Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
The Question of Time: What Was Life Like in 1963?
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on March 01, 2007, 07:54:04 pm ---Just remind yourself that article was published over 40 years ago. But that was also shortly after a couple of fictional ranch kids came together on top of a mountain in Wyoming. Goes far to illustrate the attitudes that were pervasive back in those days.
--- End quote ---
I was going to mention earlier -- though it seemed a tiny bit frivolous to worry about fictional people (even those two!) in this context -- that anyone who says "Why didn't Ennis just get over it?" should be forced to read this.
You're right, Roland. This makes me even madder than yesterday's installment. And once again, I would love to pick out especially egregious examples, but I don't know where to start, there are so many idiotic assumptions in here.
Oh, OK, I have to mention two that happen to be personal pet peeves. One is the fact that scientists, who we are taught to think of as unbiased and objective authorities, whose methods are supposed to be so careful and reliable, are often as stupid and incompetent as anyone else. A study finds that two groups of men, one gay and one straight, are equally mentally healthy -- so rather than consider the possibility that that might actually be the case, many scientists just assume the tests are faulty?
And the other is about the mothers. As a mother, I have long taken issue with the idea that if there's something "wrong" with a kid -- in this case, of course, it isn't even something wrong, but you know what I mean -- it's because the mother screwed up somehow. In the 50s and 60s, autism was attributed to "refrigerator mothers" who didn't love their kids enough. That theory obviously has since been seen as hogwash, but it was widely accepted and caused untold suffering for both kids and mothers. Meanwhile, scientists assumed that boys "became homosexual" because their mothers loved them too much. How can you love your kids too much? Where exactly were you supposed to draw the line? No matter what mothers do, it's wrong. Parenting "experts'" have changed a little today, but only in degree, not in the underlying assumptions.
One reason the refrigerator mother appeared to have validity was because mothers really did have a hard time being as affectionate with autistic kids who had problems responding to them emotionally. So the researchers really were seeing a correlation, but their bias caused them to interpret the cause and effect backwards (which constantly still happens today, BTW). And it occurs to me that gay men's mothers might actually have appeared more loving, the father more distant, because when it became apparent the son was "different," the father became "uninterested," "actively hostile," "given to disparagement and ridicule." (That pattern would certainly fit Jack's family, and apparently Ennis', too!) Once again, what might actually have been an empirical fact was just interpreted backwards because of the researchers' bias.
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh. The frowning smiley doesn't look mad enough to express my reaction.
Tommydreamer:
--- Quote from: Shuggy on March 02, 2007, 05:41:30 am ---One thing, the LIFE article couldn't spell Wolfenden. (UK report arising from the arrest and imprisonment of Peter Wildeblood, Lord Montague of Beaulieu and one other in 1957. Wildeblood wrote a book called "Against the Law" in 1959, which led to the Report. It took them another 10 years to make consent, adult [21] and in private [no more than two people] a defence, though the charge might still be brought. Full decrimininalistion wasn't till the 90s, I think, and repealing the infamous Section 28 against "promoting" homosexuality not until about 2003)
I checked the spelling against the report itself, and then I thought you'd like to see some of it.
From the last page, obviously they had a big drive on in 1954, the year they got Alan Turing.
--- End quote ---
Shuggy a question if you don't mind. What is buggery? Is that a British phrase for what us Yanks might call solicitation?
Sheriff Roland:
--- Quote from: Tommydreamer on March 03, 2007, 11:09:33 am ---Shuggy a question if you don't mind. What is buggery? Is that a British phrase for what us Yanks might call solicitation?
--- End quote ---
No Tommy, buggery is the word used in North America as well, It means taking 'it' (or should I say, giving 'it') up the ass. A very common practice for gays (Ennis did it to Alma as well - that's why we see him flippin her over in the "not so lonely anymore, is it" scene) but certainly not exclusively a gay habit - straights do it too.
Tommydreamer:
--- Quote from: Sheriff Roland on March 03, 2007, 11:19:19 am ---No Tommy, buggery is the word used in North America as well, It means taking 'it' (or should I say, giving 'it') up the ass. A very common practice for gays (Ennis did it to Alma as well - that's why we see him flippin her over in the "not so lonely anymore, is it" scene) but certainly not exclusively a gay habit - straights do it too.
--- End quote ---
Thanks Sherrif, because I was looking at the British study he posted and that was one of 3 categories. What really struck me odd was that they kept these records or prosecuted people in the 1940-44 time period when they were being bombed relentlessly by Nazi Germany.
Kd5000:
"Oh bugger!" So what does that mean. Or I've heard the wordchoice "Bugger" used in Brittish films when the character is really annoyed. Even the queen said it in THE QUEEN. Of course, nobody was around to hear her say it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version