For today's comments, I'd like you to do two things: First, take some time to reach each other's major blog posts (the ones that were due on Sunday evening) and get to know what your classmates are thinking and writing about when it comes to our course material. Respond to two of your classmates. Your first comment should be for the writer that posted their blog right after yours (and the student who posted last can comment on the very first post). The second comment can be on any student's post.
When you comment, please identify the idea or point or perspective that you find the most interesting, engaging, thoughtful, or unique. Tell the writer why you think so. Then, end your comment with a question that their post raises for you.
Second, in preparation for Thursday's class, identify a topic or issue from this week's reading (one that connects both texts) that you find interesting or important, and tell us what that issue is and why you think it is important. Then, include a passage from D'Emilio's "After Stonewall" that would help us explore that topic. Pose an open-ended question about the text that you think would generate a good discussion in class on Thursday.
A central theme I observed in the reading is that early on some of the movements were characterized by single issue or single identity campaigns. D’Emilio wrote, “One characteristic that gay rights and lesbian separatism shared that each, in some sense, was a single identity movement. In the former case, sexual orientation was the focal point for organizing, in the latter, it was gender. Neither left room for a broader, more complex vision of social change..” My question is do you think single issue movements are helpful or harmful in the LGBTQIA+ community? If not currently were they back then? Would the movement have made progress if things were more inclusive?
ReplyDeleteA central theme I observed in the readings this week was how the movement kept evolving since World War II. I knew about the Stonewall riots in 1969 and assumed from there that it was the beginning of Queer Justice in America. However, after reading Rupp and D’Emilio’s works, it seemed that it really started before, during, and after World War II. While there were not many activists until the sixties and seventies, it is so essential to acknowledge the role drafting during World War II had. It made men and women realize that they actually have these attractions to people of their sex, and began a spark when they were dishonorably discharged. D’Emilio does point out that in the beginning, “...that few gay men and lesbians were willing to affiliate with the movement.” (4). After the rise of the radical gay liberations, lesbian-feminism, and the impact of the AIDS epidemic, the movement continually grows stronger. D’Emilio writes the following:
ReplyDelete“There are good reasons for optimism. Many of our organizations have built gender parity into their structure. Lesbians in large numbers have important leadership roles, nationally and locally, in the movement.” (31). He continues that while there are people who continue to fight against the LGBTQIA+ community, because of how far the community has come, the policies and norms they have set can never be turned back.
My question for Thursday is going back to the 1950s during McCarthyism. How did the movement affect what was happening inside government walls with communism?
A topic that I find interesting from this week's reading is the rise of Lesbian Feminism. As a result of the women's liberation movement, it created Lesbian Feminism. Lesbian feminist work to challenge both heterosexuality and the perception of male supremacy. According to D'Emilo, "the sense of betrayal that that these new lesbians experienced in feeling silenced and dismissed by those who had only been their comrades would propel them into a lesbian-feminist movement of their own" (D'Emilio, 16). The creation of lesbian feminism allows for lesbian women to have their own identity and not live in the shadows of the men of the gay rights movement. Because of lesbian feminism, D'Emilio claims that "feminism was impossible without lesbianism" (D'Emilio, 17). This quote shows just how much of a important role feminsim lesbian played.
ReplyDeleteA question that D'Emilio's text rasied for me is: How does having multiple orgnanizations and movements harm or hurt the overall goal of the LGBTQ+ community? Is it better to come together in unity and fight for LGBTQ+ rights as a one or is having more movements more effective?
A central theme that I found important is the dialogue that opened with the scientific community about the categorization of homosexuality as a mental illness along with the psychological testing that was designed in supposedly improving the mental health of those who served on the armed forces. This issue then led to the discussion of the categorization of homosexuality as a sin within the religious community. The 1960's proposed a solution which was "decriminalization of homosexual act, unequal treatment and equal rights under the law, and the dissemination of accurate "unbiased: information about homosexuality" (D'Emilio 4). Policies and procedures within the government had to change concerning militarization first because as Rupp discussed, antihomosexual policies afterwards spread to the civilian sector of the government. D'Emilio goes on to say more about this issue on page 7 stating that institutionalized heterosexuality reinforced a patriarchal nuclear family that socialized men and women into narrow roles and placed homosexuality beyond the pale.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is important as the LGBT community along with other minorities face possible setbacks that were once overcome with the current government. A question that came up as I was comparing and reading the texts was why, with years of exclusion, it took so long for the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy to get repealed and how militarism and sexuality has evolved to be at the forefront of rights movements as we faced the transgender ban in the military from this current government.
A reading of D'Emilio lends itself to an understanding of the role of intersectionality in early Queer movements. Though not used as an explicit term by D'Emilio, intersectionality--or the multiplicities of self, in some, during the early liberation era--plays a crucial role in mobilization. Notably, the text on Lesbian-Feminists and Gays of Color illustrate the dire need for increased political attentiveness. While the political capitol of White Gay Men is abundant, the needs for institutionalized change and liberation were not equal to the needs of intersectional queer people. D'Emilio's passage, which reads: "Lesbian-Feminists also elaborated a political critique of heterosexuality. No longer simply a statement of behavior, or an expression of deep rooted drives, it became an institution which male supremacy was enforced and through which some women achieved limited privileges . . ." (17).
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I am driven--after reading the texts--to ponder the role that tragedy plays in erecting political change.
A topic from this week’s readings I find very interesting is Lesbian Feminism. The idea that lesbian feminism had to fight two battles, sexism and homophobia, really shows how hard of a fight they had to put up. “The lesbian feminist movement owed its existence to the convergence of two clusters of activists: lesbians with experience in women’s liberation and women with experience in gay liberation” (D’Emilio 16). Something that was specific to this movement was how they critiqued heterosexuality in a political manner, before even the more established movements decided to take that on. “The failure to question the assumption of heterosexuality would forever inhibit women’s quest for autonomy” (D’Emilio 17). Because the world was rejecting lesbian feminists, they even went as far as to set up, in some ways, their own world. This society for themselves included crisis lines, community centers, magazines, books, theater, and all other parts of society they were being excluded from. Despite all of these efforts, it is considered that this movement was unable to ever create and lesbian political agenda. That fight was so opposed by society that the lesbian feminists decided to focus on community building instead of political issues. My question is— was it right for the lesbian feminist community to first focus on community building instead of a political agenda? And if so is that based on “feminine” ideas?
ReplyDeleteAuthor John D'Emilio nicely summarizes his characterization of separate eras in LGBTQ+ progress:
ReplyDelete“Pre-Stonewall activists were employing ordinary means to attack an extraordinary situation… How to challenge the regime of the closet- that [was the problem that] the Stonewall Riot and its aftermath appeared to solve.” Liberation, if attainable, is a long, slow process. While pre-stonewall activism was focused on 'smaller' practical goals such as decriminalization of homosexual activity and the dissemination of correct knowledge about the LGBTQ+ community, these battles very much laid the ground work for the Stonewall Riots and gay liberationist theory and activism that followed. While reform and policy change, particularly on a smaller scale, may seem futile when acknowledging deep seated systemic issues, it is still necessary change. I would like to know more about the progression of this movement and particularly the dangers of letting theory become dogma, as queer theory would warn us about as well. How do we engage in a process of ongoing reflection on the theories that shape our activism, ensuring that we do not limit ourselves by becoming rigid in dogmas that "breed both heresy and inquisition"?
The topic I found most interesting was the cruel treatment of gay and lesbian people in the 1940s and 50s and the slow emergence of gay culture despite this poor treatment. In John D’Emilo’s introduction he describes the reaction of the United States when a small group of gay people came out publicly. He says, “the homosexual emerged from the shadows, but in the image of a menace to the nation.” (3) I know that this is only a small part of the history of emerging gay culture but I had no idea how horrific the practices of the military and government as a sneaky way of punishing homosexuals without it being illegal. For example, during World War II gay military men and women would get dishonorable discharges and would find themselves unable to get jobs and were denied veteran benefits. Rupp quotes a man named, Marty Klausner, who expressed how unhappy and confused he was. This is a heartbreaking realization to come to and realize just how cruel our government was to gay people primarily for the reason that they were afraid of a world where homosexuals were out for all the public to see. In the 1950s the gay community was persecuted under McCarthyism. A government operation that was created to eliminate possible threats of treason. McCarthy linked Communism and “sexual perversion” and although the two have no relation the public widely believed it. Despite all of this intense oppression the gay community slowly opened up more and gay organizations began to emerge. Many people did not back down in fear of what might happen to them because they are gay. I find this bravery important because the small group of openly gay people paved the way for future fights for LGBTQA justice.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I thought was particularly insightful is the D'Emilio's constant reference to how people of color, specifically young gay men, were involved in the pre-Stonewall and most certainly post Stonewall era. What I found interesting was that there was a deep connection between the Civil Rights movements organizing blacks folks and the fight for gay and lesbian rights. It seemed that through supported issues that that knew, assuming that many were struggling to know themselves in authentic ways, engaging deeply with the radical culture of the area made for some powerful and potent rhetoric and political strategy for the movements that were created post Stonewall. Once being submerged in the history of the context of Stonewall, more things actually begin to make sense. When you place the event in a historical movement of movement and activism, you can see that the ways in which folks were able to engage were definitely because the world around them while hard to change, was certainly malleable and changing constantly. There was no option but to join in and fight. What makes this particularly interesting is that through the way that I engaged with the text it seemed like there were white folks recignizing their own role to be active and fight for the rights of others as well. Almost like the intersectional language of "all of our oppressions are involved with one another."
ReplyDeleteA passage that I particularly liked from D'Emilio was, "People who came out were relinquishing the one protection gays had against stigmatization. They therefore required new forms of self defense, which was precisely what a radical gay liberation movement was." This quote is important to me because it has tension with some of the ways people think about being queer now, back then, in this context, coming out was a rejection of norms that was not only for you but was to put to bed a common societal notion how what "normal relationships" looked like. Through this declaration, queer folks gained power because they were willing to lose their spots in the safe straight world around them.