Because I think that it speaks to insecurities that all black men have about masculine identity. With that being said,
THIS DISCUSSION IS WAY PASSED DUE not only for Alpha Phi Alpha, But for black men in general.
Are there gay brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. ? YES!!!!
Can we "rid" the frat of them? NO!!!! (as long as there is a "closet" that they can retreat to, I think there will always be gay brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha).
Should we "rid" the frat of them? This is the "rub" so to speak of this discussion. The most heralded objection to gay brothers is that homosexuality is not "manly" and does not adhere to the aims of our fraternity. What is "manly" anyway? I wrote my master's thesis on this very issue. One chapter talked about the homosexual "thug" that is present in the black community, one who enjoys gay sex, but hates, with a disdain unreal, any "femininity" in men. One "homo-thug" noted that he was "secure enough in [his] manhood to admit that [he] liked homosexual sex"
! As strange as this sounds, I think that it speaks to an uncertainty about the masculine identity in general. It really made me think about what we call "masculinity" and what we call "femininity". Did the Jewels define specifically what "manly" actually means? Though I don't necessarily agree with that "homo-thug", I think he poses a powerful question about masculine identity. Does it have to depend exclusively on sexual preference? Does enjoying "gay sex" automatically exclude you from the ranks of being a "manly man"? If so, why? Where do we get these ideas from? What about righteousness? Does a straight man that steals money have more "masculinity" than a man that has gay sex? Is a man that rapes women have more "manliness" than a gay man?
The next argument against homosexuals in the frat is character. Character is a very precarious term. If we say that a homosexual is not of "good character" what do we base this claim on? Do we base it on homosexuality being immoral according to various holy books? If so, then we have to weigh other activities that these same holy books claim to be "immoral" when we consider the character of any aspirant (including pre and extra marital sex, imbibing until the point of intoxication, greed, etc.). According to this logic, then any aspirant that has ever gotten drunk, had sex and was not married, or wants to live exorbitantly would also
not be fit to join the brotherhood,nor would any brother guilty of these activities be worthy of the brotherhood and should be "gotten rid of". If we base the immorality of homosexuality on what we as a brotherhood as defined as "manly", then have we, as a brotherhood, defined "manly" in any substantive and regulative way? If so, where? In the ritual? I think what is "manly" is one of those "unexamined realities" of our lives (kinda like why some go to church, they really don't examine why, they just accept that they do go to church). What happens with these "unexamined realities" is that they often become illogical assumptions that validate our insecurities, rather than Truth that can liberate us from those very insecurities.
So the question that I am asking is this....
WHAT MAKES A MAN "MANLY" ?
I think if we define terms, then we can have a more substantive discussion, as Bro. Dr. Cornell West often states.
Blackwatch!!!!!!