the past and today, this critical book is also hopeful: Duberman urges us to learn from this history to fight for a truly inclusive and expansive society.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published June 8, 2018
27 people are currently reading
359 people want to read
About the author
Martin Duberman
65 books88 followersMartin Bauml Duberman is a scholar and playwright. He graduated from Yale in 1952 and earned a Ph.D. in American history from Harvard in 1957. Duberman left his tenured position at Princeton University in 1971 to become Distinguished Professor of History at Lehman College in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
May 5, 2019
I must confess to not having heard about, or read anything by, Martin Duberman, who has been billed as ‘the godfather of gay studies’ in an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education. Elsewhere I read that Duberman, now approaching his 90s, has been awarded the Bancroft Award, “one of the highest honours of the historical profession, and numerous other prizes for his historical and creative work.” The New Yorker calls him ‘a national treasure’.
I wonder to what extent Duberman has been overshadowed by Larry Kramer, for example? Well, better late than never, I suppose. I had no idea what to expect when I started reading Has The Gay Movement Failed? Well, I couldn’t put it down, ended up highlighting huge swathes of text, peering through the copious notes to ferret out the seemingly endless number of reference works Duberman alludes to, and quoting bits-and-pieces to my friends, who must have wondered alarmingly if I myself had transformed into some kind of gay-rights activist overnight.
So the tentpole argument goes like this: modern gay society is like an onion, stratified, or with many layers. On top you have the white middle-class mainstream gays, followed by African American gays, Hispanic gays, blue-collar workers, and then right at the bottom you get trans people and other transgressive deviants who not only suffer the greatest oppression and discrimination currently, but also pose the biggest threat to the white middle-class mainstream agenda. Which is assimilation, not transformation.
This can be seen in the campaign for gay marriage, which Duberman argues not only seeks to co-opt the gay community into propping up a faltering heteronormative institution, but which also strives to neutralise or erase our fundamental difference. We have no problem if you’re gay, straight society is saying, as long as you don’t act queer.
However, the African Americans, Hispanics, blue-collar workers, trans people and others actually don’t give two fucks about the right to marry or join the armed forces. The overriding issues in their daily lives are depressingly familiar: Unemployment, poverty, access to medical care, proper education for their children, etc. What has happened, Duberman points out, is that the white middle-class mainstream gay movement is more interested in media-friendly ‘causes’ rather than social justice, which is grubby in-the-trenches kind of activism that the white gay middle class has essentially abandoned.
It never used to be this way, with the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) concerned about equality across the board, including broader societal issues such as racism and sexism. Gay marriage is essentially a conservative, non-threatening olive branch that straight society is prepared to offer the gay community.
But it ignores the many underlying problems faced by the minority strata in the gay community (which is not nearly as homogenised as Will & Grace would have us believe.) The New Yorker succinctly summarises Duberman’s main tenet: “The axiom that homosexuality is immutable has shut the door on a conversation about sexual fluidity, variation, and possibility.”
Duberman’s answer to this problem is the following:
Ideally, we would need the straight left (including feminism) and the gay left to combine forces. We would need straight male lefties to understand that the destruction of economic inequality—itself a goal nearly as inconceivable as it is desirable—will not alone make gladsome every hearth and home, that to complete the trinity and find congenial work and caring connection, a settled sense of safety and satisfaction, we must first endure what can be no less than a searing confrontation with the spectral myths of American benevolence.
Given how Duberman excoriates modern gay politics, I am surprised at the question mark in the title. Maybe the publisher thought no one would buy the book if it was a declarative statement instead. Or maybe the gay white middle class would be too upset at this seeming attack on their dominant position of privilege and political intent.
But I think the question mark points to a genuine sense of hope that some kind of turning point can be reached. Duberman points out that millennials and other youth are far more comfortable with erotic and gender fluidity than people of my generation, for example, which means that the flames of the radical sex liberation struggled waged by the GLF are still simmering in the background.
Left unmentioned—and still criminalized—are those multitudes whose sexual lives do not match up with middle-class notions of morality, who do not (unlike the supporters of the Human Rights Campaign) regard matrimony, the child-rearing couple, monogamy, and the picket fence as the signposts not only of contented bliss but of mental health.
In other words, the status of a wide range of sexual behaviors that do not fit the approved license that Lawrence v. Texas handed out to “consenting adults in private” remains, in essence, unprotected—outside the law. And this is not theoretical. In some states the number of inmates incarcerated for “sexual offences” is as high as 30 percent.
Will a sufficient number of outsiders prove gallant enough to run the gauntlet, to stay steadfastly in place when the dragon spits the full force of its fire in our direction?
I wonder to what extent Duberman has been overshadowed by Larry Kramer, for example? Well, better late than never, I suppose. I had no idea what to expect when I started reading Has The Gay Movement Failed? Well, I couldn’t put it down, ended up highlighting huge swathes of text, peering through the copious notes to ferret out the seemingly endless number of reference works Duberman alludes to, and quoting bits-and-pieces to my friends, who must have wondered alarmingly if I myself had transformed into some kind of gay-rights activist overnight.
So the tentpole argument goes like this: modern gay society is like an onion, stratified, or with many layers. On top you have the white middle-class mainstream gays, followed by African American gays, Hispanic gays, blue-collar workers, and then right at the bottom you get trans people and other transgressive deviants who not only suffer the greatest oppression and discrimination currently, but also pose the biggest threat to the white middle-class mainstream agenda. Which is assimilation, not transformation.
This can be seen in the campaign for gay marriage, which Duberman argues not only seeks to co-opt the gay community into propping up a faltering heteronormative institution, but which also strives to neutralise or erase our fundamental difference. We have no problem if you’re gay, straight society is saying, as long as you don’t act queer.
However, the African Americans, Hispanics, blue-collar workers, trans people and others actually don’t give two fucks about the right to marry or join the armed forces. The overriding issues in their daily lives are depressingly familiar: Unemployment, poverty, access to medical care, proper education for their children, etc. What has happened, Duberman points out, is that the white middle-class mainstream gay movement is more interested in media-friendly ‘causes’ rather than social justice, which is grubby in-the-trenches kind of activism that the white gay middle class has essentially abandoned.
It never used to be this way, with the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) concerned about equality across the board, including broader societal issues such as racism and sexism. Gay marriage is essentially a conservative, non-threatening olive branch that straight society is prepared to offer the gay community.
But it ignores the many underlying problems faced by the minority strata in the gay community (which is not nearly as homogenised as Will & Grace would have us believe.) The New Yorker succinctly summarises Duberman’s main tenet: “The axiom that homosexuality is immutable has shut the door on a conversation about sexual fluidity, variation, and possibility.”
Duberman’s answer to this problem is the following:
Ideally, we would need the straight left (including feminism) and the gay left to combine forces. We would need straight male lefties to understand that the destruction of economic inequality—itself a goal nearly as inconceivable as it is desirable—will not alone make gladsome every hearth and home, that to complete the trinity and find congenial work and caring connection, a settled sense of safety and satisfaction, we must first endure what can be no less than a searing confrontation with the spectral myths of American benevolence.
Given how Duberman excoriates modern gay politics, I am surprised at the question mark in the title. Maybe the publisher thought no one would buy the book if it was a declarative statement instead. Or maybe the gay white middle class would be too upset at this seeming attack on their dominant position of privilege and political intent.
But I think the question mark points to a genuine sense of hope that some kind of turning point can be reached. Duberman points out that millennials and other youth are far more comfortable with erotic and gender fluidity than people of my generation, for example, which means that the flames of the radical sex liberation struggled waged by the GLF are still simmering in the background.
Left unmentioned—and still criminalized—are those multitudes whose sexual lives do not match up with middle-class notions of morality, who do not (unlike the supporters of the Human Rights Campaign) regard matrimony, the child-rearing couple, monogamy, and the picket fence as the signposts not only of contented bliss but of mental health.
In other words, the status of a wide range of sexual behaviors that do not fit the approved license that Lawrence v. Texas handed out to “consenting adults in private” remains, in essence, unprotected—outside the law. And this is not theoretical. In some states the number of inmates incarcerated for “sexual offences” is as high as 30 percent.
Will a sufficient number of outsiders prove gallant enough to run the gauntlet, to stay steadfastly in place when the dragon spits the full force of its fire in our direction?
July 13, 2018
Historian and activist, Martin Duberman (1930-___) asks if the gay movement has failed. It is this question that he uses as the title for his most recent book, but it is this title that may be the weakest part of the book since it implies he will offer a definitive answer. That he does not. If anything, Duberman concludes that the gay movement must be refocused but cannot simply replicate its early radical approach.
Instead of answering the question simply, Duberman shows that the complexity of sexual identity and its interconnection with other identities, influences how the movement tries to build acceptance and equality, how it defines success of the movement, and what kinds of consequences we create.
In this readable study of the gay movement of the last fifty years, Duberman concludes that our questions about why some people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or even fluid in their sexuality, may be unimportant but that by asking such questions we influence how we “study” such persons, and the kinds of policies and laws we create. Furthermore, our understanding of why some people are LGBTQ even influences the kind and degree of acceptance straight persons offer.
Duberman also concludes that issues of identity may be so complex that we have simplified the gay movement to focus only on certain tangible civil rights such as marriage and the right to serve in the military.
This simplification and narrowing of a movement that began with more intersectionality and radicalness has come with a price. The modern movement is ignoring so many other points of discrimination and social injustice and is not helping those who may need the most help. In short, the movement has become white, middle-class, and centrist in its focus while ignoring the fact that most LGBTQ persons are held in the lower classes and have more immediate and important needs to worry about than marriage and fighting in the military.
While reading Duberman’s compelling argument, I found myself drawn to considering my own life and experience.
Duberman makes clear that our personalities help shape much of our actions in any political movement. In my own life, I fall as INFP on the Myers-Briggs personality type indicators. I, consequently, find my own efforts to achieve acceptance to be rooted in a deep belief of the dignity and sacredness of all people, and in the drive to make the world better for all persons.
But my experiences also shape me.
Because I read so much and have lived more than 60 years, I have come to see that extraordinarily little in life is certain, easily defined, or classified. As an educator who has taught thousands of people, I have come to value diversity and to see that it can unleash our problem-solving skills and creativity. As a gay man, I have come to understand and feel the shackles of society’s gender and sexual norms and can look upon see society from the outside.
I have long believed that all people are of worth, that life is something to cherish, and that humanity is bigger and more diverse than any box we can conceive.
I have long believed we should work to create and change institutions so as to “liberate” each of us to be our best and truest self.
I have long believed that we all benefit when people are encouraged and supported in striving for their potential. As humans, we can never be perfect, but we can grow toward perfection and authenticity.
I have also long thought there is no “one answer” or “one right way” to live. Instead, as humans we can express our lives in wide and varied ways. It is when we celebrate our differences that we unleash our creativity and find ways to love and live with one another in a richer and more interesting world.
The reality of life, however, is often quite different from my vision of what it can be.
There is racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, and more. There is extreme income inequality. Some people claim that all people are equal, but that some are more equal than others. There are others who claim there is only one way to live, one way to believe. There are even others who claim superiority and dominance.
There are so many people who want to put life—and humans-- into a tiny and safe box.
It is this dissonance between my vision of liberated, self-actualized, authentic people and the reality of what we do that often motivates me.
I became a teacher because I saw education as a way to help individuals learn tools that would help them reach their potential. I chose English (literature) as my area of expertise because I saw it as an art that encourages us to dream of the possibilities for our own lives while understanding how others live and why they live as they do. I saw it as an art that celebrates differences and encourages growth and reflection.
I even chose to take part in creating our neighborhood book group since it was a way to bring a diverse set of people together to learn from one another, find friendship, and grow in humanity and empathy.
All of this brings me back to Professror Martin Duberman’s book.
Duberman concludes that the LGBTQ movement has lost its way and moved from trying to liberate all persons in society by creating new, more open, and accepting institutions to instead focusing on finding a way to appear “normal” so we can be “let” into those institutions that already exist.
We have hidden our gifts, ignored what we have to offer the wider society, turned away from our differences and culture, and assimilated so we feel we belong.
Duberman also concludes that the “gay rights” movement has become too narrow in its goals. While it is certainly important that LGBTQ individuals be able to serve in the military and marry, there are so many other issues the gay movement neglects including race, income inequality, gender, and more.
LGBTQ persons commit suicide at far greater rates than do straight people. LGBTQ persons are more likely to be denied job promotions and earn less than do their straight counterparts.
Studies even indicate their health is worse and that they die earlier than do the straight persons around them.
Duberman argues that the modern movement and its national organizations have best helped those who could “pass” as straight, and who are white, middle-class, educated, and male.
He makes a compelling argument, one that causes me to better understand and acknowledge my relative position of privilege in the LGBTQ community, and that encourages me to consider more those persons on the margins.
Furthermore, his argument compels me to think about, and become more aware of, the intersections of identity and how those intersections make the understanding of social injustice and discrimination even more complex.
For example, a wealthy, gay, white, educated, male in the suburb will experience social injustice differently than will a poor, straight, poorly educated, female in Alabama, or even a lower middle class, gay, male, Latino student living in the US under DACA.
So, while I celebrate, Duberman makes me more aware of the world outside my bubble. Certainly, I cannot begin to express what it means to me to have my government recognize the love I have for the person I now proudly call my husband and to grant me the rights it has long given my straight friends and family.
However, even within that celebration, I am forced to acknowledge that many others cannot conceive of marrying because they are too poor or work at a job they would lose should the marriage be known. Beyond that, I am forced to acknowledge that marriage itself gives legal benefits to people it denies single citizens.
I also am mindful that the newly filled courts will likely chip away at the rights that came with my marriage while not touching those given to persons who are straight. I am even mindful (no, scared), that the Supreme Court could even overturn the Obergefell decision that made marriage legal for same-sex couples across the country. My state of Ohio is one of the states that would strip me of my marriage and its attendant rights since Issue One from 2004 (Definition of marriage Amendment) is still “on the books.”
Duberman reminds me that as a citizen of Ohio, even if the Obergefell survives, hate crimes in Ohio do not include those committed against LGBTQ persons.
Transgender persons in Ohio may not change the gender marker on their birth certificate.
Persons outside certain employment settings can still be fired from their job because they are LGBT. In fact, in Ohio and 25 other states, persons who marry one day can lose their job the next when that marriage becomes public knowledge.
Parents in Ohio and many other states can force their LGBTQ child into the dangers of “conversion therapy” to try to change his/her sexual orientation. (For a powerful book, read Boy Erased).
Furthermore, just this month (July), Representatives in the Ohio House proposed a bill that would cause teachers, medical personnel, and counselors to contact the parent(s) of any youth showing signs of breaking gender norms.
Also, in Ohio, and many other states, a gay or lesbian person can be denied housing in many communities.
The focus on marriage and the right to serve in the military as an openly LGBTQ person was progress. However, as Duberman suggests, much is left to be done and much has been ignored by focusing on being let in rather than working to change institutions so that persons of all races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, and so forth are liberated to be themselves at their best.
While the book gives an overview of how the gay movement has changed over the last fifty years, it is possible to read it as a warning. By assimilating, gays and lesbians may lose the beauty of their differentness and give up their ability to look inside society from the outside to help it progress in its quest for giving true acceptance and equality of all persons. By denying themselves fully to appear normal, LGBTQ individuals may put on their own shackles and keep themselves from authenticity and self-acceptance.
By narrowing and simplifying the goals of the gay movement we may find ourselves feeling complacent and victorious when the wins themselves have been narrow and the acceptance shallow. We may find ourselves willing to settle. Furthermore, we may find ourselves leaving out those who most need help. Finally, we may even find ourselves accepting a shallow and narrow understanding of identity and what it is to be human.
Duberman’s book is readable, but so carefully researched and argued that it calls for more than one reading. I highly recommend it to persons of all sexual orientations because it is about all of us.
Instead of answering the question simply, Duberman shows that the complexity of sexual identity and its interconnection with other identities, influences how the movement tries to build acceptance and equality, how it defines success of the movement, and what kinds of consequences we create.
In this readable study of the gay movement of the last fifty years, Duberman concludes that our questions about why some people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or even fluid in their sexuality, may be unimportant but that by asking such questions we influence how we “study” such persons, and the kinds of policies and laws we create. Furthermore, our understanding of why some people are LGBTQ even influences the kind and degree of acceptance straight persons offer.
Duberman also concludes that issues of identity may be so complex that we have simplified the gay movement to focus only on certain tangible civil rights such as marriage and the right to serve in the military.
This simplification and narrowing of a movement that began with more intersectionality and radicalness has come with a price. The modern movement is ignoring so many other points of discrimination and social injustice and is not helping those who may need the most help. In short, the movement has become white, middle-class, and centrist in its focus while ignoring the fact that most LGBTQ persons are held in the lower classes and have more immediate and important needs to worry about than marriage and fighting in the military.
While reading Duberman’s compelling argument, I found myself drawn to considering my own life and experience.
Duberman makes clear that our personalities help shape much of our actions in any political movement. In my own life, I fall as INFP on the Myers-Briggs personality type indicators. I, consequently, find my own efforts to achieve acceptance to be rooted in a deep belief of the dignity and sacredness of all people, and in the drive to make the world better for all persons.
But my experiences also shape me.
Because I read so much and have lived more than 60 years, I have come to see that extraordinarily little in life is certain, easily defined, or classified. As an educator who has taught thousands of people, I have come to value diversity and to see that it can unleash our problem-solving skills and creativity. As a gay man, I have come to understand and feel the shackles of society’s gender and sexual norms and can look upon see society from the outside.
I have long believed that all people are of worth, that life is something to cherish, and that humanity is bigger and more diverse than any box we can conceive.
I have long believed we should work to create and change institutions so as to “liberate” each of us to be our best and truest self.
I have long believed that we all benefit when people are encouraged and supported in striving for their potential. As humans, we can never be perfect, but we can grow toward perfection and authenticity.
I have also long thought there is no “one answer” or “one right way” to live. Instead, as humans we can express our lives in wide and varied ways. It is when we celebrate our differences that we unleash our creativity and find ways to love and live with one another in a richer and more interesting world.
The reality of life, however, is often quite different from my vision of what it can be.
There is racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, and more. There is extreme income inequality. Some people claim that all people are equal, but that some are more equal than others. There are others who claim there is only one way to live, one way to believe. There are even others who claim superiority and dominance.
There are so many people who want to put life—and humans-- into a tiny and safe box.
It is this dissonance between my vision of liberated, self-actualized, authentic people and the reality of what we do that often motivates me.
I became a teacher because I saw education as a way to help individuals learn tools that would help them reach their potential. I chose English (literature) as my area of expertise because I saw it as an art that encourages us to dream of the possibilities for our own lives while understanding how others live and why they live as they do. I saw it as an art that celebrates differences and encourages growth and reflection.
I even chose to take part in creating our neighborhood book group since it was a way to bring a diverse set of people together to learn from one another, find friendship, and grow in humanity and empathy.
All of this brings me back to Professror Martin Duberman’s book.
Duberman concludes that the LGBTQ movement has lost its way and moved from trying to liberate all persons in society by creating new, more open, and accepting institutions to instead focusing on finding a way to appear “normal” so we can be “let” into those institutions that already exist.
We have hidden our gifts, ignored what we have to offer the wider society, turned away from our differences and culture, and assimilated so we feel we belong.
Duberman also concludes that the “gay rights” movement has become too narrow in its goals. While it is certainly important that LGBTQ individuals be able to serve in the military and marry, there are so many other issues the gay movement neglects including race, income inequality, gender, and more.
LGBTQ persons commit suicide at far greater rates than do straight people. LGBTQ persons are more likely to be denied job promotions and earn less than do their straight counterparts.
Studies even indicate their health is worse and that they die earlier than do the straight persons around them.
Duberman argues that the modern movement and its national organizations have best helped those who could “pass” as straight, and who are white, middle-class, educated, and male.
He makes a compelling argument, one that causes me to better understand and acknowledge my relative position of privilege in the LGBTQ community, and that encourages me to consider more those persons on the margins.
Furthermore, his argument compels me to think about, and become more aware of, the intersections of identity and how those intersections make the understanding of social injustice and discrimination even more complex.
For example, a wealthy, gay, white, educated, male in the suburb will experience social injustice differently than will a poor, straight, poorly educated, female in Alabama, or even a lower middle class, gay, male, Latino student living in the US under DACA.
So, while I celebrate, Duberman makes me more aware of the world outside my bubble. Certainly, I cannot begin to express what it means to me to have my government recognize the love I have for the person I now proudly call my husband and to grant me the rights it has long given my straight friends and family.
However, even within that celebration, I am forced to acknowledge that many others cannot conceive of marrying because they are too poor or work at a job they would lose should the marriage be known. Beyond that, I am forced to acknowledge that marriage itself gives legal benefits to people it denies single citizens.
I also am mindful that the newly filled courts will likely chip away at the rights that came with my marriage while not touching those given to persons who are straight. I am even mindful (no, scared), that the Supreme Court could even overturn the Obergefell decision that made marriage legal for same-sex couples across the country. My state of Ohio is one of the states that would strip me of my marriage and its attendant rights since Issue One from 2004 (Definition of marriage Amendment) is still “on the books.”
Duberman reminds me that as a citizen of Ohio, even if the Obergefell survives, hate crimes in Ohio do not include those committed against LGBTQ persons.
Transgender persons in Ohio may not change the gender marker on their birth certificate.
Persons outside certain employment settings can still be fired from their job because they are LGBT. In fact, in Ohio and 25 other states, persons who marry one day can lose their job the next when that marriage becomes public knowledge.
Parents in Ohio and many other states can force their LGBTQ child into the dangers of “conversion therapy” to try to change his/her sexual orientation. (For a powerful book, read Boy Erased).
Furthermore, just this month (July), Representatives in the Ohio House proposed a bill that would cause teachers, medical personnel, and counselors to contact the parent(s) of any youth showing signs of breaking gender norms.
Also, in Ohio, and many other states, a gay or lesbian person can be denied housing in many communities.
The focus on marriage and the right to serve in the military as an openly LGBTQ person was progress. However, as Duberman suggests, much is left to be done and much has been ignored by focusing on being let in rather than working to change institutions so that persons of all races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, and so forth are liberated to be themselves at their best.
While the book gives an overview of how the gay movement has changed over the last fifty years, it is possible to read it as a warning. By assimilating, gays and lesbians may lose the beauty of their differentness and give up their ability to look inside society from the outside to help it progress in its quest for giving true acceptance and equality of all persons. By denying themselves fully to appear normal, LGBTQ individuals may put on their own shackles and keep themselves from authenticity and self-acceptance.
By narrowing and simplifying the goals of the gay movement we may find ourselves feeling complacent and victorious when the wins themselves have been narrow and the acceptance shallow. We may find ourselves willing to settle. Furthermore, we may find ourselves leaving out those who most need help. Finally, we may even find ourselves accepting a shallow and narrow understanding of identity and what it is to be human.
Duberman’s book is readable, but so carefully researched and argued that it calls for more than one reading. I highly recommend it to persons of all sexual orientations because it is about all of us.
September 29, 2018
some good history from someone heavily involved in movement for LGBTQ civil rights. For my taste as an old and probably over-conventional person, too heavily on the side that sees the only real progress as being to shake up the system radically, as opposed to finding a way to open up existing institutions to more people.
so for instance making progress on "gays in the military" or marital equality is no great shakes if you consider the military and legal marriage cumbersome, hidebound, confining institutions.
nothing wrong with having that argument. just felt like i was being repetitively hit over the head with a side of it--sort of like listening to one of the panelists on a cable news show shout at you for longer than seems necessary.
so for instance making progress on "gays in the military" or marital equality is no great shakes if you consider the military and legal marriage cumbersome, hidebound, confining institutions.
nothing wrong with having that argument. just felt like i was being repetitively hit over the head with a side of it--sort of like listening to one of the panelists on a cable news show shout at you for longer than seems necessary.
July 29, 2018
Librarian: Unless your library is an academic one, you can feel free to ignore this book. Even then, unless your library is at a university that’s got a specific program relating to this topic, it’s probably skippable.
Reader: By this point nearly everyone with an internet connection understands the importance of intersectionality regarding social justice issues. If they didn’t understand it already then it’s probably been beaten over their heads by internet SJWs. No one is arguing about that. (Doing so can be painful.) We don’t need more ranting on this subject, and that’s what this book is. Specifically it was the author’s rant about how the LGBTQ+ community “sold out” by focusing on marriage equality. By the time you’re a third of the way through the book is becomes obvious that the author believes that the LGBTQ community should ignore “normal” relationship standards and argue for something more radical. (Never mind the fact that only the very, very liberal fringe wants anything like what he clearly wants. Strange though it may seem to him, most people actually wanted marriage equality, and many people are uncomfortable with sexual licentiousness. That may be, because of “cultural brainwashing”, but it’s still true.)
What drove me most nuts about the book was how he tried to frame his arguments as being concerned for the working class. Except that it was readily apparent that he had little recent interaction with people in that class. This is an unfortunate trait amongst many on the left, and something that really needs to be addresses. You can’t preach intersectionality while simultaneously telling the working class what they should want, but not listening to what they actually want. If Duberman had actually listened to the people he claimed to speak for, he would find that most of his arguments hold little water for them.
This book is well researched, but its written in the self-satisfied tone that causes large segments of the country to turn away from causes that are actually worthwhile.
Reader: By this point nearly everyone with an internet connection understands the importance of intersectionality regarding social justice issues. If they didn’t understand it already then it’s probably been beaten over their heads by internet SJWs. No one is arguing about that. (Doing so can be painful.) We don’t need more ranting on this subject, and that’s what this book is. Specifically it was the author’s rant about how the LGBTQ+ community “sold out” by focusing on marriage equality. By the time you’re a third of the way through the book is becomes obvious that the author believes that the LGBTQ community should ignore “normal” relationship standards and argue for something more radical. (Never mind the fact that only the very, very liberal fringe wants anything like what he clearly wants. Strange though it may seem to him, most people actually wanted marriage equality, and many people are uncomfortable with sexual licentiousness. That may be, because of “cultural brainwashing”, but it’s still true.)
What drove me most nuts about the book was how he tried to frame his arguments as being concerned for the working class. Except that it was readily apparent that he had little recent interaction with people in that class. This is an unfortunate trait amongst many on the left, and something that really needs to be addresses. You can’t preach intersectionality while simultaneously telling the working class what they should want, but not listening to what they actually want. If Duberman had actually listened to the people he claimed to speak for, he would find that most of his arguments hold little water for them.
This book is well researched, but its written in the self-satisfied tone that causes large segments of the country to turn away from causes that are actually worthwhile.
July 20, 2019
Duberman's book does not even approach an answer to the question. This book lacks focus and continuity. It seems more like a series of rants by a revolution junkie, followed sometimes by loose facts and other times by philosophical considerations. I expected a solid read and ended up with the worst book I've read in awhile.
May 11, 2022
A fascinating read on how what started off as a movement with revolutionary, society-shattering intentions, grew to conform to the status-quo of a capitalist, heteronormative society. The author does not undermine the wins achieved through gay rights activists, but does demonstrate how these wins deviate from the initial end goals of the Gay Liberation Front, and the many issues prevalent among this movement in the first place.
June 25, 2018
Homo Homogenized-Mainstreamed?
Homo Commodified?
Homo Americanized?
Homo Assimilated
Consumer
Homo Capitalistic Suc(k)cess story?
Homo Hetero Flexibility
Homo Equalized, yet Not Liberated
Homo =/= Hetero
Homo Commodified?
Homo Americanized?
Homo Assimilated
Consumer
Homo Capitalistic Suc(k)cess story?
Homo Hetero Flexibility
Homo Equalized, yet Not Liberated
Homo =/= Hetero
May 1, 2019
No, the gay movement has not failed. It has simply failed to give Duberman what he wants, when he wants it.
Duberman starts with an overview of the history of the movement that is interesting but sanitized. For example, I was startled to see him blame gay men specifically for the community's emphasis on monogamy, since, in my experience, such emphasis comes mostly from lesbians. It was also odd to read about the status of transgender people in the movement without acknowledgment that the TERF movement even exists.
He also takes the following as axiomatic: leftist anti-capitalism, gender-not-sex queer theory, and any scientific studies that support his desired conclusions. As a result, he is given to lecturing people on what they would want if only they were as enlightened as he is, with no consideration given to their reasons for wanting what they want. Of course, all other science is bollocks, worthy only of scare quotes and appeals to ridicule.
Some parts, including those on marriage equality and on age-of-consent laws, come across as unfocused rants or as first drafts of whatever he is trying to say. For example, on marriage equality, he seems happy to let the perfect that is a long way off be the enemy of the good that we have.
Finally, while Duberman has a reputation for meticulous research, one would not guess it from this book. He makes some basic errors, such as misspelling names and as talking about the sort of underfunding that actual funding statistics consistently disprove.
Duberman starts with an overview of the history of the movement that is interesting but sanitized. For example, I was startled to see him blame gay men specifically for the community's emphasis on monogamy, since, in my experience, such emphasis comes mostly from lesbians. It was also odd to read about the status of transgender people in the movement without acknowledgment that the TERF movement even exists.
He also takes the following as axiomatic: leftist anti-capitalism, gender-not-sex queer theory, and any scientific studies that support his desired conclusions. As a result, he is given to lecturing people on what they would want if only they were as enlightened as he is, with no consideration given to their reasons for wanting what they want. Of course, all other science is bollocks, worthy only of scare quotes and appeals to ridicule.
Some parts, including those on marriage equality and on age-of-consent laws, come across as unfocused rants or as first drafts of whatever he is trying to say. For example, on marriage equality, he seems happy to let the perfect that is a long way off be the enemy of the good that we have.
Finally, while Duberman has a reputation for meticulous research, one would not guess it from this book. He makes some basic errors, such as misspelling names and as talking about the sort of underfunding that actual funding statistics consistently disprove.
July 2, 2018
Odd the book in no way answers the question of the title
But Duberman, always the rigorous historian does make the case that today’s youthful activists reminding us that liberation must be intersectional to make meaningful structural change are in fact reviving the vision of the early Gay Liberation Front period. And that the gay movement in sacrificing its links with other social activists movement made itself trivial in the eyes of the left. He does grudgingly accept that the majority of LGBTQ folks supporting the timid agenda of the HRC do desire it remain a one issue organization but fails to say what to do with that awareness. Still a very informative read.
But Duberman, always the rigorous historian does make the case that today’s youthful activists reminding us that liberation must be intersectional to make meaningful structural change are in fact reviving the vision of the early Gay Liberation Front period. And that the gay movement in sacrificing its links with other social activists movement made itself trivial in the eyes of the left. He does grudgingly accept that the majority of LGBTQ folks supporting the timid agenda of the HRC do desire it remain a one issue organization but fails to say what to do with that awareness. Still a very informative read.
August 12, 2022
Probably more like 2.5 stars?
So, first of all, his writing is a bit annoying. Like, his snarkiness is not… novel or funny - it’s sarcastic points you’ve heard in liberals circles over and over again. In addition, (and I think this adds to an overall fault in the book - more on that later) his writing also feels too casual. Like, a lot of his personal feelings about stuff in here that I’m not interested in. Also, the work as a whole is quite unfocused within the four sections we start with.
Moving on- I think it’s classic “we’re not doing enough for the least among us!” writing. Which, yeah, true! We do need to fight for, like, homeless LGBTQ youth of color, or impoverished gay Black adults. But like… he doesn’t say anything new or interesting about that stuff. And furthermore, he doesn’t acknowledge that the progress that we have made is worthwhile and good, except for like once near the end, which feels so strange!
There’s also a lot of stuff in here of like, “We used to fight for the dissolution of gender and the nuclear family structure! Religion is oppressive!” And it’s like, true, and cool but like… I don’t think we will ever really succeed at that in any large scale way, so I am very okay with us shifting priorities to things that will actively make people’s lives better right now. And he doesn’t acknowledge that, which I think is a shortcoming.
I DO think he’s right about us losing political allies by focusing more on “Let us into the mainstream!” rhetoric as opposed to “Fuck the system rhetoric!” That’s a very good point. AND that this is mostly because organizations like the HRC which “represent” us are soooo conservative or centrist in their goals because otherwise they don’t get enough funding to function because capitalism. Womp womp.
Also he has some REALLY great reflections on gay male friendship in here, the shortcomings of the typical white gay male political view, and straight men (across all races) not supporting gay rights as fervently as they ought to.
Ultimately, this feels closer to like… a passion project from a queer elder as opposed to like something that I HAD to read. And listening to queer elders is important! But like, I already got the message Martin, thanks though.
So, first of all, his writing is a bit annoying. Like, his snarkiness is not… novel or funny - it’s sarcastic points you’ve heard in liberals circles over and over again. In addition, (and I think this adds to an overall fault in the book - more on that later) his writing also feels too casual. Like, a lot of his personal feelings about stuff in here that I’m not interested in. Also, the work as a whole is quite unfocused within the four sections we start with.
Moving on- I think it’s classic “we’re not doing enough for the least among us!” writing. Which, yeah, true! We do need to fight for, like, homeless LGBTQ youth of color, or impoverished gay Black adults. But like… he doesn’t say anything new or interesting about that stuff. And furthermore, he doesn’t acknowledge that the progress that we have made is worthwhile and good, except for like once near the end, which feels so strange!
There’s also a lot of stuff in here of like, “We used to fight for the dissolution of gender and the nuclear family structure! Religion is oppressive!” And it’s like, true, and cool but like… I don’t think we will ever really succeed at that in any large scale way, so I am very okay with us shifting priorities to things that will actively make people’s lives better right now. And he doesn’t acknowledge that, which I think is a shortcoming.
I DO think he’s right about us losing political allies by focusing more on “Let us into the mainstream!” rhetoric as opposed to “Fuck the system rhetoric!” That’s a very good point. AND that this is mostly because organizations like the HRC which “represent” us are soooo conservative or centrist in their goals because otherwise they don’t get enough funding to function because capitalism. Womp womp.
Also he has some REALLY great reflections on gay male friendship in here, the shortcomings of the typical white gay male political view, and straight men (across all races) not supporting gay rights as fervently as they ought to.
Ultimately, this feels closer to like… a passion project from a queer elder as opposed to like something that I HAD to read. And listening to queer elders is important! But like, I already got the message Martin, thanks though.
February 23, 2020
The book's heart is in the right place, but it is scattershot, lacks focus, and is repetitive. Could be half as long (or even article length, tbh) and make its point more effectively.
March 19, 2019
Duberman gives a detailed history of the gay movement from its early years. He shows how over the last few decades, the mainstream of the movement has drifted from a broad revolutionary vision to a focus on inclusion in the system as it is. Rather than underscoring the differences between LGBTQ culture and mainstream society, groups such as the HRC have opted to present us as "just folks." This, Duberman argues, ignores the ways in which LGBTQ people could improve and enrich society as a whole. He asserts the fact that "historically we’ve been more open to sexual innovation and pleasure, to mutuality in our partnerships, and to nontraditional forms of gender identity, than have our straight counterparts." The early gay movement aimed to expand the scope of gender expression and sexual expression for everyone, rejecting society's belief in the universal superiority of lifetime monogamy as well as its negative view of gender nonconformity.
The current mainstream movement's neglect to address the issues faced by working class gay people is another point that Duberman brings up. In half the states, employers can still fire workers just because they're gay, and many blue-collar gay workers are facing an increase of homophobia in the workplace rather than a decrease. He cites The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, saying that it "has found that in the workforce as a whole, roughly a quarter of gay workers have experienced some form of discrimination on the job — and a whopping 90 percent of transgender workers — including being fired or passed over for promotion and being verbally or physically abused." A range of other issues are addressed in this book as well, such as the high rates of homelessness among LGBTQ teenagers, the lack of a decrease in the bullying that LGBTQ teenagers face at schools, and how despite the fact that the majority of Americans now favor civil rights for gays and lesbians, homophobic views remain strong. All of these claims are very well-researched and backed up with studies.
Duberman advocates an intersectional approach geared toward making more allies on the straight left, who, he shows, often overlook LGBTQ issues, which can be partially explained by the national gay movement's single-issue politics and apparent disinterest in reaching out to the rest of the left. Overall, this book makes a solid case that there's still a lot of work to be done by the LGBTQ movement, including a much-needed challenge to restrictive mainstream values.
The current mainstream movement's neglect to address the issues faced by working class gay people is another point that Duberman brings up. In half the states, employers can still fire workers just because they're gay, and many blue-collar gay workers are facing an increase of homophobia in the workplace rather than a decrease. He cites The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, saying that it "has found that in the workforce as a whole, roughly a quarter of gay workers have experienced some form of discrimination on the job — and a whopping 90 percent of transgender workers — including being fired or passed over for promotion and being verbally or physically abused." A range of other issues are addressed in this book as well, such as the high rates of homelessness among LGBTQ teenagers, the lack of a decrease in the bullying that LGBTQ teenagers face at schools, and how despite the fact that the majority of Americans now favor civil rights for gays and lesbians, homophobic views remain strong. All of these claims are very well-researched and backed up with studies.
Duberman advocates an intersectional approach geared toward making more allies on the straight left, who, he shows, often overlook LGBTQ issues, which can be partially explained by the national gay movement's single-issue politics and apparent disinterest in reaching out to the rest of the left. Overall, this book makes a solid case that there's still a lot of work to be done by the LGBTQ movement, including a much-needed challenge to restrictive mainstream values.
April 13, 2019
There's a lot to tease out of this book, but I took two major points from it. Duberman argues that the gay movement has largely failed because the national organizations chose to pursue heternormative goals such as legalizing same-sex marriage and freeing LGBTQ people to join the armed forces. That is, the mainstream gay movement prioritized civil rights while neglecting economic rights. As such, today, only wealthy, middle-class members of the LGBTQ community have actually benefited from the gay movement, and most of these are white. Minority members of the community, and nearly the entire transgender contingent, have been left to squander by the conservative Human Rights Campaign.
This occurred because the early gay movement abandoned its leftist origins in organizations like the Gay Liberation Front. What remained of the gay Left could not integrate with our putative allies in the straight Left—and the blame for this can be laid on both sides. Regardless of this history, though, a change in the living conditions of members of our community is only likely ton occur if the gay Left becomes resurgent, and crosses the hundreds of hurdles between us and a straight Left that is, to a startling degree, still drowning in homophobic tendencies.
Join your labor union.
This occurred because the early gay movement abandoned its leftist origins in organizations like the Gay Liberation Front. What remained of the gay Left could not integrate with our putative allies in the straight Left—and the blame for this can be laid on both sides. Regardless of this history, though, a change in the living conditions of members of our community is only likely ton occur if the gay Left becomes resurgent, and crosses the hundreds of hurdles between us and a straight Left that is, to a startling degree, still drowning in homophobic tendencies.
Join your labor union.
August 17, 2018
Love the thesis, some good history but the writing is difficult to follow and as with most books that posit traits about culture, it’s all documentation and no in-depth proposed solutions. Most of what is in there I already knew or at least felt in my heart.
February 10, 2019
Duberman has written a very good piece on the current state of gay identity and gay communities, and the shift of social and political objectives among gay people. As always, he's smart.
June 22, 2024
"The invitation to expand and change is too scary."
The mainstream LGBTQI+ movement has focused on gaining access to society's current institutions – to the detriment of systemic change for the most vulnerable among us, Martin Duberman argues.
This well-researched book examines the past and present of queer movements – from the Mattachine Society to the Gay Liberation Front to the Human Rights Campaign. It posits that the movement has gone from calling for radical change across disadvantaged groups to myopically focusing on bringing middle- and upper-class white gays into institutions of power.
To enact real change, Duberman calls for coalition building and a return to a broader focus on uplifting those with the least power.
More:
Duberman, Professor of History Emeritus at CUNY, has a distinct snark that makes this text's info-dumping nature eminently readable. He is guilty of some of the criticisms he levies so heavily at other authors, philosophers, and scientists. Sometimes, his point meanders. Yet, I have the unsubstantiated feeling that his arguments are more in-depth than the short form of a small book allows.
For that alone, I'd rate this a 4 out of 5 stars. However, the only reason that I am so hyper-critical is because this topic is too important. The queer movement has become too centrist in the US, and that's leaving the most vulnerable among us (POCs, houseless, working class, and undocumented folks) out in the cold. To make real change, Duberman argues, we need to build radical coalitions that fight against patriarchal and extractive systems.
The mainstream LGBTQI+ movement has focused on gaining access to society's current institutions – to the detriment of systemic change for the most vulnerable among us, Martin Duberman argues.
This well-researched book examines the past and present of queer movements – from the Mattachine Society to the Gay Liberation Front to the Human Rights Campaign. It posits that the movement has gone from calling for radical change across disadvantaged groups to myopically focusing on bringing middle- and upper-class white gays into institutions of power.
To enact real change, Duberman calls for coalition building and a return to a broader focus on uplifting those with the least power.
More:
Duberman, Professor of History Emeritus at CUNY, has a distinct snark that makes this text's info-dumping nature eminently readable. He is guilty of some of the criticisms he levies so heavily at other authors, philosophers, and scientists. Sometimes, his point meanders. Yet, I have the unsubstantiated feeling that his arguments are more in-depth than the short form of a small book allows.
For that alone, I'd rate this a 4 out of 5 stars. However, the only reason that I am so hyper-critical is because this topic is too important. The queer movement has become too centrist in the US, and that's leaving the most vulnerable among us (POCs, houseless, working class, and undocumented folks) out in the cold. To make real change, Duberman argues, we need to build radical coalitions that fight against patriarchal and extractive systems.
September 8, 2020
Extremely well-written review of related literature regarding the history of the gay movement with the intersectional views of the Gay Liberation Front from the 70s at its heart. The book had compiled various thesis from multiple perspectives to argue how, for example, HRC’s single-politics remains ineffective while suggesting for us queer folks to join forces with various eco-socio-political liberation groups (not just equality through assimilation.)
Remarkable points, though I hope this could prescribe tangible solutions or simple things one could do. Also, as a reader from the Philippines, I am hoping to widen my horizons by reading more local queer histories—especially so around the Southeast Asia region.
Please comment on recommendations. 😬
Remarkable points, though I hope this could prescribe tangible solutions or simple things one could do. Also, as a reader from the Philippines, I am hoping to widen my horizons by reading more local queer histories—especially so around the Southeast Asia region.
Please comment on recommendations. 😬
April 4, 2022
doesn’t really answer the question on the cover but it does give a comprehensive timeline of the gay movement so far and i learned a lot! for example, being gay probably isn’t genetic, but it probably is because of your parents. gay people are also really lonely. cuz of the movement’s tunnel vision on legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing lgbtq people to openly serve in the military, nobody really stopped to think- is that what we really want? the answer is…not really! upper class white gays aren’t the one’s getting drafted, but POC living in poverty are. marriage equality is cool but a lot of gay people don’t actually want to get married or live in monogamy.
i read this for class and it’s super dense so i managed like 10 pages a day lol
i read this for class and it’s super dense so i managed like 10 pages a day lol
June 29, 2021
This seems to be an academic article, or articles, that got padded out into a book. The history was interesting, if skewed. The gay left long ago lost its hold on the gay mainstream. People want to belong. The advent of AIDS expanded the out gay community especially those who could otherwise assimilate. Combine that with straight left’s blindness to the existence of a gay left is not new and gives the assimilationists the field.
Professor Duberman covers most of this. IMHO he underplays the impact of AIDS on the demographics of the out gay community.
Professor Duberman covers most of this. IMHO he underplays the impact of AIDS on the demographics of the out gay community.
September 19, 2018
The short answer: the Gay Revolution and its goal of radical sexual, economic, and racial liberation is dead and buried, but they Gay Movement, despite being myopically focused on issues most pressing to middle class, cis-gendered men and women is alive, if not entirely well. A thought provoking and timely book.
April 13, 2019
The writing is all over the place. However, I had the impression to be on my sofa with a friend and ranting with a glass of white wine. Is it perfect? No. But it's a breath of fresh air to see that LGBTQIA+ pillars like Duberman are still fighting and reflecting on the flaws of the community.
December 24, 2018
Excellent book. I will review in more detail in a few days.
September 18, 2021
Well this book could have been at least 50 pages shorter and the argument would have been much more concise. I guess « star authors « don’t get edited anymore.
January 10, 2024
The early gay movement was not about “an out-group needing concessions, but rather the mainstream needing correction.” pg 3
December 29, 2019
Martin Duberman has some very strong opinions (spoiler: he believes the gay rights movement has failed). He has few kind words for modern LGBT organizations. He makes his points aggressively and you may very well disagree with his overarching argument. You may be certain he won't convince. He may not convince you. This book is still well worth reading.
The crux of Duberman's argument is that LGBT rights groups were far more radical in their goals in the days of yore than they have become. The focus on marriage equality, Duberman argues, has come at the expense of more radical ideas and the movement has become far more narrow in terms of the rights LGBT people seek to gain.
This book opened my eyes to queer history and to the flaws in out current advocacy system. Even if you find Duberman hard-line in his stance, this book exposes you/me/the reader to unconventional takes on the LGBT rights movement that will ultimately broaden your understanding of it.
(Note: While the title and the scope of the book focus primarily on the gay movement I have opted to refer to "the movement" as LGBT as a nod to the fact that not only gay people exist under this umbrella)
The crux of Duberman's argument is that LGBT rights groups were far more radical in their goals in the days of yore than they have become. The focus on marriage equality, Duberman argues, has come at the expense of more radical ideas and the movement has become far more narrow in terms of the rights LGBT people seek to gain.
This book opened my eyes to queer history and to the flaws in out current advocacy system. Even if you find Duberman hard-line in his stance, this book exposes you/me/the reader to unconventional takes on the LGBT rights movement that will ultimately broaden your understanding of it.
(Note: While the title and the scope of the book focus primarily on the gay movement I have opted to refer to "the movement" as LGBT as a nod to the fact that not only gay people exist under this umbrella)
Read
September 21, 2018306.76609 D8144 2018
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews