Abstract
Gay men and feminist women have long struggled in their quests for equality. Public perception of these groups is that they are only connected by lesbian “switchers” who are part of both movements. An alternate view is there are no sustained connections between them. Unwilling to accept either assumption without further investigation, Scott explores, highlights, and makes sense of the linkages and disconnects. This book presents a uniquely detailed foray into the complexities of gay men and feminist movement, their movements, and their communications about and with one another.
Guided by theory of communication and power and multiple methods and data sources, Scott invokes a “queer methodology” aimed at addressing questions about the stories being told about and by gay men and feminist women. The Introduction introduces the themes of commonality and conflict. The former can lead to associations and alliances, while the latter demonstrates undermining and competing against one another for media attention. Scott adds to this by exploring the academic contributions of queer and feminist theories. In addition to the introduction chapter, the book has five substantive chapters, and a conclusion. Each chapter covers at least one data source and method of analysis. Rich with description and analysis of the movements, the groups, and their interface, Scott also weaves in his own positionality and reflections as a gay feminist cisgender man.
Chapter one presents the “received view” about gay men and feminist women as represented in historical discourses in nonfiction and in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) media. Scott contends that no prior work had brought these two groups together. Here he does by analyzing nonfiction selections from one library’s holdings of books on gay men and feminist women (N = 63 books analyzed and listed in the chapter). He also reports on his analysis of LGBTQ media stemming largely from one magazine, the Advocate (N = 500 + other periodicals). He also provides a timeline to show a different viewpoint. Emergent themes from these analyses are threaded throughout the book.
Chapters two and three document both connections and missed opportunities historically between gay men and feminist women. In chapter two, Scott takes South Carolina as a case and explores books, magazines, and other documentation. Here he reveals a more complex history and expands on common understandings of the lesbian switcher by documenting “switching events” (p .89) including the ERA campaign and Pride parades in South Carolina. He contends that the evidence of feminist and gay men working together in South Carolina is particularly meaningful because it runs contrary to the expectation of disassociation in such a conservative state. In chapter three, Scott continues his queer methodological endeavor by analyzing one pivotal feminist theory edited volume for the representation of gay men, feminists, and lesbians in popular culture films about AIDS.
The final two substantive chapters extend Scott’s argument to present day. In the name of queer methodology, Scott advances themes with little summary or narrative and uses chapter four to foreground the transcriptions from four focus groups (two groups of women who identified with feminist ideals) and two groups of gay men. This chapter solidifies that there is no single narrative but themes of commonality, opposition or competition, and joint influence.
Scott examines online media in chapter five. Here he relies on scraped data he (and a graduate student) compiled for analysis in 2012 and again in 2019. He discusses the changes and the impact of those changes on the analytic tools and the analysis itself. He contends that while the link between gay men and feminist women is quite minimal, there are more types of connections than the received public view reveals. Here, Scott raises questions about what the obstacles to connection are and argues that these two groups could do well as allies for one another.
In the small conclusion chapter, Scott restates his intent to provide a varied reflection of gay men and feminist women rather than a structured story written in a more conventionally framed manner. This, I would argue, is the book’s greatest strength and biggest challenge. Singularly, many of the analyses would not sufficiently make the case. However, and much to Scott’s credit as a researcher and writer, is how he has threaded seemingly disparate (and queer) methods and analyses together to reveal key themes and to expose the multiple connections/disconnections between gay men and feminist women. Advanced students of communications, feminism, LGBTQ+ studies, cultural and American studies, and others in sociology would likely be the best target audience for this rich and unique book.