BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Gay Tories, and the mindset thereof.

  
 
Alex's Grandma
17:21 / 20.10.05
Not sure if this strictly belongs in the Switchboard, but it seems as good a place as any.

So, spinning this out of the Conservative Party Leadership thread, and thinking in particular of the party faithful, as opposed to 'civilans' who happen to vote Conservative every five or so years because they don't like paying tax, what exactly would motivate you to join a political organisation that's by and large opposed to your sexual identity? If there's now a more tolerant mood in the Conservative party, at least for the uncloseted, then it's a very recent development - prior to that, and especially in the Eighties, when I'd imagine that someone like Derek Laud was having his political as well as sexual awakening, it was pretty much actively hostile to all matters gay. So what would poseess you to not just vote for, but actively contribute, with your time and money, to something like that?

Anyone that tried to ban material which showed old age pensioners in a positive light from our nations schools would get pretty short shrift from me, I can tell you.
 
 
Ganesh
18:09 / 20.10.05
Heh, after our PM discussion, Alex's Grandma, I was thinking of starting this thread myself.

What little direct experience of individuals who choose to go into politics suggests that, sexually, they're quite strange. Not necessarily strange in a tangerine-in-mouth autoerotic asphyxiation way (although there is that too), but that their sense of themselves as sexual beings can be quite undeveloped. It's almost as if their primary means of self-definition is political (with a big 'p') and, consequently, other areas of their personae have been neglected, or compartmentalised - sometimes to a degree that seems, to me, to border on pathological.

(These generalisations are based on having had politicos as patients, including a particularly memorable psychotherapy patient...)

I suspect that this is the context within which gay Tories evolve into such peculiar creatures. I suspect that, with many (and I'm thinking particularly of the closet-cases here), there's a strong element of self-loathing which they've dealt with through denial, projection, reaction formation - the classic 'queer-basher = demonising externalised elements of himself' thing. It must take a terrific amount of energy to rigorously police one's sexual drives - so it's perhaps unsurprising that such individuals frequently seem to gravitate to the more punitive of right-wing organisations. They're attempting to impose more widely the same controls they (attempt to) exercise upon themselves.

Then again, some individuals deal with the guilt/shame of a stigmatised sexuality by fetishising the self-loathing rather than externalising/projecting it - which may surface as masochistic fantasy a la Craig from Big Brother. Of course, it could be argued that an openly gay person joining the Tory party is, in and of itself, masochistic. In the case of Derek Laud, I think it's probably more the case that he's used to defining himself as a square peg in a round hole, a fish out of water, the person you least expected to encounter in any given situation. Hence the Monday Club, fox hunting and Big Brother.

The ability to hold two ostensibly conflicting thoughts in one's head without obvious dissonance seems to be a political survival trait, and I think it's the formidable ability to compartmentalise that makes some gay Tories' behaviour seem truly bizarre. In Fox's case (and I must stress that this is all alleged and therefore highly speculative), if he really has had an openly gay past, his decision to go high-profile while courting the right wing of the party (votes against equal age of consent and gay adoption rights) seems hugely ill-advised - and marrying a childhood friend is unlikely to be as beardily protective as he seems to believe. Perhaps he's arrogant enough to believe he can blag it; perhaps his compartmentalisation skills are such that he's able to deny the same-sex stuff to himself; maybe he unconsciously wants to be found out.

Whooo knows? Gay Tories are fuck-ups, but entertaining fuck-ups. Watch this space...
 
 
Alex's Grandma
20:00 / 20.10.05
I suppose the example of Michael Portillo is instructive here - I've got no idea if the version of events he sold to the UK public (that he'd 'experimented' at university, but that this part of his life was now very much behind him, thank you very much, and it was strictly the ladies, and in particular his fragrant and lovely wife for him from now on,) had any basis in fact, but at least his time as a Thatcherite boot boy would have made a certain amount of sense in that sort of context. In that he'd have been trying to (over)compensate for his 'sordid gay past.' It's not so good, but at least it adds up.

What does seem bewildering is what's going on in the mind of the kind of Tory MP, or devoted party follower, who's still very much involved in a homosexual present, acknowledged or otherwise (and I suppose to be fair I mean particularly otherwise,) and where, realistically, they'd think it was all going to end?

It's one thing to be a bankable, very bankable, Hollywood film star with the time, cash and resources to keep on fending off the allegations, but quite another, it seems, to place your professional future in the hands of people who'd probably quite gladly, y'know, just hang you, if they knew they could get away with it, having discovered 'the truth.'

The openly gay Tory party member is a bit of a mystery, but the closeted, overtly homophobic, but still very much, allegedly, active version is... well pretty much fascinating, in a car crash kind of way.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
09:46 / 21.10.05
I can't help but feel that there's a classic 'two sets of rules' mentality involved - that very Tory idea of what's right for me is not necessarily right for 'them'. I see quite a few examples of this kind of thinking. Michael Howard proud of his 'immigrant' heritage - but, of course, he is in no way like those swan eating asylum seeker filth that must be kicked out of the country. Even David Cameron's allegations of drug use and an alleged addicted family member in rehab - you can bet when it comes time to tighten laws and introduce tougher penalties for 'junkies' it won't be people like David and his family that are destroying the fabric of our society with their evil self-indulgence and lack of self-control.

Maybe at the heart of being a Tory is not self-loathing, but a belief that you are actually better than the great unwashed. That what you do is different - because you do it. So when you instruct the little people to embrace family values, reject homosexuality and fear drugs you're doing it for them. Because they don't know what's good for them. What you do, of course, is your business.

This is perhaps overly-simplistic, but I don't see why the hypocrisy which the Tory party represents would not extend into their understanding of and attitudes to sexuality.

And just to be very clear, I am not suggesting that Howard should be kicked out of the country because he is an immigrant or that Cameron should not stand for government because he may have taken drugs (or may have a family member who has done so) - but nor am I a Tory who would endorse policies that suggest both should be the case for other people.
 
 
William Sack
12:31 / 21.10.05
I have nothing of substance to add to this thread, but isn't Liam Fox' fiancee called something like Jesme Beard?
 
 
Spaniel
09:25 / 22.10.05
On the subject of Portillo's gay past. Portillo had a reputation, throughout the ninties, amongst those that worked in the media, for being actively gay.
Anecdotally, me Mum used to use a (posh) taxi firm contracted to the independent (television) production company she worked for at the time. Her regular driver, a sort disinclined to lie or even exaggerate, swore blind that Portillo regularly canoodled with fellas in the back of his cab.
 
 
sleazenation
09:38 / 22.10.05
It would seem to me that one of the better legacies of Blair's labour government has been not just equalizing the ages of consent, but changing the political climate in Westminster to make openly gay politicians if not quite commonplace, at least less prohibitively unusual...
 
 
David Batty
12:47 / 24.10.05
It depends whether we're talking about gay politicians of gay voters. With regards to the latter I think it's as much to do with economics as politics, or perhaps economics and an absence of politics. I think a lot of (well off) gay men bought into Thatcherism on the basis of economic self-determination alone - they don't have kids, therefore why should they have to pay taxes to support anyone elses. Add the highly consumerist nature of the gay scene & the absence of any significant radical queer political movement & it's hardly suprising so many gay men have such conservative (note the small c) views.

I interviewed Liam Fox during the 2001 election - quite bitchy, to the extent I think he'd find it difficult to restrain a biting remark, but otherwise nothing really registered on the gaydar. But most politicians are adept at supressing their personalities - among the younger MPs to the point of being automatons. I'm not sure I'd equate that with self-loathing - more a Faustian pact for power. & such behaviour is seen in many professions.
 
 
Ganesh
09:53 / 25.10.05
Maybe. I can buy the 'suppression of sexual persona' as Faustian pact, but I'm puzzled by the voting record re: gay adoption, age of consent, etc., which seems somewhat above and beyond the call of duty for someone attempting to play down any issue with homosexuality. Ditto the bizarre 'double life' stuff: if it's true that an MP is well-known among his peers to be gay, it seems ultimately self-destructive for him to manoevre himself into a position where he cannot avoid being called on it...
 
 
Mourne Kransky
08:34 / 26.10.05
Isn't there some connection however between the modern Conservative antipathy to "Big Government", the "Nanny State" etc. and their maverick gay politicos? There's a libertarian edge to Conservatism that recoils from the image of a Politburo having central control.

It's illusory, in that their policies when in power are just as centralist as any other, but I think some voters who feel they're in the minority are drawn to Toryism because they think their interests are better served by a party that, officially, values the individual over society.

They would rather take care of themselves than trust in the State to ensure their equal treatment or campaign to amend the status quo. And that brings us back to David Batty's good point that it's all about economic self-interest.
 
 
David Batty
13:11 / 26.10.05
I think self-loathing is confined to a handful of cases. I tend to view their attitudes as the result of internalised homophobia. They oppose moves like gay adoption on the grounds of "common sense" - the children would be picked on, etc.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
10:42 / 27.10.05
I can just about see how the libertarian/PJ O'Rourke strand of Toryism might appeal, especially to a gay voter, as opposed to party member, and to be fair, I'd imagine (although it's still pretty difficult to determine what the likes of David Cameron, George Osbourne etc actually stand for,) that this is the aspect they'll be trying to play up in the next election. What seems weirder is the Derek Laud mindset, in which 'traditional Tory values' appear to be almost fetishised, in a 'Land Of Hope and Glory' kind of a way, when than those self-same values are more or less actively opposed to that thing that you do. And I'm guessing that once you start mixing with the party faithful, it must get increasingly difficult to hive off the libertarian side of Conservatism from the somewhat less palatable 'traditional' stuff, also.
 
 
GogMickGog
14:02 / 21.11.05
And there is of course,the looming figure of Margaret Thatcher, the firmest of all firm matriarchal figures.
 
 
Spaniel
17:03 / 21.11.05
'cause gay men are all mummy's boys?
 
 
GogMickGog
17:45 / 21.11.05


No, but there is certainly an element of high-camp to the tories, just as there is to Catholocism. My wee corner of Cambridge (Peterhouse) seems to be one of the few places where the two intermingle.
 
 
Ganesh
18:12 / 21.11.05
Welllll, that harks back to the old theory that homosexuality in males is the result of an absent father and an overbearing/overinvolved mother. Oddly enough, the same formulation was applied to pretty much every psychiatric disorder ever, most notably schizophrenia.

If in doubt, blame the mother.
 
 
Spaniel
07:26 / 22.11.05
Didn't really address my question, Mick.
Thanks, Ganesh. I'm reading a book about attachment parenting at the moment, which posits that bad care* by the primary care-giver in the first two years of life accounts for many of the psychological problems faced by adults. Whether it accounts for psychological disorders, or whether it's a contributory factor, is another question.
I think I'll start a thread.


*Which is pretty clearly defined within the theory
 
 
GogMickGog
10:44 / 22.11.05

"Mummy's boys" is a crude way of putting it, but yes, I do subscribe to a fairly determinist view of sexuality, as well as values systems, religious feeling etc.

I have talked this over with my Uni Supervisor, who is also a professional psycho-analayst and he feels very much the same. I'm not trying to patronise any sexuality in particular beacuse I agree with the notion that so much of what we 'decide' is an unconscious reaction, either towards or away from to various paternal influences.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:58 / 22.11.05
I imagine the idea is that high camp celebrates the monstrous feminine - the drag queen, the Bet Lynch, the drunken club singer. I'm not sure that's the case, and I am certainly minded to say that the sort of high camp that one might associate with the high churches of Conservatism or Catholicism is not the same animal as that. Analyses of the power of Thatcher based on her appeal to the submissive tendencies of Tory MPs, usually then going on to lather about public schools, strict nannies and the rest, seem again an attempt to identify a psychosexual explanation for something more explicable in less sweaty terms.
 
 
Ganesh
12:32 / 22.11.05
Yes, I suspect Thatcher appealled more broadly to the masochistic adult baby streak which runs through the strictly-nannied public school fraternity than specifically to teh gays - although I'm sure there's some overlap.

The idea of the monstrous/devouring mother as a causal factor in homosexuality and all sorts of "other mental disorders" was a pretty common psychoanalytical viewpoint, so it's hardly surprising to find a psychoanalyst espousing it. To me, the fact that it was trotted out to explain everything from schizophrenia to transvestism renders it somewhat useless to explain specific phenomena, eg. gay Tories.
 
 
Spaniel
16:31 / 22.11.05
Just so everyone's clear, I wasn't suggesting that homosexuality is a psychological problem, or that parenting has anything to do with sexuality.
 
 
Ganesh
16:36 / 22.11.05
Wasn't suggesting you were, Boboss. The quoted bit in my last post was a reference to the way homosexuality was viewed around the time the 'overinvolved mother' theory of causation was at its height.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
20:45 / 22.11.05
A period beyond which most psychoanalysts have managed to propel themselves, thankfully.

Be careful with all the baby psychotherapy stuff, Boboss. I have a lot of faith in it but even Melanie Klein, the godmother of that stripe of analysis, couldn't get it right in her own childrearing practice. We can only do the best we can with the tools we have to hand. It's not about bringing up the perfect child who will then be Jimmy No Mates, divorced from the real world and unable to connect, but about avoiding the most obvious pitfalls and the experts can't even agree about those.

It's fascinating stuff to study but also a real headfuck to wrestle with. After years of working with it, it still challenges me to see precisely where it will be helpful and pragmatic. The principal thing that features, as you will have gathered, whatever the school of psycholanalysis, is that you must give unconditional love. If you get that right, it's hard to get anythinhg else wrong that matters.
 
 
Spaniel
22:24 / 22.11.05
To continue with the current strain of offtopicness, thanks for the input, Xoc. It's nice to hear from someone that's actually tried to put theory into practice.
I'm aware that parenting isn't something you can learn from a book, but I think attachment parenting has a lot going for it, and, as theories go, it's got a lot more in common with my way of thinking, and, perhaps more importantly, doing things, than, say, Dr Ferber's thoughts on the matter.
 
  
Add Your Reply