A lesbian couple at Tokyo Pride. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lesbian by choice: Eleanor Margolis reviews Julie Bindel's Straight Expectations

What Does It Mean to Be Gay Today? asks Julie Bindel in the subtitle of her new book. For me, it means enduring endless dull and pukey nights out on the scene, says Eleanor Margolis.

Straight Expectations 
Julie Bindel
Guardian Books, 218pp, £12.99

What Does It Mean to Be Gay Today? asks Julie Bindel in the subtitle of her new book. For me, it means enduring endless dull and pukey nights out on the scene. But her thesis delves a little deeper. The core argument – that the gay rights movement has traded in its radicalism for conformity – is compelling. While the gay and lesbian community in much of the UK has finally achieved legislative equality with heterosexuals, an undercurrent of anti-gay bigotry remains. Beneath the veneer of gay marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples, something is rotten on Denmark Street.

To paraphrase Bindel, gays and lesbians have swapped the picket line for the picket fence. “In recent years the gay community has gone from being critical of the status quo to begging to be a part of it,” she writes. Lamenting the movement of the gay agenda away from liberation and towards mere acceptance, she draws both on her experiences as a radical feminist activist in the 1980s and on the opinions of interviewees, from the novelist Maureen Duffy to the gay rights kingpin Peter Tatchell. Bindel also conducted a large survey of straight and LGB people, providing a thorough overview of how homosexuality is viewed and experienced today.

Straight Expectations is a history book, too. For readers wanting some idea of how far the gay rights movement has come and why, Bindel traces the evolution of LGB activism, from the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) of the 1970s to the more recent fight for legislative equality.

I’ve deliberately left the “T” off the end of LGB here, as Bindel makes no mention of trans issues. Then again, as the book is specifically about being gay, I wasn’t expecting her to enter an area that probably deserves a book of its own.

According to Bindel, the GLF existed to smash patriarchy. This, she argues, is what is missing from today’s gay rights movement. Lesbians, lumped together with men under the LGB umbrella, have lost their feminism. Bindel draws on the battle for same-sex marriage as the prime example. We now have “good gays” and “bad gays”. Good gays are the Torified imitators of heterosexuals. Bad gays are those who continue to question the capitalist and patriarchal structures that are in place and perhaps reject marriage.

I would argue that this shift in gay attitudes from radicalism to conservatism is simply a result of more people being able to come out. When Bindel did so as a teenager in the 1970s, she was an anomaly. Now, those who do are often apolitical types who want nothing more than to be left in peace to have sex with whomever they like. Which seems fair enough.

What’s more, Bindel argues doggedly that homosexuality is a choice. Having come under fire from gay rights activists for promoting a view so often spouted by homophobic religious zealots, she clarifies that she sees gayness as a “positive alternative” to the heterosexual norm – something of which to be immensely proud. I have to admit that I struggled here.

I had my first crush on a girl when I was in nursery school, at the age of three. It was another seven years or so before I even knew what a lesbian was. I accept that some people, for whatever reason, choose to be gay, but this doesn’t reflect my experience or those of millions of others. Bindel refutes various scientific studies in search of the gay gene, some of which admittedly seem ludicrous. For me, the nature v nurture argument is interesting but politically irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why we’re gay; we just bloody well are.

So what should we be focusing on? According to Bindel’s research, anti-gay bully­ing in schools is still endemic, with over half of LGB under-18s having experienced abuse. Homophobic language is rife. (When I was at school, everything from maths homework to salad was “gay”.) Weirdly, gay-friendly legislation doesn’t necessarily reflect wider societal views. Practices such as gay conversion therapy are still common and legal. In one chapter, Bindel bravely goes undercover to try out a Christian “pray the gay away”-type programme in the US. What she reveals is just how insidious and damaging these methods are.

Although I wasn’t convinced by some of her more controversial claims, Bindel’s analysis of how and why the gay rights movement lost its way is incisive and persuasive. Neoliberal gays and those who happen to fancy calling into question all that you hold to be true: please read this book. 

Eleanor Margolis writes the Lez Miserable column at: newstatesman.com

Eleanor Margolis is a freelance journalist, whose "Lez Miserable" column appears weekly on the New Statesman website.

This article first appeared in the 16 July 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Our Island Story

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496