Throughout modern history, gay men have been stereotyped as weak, effeminate, emotional, and inferior to their straight equivalents. The terms “Nancy boy” or “flamboyant” give currency to this image, with gay fellows viewed as essentially male versions of women who over-dramatize things for the sake of attention. They are abject “queens,” filling a role in society but never quite measuring up to the level of masculinity reserved for the primary orientation, especially those versions who are conservative in nature.
Strangely enough though, reality beckons in a different direction. Across the globe, gay or bisexual men have emerged as a visible challenge to social decline and demographic threats, even as their straight (and usually Christian) equivalents stand idly by. This post is not designed to oversimplify, but at least as far as the political classes are concerned, straight men continue to let down the cause of cultural warfare in favor of big financial interests.
We can commence in Europe and highlight the question of Islam. In Holland, where Islamic migration has created a significant problem for the native population, it was Pim Fortuyn who led the political front in opposition, while straight conservative men played the milquetoast, “promote economic growth” card. Fortuyn, himself a Catholic yet also openly gay, would pay the ultimate price when he was assassinated before elections in 2002.
Moving southeast a bit, we encounter the legacy of Jorge Haider, a bisexual nationalist who led the Freedom Party of Austria and the later Alliance for Austria to great political acclaim, only to be (I suspect targeted) for a premature end in 2008. His most visible successor is “HC” Stratche, an absolute disaster (and possible plant) who destroyed the best chance of the FPO at enacting federal migration policies in years with his petty corruption. The consequence is a coalition government including the Green Party, and overall watered down internal security policy.
Our friends in Japan had their own version of a gay icon in the form of Yukio Mishima, who famously attempted to restore the Imperial Japanese system and died in the process, leaving a beautiful literary legacy behind along with several children. In contrast, the present Japanese nationalist scene is dominated by Shinzo Abe, a neoliberal activist who has never sired a single child. Abe is not all-bad, to be sure, but the stark separation in approaches is telling.
America’s national scene demonstrates a markedly similar conflict. Those termed as “strong conservatives” include the likes of James Lankford and Mike Lee, both dedicated sell-outs to multinational corporations who care nothing about the nation’s long-term destiny. Religion and traditional values are at best sleeve badges to attain votes, and little else. In contrast, openly gay journalists like Milo Yiannopoulos have made fools of progressives, while officials such as Richard Grenell do what their straight predecessors were too timid to accomplish, domestically and on the international stage.
Perhaps it comes as a function of the social isolation experienced by gay males steeling their resolve against the world, but the phenomenon is nonetheless intriguing. Married straight men with wives and children frequently prove themselves to be dithering weaklings who will accede to protest groups in a heartbeat simply to appear “tolerant,” even while the same respect is not afforded to individuals who back them. Is this effort due to a feeling that they must “keep the peace,” both economically and on the home front?
I believe so, and the implications are dreadful. It is time for us as straight men to seriously consider which aspect matters more: money, or our national future?