The Cost of Conformity: The Lavender Scare & Cold War Masculinity
By Jacquelyn Budai
In 1951 a book by Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer titled “Washington Confidential” was released. This book observed Washington D.C. at the time, and closely perceived the city from a unique lens. Lait and Mortimer referred to many different types of “problems”, but in Chapter 15 “The Garden of Pansies” a specific group of people who reside in Washington D.C. are then described as “fairies” and “mannish women.”[1] This book paints a picture of how society perceived people who were gay in the early fifties, specifically in the nation’s capital. Lait and Mortimer wrote, “There is no geographic section where [these] degenerates generally live. That is part of the general picture, everything, everywhere, in Washington.”[2] They were seen as people who infiltrated the city and were not to be trusted. Another word for an infiltrator is a spy, a word that Joseph McCarthy used all too well in his speeches about communists in the United States, ones that sparked the Second Red Scare in the late 1940s.
The Second Red Scare was propelled by conservative republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who argued that he knew of 205 card holding communists working in the State Department during a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia.[3] A social panic began, as there were already fears of communists infiltrating within the government prior to this speech. Following this, John Peurifoy, the Deputy Undersecretary of State for Administration in 1950, argued that there were not any communist employees within the State Department, but instead 91 known homosexuals who worked in the department.[4] While the public’s main focus remained on communists and the Cold War, gays and lesbians were equally targeted as some feared they posed security risks in an era of panic. This was the start of the Lavender Scare, a phrase first coined by author and historian David K. Johnson.
Through accumulation and analysis of research from primary sources and historians, multiple questions about the Lavender Scare can be asked. The first is how did government intervention through the Lavender Scare both create fear from the public and also stem from public response? This not only creates concerns of how the government, specifically Congressional Subcommittees, decided to act on the information of gays and lesbians who worked within the government but how the public was informed on this information and the actions that were taken. In simpler terms the government and public were in a rotation of push and pull, which created and sustained an atmosphere of fear during the Lavender Scare. The second question that came to mind was, in what ways did the changing views of masculinity at the start of the Cold War contribute to the firing of thousands of gay men and women in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which is now known as the Lavender Scare? The exaggerated focus on ideas of Cold War masculinity in the late 1940s and 1950s reflected the concerns of America in the early phases of the Cold War, especially when looked at through the Lavender Scare. Finally, it should also be noted that the Lavender Scare directly led to the start of the Gay Rights Movement seen starting during the scare, and can be followed into the present day.
Government intervention & fear
The Lavender Scare is a direct reflection of the government’s fears at the start of the Cold War, similar to the Second Red Scare that occurred at this time. While investigations of gays and lesbians differed from the ways that potential communists were investigated, the government used its resources to find and investigate gays and lesbians who worked in government positions. The public’s fears of the time influenced these investigations by the government, but as years of investigations went on the government also emphasized the fears of the public. It essentially created a push and pull effect, where the government felt pressured by outside forces and the public was forced to respond to what the government found.
The Senate is where much discourse in the government occurred about gays and lesbians who worked in Federal Government. A Congressional Report from March 31, 1950 showcased the homophobic atmosphere surrounding the Senate. Republican Senator Bridges from New Hampshire said, “The President of the United States knows that the only thing I want to sabotage is the enemies of the United States. Who are they? They are the appeasers; they are the subversives; they are the incompetents; they are the homosexuals, who threaten the security of this country and the peace of the world.”[5] Senator Bridges’ rhetoric in this congressional report shows the fear that is aimed to be pushed out to the public as he paints gays and lesbians as enemies, but also the democrats as well referring to them as appeasers. Senator Miller from Nebraska added to this report, “You must know what a homosexual is. It is amazing that in the Capital City of Washington we are plagued with such a large group of those individuals. Washington attracts many lovely folks. The sex crimes in the city are many.”[6] The connotations here paint homosexuals as perverts, like they were years before, but now with the threat of national security. This Congressional Report shows how the 1950s was where homophobic ideology was able to dominate government concerns.
Fear of gays and lesbians who held positions in the government was executed further by local newspapers. One of the most notable newspapers to inform and alert the public was the Washington Evening Star, as it provided updates on the estimated amount of people who were gay and held a job in government. In April of 1950, the newspaper reported that “charges have been aired that there are about 5,000 perverts in this city, many in Federal Employment.”[7] This is the initial public news report about what has been discussed within the government about the concerns of gays and lesbians. The explanations in the news report radiates the fear that the government officials at the time had experienced, onto the public. At the end of May 1950, the same newspaper published a lengthy report about gays and lesbians involved in government employment. It is crucial to note the Congressional Subcommittee of Senators Wheely and Hill, who were the first to investigate government agencies to rid them of gays and lesbians. This specific news report notes their argument for a full investigation of homosexuals employed by the federal government, as they pend Senate approval, and the suspected numbers in all sectors of government, which included the military.[8] This report reflected the way that both the government and public felt like gays and lesbians infiltrated the government, in such a way that needed quick and direct intervention to prevent any threats.
Masculinity during the Lavender Scare
While the Lavender Scare itself reflects the fear of gays and lesbians in government and society due to the potential security risk they posed, it also deeply reflected the concerns of masculinity in politics during the time period. Joeseph McCarthy was a man who had a strong sense of the ideal masculinity. His masculinity was something new and different, as he aimed to portray himself “as a fighter, gambler and womanizer” which intrigued many people both in government and the public in general.[9] He set a standard on how to respond to threats, in this case communism and homosexuality, through the way he carried himself as a man. Supervisor of the Foreign Service Files, Helen Balog notes during the McCarthy Hearings that many people refer to McCarthy as “a big, bad wolf” and “a dragon of some kind.”[10] Her description of him emphasizes his dominant disposition in government. Additionally, masculinity is an important factor in how gays were received in society as well, especially since they were stereotyped as having qualities and traits that were not typically associated with their gender. The focus on gender during the Lavender Scare is essential to recognize as it aligns completely with the political ideologies that were presented against communism and homosexuality during this time.
During the McCarthy Era, gender was deeply intertwined with and attributed to politics. The discourse that connected to the fight against communism, and homosexuality in government, was woven into the way that politicians carried themselves. Historian K.A. Cuordileone said, “The power of hard/soft opposition in political discourse lay here, in the gendered symbolic baggage that gave such imagery meaning and resonance.”[11] The public began to associate hardness and excessively masculine traits with a hardness against communism and other security threats, which were gays and lesbians. The public also associated softness, often attributed to liberal politicians, with an unwillingness to take down potential enemies, and a possible contribution or affiliation to the threat itself.[12] This created a split within government, as politicians used this as a strategy against one another as they continued their fight against threats of national security. This new political atmosphere also pushed politicians to strive for a hardness against these threats, so that they aligned with the fight to ease the publics fears.
While the way someone presented their masculinity in government was commonly used as a political strategic tool, homophobia was as well, no matter how hard or soft the politician was. McCarthy, commonly described as being a hard politician with uncontrolled masculine traits, had his own run in with suspicions of his sexuality.[13] Hank Greenspun, a reporter, had published numerous reports that labeled McCarthy as a homosexual, and suspicion about McCarthy’s sexuality began to run throughout both the public and the government.[14] As McCarthy’s masculinity was debated, Cold War liberals who experienced the sting of softness on their political careers, jumped in on the allegations against McCarthy, to essentially ruin McCarthy’s career through the emphasis that he was not to “be trusted to defend his nation’s interest.”[15] In their efforts to destroy McCarthy through his sexuality, liberal politicians were able to show their stance on the matter of sexuality, which was that it did pose a threat to national security and was able to be hidden even behind the mask of strong masculinity.
While these politics charged by the notions of gender are important to consider, it is also crucial to weigh the impact on gays and lesbians themselves, who were the direct targets of politicians at the time, and how they were perceived by society. Stereotypes were commonly used to determine whether or not someone was gay. David K. Johnson stated, “Gay men were more likely to be targeted due to lesbians having less access to public space leading to them not being arrested as much as men. It was more typical for women to be close to other women, whereas there were more lines drawn within relationships with men.”[16] This not only reflects the government’s concerns of gays in federal employment, but the attributes of gender in the same sense. The connections between the fear of softness, and the fear of gays and lesbians infiltration in government positions is one that connects and reflects how both gender and sexuality drove the political landscape during the early years of the Cold War.
The Effects and the movements
The Lavender Scare and the focus on virile masculinity created a ripple effect that is still felt in the society of the United States today. The forced removal of thousands from their careers altered lives, as the government’s interference touched each person who was a part of the gay community. The removal process of gays and lesbians from their federal jobs was done in a quiet manner, so that many of the people removed from their jobs would remain outcasted from society. When suspicion arose, suspected gays and lesbians would be investigated and questioned about their sexuality, afterwards being asked to resign.[17] It was common that coworkers of government employees would simply disappear, one day at work and the next gone with no explanation.[18] After resignation, many people also fled to other parts of the world where there might have been more acceptance.[19] John E. Matson, a special agent in the State Department’s Division of Security, said, “This particular man is Thomas Hicock. Unfortunately, this man a week later committed suicide, so he is out of the picture. He had been in the Foreign Service for over eighteen years.”[20] While this is one example of what happened after someone was forced from their job, there is much that is still unknown and hidden within history.
Since these removals deeply altered the way of life for gays and lesbians that worked for the government, many acted against the discrimination. The Mattachine Society that was formed in Los Angeles was created by Henry Hay, a gay man and communist, in 1950. The group would become known as one of the first instances where response and retaliation arose against the discriminatory actions of the government. The FBI had a strong focus on the group and their magazines, Mattachine Review and One, which were published to spread their message of equality for gays and lesbians. The FBI looked for subversives throughout the group, but concluded that “the aim of the organization was to educate legislators and educators with respect to homosexuality.”[21] However, this is early in the investigation of the Mattachine Society of Los Angeles, and two more parts to the investigation proceeded this one which showed the desperateness to find something within the group that posed as a threat.
The group’s foundation of communism deeply influenced their agenda for advocacy and equality for gays and lesbians, which created some problems within the organization. Historian James Kirchick said, “Within a few years of its formation, however, the Society decided to distance itself from Hay and others with politically dicey affiliations.”[22] One of the groups to come out of this split was The Mattachine Society of Washington, created by Frank Kameny, an astronomer who worked in government and was fired from his job in 1957. Kameny differed from many others who were asked about their sexuality while at their government job, and fought against his forced removal through court cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court. There he argued that he and 15 million other Americans were treated as “second-class citizens.”[23] The Mattachine Society of Washington D.C. formed after his petition to the Supreme Court was denied. However, Kameny did not let this stop his advocacy, and he continued to lobby government officials and encouraged judicial cases in his fight for equality.[24] Kameny continued to remain at the forefront of the gay rights movement, and never stopped his fight for the change needed to grant equality to gays and lesbians around the country.
At a glance, the impact of these groups does not seem to promote that much change, as discrimination against gays and lesbians continued. The groups that formed from the Lavender Scare created a voice that was not heard often. Additionally, the counterculture that appeared in the sixties featured activism that was never seen before and “challenged American society at its core” which allowed for more people to join the fight against discrimination in all senses. [25] While different groups had dissimilar ideas about how to advocate, each one nevertheless worked toward a common goal of gay and lesbian acceptance in society.
Conclusion
While the Lavender Scare involved the forced removal of thousands from careers in the federal government, it created a political landscape that has been often overlooked in history. As discrimination developed over the years, the government allowed fear to permeate both the political landscape and the public lens especially at the start of the 1950s when the Cold War began. This created a push and pull effect from both sides, where action of removal was the only apparent solution. As gays and lesbians posed a security risk, and were attributed with stereotypical notions of gender, the political landscape began to hyperfocus on both sexuality and gender, mainly in terms of masculinity. The idea of masculinity had a strong influence on both the government and public, which therefore led to a control on the legislative decisions that were made during the Lavender Scare.
The groups that formed from the government’s maltreatment were created out of a response from the prejudiced actions of the government. The Mattachine Societies that began to appear across the country reflected the ambition and need for change. People advocated through speeches, directly to the government or through magazine publications where they were able to draw more people into their cause. They advocated for change, and for an ability to be themselves in society. These groups that arose in a time where fear ran rampant through communities set the stage and provided a framework for the groups to come in the later years. Through the resilience and solidarity of each of these groups, change was able to happen.
The Lavender Scare is still a recently discovered aspect of history, and is one that is often overlooked. The forced removal of thousands of gay men and women from their careers is one that is left relatively unknown, as the second Red Scare dominates this era of history. But the years that followed the harsh 1950s created more and more opportunities for gay men and women. Still, it is only recently that people who are queer have had the opportunities to fully reenter into society, as same-sex marriage was legalized less than 10 years ago by the Supreme Court. However, there are still many people who do not receive the same treatment due to their sexuality or the way the present themselves in society. It is important to understand how deeply rooted homophobia is in the United States society, as it has been since the early twentieth century. By ignoring the hidden history of the LGBTQIA+ community, one is ignoring the current problems at hand. If resolution and reparations are to be made to those who were discriminated against, one has to look back on the past, reflect, and take action.
References
Primary sources:
Lait, Jack, and Lee Mortimer. Washington Confidential. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1951.
McCarthy, Joseph. “Speech in Wheeling, West Virginia.” February, 1950. Accessed through University of Oregon.
Congressional Report. Vol 96, Part 4. 4513-4527. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1950-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1950-pt4-3.pdf
Evening Star, “Initial Report Drafted on Sex Case Hirings” Washington D.C.: W.D. Wallach & Hope, April 28, 1950. From Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1950-04-28/ed-1/seq-27/
Evening Star, “Senator Hill Proposes Complete Inquiry Into Hiring of Undesirables.” Washington D.C.: W.D. Wallach & Hope, May 20, 1950. From Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1950-05-20/ed-1/seq-35/
Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations. 1953. https://www.senate.gov/about/resources/pdf/mccarthy-hearings-volume1.pdf
Mattachine Society: Part 01 of 03. FBI Records: The Vault. July 14, 1953. Accessed November 6, 2024. 15.
Secondary sources:
Cuordileone, K.A. ““Politics in an Age of Anxiety”: Cold War Political Culture and the Crisis in American Masculinity, 1949-1960”. The Journal of American History 87, no. 2 (2000): 515-545. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2568762.
Eaklor, Vicki F. Queer America: A People’s GLBT History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2008.
Friedman, Andrea. “The Smearing of Joe McCarthy: The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics.” American Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2005): 1105–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40068331
Johnson, David K. The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Kirchick, James. Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington. Henry Holt and Co., 2022.
Shibusawa, Naoko. “The Lavender Scare and Empire: Rethinking Cold War Antigay Politics.” Diplomatic History. 36, no. 4 (2012): 723-752.
[1] Ibid, 90-92.
[2] Ibid, 92.
[3] Joseph McCarthy, “Speech in Wheeling, West Virginia,” February, 1950, Accessed through University of Oregon.
[4] David. K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 1.
[5] Senator Bridges, Congressional Report. Vol 96, Part 4. 4513. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1950-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1950-pt4-3.pdf
[6] Miller, Congressional Report. Vol 96, Part 4. 4527. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1950-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1950-pt4-3.pdf
[7] Evening Star, “Initial Report Drafted on Sex Case Hirings” Washington D.C.: W.D. Wallach & Hope, April 28, 1950. From Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1950-04-28/ed-1/seq-27/
[8] Evening Star, “Senator Hill Proposes Complete Inquiry Into Hiring of Undesirables,” Washington D.C.: W.D. Wallach & Hope, May 20, 1950, From Library of Congress, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1950-05-20/ed-1/seq-35/
[9] Andrea Freidman, “The Smearing of Joe McCarthy: The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics,” American Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2005): 1108, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40068331.
[10] Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations. 1953, 187. https://www.senate.gov/about/resources/pdf/mccarthy-hearings-volume1.pdf
[11] K.A Cuordileone, ““Politics in an Age of Anxiety”: Cold War Political Culture and the Crisis in American Masculinity, 1949-1960,” The Journal of American History 87, no. 2 (2000): 516, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2568762.
[12] Ibid, 521.
[13] Andrea Freidman, “The Smearing of Joe McCarthy: The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics,” American Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2005): 1112, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40068331.
[14] Ibid, 1112.
[15] Ibid, 1123-1124.
[16] David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 155.
[17] David K Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 2.
[18] Ibid, 150-151.
[19] Naoko Shibusawa, “The Lavender Scare and Empire: Rethinking Cold War Antigay Politics,” Diplomatic History, 36, no. 4 (2012): 748.
[20] Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations. 1953, 166. https://www.senate.gov/about/resources/pdf/mccarthy-hearings-volume1.pdf
[21] Mattachine Society: Part 01 of 03, FBI Records: The Vault, July 14, 1953, Accessed November 6, 2024, 15.
[22] James Kirchick, Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, Henry Holt and Co., 2022, 155.
[23] David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 181.
[24] Ibid, 192.
[25] Vicki F Eaklor, Queer America: A People’s GLBT History of the United States, (New York: The New Press, 2008), 108.
njcssjournal 