401: Gay Bar 2 - Ed Fisher

If this were some sort of full documentary effort than I’d include a few clips from the films “Victim” (1961) and “Advise and Consent” (1962), both movies in which fundamentally decent men are blackmailed because of their tortured homosexuality and which feature brief sallies into the twilight demi-monde of the invert. Tutt - Shocking. Both films proved a little prophetic in that both America and the UK would soon have their respective scandals about blackmailing of homosexuals in the government or secret service. Both of these films are rather sombre apart from some nice cameo character parts and really don’t fit in with this though.

The next gay bar in a humorous piece should be the one in the “Bar Scene” sketch by The Committee (1964), an American improv satire group, but I don’t have that album, though you can read a little more about it here:

http://ukjarry.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/44-american-satirical-cabaret-1963.html

So the next chronologically is this:

Ed Fisher
“The Realist”, November 1964

No actual homosexuals in sight but; “I’m trying to get the place known as a homosexual hang-out”?

The idea of gay men as scene-makers is a cliché. Even by the early 1960s there was the assumption that hairdressers and interior decorators are gay, and who knows how many artists and writers are “that way”. But 1964 saw the publication of Susan Sontag’s essay on “Camp”. Even if you weren’t a reader of “The Partisan Review” where it originally appeared or high-brow collections of essays, Sontag’s point was disseminated in reviews of the book and then became the buzzword in numerous newspaper and magazine columns. The new artistic mode was “camp”, but worse, Sontag also pointed out that homosexuals were its arbitrators and vanguard. Homosexuals were recognised as being in a position of explicit culture power. It is amazing how many book, theatre and art reviews in late 1964 and early 1965 push back against this, finding the flimsiest opportunity to criticise the idea of “camp” and to knock homosexuals (immature, developmentally retarded are the nicest arguments) in the process. So I think this may be what prompts this cartoon.

357: I’d Rather Swish Than Fight

I was going to make the title “Suck Cock, Dodge the Draft” (which was a real Gay Lib placard from 1970-71) but I thought I’d show a little decorum

One area in which homosexuality began to impinge upon the younger generation in the 1960s was its usefulness as a way of avoiding the draft. It worked for the straight Ken Tynan in the UK. It didn’t work for the American writer Tom Disch, and he was gay. Swings and roundabouts. Other than actually admitting to a homosexual act, the rough and ready method of immediately proving one’s homosexuality was a little transvestism. Because, as I’ve covered elsewhere, cross-dressing stands in fro homosexuality. And so the following couple of gags.


By Guindon
In “The Realist” April 1966


Cover to “Esquire” September 1966.
Well this is underwhelming. The English style magazine had a fashion spread in the early ‘60s with the drag artiste Danny La Rue modelling the new styles for women. That was witty and daring (some of the advertisers objected at the time). One lipstick reluctantly held by one very straight looking boy is not much of a snappy eye-catcher.

And of course there was the character Klinger in the sitcom “M.A.S.H.” (1972 – 1983). Klinger played on the “mental unfitness” rather than the “sexual perversion” line. Klinger, played by Jamie Farr, was always dressed in women’s clothing to try and prove his psychological unsuitability for the army. Apparently the character was originally written as an effeminate gay man, but then inspired by Lenny Bruce’s escapeds, they subsequently decided that it would be more interesting to have Klinger be heterosexual, but wear dresses in an attempt to gain a Section 8 discharge. So Klinger just ended up being a fast-talking heterosexual who was the go-to guy for a hairdryer with a concern for the the standard of his wardrobe.

“Greetings” (1968)
Directed by Brian De Palma
Written by Charles Hirsch and Brian De Palma




Starring Gerritt Graham, Robert De Niro and Jonathan Ward.

This rather choppy, fly-by-the-seat-of-its-pants early comedy-drama effort by Brian De Palma follows three young counter-cultural sorts and their escapades attempting to evade the draft and get laid in New York City. When the Jonathan Ward character is called to attend his conscription office, there’s is a brief scene where Gerritt Graham gives him a lesson in how to mince and swish before De Niro relo-playing as sergeant – a very limp wrist, a fey lisping voice, primping his hair, some not very veiled come-ons and invading personal space. A bunch of straight guys showing each other how to act gay is never particularly rewarding, except as a display of degrees of cluelessness, and this is really just flailing around.



1.10 – 1.20
Then there’s this brief clip from a “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour” episode from early 1969. A brief man-on-man kiss between an officer (Jonathan Williams) and a draftee. I suppose even just a brief peck on the cheek must be accounted relatively bold for this time. Especially because of the throwaway compliment on the kiss even as the soldier is kicked out of the army.

261: The Lavender Scare

"Gay Ordeal"
in "The Realist"
By Paul Krassner?

I am somewhat unproud of the U.S. State Department’s recent disclosure that, out of eighteen security-risk employees who resigned under investigatory pressure last year, sixteen had been charged with homosexuality

“Hotchkins, you’ve been a faithful employee here for quite a few years now, but we have reason to believe that you’re a homosexual.”
“Why, sir, that’s not true.”
“We all have our problems, Hotchkins, it’s nothing to be ashamed of. But I’m afraid that a security investigation is necessarily called for.”
“But even if it were true, sir, hasn’t my loyalty always been above question.”
“Yes, but there is a new factor now: the possibility of blackmailing you.”
“Well, the secret is out now – who would they tell?”
“Me, of course. You don’t want your employer to know you’re a homosexual, do you? So you might very well give out secret information to avoid that.”
“Yes, sir, I see your logic. If only there was some way I could prove. . .”
“Now, Hotchkins, you must try to take this like – oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it that way.”
“Sir, I really hate to have to do this to you, but you leave me no alternative. There’s something about me that I’d like you to ask your wife tonight . . .”

------------------------------------

A nearly contemporaneous American response to British concerns about homosexuals as security risks, now known as “The Lavender Scare”. All the same arguments, and again this has the same usual punchline of a proof of heterosexual prowess as the pay-off. I’ve only seen the cover to the American satirical magazine “Monocle’s” “Special CIA Issue” but it prominently features the question: “What Does The CIA Have To Say About Sex Perversion In Its Own Ranks?” so obviously America was suffering some of the same anxieties that Britain suffered over Vassall.

258 - American Unisex 2: Richard Guindon

Richard Guindon, “The Realist”, August 1967

Ah, a good honest gay come-on joke inspired by unisex, rather than coy sneers and hints. A fresh breath of filthy air.

221: Terry Southern - “The Moon-Shot Scandal”

“The Moon-Shot Scandal”
By Terry Southern in “The Realist” November 1962

A significant difference between Soviet and American space efforts has been the constant spotlight of public attention focused on the latter, while our antagonist's program has been carried forward in relative secrecy. This has presented tremen¬dous disadvantages, especially in its psychological effect on the national-mind, and it harbors a dangerous potential indeed. If, for example, in climax to the usual fanfare.. and nationally televised countdown, the spacecraft simply explodes, veers out crazily into the crowd, or burrows deep into the earth at the foot of the launching-pad, it can be fairly embarrassing to all concerned. On the other hand, it is generally presumed, because of this apparent and completely above-board policy, that everything which occurs in regard to these American spaceshots is immediately known by the entire public. Yet can anyone really be naive enough to believe that in matters so extraordinarily important an attitude of such simple¬minded candor could obtain? Surely not. And the facts behind the initial moon-shot, of August 17, 1961, make it a classic case in point, now that the true story may at last be told.
Readers will recall that the spacecraft, after a dramatic count¬down, blazed up from its pad on full camera; the camera followed its ascent briefly, then cut to the tracking-station where a graph described the arc of its ill-fated flight. In due time it became evident that the rocket was seriously off course, and in the end it was announced quite simply that the craft had "missed the moon" by about two-hundred thousand miles-by a wider mark, in fact, than the distance of the shot itself. What was not announced-either before, during, or after the shot-was that the craft was manned by five astronauts. Hoping for a total coup, the Space Authority ¬ highest echelon of the Agency-had arranged for a fully crewed flight, one which if successful (and there was considerable reason to believe that it would be) would then be dramatically announced to an astonished world: "Americans on the Moon!" Whereas, if not successful, it would merely remain undisclosed that the craft had been manned. The crew, of course, was composed of carefully screened volunteers who had no dependents, or living relatives.
So, in one room of the tracking-station-a room which was not being televised-communications were maintained throughout this historic interlude. Fragmented transcripts, in the form of both video and acoustic tapes, as well as personal accounts of those present, have now enabled us to piece together the story - the story, namely, of how the moon-bound spaceship, "Cutie-Pie II," was caused to careen off into outer space, beyond the moon itself, when some kind of "insane faggot hassle," as it has since been described, developed aboard the craft during early flight stage.
According to available information, Lt. Col. P. D. Slattery, a "retired" British colonial officer, co-captained the flight in hand with Major Ralph L. Doll (better known to his friends, it was later learned, as "Baby" Doll); the balance of the crew consisted of Capt. J. Walker, Lt. Fred Hanson, and CpI. "Felix" Mendelssohn. (There is certain evidence suggesting that CpI. Mendelssohn may have, in actual fact, been a woman.) The initial phase of the existing transcript is comprised entirely of routine operational data and reports of instrument readings. It was near the end of Stage One, however, when the craft was some 68,000 miles from earth, and still holding true course, that the first untoward incident occurred; this was in the form of an exchange between Lt. Hanson and Maj. Doll, which resounded over the tracking-station inter-corn, as clear as a bell on a winter's morn:

Lt. Ranson: "Will you stop it! Just stop it!"
Maj. Doll: "Stop what? I was only calibrating my altimeter¬ for heaven's sake, Freddie!"
Lt. Hanson: "I'm not talking about that and you know it! I'm talking about your infernal camping! Now just stop it! Right now!"

The astonishment this caused at tracking-station H.Q. could hardly be exaggerated. Head-phones were adjusted, frequencies were checked; the voice of a Lt. General spoke tersely: "Cutie-Pie II-give us yuur reading-over."
"Reading thpeeding," was Cpl. Mendelssohn's slyly lisped reply, followed by a cunning snicker. At this point a scene of fantastic bedlam broke loose on the video inter-corn. Col. Slattery raged out from his forward quarters, like the protagonist of Psycho - in outlandish feminine attire of the nineties, replete with a dozen petticoats and high-button shoes. He pranced with wild imperiousness about the control room, interfering with all operational activity, and then spun into a provocative and feverish combination of tarantella and can-can at the navigation panel, saucily flicking at the controls there, cleverly integrating these movements into the tempo of his dervish, amidst peals of laughter and shrieks of delight and petulant annoyance.
"Mary, you silly old fraud," someone cried gaily, "this isn't Pirandello!"
It was then that the video system of the inter-corn blacked out, as though suddenly shattered, as did the audio-system shortly after¬ward. There is reason to believe, however, that the sound communi¬cation system was eventually restored, and, according to some accounts, occasional reports (of an almost incredible nature) con¬tinue to be received, as the craft-which was heavily fueled for its return trip to earth-still blazes through the farther reaches of space.
Surely, despite the negative and rather disappointing aspects of the flight, there are at least two profitable lessons to be learned from it: (1) that the antiquated, intolerant attitude of the Agency, and of Government generally, towards sexual freedom, can only cause individual repression which may at any time-and especially under the terrific tensions of space-B.ight-have a boomerang effect to the great disadvantage of all concerned, and (2) that there may well be, after all, an ancient wisdom in the old adage, "Five's a crowd."

--------------------------------------------

Lisping? Check
Bitchiness? Check
Transvestites? Check
Wholly inappropriate homosexuals comically disgracing some bastion of all-American masculine pride? Check
Well if nothing else this is pretty comprehensive in enumaterating many of the mannerisms and comedic set-ups that would obtain for the better part of the next 20 or so years. I am however absolutely entranced by the phrase “insane faggot hassle”. If ever there were a perfect title for some queer ‘zine then it must be “Insane Faggot Hassle”. Of course this piece is mostly written in a deliberately conservative style appropriate to a report, to set a contrasting background for the sudden eruption of queaniness, so there’s little else to rise to that kind of word-juggling, which is a shame.
The illustration is from a reprint in the short-lived late ‘60s English humour magazine “Private Collection”.
There is a recurrence of comedy homosexuals in Southern’s works, his writing and his films. If there is a sudden sprinkling of cameo comedy queers in the more daring films appearing in the later ‘60s then it is not merely because there is a new license in sexual matters in society but because the films are often either written by Southern, adapted from his works, or else the film-makers are trying to capture the same tone.

---------------------------------------

From “An Impolite Interview with Terry Southern" in “The Realist” May 1964

Q. Some readers have felt that, in a couple of things you've written for "The Realist", that there was an underlying hostility toward homosexuals. Do you have an underlying hostility toward homosexuals?

A. No, I do not, Paul, but def! Some of my best friends, in fact, are absolutely insanely raving gay. "Prancing gay," it's sometimes called - that's the gayest there is. My notion of homosexuality, by the way- I mean the area of interest it holds for me - is in the manner, speech, and implicit outlook, and has nothing to do with the person's sex-life.
I know guys, for example, who are actually married to boys, but they wouldn't be homosexual in my mind because their manner and so on is non-gay. On the other hand, there does exist a very definite gay-syndrome, and anyone who has not observed this is simply too busy playing the fool. Now if you want to say that the very awareness of the syndrome is hostility, I could not argue that-though I hasten to add that by no means do I find it an unpleasant syndrome. As for its significance, I would certainly say that persons who are quite openly and freely gay have more in common, or believe they have, than persons who say they are Catholic or Jewish have.
In fact, if you were to compile a list of group-identifications which have any internal strength left, I would say the gay would rank fairly high. The highest of course, would be the junkies - they have a sense of togetherness, a common frame of reference, and so on, that surpasseth all. Jewish is finished, Negro is rapidly falling to pieces. The Gurdjieff people, Actors Studio people- I think they're fairly tight, but of course they're both tiny groups.
But you take the gay-well, I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, prediction-wise, but by God, I'll just bet that if someone, a smart politician, really used his head - no pun intended there, Paul, har, har - and made a strong, very direct bid for the huge gay vote. . . well!

Q. As a matter of fact, there is a gay politician who, when a reporter asked him off the record if he thought his homosexuality would affect the election, he replied that he was hoping for the latent vote.

A. Anyway, if I may return to your question, I say no, I am not anti-gay, and, in fact, I say moreover that only a non-gay could have interpreted my articles as such.

66 - Gays in the Military: Skip Williamson

Skip Williamson in "The Realist", May 1967

This was spot cartoon to illustrate a few letters complaining about Gerberg's "Fag Battalion" piece. As we'll see, the "Uncle Sam wants you" motif gets a full exploration come the hoo-ha over gays in the military in 1993. Although this relies the most on nelly images -pursed lip and long curling eyelashes.

----------
Letter from a Homosexual (May 1967)

For some time now I have been a fan of the Realist. I find it interesting, stimulating, thought-provoking and, all in all, a great publication. Your analysis of major and minor events is superb. For these reasons, I cannot help but wonder why the Realist seems to be anti-homosexual—or at the very best, not informed of the work of the Mattachine Society Inc. of New York.

For an instance, I found "The Fag Battalion" [issue #69] to be as obnoxious to me as
I do "The Committee to Fight the Exclusion of Homosexuals from the Armed Forces." We at the Mattachine are aware of the activities of this very small group of people, and we have received a great deal of undeserved criticism from their activities.

I would like to use this opportunity to point out that we are not only non-related groups, but the MSNY vigorously disapproves of their stated policy.

MSNY is a civil-rights group; nothing more, nothing less. Some of us vigorously oppose the war in Vietnam, whereas others in our group favor it. Since the goal of this Society, and the Homophile movement, is to procure the legal rights denied the homosexual by law and to educate the public in regard to homosexuality, we refuse to mix issues by engaging in foreign policy. Our main goals are difficult enough to achieve.

MSNY is not a social organization; nor is its purpose to apologize for homosexuality. We are activists who are convinced that the time for asking to be treated as human beings is past—we are demanding our right to human dignity now. We use the methods of leafleting, picketing and court-action to achieve our goals.

This is the other side of homosexuality, the side I would like to see presented in the Realist. If nothing more, we would appreciate a statement in your pages to the effect that there is no connection between MSNY and the Committee to Fight the Exclusion, etc. We would also like to make it clear to your readers that, not only did we not participate in their leafleting campaign, but we heartily disapproved of it, because it splits the homosexual community into pro-war and anti-war factions.

John L. Timmons, Secretary
Mattachine Society of N.Y.

Editor's note: Fighting the exclusion of homosexuals from the armed forces would certainly qualify as a civil-rights activity; if that form of discrimination is ever remedied, then those homosexuals who don't want to be drafted will no longer be able to exploit their deviation rather than face the consequences of conscientious objection.

65 - Gays in the Military: Mort Gerberg

Mort Gerberg in "The Realist", September 1966

from the ever-growing archive of "The Realist" at www.ep.tc/realist/

Well here, Mort Gerberg pretty much supplies every gag about swishy gays in the harsh, regimented, potentially fatal world of enlisted life one could want. Gerber had done a previous exercise for the “The Realist” society in the same vein, “The Junkie Battalion” - another set of gags about a subsection of society who would be inappropriate in the army. Although, given “The Realist”’s leftish politics, there’s probably underlying assumption that the army and its behaviour are themselves wholly inappropriate.
Of course homosexuality and the army were in definite conflict at this time. Being gay, or at least convincing the selection board, was a good way of avoiding the draft. Brian de Palma’s 1968 comedy, “Greetings” features Robert DeNiro, Gerrit Graham and Jonathan Warden as young men in New York City concocting various schemes to avoid the draft. Faking being gay is one of them – if I remember, feather boas and coming onto a sergeant make up part of this plan. It’s been a few years since I saw it.

63 - Gays in the Military: Art Spiegelman

Art Spiegelman in “The Realist”, June 1967

Well this takes the hippy slogan as far as one might hope. Like yeah man, what if the army went around loving each other rather than fighting? And so: two soldiers kissing. A fair enough satirical point. The homosexual aspect is partly incidental. I don’t think there’s animus to discredit the army through imputations of homosexuality. No sirree. Although one can imagine purple-faced bigots fulminating about the inappropriateness of employing men to kill their fellow men whose base urges to are to love their fellow men. And indeed we’ll be seeing that point made with a certain amount of heavyhandedness when I dig up the morass of American editorial cartoons from 1993. Many years later Paul Krassner, the editor of “The Realist” would reprint this cartoon specifically to illustarate the issues of gays in the military.

40 - Terry Southern Interviews a Faggot Male Nurse

in "The Realist", September 1963

LARRY M., 34 YEARS OLD, WHITE, born in Racine, Wisconsin, has lived in New York for nine years, and is presently employed as a ward attendant in one of the city's largest hospitals. The following is a verbatim transcript of an interview recorded there on March 7, 1963:
Q. Good. Well, let's see. . . now you've been a faggot male nurse for what-nine years, I believe?
A. Well, now, wait a minute! Ha-ha. I mean, look. . . well, I don't know what this magazine is you're from-the Realist, you said. I mean the copy you showed me and so on, but there was nothing about that kind of thing. . . I mean, ha, I'm not going to go along with that kind of thing!
Q. Oh well, listen, I didn't mean to be . . . well what do you say-gay"? "Homosexual"?
A. Well, gay, yes, I mean gay is all right. Homosexual-yes, I'm not ashamed of it if that's what you mean.
Q. All right, now let me . . . well listen, what do you mean, "faggot" is . . . I mean you think "faggot" is what? . . . derisive?
A. Derisive, yes, it is derisive-l think it's derisive. . . I think it's derisive.
Q. Well, I didn't mean it that way-I assure you that. . . I was just trying to use words.. . . you know, words of "high frequency incidence," as they say. I mean, semanticists and so on, that's what they say-that that's the word in currency-"faggot."
A. I know they do, I know they do, and it's probably. . . well, they're probably right, that that is the word they use. But, well, I didn't know, you know, exactly how you-well, you know, ha-ha. . . .
Q. But you really think "faggot" is derisive.
A. Well, I think. . . well, I know, I know for example that it's used that way.
Q. What, derisively?
A. Well, derisively. . . maybe not derisively, but patronizing . . . condescending. . . yes, condescendingly. Well, it's that . . . that kind of tolerance. . . you know? I mean liberals use it-the worse kind of so-called liberal uses it!
Q. Is that true? Well, what about a word like "queer"?
A. "Queer"! Oh well, ha! There you're talking about, I don't know what. . . I mean nobody would use a word like that except some kind of . . . of lizard or something.
Q. Yes, well I wouldn't use a word like that, like "queer" . . . or actually I wouldn't use a word like "fairy" either, or "pansy" . . . they just seem, I don't know, archaic or something. But what about "fruit"? I mean I think Lenny Bruce has made "fruit," you know to use the word "fruit," okay, don't you?
A. "Fruit"? Lenny Bruce used it? Well, Lenny Bruce . . . I mean Lenny Bruce uses these words and. . . well, what, you mean he used it instead of "gay"?
Q. Well, he used it, I don't know, he uses it some way, and. . . well, you know, it seemed to make it all right.
A. Yes, well. . . what, you mean he used it instead of "gay"?
Q. Yes, instead of "gay," instead of "faggot"-he uses "faggot," too, you know.
A. Yes, well some people, I mean some people can do that. . . they can do that and it isn't offensive.
Q. Yes, well that's the point-when I said "faggot" I didn't mean to be offensive.
A. Oh I know that. . . I know that now, that you didn't! But you see. . . well, the thing is you'd be surprised at the kind of people who do.
Q. What, here at the hospital?
A. At the hospital. . . well, everywhere, everywhere. . . yes, here at the hospital, yes, this is a kind of . . . of cross-section I guess you'd say.
Q. Well, listen, let's. . . I mean I'd like to ask you some questions about your work and so on, so why don't -
A. Well go, man, go, ha-ha. .. or baby-I don't know what to say. . . I mean you're not going to use our names or anything. . .
Q. Well, I'm not going to use your name. I mean, you know, isn't that the -
A. Well, that's the thing, yes, I mean I can't do that-you have no idea, I mean this is a very tough state, you can't just talk about these things with. . . with immunity. . . impunity? which is it? You're the writer. Ha-ha. Are you a writer?
Q. Impunity. . . you can't talk about them with impunity.
A. You didn't an-swer!
Q. What, about being a writer?
A. Yes! What do you write?
Q. Yes, well, listen, let me interview you, and then. . . you can interview me. Isn't that good?
A. Oh, ho-ho-ho . . .
Q. No, I mean what I'd like to do, you see, is be able to just put this straight down off the tape, without any editing or anything like that, and, well, if we get, you know, side-tracked. . . well, it's going to be all mixed up. You know what I mean?
A. Chrysler wouldn't like it?
Q. Chrysler?
A. Chrysler? Didn't you say Chrysler? Your boss!
Q. Oh, Krassner . . . yes, Paul Krassner.
A. Krassner! Yes, Paul Krassner-what's he like?
Q. Oh, well, listen, we can't. . . well, I'll tell you one thing about him, Paul Krassner, he's got this thing about format. . . you know? Tight and bright. "Let's keep it tight and bright!" he's always saying. : . and that's why we've got to stick to this one thing-you know, like your story. . . or I'll be in a real jam with Paul. Dig?
A. Do you call him "Pau1"?
Q. Yes.
A. Ha-ha.
Q. What's wrong with that?
A. Noth-ing, noth-ing! Don't be so touchy!
Q. Well. . . let me ask you now what attracted you to this sort of work?
A. People! I love people-I love to be with them, and to help them. That's what hospital-work is-helping people.
Q. What about being a doctor, did that ever -
A. Oh no-no, no, I don't have the patience for that. . . for that sort of training. It's too. . . technical, and too, I don't know, cold-blooded. No, my approach is different. . . it's more intuitive, more instinctive, and more direct, much more direct-you see, I deal directly with my patient, and all the time. . . the doctor sees the patient, maybe five minutes a day-I see. . . well, I don't see, I'm with, that's the difference, I'm with my patient, all the time, as much as he needs me. The doctor has no . . . no relationship with the patients. I have close. . . warm. . . wonderful, wonderful relationships with my patients! They all love me, all of them-not all, no, I won't say that. . . there are some who, well, you know the kind, they don't want help, they don't know what love is-they cmit love, well, you know the kind. . .
Q. You think they don't love you due to gayness?
A. Due to gayness? Ha, ha. Due to my gayness? Yes! No, I say yes and no! They don't like me . . . it's true some of them don't even like me-some of them hate me, and the feeling is mutual . . . well, I won't say that, I pity them-they don't like me because they're afraid-they're afraid of love, and they're afraid of themselves-and this is especially true of the doctors.
Q. The doctors? The doctors don't like you?
A. The doctors, ha, ha . . . well, I don't get along with the doctors too well-our approaches are different, you see. . . I mean, they don't really care about the patient-and they know that I know it! And they're afraid-they know that my power. . . my love, is stronger, and they're afraid. . .
Q. What, for their jobs?
A. Or for their souls! Ha, ha.
Q. Well, surely some of the doctors like you-I can't see how you could stay on unless-
A. Oh some of the doctors, yes! The really, really good. . . well, great ones, do, yes-they appreciate my work and I appreciate theirs. We respect each other. But how many good doctors are there? One in a billion? Not to mention great doctors-which are practically non-existent!
Q. Well. . . I don't understand-do you mean there aren't any really good ones. . . or any that like you?
A. No! I don't mean that, I don't mean that. What I mean. . . Well, take Dr. Schweitzer . . . I've never met Dr. Schweitzer, but I think he must be a great doctor, and I think. . . well, I know, he would understand what I'm doing. And there are others, right here, not great, but good. . . the best. . . and they like me; they respect me.
Q. Well. . . let's see, how about-
A. Listen, don't get the idea that I'm giving a big buildup to the whole. . . well, whole profession, if you like, of hospital attendants-or male nurse, whatever. . . I mean, don't take me as a typical example by any means. I mean some of the others-well I wouldn't want to say.
Q. Why, what are they like?
A. Well, I'll tell you this much, it isn't because they like people they're there!
Q. What is it? Why is it?
A. Well, they're sadists, a lot of them-especially in the mental wards. . . big, insensitive-well, you've got no idea, what goes on in some of those wards-animals, like apes. . . big cruel apes! They just sit around waiting for someone to blow his stack so they can slam him!
Q. Really? Slam him?
A. That's what they call it-"slammin'." Somebody blows his stack and they yell "Slam him, Joe! Slam that nut!" What it really means, what it's supposed to mean is that you put him in the slammer, like, you know, in a padded-cell, and slam the door-but it means the subduing part too.
Q. And how do they do that?
A. How? Are you kidding? Any way they feel like. With their fists, if they can-that's what they really like. . . I mean the tough ones are proud of their reputations for never using the sap-you know, the leather thing. . . the black-jack. Or they may say "Big Joe had to use the sap!" which means that it was a really bad case if Big Joe had to use the sap! But of course a real nut is as strong as about four ordinary people.
Q. Well. . . but they aren't all like that, are they? Is that just the mental ward?
A. The mental ward. No, there's another kind, the exact opposite -not opposite, but completely different-they work in hospitals to be close to morphine, so they can get morphine. They couldn't care less about hitting anybody-they just sort of step aside. . . I guess hoping the guy will fall out the window or something. And when they have to sap him, they just tap him on the back of the head-no expression, nothing. . . they live in a world apart, some of them have terrible, terrible habits-I mean that would cost them two or three hundred dollars a day if they didn't work at the hospital.
Q. And they get morphine-how do they get it?
A. Oh well, they get it! Ha, ha, they have to get it-I mean they would get it if you. . . if you put it in a safe and dropped it to the bottom of the ocean! They're like Houdini when they go after that-nothing could stop them, nothing! I mean they don't even worry about how to get it-all they want is to be in the vicinity of it, because, if they are, they'll get it! And you know therl1s a lot of morphine in a big hospital.
Q. Well, what do you think. . . I mean, are they good at their work?
A. No! They're like zombies-no feeling, none at all . . . they can't help the patient. Why I have some wonderful relationships in the mental wards-but they don't care, about the patient, about anything. . . they don't even speak to anyone. Not to me anyway -none of them will even speak to me.
Q. But they must do their job. . .
A. Of course! They do their job. They make sure of that, that they do their job! Yes, that's true, they do their job and they do it very. . . well, very thoroughly-I mean, you see, they cannot afford to get fired, so . . . so they do their job very. . . very well, in a way. Very careful and serious-but never a smile or a kind word for anyone. Oh no, they're too serious! Ha! Well, I certainly wouldn't have them in my hospital. I can tell you that!
Q. What, you mean. . . well, do you think about that? About hospital administration? '
A. Yes! That's what I'd really like to do-I'd like to organize my own hospital!
Q. What would you. . . would you have. . . an all-gay staff?
A. What? Ha-ha I No-ooo! Don't be silly! What an idea! Ha, ha, ha! An all-gay hospital! Well, who knows. . . maybe it would work out that way. . . who knows? I mean, one thing I do know, I would not, repeat not, use women nurses!
Q. You would not?
A. No! I would not! And I know what you're thinking, but I don't care, it isn't true, I would definitely not use them. .
Q. Yes. . . well, why not?
A. Why not? For the very simple reason that a hospital. . . a hospital should be . . . clean. . . efficient. . . well-run! With an atmosphere of love and. . . human affection, human warmth! And care for the patient! People who care about the patient! And not just constant. . . bitching about having their period! Or not having their period! Qr having their menopause! Or not having their menopause! Or washing their hair! Or not washing their hair! God!
Q. Is that-
A. Do you know. . . let me just say this . . . do you know that nurses. . . women nurses, are one hell of a lot more trouble than the patients are? That's right. They're always sick-always sick! If it isn't their period, it's something else. Something's wrong with their breast! Or their insides-ovaries! womb! uterus! vulva! tubes! And God knows what else! Christ, if I hear another nurse talk about her goddamn tubes. . . !
Q. Well-
A. I know, I know. . . I'm exaggerating. All right, all right, you're right. . . I am. But. . . But! . . . it's only an exaggeration. Do you follow? I mean it is true. . . it's true, but exaggerated. Right? Do you dig? And here's something else, and this is true-most nurses, almost no nurse, in fact, is married. . . they're sexually frustrated, and bitter, baby. . . bitter, bitter, bitter!
Q. Well, can't they make it with the doctors, or the patients? I mean -
A. Yes! Of course! Oh, they do, they do! With the doctors, patients, interns... ward-boys, janitors-anybody! Listen, I could tell you. . . well, that's why you can never find one of them! They're either. . . lying down in the rest-rooms, coddling their period, or they're off somewhere getting laid! In the. . . the broom-closet or someplace! Ha!
Q. Then you don't-
A. Oh listen, I've known some nice nurses, I don't say that. . .there's one here, right here, on this floor-day-nurse . . . a darling, perfectly darling little old lady-she's let's see, how old is [name] now. . . ? She's sixty. . . four. Sixty-four years old! And a marvelous nurse! Really. Marvelous sweet old lady! But, I mean, ha, ha, well, I don't mind telling you it's. . . well, it's a rare thing, a very rare thing!
Q. Yes, well-
A. But listen. . . just a minute-what did you say? Just before? You said why can't they make it with them? The patients and so on-is that what you said?
Q. Well, you said they were frustrated. . .
A. Well, but that's not going to change their. . . well, what kind of hospital is that, for heaven's sake! With the nurses getting laid all over the place! You think they should do that? Ha, ha, you. . . you've got some funny ideas about hospitals!
Q. I didn't say they should do that, I just wondered if they did.
A. And an all-gay hospital! Ha, ha! That's very funny!
Q. Well, you don't think that's. . . what, that isn't even conceivable?
A. Well, you couldn't get an all-gay staff to treat only gay patients, I can tell you that.
Q. But would it be possible to have an all-gay staff? I mean are there gay janitors, for example?
A. Oh, ho-ho! Are there!
Q. Well then, theoretically -
A. Ha, ha! Some of my best friends are gay janitors!
Q. Well, the point -
A. No, no, that was a joke!
Q. Yes, I realize that, I realize that. It's very funny.
A. Ho-ho! You didn't laugh!
Q. Well. . . I did really. I mean I recognize it as a joke. I
acknowledge it as a joke. Ha, ha. How's that?
A. Ha, ha . . . Well, you have some funny ideas about hospitals, that's all I can say.
Q. I don't have any ideas about it-I wanted you to tell me about it. I mean we've. . . you've made certain generalizations, about doctors and so on, so I was asking about that.
A. About an all-gay hospital?
Q. Well, an all-gay staff, yes.
A. Well, it would be a damn good hospital, I can tell you that. Better than any there are now!
Q. Well, what about the . . . wouldn't the gay staff try to . . . try to take advantage of the non-gay patients? While they were asleep, or weakened or something?
A. Ha, ha! Well, I mean if you call love and. . . and-well, what do you mean "take advantage of"?
Q" Well, I don't know. . . it seems like they would.
A. Well, anyway, one thing-you could be sure of getting plenty of attention!
Q. Yes. . ,
A. And I do mean you!
Q. Uh-huh . . .
A. Ha, ha! Now, now, don't take it so person-ally!