#gay M*A*S*H

[crustaceousfaggot]

Hawkeye you can't just say that

[tuttle-did-it]

A lot of your questions, I'm not really qualified to answer as I was not in the writer's room. I have written on the show academically, about the queer and camp relationships, but as to how much was intentional, I cannot say as I was not in the writer's room. Maybe some of the writers intentionally put things in, maybe they put it in cos they thought it would be funny. I can't say. Maybe get in touch with writers like Ken Levine and ask him most of this.

But whether intentional or not, there are queer signifiers within the show. And a lot of it has to do with the visuals of queer in 1970s. I was alive then, and I was queer, and most of the queer men looked like BJ, Fonzie and Thomas Magnum.

I think it’s been said that it was Alan’s idea for the BJ moustache— but that could be wrong. Whether intentionally or not, BJ’s moustache and over-all appearance with the moustache does fall in with the post Stonewall gay scene— particularly the ‘Castro Clone.’

Archetypes like sailor, biker, etc— these clones were a send-up of the hyper-masculine — so butch it’s gay. Ever notice how gay Fonzie seems coded on Happy Days? Clone. Why Thomas Magnum on Magnum PI felt somehow really gay even if he was kissing a woman? How gay the Village People (All stereotypes of hypermasculinity) all were not in spite of the hyper-butch outfits, but because of it. All worth a very similar aesthetic.

BJ’s hair style, moustache and that straw hat, the pink Henley with red braces, a green vest, slightly curly hair and bit longer than traditional, occasionally a tighter t-shirt, the motorbike, and occasionally in the skates with a lot of chest hair. These images were very common within the clone look.

Couple this with VERY lesbian coding of Margaret (especially when Helen visits), the occasionally usually quite limp-wristed performance of Hawkeye (along with the occasional straw cowboy hat), and how often Hawkeye and BJ tend to touch and embrace, shower together, and their general body language—intentional or not— made them visible to us queers who recognised those aspects.

Let’s take this single moment:

BJ’s hands on the hip, the swagger, an arm around him slightly possessively— met with Hawk’s entirely unnecessary grabbing of the fabric on his waist and holding it there— for most of us, there is nothing heterosexual about this moment. It’s too intimate— especially as it’s in front of so many people, showing a comfort and confidence that this kind of touch it’s normal and acceptable.

And because there are repeated moments like this in most scenes in nearly all the episodes.

There is a reason I say that the final scene with Hawk and BJ in GFA is the most romantic divorce in cinematic history. With the queer coding especially with BJ’s aesthetics, there is and has always been a romantic element to this scene. And most of their scenes.

I think that if you showed this scene to someone who didn’t know the episode, didn’t know this show, and told them to focus primarily on body language, they would say this looks like a break up between these two men—neither of whom want to leave the other. That is a very intimate move. Watch that whole scene i entirety-- watch their body language, their expressions. Watch it with the sound off.

Especially because the hand on the back of the head is how Hawk has previously hugged his canon lovers.

How he held Kyung Soon:

And Carlye:

Thanks to @efort for the pics and so quickly!!

When Hawk loves someone and hugs them, he holds their head. This is just a Thing He Does. Did Alan do it to show that Hawk was gay? I doubt it. But I am convinced he did it because Hawk loved BJ.

Did the writers all decide to make M*A*S*H incredibly gay? Did he actors unconsciously about this body language? Did the costume department decide to queer BJ up? I doubt it. Could one or two of the actors or writers see things this way and decide to play off it? Possibly. Do any of them in the show intentionally construct all of this? Did it just magically happen? I don’t know. Wasn’t there in the room with them.

But I can tell you that to those of us who recognised those queer signifiers, seeing body language like this constantly, there was no question. Did the straights get it? Probably not. But that doesn't mean we didn't see it.

Whether they meant it or not, most of the M*A*S*H characters are queer-coded in one way or the other. But BJ is probably the most visually queer, whereas Hawk 100% is a bisexual disaster. On purpose or not, that's what the show definitely makes clear.

you know we’re all rational adults: there’s no way we all hallucinated gay mash narrative out of nothing

[ninjafuuzz]

the evil stache bj propaganda

[remyfire]

Silvery S7 Hawkeye is a very specific torment of mine. Do you know what I mean.

[dick-chugger]

Average 1970s sitcom

[mimi-kkyutie]

[0ghostbees0]

I love how David Ogden stiers could not imagine being attracted to women like they wrote Charles to have heterosexually motivated interactions with women but his soul is winning the idgaf war. He's saying the lines and moving how they tell him to move but only because he has to and I just think that's neat and matches the character so well. Charles goes through the motions of hitting on women because as a Winchester it's his job to find a worthy wife and continue the family line, also all of the men around him do that so he feels obligated to aswell whether or not hes actually interested. He gives off aroace vibes to me.

[ichayalovesyou]

Why Do Old-School TV Duos Have SUCH MLM Vibes?!

I think there’s something very specific about the formula and writing style of non-serialized/semi-serialized shows from the 60s to 80s that featured two grown men going on wacky dangerous adventures that makes my gay little literary analysis brain go absolutely off the wall bonkers. I’m trying to figure out why!

I’m writing this on my Trek blog because I don’t think this pattern in people actually shipping these types of relationships the way they do if fandom as we know it wasn’t born via TOS in syndication. That being said! I also think it has to do with the way these shows are designed that makes myself and others OBSESSED with a specific character dynamic that feels (to me) damn near impossible to replicate in modern television. In a way that’s more than just fandom, it’s in the way TV like this was written at the time!

Further explanation under the cut!

🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

I think what it usually boils down to is this. There’s a charming protagonist whom without the series could not operate, frequently top billed or the title character! (See: Wild Wild West, Starsky & Hutch) BUT he doesn’t have anyone to play off of! So what do they do pretty much every single time? Give Mr. Idealized Vision of Time-Period Masculinity For Genre a second guy to rhyme with!

See but the other guy has to play opposite but parallel to our hypermasculine protagonist. So what frequently ends up happening is that in order to play off our “normal” guy, even though he’s also a white dude, is that he’s still somehow Other.

They’re always perfect for each other, and they always get into scenarios that would be written, shot and interpreted by conventional audiences as romantic IF either one of those characters were a woman! Especially at the time these shows were made in.

If the one is aggressive, the other is gentle. If the protagonist is violent, his counterpart is intellectual. If the one is stoic, the other is emotional. Which (while one size def doesn’t fit all) usually makes the second guy come off as much more queer-coded (and sometimes other minorities like neurodivergent/disabled etc) than the other because of the traits associated with masculinity vs gayness at the time! Our prime examples in these gifs are Spock, Hutch, Artemus, and also *BJ!

*(M*A*S*H is a bit of a unique case since the show flirts with queerness more openly in ways that people more into the series have explained better than me but I think it still fits the formula I’m discussing.)

Here’s the thing though right? We’ve got two best friends, and the show NEVER really feels right if one of them is missing unless the focus of the story is how A & B operate without each other while trying to find the other one. They stick with and rescue each other unfailingly in scenarios that might destroy a regular friendship.

Hell, there’s often stuff that would emotionally/physically destroy a regular person/character in modern media. But because it’s not serialized they always seem to pull through seemingly through the power of friendship alone or dealing with it off-screen! Emotional consequences? Yuck! (Unless it’s M*A*S*H or Starsky & Hutch, like I said, not monolithic)

Here’s the thing that some people might say throws a wrench into the interpretation I’m discussing. What about the absolutely non-stop parade of conventionally attractive women the main protagonist (and less frequently the supporting man) goes through?

I would reply: how many of those female characters actually emotionally impact our protagonists as characters long term?

The answer is of course, because it’s NOT serialized, almost none! Kirk can watch Edith Keeler get killed by a car accident and still be making eyes at Spock the next episode. Hawkeye can have a “life changing” romance with a Vietnamese humanitarian woman, then share a blanket with BJ next episode like she never existed!

The Doylist explanation of course is not just the fact it wasn’t serialized but also just, constant, blatant 20th century sexism. Which SUCKS!!! As well as not wanting a long term love interest to throw off the character dynamic of our duderagonists. It’s the 20th century tv equivalent of bros before hoes.

However the Watsonian explanation always seems to result in no love interest EVER being more important than what the two protagonists have no matter whether you think they’re queer or not. No attractive woman could make our reputed babe-hound protagonist abandon his buddy. There’s no earnest romance our more queer-coded supporting man doesn’t end (or get ended for him) often for the protagonist’s sake.

Now some of these women are incredibly well written and straight up GOOD matches for our guys. So why wouldn’t they get involved in something long term UNLESS!! They were in love with each other the WHOLE time?

What if protagonist (frequently the babe hound) doesnt know he’s queer, or knows but doesn’t know he’s in love with his bestie, or any number of similar fruity explanations? The supporting man also runs into this explanation but people tend to believe he’s already aware that he’s queer but either also doesn’t know he’s in love or is keeping it to himself because time-period homophobia and/or thinking (probably not unreasonably) that babe hound is straight?

Between the inherent closeness of being narrative foils. The regularly scheduled life or death drama creating sometimes insanely romantic (in the narrative if not a literal sense) drama between the two. The revolving door of weekly women they never seem to get attached to enough to leave one another. The non-serialized nature resulting in sparse personal information/history about the protagonists as a result.

I think between the very NATURE of the way tv shows were written at the time. Plus the way fandom was shaped by a dynamic that has rippled through how media works and is interpreted by fans for decades upon decades. It’s not hard to imagine getting really emotionally invested in the possibility of the protagonists being in love is a fantastic way to enjoy the media!

In conclusion, it’s really fun and easy to go “these bitches gay! Good for them good for them!”

[kidpickarus]

um. hello. Hawkahy neck kissing under the cut

enjoy

without the overlay (lol I turned the lights back on)

[faggotmox]

so after the war do yall think father mulcahy left the priesthood to settle down in maine with a ridiculous jewish doctor with the dorky name hawkeye? do you think francis is who helps hawk stop drinking? do you think franics suggested moving to san fran for a while so hawkeye would have the support system he needs? do you think hawk & francis learned sign language together? do you think they swore to a life of love & peace together running their own patch adams style clinic? do you think hawk found a deaf boxing league for francis? do you think they go to the lobster boils holding hands? do you think they sit out on a row boat together, reading & fishing? DO you think they take yearly trips to visit radar & klinger? DO YOU?!

[wienners]

mash contribution

[theshamblewithsybles]

Those old men are gay in my heart

[beej-honnecticutt]

Further explanations in the tags! 🫶🏼

[oopswrongaccountsoz]

MASHBLR I'm doing an experiment reblog this and put your job in the tags. If you don't have one feel free to still reblog. I'm testing something important

[remyfire]

The only reason I took these is because I think they look good here. Love when they get to work together and be beautiful while doing it.

[dick-chugger]

I truly can't understand people writing Trapper as homophobic. That man's a proud pervert. Do you seriously think he'd give a fuck about Hawk fucking men? He loves sex perverts. He'd probably just think it's cool.