Do Gay Men Make Better Bosses?

Does being an out gay man make you a more compassionate boss?

Glowing like the Holy Grail amongst a dumpster of worn chalices, an article titled, “Why Gay Men Make the Best Bosses” (courtesy of Danielle Sacks of Details magazine), laid in my RSS feed. “Finally,” I told myself, “an article I can boast about. It’s about time gay men get some recognition for something that has nothing to do with Civil Rights, entertainment, or design.” However, after some heavy reflection, I realize that this article only illuminates a small portion of the dark reality in which all men continue to experience, but let’s start with the light.

For the very first time in my life, I witnessed someone take all of the lessons learned about a notably frightening process—coming out—and translate them into something that arguably gives gay men an edge in corporate management. Let me elaborate.

Speaking from personal experience, there are a number of lessons you learn in America through being a gay man. As Sacks quotes in her Details article, “Gay people are constantly having to dodge and weave and assess how and where they’re going as they grow up.” To clear things up, I don’t believe that this is something specific to gay men—all men dodge, weave, and assess as we navigate the “perilous” (as Michael Kimmel would say) world of manhood. At some point, we’ve all monitored the things we say, the way we walk, the topics of conversation we raise. We want to feel like men.  As men, this is hard. As gay men, by default, we break the ultimate guy code (i.e. “You’re not a man unless you want to bang every girl you see, if you want to bang men … you can’t even sit with us”).

What I’m trying to say is this: being a man comes with the extremely heavy burden of always having to prove your manliness; being a gay man comes with the heavier burden of proving your manliness when much of the unenlightened world considers you less of a man by default.

What Sacks is really saying is that it takes a lot of skill as a gay man to make it through institutions of extremely hegemonic masculinity. Take high school, for example, where guys can beat you up just because they suspect you of being gay. That’s rough for anyone. But when you actually are gay, the world is a warzone that calls for three life-saving skills: “adaptability, intuitive communications, and creative problem solving.”

Gay men adapt to the environment they are in. Behavior that exposes one’s non-hetero sexuality is often times dangerous in places that fit the most normative representations of masculinity. Generally speaking, you can use your intuition to gauge the amount of hostility you would face for outing yourself. Gauging and adapting to one’s environment for reasons such as physical safety is crucial for gay men, and it takes a lot of work to prepare for.

So how do these traits—adaptability, gauging one’s environment, etc. from experiencing life as a gay man and through the process of coming out—translate to the corporate management?

Sacks argues “the reflection and candidness required for coming out mean that by the time they get to the workplace, gay men are often secure in their identity and don’t feel the need to abuse people in order to boost their ego.” Coming out is extremely difficult, but I can attest that once it’s done, it’s a lot easier to be yourself. So Sacks is right in that sense … to some degree. However, there are certainly gay men who do abuse power for whatever possibly non-gay-related reason, and there are certainly straight men who are confident in their identities not to abuse people.

If gay men, through coming out and simply experiencing life as a gay man, develop traits that presumably make them nicer bosses (i.e. we don’t feel the need to abuse people at work), but straight men may also hold the same traits through being secure in their identities, what is Sacks really saying? That you gay men are more likely to be nicer, more understanding, and less abusive than their straight counterparts?

Sacks quotes, “Your typical hetero male is programmed as a boy that there are two emotions: angry and tired … These are gross limitations that restrict our ability to be great managers.” The strength of the argument that gay men make better bosses depends almost solely on the presumption that most men (most of which are straight) have only two emotions—angry and tired. Well that is simply untrue. But does Sacks still have a point—are gay men more likely to have more emotions, including compassion, which create more positive leadership?

She concludes, “if your new boss happens to be gay, chances are you’ll be happier and more fulfilled in your job.”

At this point I’m cautious of this whole argument. I’m stuck between feeling proud that gay men are considered good—not necessarily better—bosses, and feeling somewhat stereotyped and commodified: “Tiiiiiiiiight, new gay boss is going to be soooo nice to me because he’s naturally understanding.”

Let’s zoom out and examine what this says about all men.

Let’s zoom out and examine what this says about all men. If gay men make better bosses because of empathetic traits they develop through experience as a gay man and coming out, then who are they better bosses for and why? One man mentioned that “working for a gay boss taught him that emotionally honest doesn’t equate to weak in the workplace.” Sure, a gay man can teach anyone a thing or two about emotional honesty, but the bigger question is why do men think that emotional honesty equates to weakness in the first place?

If this article holds any truth, if the stats hold true (that “gay male bosses produce 35 to 60 percent higher levels of employee engagement, satisfaction, and morale than straight bosses), then how proud can anyone be that “gay men make the best bosses”? So many men are suffering because there’s a stark need for emotional honesty and understanding in a workplace where many bosses would simply tell us: “get back out there and grow a pair.”

I think the argument holds some truth. Gay men in fact do do a lot of self-examination, monitoring, and reflection—especially as they’re coming out——but these aren’t traits specific to us. Perhaps Sacks is saying that gay male bosses are simply more likely to have these traits. Assuming that gay men are more compassionate isn’t a terribly farfetched stereotype, but it still is one.  And what kind of gay male boss is does one have to be to gain the title of best kind of boss—one simultaneously “tough as nails” and compassionate, i.e. an understanding alpha male?

I am thrilled to see connections being made surrounding gay men and the workplace, especially if arguments support our having an edge in management. But I am even more saddened to realize there is apparently such a stark need for compassion and understanding amongst men in the workplace.

The question I leave asking myself is this: What is it that gay men especially add to the workplace that deem them “better bosses” that the rest of the work world needs to catch up on, and what does this say about masculinity in sum?

 

Read more on Gender & Sexuality and Work/Life Balance.

—Photo credit:  Victor1558/Flickr

Sponsored Content

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Kaleb Blake

Kaleb Blake is a 22-year-old professional person—and this is the only thing in life he is sure of. He has a love for Mad Men, Miniature Schnauzers, and reliving his youth through video games. You can follow his debauchery on Twitter via @MrKalebBlake

Comments

  1. What a generalization. I had an openly gay boss and he wasn’t a very good one. I’ve had female bosses and a couple were fantastic and some were cruel and poor leaders. I don’t think you can generalize
    people based on sexual preference or even gender. It’s all up to our personalities, skills and gifts we’ve developed.

    • @Ben
      Im right there with you. I don’t think oh can generalize a whole group of people like Sacks did. Its interesting that she took skills gained from coming out, and that’s a compelling argument, it’s just a stretch to go further and suggest that either all gay men hold these qualities, or to presume that straight men are less likely to hold these qualities.

    • GirlGlad4TheGMP says:

      I’m with you Ben. I had a boss who was gay and he was simply a manipulative jerk. Not because he was gay, but because he was just a manipulative jerk.
      I’m all for the human race choosing to express their love in all consensual ways, but we’ll never reach equality if we keep highlighting the differences between us. Sexuality should not be a factor in assessment of on-the-job qualifications.

      • @GirlGlad4TheGMP

        I’m totally with you and Ben on the sexuality should not be a factor in job assessment. But I think Sacks raises an interesting point about how living as a gay person *can* or *most likely* equips people with compassion and understanding, i.e. “I understand emotions and frustration and reflection so much because of my experiences as a gay man. Those skills have helped me become an understanding and more compassionate boss.”

        What do you think? Is she on to something here in regards to skills and traits developed through trauma giving an edge in the workplace. (Let’s not generalize *all* for the sake of conversation,

        • GirlGlad4TheGMP says:

          Kaleb,
          Thank you for your question and evaluation, especially in the way it was framed.

          To answer, let me ask you this: Are women more compassionate and understanding due to their gender-based experience(s)? I think that there’s a a body of thought that says yes, but there’s also a whole load of evidentiary experience that says no, or at least not on the whole.

          I think that as a working hypothesis, it does make sense that groups who tend to have rougher life experiences and/or face discrimination based on race/gender/sexuality traits (among others) would tend to have more compassion for others facing difficulties. The problem with this is that it does not account for the individual personality traits and developed mechanisms for coping and compassion that come along with each unique life experience (this is where the generalization of Sacks’ hypothesis is an issue).
          People we deem ‘bad’ or ‘good’ based on their individual actions and words, so we cannot paint any group of people with the same brush, be it positive or negative.
          Finally, the issue of compassion isn’t the only one that would, in my opinion, make or break a ‘good boss’. Leadership skills, compassion, ethics, subject-matter expertise, corporate politic…being a ‘good boss’ is a matrix of many skills and may have little to do with one’s ‘goodness’ as a person.

          • @GirlGlad4TheGMP

            I’m glad you elaborated on this. As a hypothesis this is an excellent topic. It gets people thinking of traits gained from hard experiences and translating that into something job-related. But that may be all its worth because we’ll never know. There are too many other variables in a person’s make-up to say “One of your attributes 100% will make you a better boss than others.”

    • @Ben … off topic. I like your picture

  2. As an out gay man, I must say that Danielle Sacks’ assessment of gay male bosses is riddled with generalizations. Sacks claims that “the reflection and candidness required for coming out mean[s] that by the time they get to the workplace, gay men are often secure in their identity and don’t feel the need to abuse people in order to boost their ego,” but this isn’t necessarily true for every out gay man. I recently had an out and engaged gay boss who was the most vicious person I’ve ever met, gay or straight, in my life. He would regularly berate his subordinates and call them stupid, idiots, retarded, and generally fostered an extremely hostile working environment. He threw furniture, punched walls, and made horribly racist comments to his work buddies about customers and employees. He constantly reveled in the fact that he was known across the entire company as the office bitch and “diva” of the company and took pride in his atrocious behavior because it made him “bad ass.” After berating an employee during work, he fired her for leaving her duties because she ran to the bathroom to cry in private. Obviously his coming out event did not “secure his identity.”

    I’m going to admit that I know nothing about Ms. Sacks, but I’m going to assume she never had to come out. Coming out is incredibly personal. Each person takes those emotions and uses them differently. Some people are so proud of themselves they bedazzle every tanktop they can find and strut through town square proclaiming their man-love. Some men, outed men for example, are ashamed of their feelings and bottle them up, becoming bitter and spiteful of queens and “fairies.” The point is, everyone handles their emotions differently.

    • @AJ

      I really appreciate your feedback. The whole article was so misleading. As a gay man who initially thought this was a good read, I could only take so little away from this after sifting through tones of stereotypes and presumptions about men–gay and straight.

      • It’s really conflicting for me. On the one hand, I’m really proud to see that someone is portraying us in a good light unrelated to hair salons or fashion (not that there’s anything wrong with those at all). But at the same time, she overreaches her knowledge of coming out and makes a blanket statement about gay men’s supposed emotional control as a result of our soul searching during the process. And to add to that, being gay is almost a non issue for people under 20. They’re not as conflicted about their “selves” as we older people were when we came out. Will they be “equally good” bosses as gay men in the thirties/forties now?

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      “the reflection and candidness required for coming out mean[s] that by the time they get to the workplace, gay men are often secure in their identity and don’t feel the need to abuse people in order to boost their ego,”

      Not to mention that this implies that straight men often aren’t.

  3. Interesting read Kaleb. I like your ambiguous take on the article.

  4. “Your typical hetero male is programmed as a boy that there are two emotions: angry and tired”

    I’ve seen this a lot, and it just doesn’t make sense to me at all.

    A key part of “hetero male programming” (and I take issue with the term, but that’s another discussion) is about being part of a team and putting the goals of the team above your own personal goals. You can go to any youth football/basketball/baseball/debate/band/whatever summer camp and see boys being taught this on a regular basis.

    Simply put, being part of a team involves a heck of a lot more than just “angry and tired” but for some reason men never get credit for this. Even if we accept everything that Michael Kimmel claims (which I do not, but again, that’s another discussion), we’re still left with this fundamental breakdown: being a “team player” involves at least minimal amounts of empathy and compassion, and men are trained to be team players, we cannot ignore this reality.

    I’m given to discounting Sacks’ argument outright because this seems to be a fairly serious flaw: it presupposes that the skills men learn as teammates cannot be translated into the work place.

    I am also cautious about the distinction between “best boss” and “boss that increases employee morale.” Feeling like your boss really understands your feelings is no good if your department is cut for under performance.

    On a deeper level, some of my favorite bosses (or teachers/professors) were the ones that really pushed so that I could develop and grow. It can be stressful to have a boss that pushes you to be more, but I’d rather deal with the stress and grow/develop than live in a cocoon of empathy and stay forever the same. As a result, it seems overly simplistic to focus on compassion and empathy: more often than not we need a push in order to become more than we already are.

  5. Peter von Maidenberg says:

    how proud can anyone be that “gay men make the best bosses”? So many men are suffering because there’s a stark need for emotional honesty and understanding in a workplace where many bosses would simply tell us: “get back out there and grow a pair.”

    I think the argument holds some truth. Gay men in fact do do a lot of self-examination, monitoring, and reflection—especially as they’re coming out——but these aren’t traits specific to us. Perhaps Sacks is saying that gay male bosses are simply more likely to have these traits. Assuming that gay men are more compassionate isn’t a terribly farfetched stereotype, but it still is one.

    Maybe promoting a non-gay boss is like what Calvin Trillin said about seeing a non-Jewish doctor. “It may work out, but you’ve made no effort to take advantage of the percentages.” :)

    • @Peter

      I definitely like the quote–would you mind just elaborating (for me, personally) just a little more as to how it applies to the text you quoted? Just curious.

      • Peter von Maidenberg says:

        Sorry for the delay here Kaleb…Trillin’s joke was that Jews, such as he, tend assume the best doctors are Jewish, and that consulting one who isn’t Jewish means you aren’t picking from the best. (He was kidding on the square, I suppose.)

        In this context, putting a nongay in charge might lead to compassionate and understanding leadership, but the odds would favor a gay manager over a nongay one.

        Clear as mud?

        • Thanks Peter. When you say “odds would favor a gay manager over a nongay one” do you mean that odds are a gay manager would be more compassionate? Or odds are that *people think* a gay manager would be more compassionate?

          Just making sure I’m udnerstanding you correctly.

          • Peter von Maidenberg says:

            Neither actually – People think the odds are that a gay manager would be more compassionate.

  6. @Mike L.

    I’m was kind of displaced by her presumptions about straight men also. Even moreso than her presumptions about gay men. As a gay guy reading the original piece I was definitely excited to see something positive about an experience close to my own, however, I quickly became displaced about the assertions she made about straight men.

    Of course I agree that to some degree the process of coming out gives one a deep sense of reflection and even compassion to others who struggle with identity. But as I said in my piece–that’s not something exclusive to gay men. Whether or not it’s more prevalent amongst gay men is up for discussion.

    The note on straight ment having two emotions–that’s entirely untrue. I have both straight and gay bosses and in all honesty, I get the same sense of understanding, compassion, and “tough as nails” from each of them alike. While gay men may have a unique struggle as men that allow them to have compassion for others based on a highly reflective process, straight men have a number of experiences (that aren’t exclusive to them either) that create the same end result.

    I definitely like your “team player” analysis and am interested in exploring the routes of this nature in masculinity today (i.e. sports culture within the workplace?)–but I digress. I finished Sacks’ piece wondering what men felt about the ability to fully express themselves in the workplace and would LOVE to hear opinions on that.

  7. Okay, I have to say that I kind of struggle with this and maybe not in ways some may think.

    Personally, in the work place, I give a rats ass what someone’s sexual orientation is. I don ‘t think it’s a place where is should be an issue one way or another. I looked at performance and how my subordinates performed. Targeting heterosexual men in management liken to how society once targeted women in management. Feminism squelched it and women moved on only to continue to second guess themselves.

    Where it relates to employee relations and work environment, the corporate world in 2012 is all about team building and building a positive work environment. Through the years, I’ve been in and conducted countless team building programs. Long gone are the days that managers would walk through an office with his/her hands behind their back looking over their reading glasses at the employees working at their desks/work stations. Management is more of a support position then the overseer.

    “He’s an angry disrespectful ass wipe of a boss because he’s a male heterosexual” is basically what’s being said here. And that’s cow crap. I’m sure I’ve had gay management working under/over me but to be honest, I don’t know, I didn’t care as long as that manager and the employees under him/her performed. In upper management, it’s about results.

    Perhaps I missed it in the article but was there any distinction as to the industry these men were being observed? There are some jobs that emotions don’t fit in. I guarantee you that the “boss” on a road crew isn’t in a position to deal with emotions and is simply interested in deadlines and getting the job done. Doesn’t matter if he/she is gay or not … just get the job done. On the other hand, the waiter at a five star restaurant is struggling emotionally because it’s affecting his/her relating with customers, I guess compassion and empathy is need to help that employee through the shift.

    There are good/bad bosses that are heterosexual/gay, men and women, young and old. Nice that this article boxed heterosexual men into a comfortable stereotypical image. Could it be that age and experience have a little something to do with how effective a boss is? It appears that a lot of variables were not taken into consideration.

    • @Tom

      I definitely understand your frustration with the Sacks article. Though I understand that she sort of shoved straight men in a box, she definitely did the same with gay men–just in a more positive light. Both generalizations are just that, generalizations. So they don’t bear much weight, only provoke thought and really interesting discourse.

      I’m not quite sure I’m understanding your point about women now second guessing myself and feminism having something to do with this. I haven’t experienced any sentiments like this with any of the women I’ve worked with. In fact, I’d argue that assuming women are second guessing themselves (in what sense? I’m not sure you clerified) is a generalization also.

      I 100% agree with you on another point: there are so many variables–race, socioeconomic background, upbringing, whatever–that aren’t even being taken into consideration. Sacks’ take on gay and straight men in the (she didnt really specify too much as to what kind) workplace. I don’t think she’s arguing that bosses are nasty or uncompassionate because they are straight me, she’s arguing that because of the way men are generally programmed, they’re less likely to dive into emotions that they were programmed to dismiss. This isn’t my personal view, just my understanding of hers. Same with gay men–we’ve developed compassion and understanding simply from coming out? Always? People handle their homosexuality differently and it bothers me that she not only didn’t address that, but generalized gay men as a person who’s never even come out as a gay man!

      But still, I wonder, does this hypothesis have any merit? Do her observations hold some truth? If so, how do they reflect the supposed dearth of compassion and understanding within men in professional leadership?

      • @Kaleb. What I meant about women second guessing themselves is this. Through the years, women were promoted into management. One of the common complaints that I heard is that women in my former industry would “change” how they acted once they got into management. I’m sure you’ve heard it before that men who act hard are doing their job, women who act hard are bitches. It appeared that some women “thought” they had to act like a man to make it in management when in fact they made it into management because of who they were at the time of the promotion. They second guess themselves in that they question what may be natural for them as a person. Women are women, men are men and both genders have unique qualities that make them who they are. I’m not at all saying that women who move into management allow the position to go to their head and they become arrogant and aggressive. I’m saying that women have a perception as to what they think a manager should act like. They second guess themselves and unfortunately by doing so, they stumble simply because they are not being true to themselves.

        On one hand feminism laid the ground work for women to “act like men” when getting into management because it was “thought” that this and that is how men got into management. On the other hand feminism doesn’t appear to have allowed women to build on their own personal traits/assets because it was perceived that those traits would work against them.

        “Real men don’t cry” accordingly, feminism set the stage that women shelve their emotions, rather then allowing them to build on the fact that women have many emotions. Men, whom we now see have a variety of emotions and feelings and are working on accepting them have struggled for years. The man in management, through his own frustration, anxiety and pressure turn to alcohol to relieve the stress or they turn inward and have nervous breakdowns, both of which I have personally seen happen. Is it what we’ve staged for women as well?

        I hope that clarified it?

        • @Tom B.

          Thank you for clerifying things, but I am going to have to disagree with your take on feminism and women working in management. All of the feminism that I have studied actually gave a message opposite of the examples you used. Feminism didn’t teach women to “act like men” at all, it was all about embracing ones femininity and womanhood, however that looked–not chucking it out the window to climb the corporate latter. I would also argue that the “real men don’t cry” was not the cause of women allegedy shelving their emotions. I think that, and I’m generally speaking from experience and what I’ve learned from others, that women who show their emotions at work get stigmatized as too unstable, too emotional, too woman. I think we all can second guess ourselves at times, it’s hardly to do with gender, just taking on new responsiblilty.

          Just some thoughts. It looks like we both have a different take on how feminism shaped women in management, but I’d like to tie it back to men.

          You asked, “Is it what we’ve staged for as well?” I think that’s an EXCELLENT question, so long as “we” means all of us, not just men. It’s a good question because you mentioned men turning to alcohol to releive stress. Arguably, can this be due to the lack of room for compassion and emotion in the workforce, as Sacks seems to suggest?

  8. Harry Hay was one of the pioneers of the modern Gay Movement–although he preferred the word Faerie (as in “Radical Faeries,” which he helped found). Part of this was because he felt metaphorically LGBT people were “Changelings.” This comes from old legends, where the Fae would substitute one of their babies for a human child, and use their magic to make the Fae infant look the same as the stolen human one. Just so, the only way to tell the difference between the enchanted child and the human one was in the behavior. Harry thought this summed up the experience of LGBT children born into “straight” families—they look like other members of their family—but they don’t behave in the same way.
    Kaleb points out all males must learn to navigate the potentially dangerous world of masculinity portrayal. But Harry suggested a gay child realizes he is different at a very young age (and we know research shows adults who identify as gay usually say they knew they were “different” before the age of 8, but had no word for what the difference was about—btw, females who identify as lesbians, reportedly do not make the same association until later on—probably because girls are socialized to be more physically affectionate and to emotionally bond with other females). As a result, gay boys become introspective at an early age as they try to both understand their difference, and in many cases, how to hide it to avoid attack.
    Harry called this a “gay window of consciousness.” He felt if you were born a White, Straight, Christian male, you never really had to think—in the sense your whole life was scripted out for you—you had it modeled not only with your extended family—but in almost all books, television programs, plays, and movies.
    As an American Indian, I am also aware of the difference between forming a “reactive” culture—which I think often happens within the LGBT community—where there is a conscious effort to be aware of the Dominant Culture and respond to it—vs. American Indian cultures that had existed for thousands of years before Europeans arrived. In other words, traditional American Indian cultures were never formed as a reaction to the discovery Europeans existed. But I think for many People of Color, there is a similarity to LGBT people in terms of negotiating Dominant Culture. One of the things that came about because of the Trayvon Martin murder was the revelation of “The Conversation,” where African-American children are formally told by their parents how to behave around Whites. (And if you’re curious, we have a similar “Talk” before we leave the reservation.)
    This is not to imply that straight men aren’t capable of introspection, but I do feel Harry has a good point that introspection and self-monitoring are survival skills for LGBT people as well as for those of us who are visibly different—whether because of our skin color, or being in a wheelchair. For those of us with “dual identities,” where sexual orientation and ethnicity intersect, I suspect such survival skills can become even more honed.
    Having shared that, I will admit some of the worst bosses I’ve personally experienced were gay men (and I’ve also had some really awful straight supervisors, both male and female). In reflection, I think it relates back to the comment, if someone is suffering internal pain, especially related to not embracing one’s sexual orientation, then it’s easy to inflict that pain on others—especially those perceived as LGBT. It’s simply another example of Projection, the way gay bashers are trying to control the reality of their own same-sex attractions.

    • @Ty

      Thank you for your really great feedback. I have not ever heard of the Radical Faeries, but it’s definitely interesting. You raised a really interesting point when you said “gay boys become introspective at an early age as they try to both understand their difference,” Sacks could have made much more of a compelling argument had she had you right there with her. In my personal experience, this “gay window of consciousness” holds much truth. And I’m sure many other people would agree. This, to me at least, would make Sacks’ arguement stronger–gay men are highly introspective at a young age, they constantly reflect, they leave room for others to do the same because they know the feeling.

      But you raise another interesing point: projection. Sacks assumes all gay bosses have had pleasant coming out experiences, if they’re out at all. She fails to cover the ground of gay men who haven’t come out, internalizing their oppression and projecting their hate on others, and gay men haven’t had pleasant coming out experiences (not that this makes people *worse* bosses).

      I learned a lot from your comment, Ty, and I am looking forward to reading up on Hay and the Radical Faeries.

      • Thanks so much for your kind words. In full disclosure, I met Harry through a mutual friend. I ended up attending a weekend retreat he ran, where among other things, he discussed the “gay window of consciousness.” I had been asked to do a presentation at an international conference in Amsterdam about my research on Inter-Racial Same-Sex Couples. I ended flying down to Los Angeles to tape an interview with Harry. Not long after connecting with his long term partner, John Burnside, they moved to the San Juan Pueblo Reservation in New Mexico, where they operated a sort of “half-way house” for a lot of LGBT/Two-Spirit Native people from around the area. Sadly, their L.A. house burned down not long after the interview, and Harry passed away too soon after that loss.

        Radical Faeries incorporate a lot of Native American symbols and include rituals and ceremonies that have been inspired by Native American culture. You might enjoy Harry also as someone with a strong focus on gender performance–he was one of the early voices disdainful of people who take the attitude if “gays didn’t act so gay,” they wouldn’t be discriminated against. Radical Faeries take “Faerie names” and often mix standardized male and female clothing. One of my friends from SF was “Pansy Two Rabbits Dancing.”

  9. off topic too, I really like the pic, woman in the middle a lot of diversity

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Good Life contributor Kaleb Blake puts it, “Gay men in fact do a lot of self-examination, monitoring, and [...]

  2. [...] few gay men respectfully disagree with her. As Good Life contributor Kaleb Blake puts it, “Gay men in fact do a lot of self-examination, monitoring, and reflection – especially [...]

  3. [...] few gay men respectfully disagree with her. As Good Life contributor Kaleb Blake puts it, “Gay men in fact do a lot of self-examination, monitoring, and reflection – especially [...]

Speak Your Mind