Maru (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yakalskovich) wrote2011-06-25 06:08 pm
yakalskovich) wrote2011-06-25 06:08 pm
Entry tags:
Whart makes me uneasy about 'History Boys'
You know, at the end, when they say how everybody ended up, Posner (whose narration it is) says that he has become a teacher who followed in Hector's footsteps, with similar ambivalence and angst, though without "touching the boys", which is "always a struggle. But maybe that's why I'm a good teacher". [[quoted from here as I was too lazy to type my own paraphrase]]
I totally balk at the idea of gay teacher = attracted to the boys = always a struggle. From a 2011 point of view, I find the equation deeply offensive, even homophobic. But what about the children?? is the eternal rallying cry of the socially backwards. We get that supposed killer argument against progress in Fat Acceptance, we (hopefully) no longer get it in Gay Liberation, at least not openly, the way we used to. Translate that into the idea that a straight male teacher in secondary education will always be attracted to the girls and will have to struggle to keep his hands off them, to see quite how prejudiced this is! Does anybody seriously and automatically suspect every male teacher of trying to molest his pupils? Societal memetics are flowing towards automatically suspecting every man talking to small children not related to him as a child molester, but here, with kids doing their A levels, we're definitely not on child molester grounds.
No, that sentence infers that gays are a) oversexed (so not touching the boys will be a 'struggle'), b) attracted to young innocent boys in the first place, instead of men like themselves and c) generally sad creatures whom nobody wants (so why shouldn't Posner have some decent 21st century m/m home life where he complains about the irksome little orcs he teaches to his lover, the way any straight teacher do to their spouse, and that's it?). That is so eighties of the writers. Yes, I know the movie/play is set in the eighties (it's set in the year when I was first in England, which amused me quite a bit as it shows a slightly bygone England that I used to know), but the play is from 2004, the movie from 2006. At least the bit from the future at the end, when Posner lists what has become of whom, could be a dash more liberated and 2000s. It irks me that it's not. The playwright seems to be stuck in the 80s himself, to put it that way. Posner made it into the new millennium; why on earth should he be stuck being a sad closeted 80s 'homosexual'?
I totally balk at the idea of gay teacher = attracted to the boys = always a struggle. From a 2011 point of view, I find the equation deeply offensive, even homophobic. But what about the children?? is the eternal rallying cry of the socially backwards. We get that supposed killer argument against progress in Fat Acceptance, we (hopefully) no longer get it in Gay Liberation, at least not openly, the way we used to. Translate that into the idea that a straight male teacher in secondary education will always be attracted to the girls and will have to struggle to keep his hands off them, to see quite how prejudiced this is! Does anybody seriously and automatically suspect every male teacher of trying to molest his pupils? Societal memetics are flowing towards automatically suspecting every man talking to small children not related to him as a child molester, but here, with kids doing their A levels, we're definitely not on child molester grounds.
No, that sentence infers that gays are a) oversexed (so not touching the boys will be a 'struggle'), b) attracted to young innocent boys in the first place, instead of men like themselves and c) generally sad creatures whom nobody wants (so why shouldn't Posner have some decent 21st century m/m home life where he complains about the irksome little orcs he teaches to his lover, the way any straight teacher do to their spouse, and that's it?). That is so eighties of the writers. Yes, I know the movie/play is set in the eighties (it's set in the year when I was first in England, which amused me quite a bit as it shows a slightly bygone England that I used to know), but the play is from 2004, the movie from 2006. At least the bit from the future at the end, when Posner lists what has become of whom, could be a dash more liberated and 2000s. It irks me that it's not. The playwright seems to be stuck in the 80s himself, to put it that way. Posner made it into the new millennium; why on earth should he be stuck being a sad closeted 80s 'homosexual'?