“One may never know when the homosexual is about, he may appear normal.”

Utterly fascinated by chapter ten of Doherty’s book, I want to evidence the argument by attempting to fill some gaps. Resembling many of our other discussions concerning Cold War, Cool Medium, the chapter “Pixies” expounds upon knowledge Doherty assumes his audience possesses. The author launches into a discussion of the underlying fear of homosexuality prevalent in American culture up to, and exploding in, the 1950’s. What the author fails to do is establish the environment that would harbor and foster such fears. Although it seems that Doherty wants to create the argument that television initiated the movement of alternative lifestyles into mainstream entertainment, this does not happen (if it has) for decades. What the chapter lacks is an effective example of what charges of homosexuality truly implied in 1950’s culture. If Doherty is gong to spend time discussing the tabloid probes into Liberace’s marital status and examining the body language of the McCarthy hearings, he needs to present a “why” to support his “how.”

Accusations of homosexual activity carried stronger social implications in the 1950’s than they do today. Not seen then as a fashion trend or a vehicle for comic relief, the psychological origins and effects of homosexuality were serious problems. Consider that the American Psychiatric Association did not remove homosexuality from the official list of mental illness until 1973 and, until this point; the “condition” was closely linked to pedophiles, kidnappers, and murderers. It was also widely believed that homosexuality rose out of the absence of a boy’s father and the domineering, female oriented influence of his mother. If a boy did not grow up with the appropriate father figure he could not become a real man and therefore not a real American. Suggesting, especially publicly, that a person was a homosexual also suggested that they were “un-American.”

Doherty does attempt to connect the dots, i.e. how being “gay” could be as bad as being “commie,” but he lacks the historical/sociological explanations necessary. The film I am posting along with my dissent was produced in affiliation with the Inglewood, Ca police department. What this film represents, without even venturing into a close reading, is that homosexuals where as feared and persecuted as communists. What is worse is that communists could rescind or take a loyalty oath, whereas homosexuals were diseased. We may now view these cultural dances as comical, Liberace hiding behind his brother’s family during Christmas specials, but in the era of McCarthyism (and beyond) homosexual implications could destroy careers, ruin families, and lead to incarceration. Without this knowledge can an audience truly appreciate or locate Doherty’s argument. In this, his shortest chapter!, Doherty again glosses over historical quantifiers absolutely imperative to the argument.

What the chapter does highlight is the notable exclusion of gay/lesbian characters on television in the 1950’s. Even checking through studies of such characters through television history, very few references appear to anyone before the 1960’s.