Thoughts on a book lead to a good discussion of masculinity, etc. (Editorially Speaking, May issue of Liberty Press)

In talking about a book she read, Sheryl LeSage in the Editorially Speking column in the May issue of Liberty News brings up several issues homosexuals deal with—and gives evidence that more and more of our community/movement publications are going to deal with aspects of sexuality that must be faced.

The book, Androphilia: Rejecting Male Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity, by Jack Malebranche (what a name) apparently says that men have been “indoctrinated” by gay culture to be less masculine. Strange, it was my thinking that the opposite is true.

As LeSage points out, this is the opposite of the “feminist” movement which told women to have to fit a “pattern” and not be butch or femme, and as she asks, “how’d that work out for those pinch-faced ladies?”

Speaking of books, she (LeSage) also finds books about male homosexuals written by women. Sweet love stories of sweet young men. Again, the opposite of what the usual books are, lesbian sex written for men. Only sexy women will do.

What we are in reality usually doesn’t fit the molds or stereotypes. As she says, the cover of the book has Spartan helments, and they are empty and hollow and imposing and hard. Is that a good view on life?

The question is obvious? Why do homosexuals have to fit a pattern? And why are WE trying to force our idea of a good pro-gay on the community almost as much as the bigots do? And why are we so worried about which is the best term to call ourselves? Why must there be only one acceptible term? Why must we have a hetero type marriage? And how is that working for the heteros? (See current articles on growing number of single moms, growing number of heterosexuals who are living together and NOT marrying.)