Thank you all for responding to my first post last week. I appreciated learning more about yourselves and seeing how you were making sense of our first reading, as well as thinking through the questions you posted. Please note that I responded to everyone who responded (as of Saturday morning), so if you'd like to continue responding, you are more than welcome to. Also, I encourage you to take time to read the comments your classmates make and respond to them, too. My hope is that this space will become a very dynamic virtual space that will enrich and reflect our time in class.
One of thoughts I was left with after our conversation on Wednesday, was a point that we didn't spend too much time on, but seems important to return to: As historians of sexuality have worked to show us that identities like "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," or even "homosexual" don't always make sense historically (or even cross-culturally), sometimes we continue to act like these terms are coherent and stable today. Jagose argues that phrases like, "homosexuality in the modern sense" or "homosexuality as it is understood today" suggest or "imply that modern homosexuality, unlike its predecessors, is coherent, certain and known. Much is invested culturally in representing homosexuality as definitionally unproblematic, and in maintaining heterosexuality and homosexuality as radically and demonstrably distinct from one another" (18). As we continue to reflect on this book, it's arguments, and the meaning and usefulness of "queer," I think continuing to be open to all the mismatches and lack of coherence with regard to sexuality in our contemporary world will be important. What do you think?
(As an aside, I found this link to an interesting online conversation that HuffPost Live aired a few years ago. If you have time and interest, please view it, as it might help enhance our collective understanding: "What Does It Mean to Identify as Queer?")
For class on Monday, I'd like you reflect on two things: First, what specific kinds of activities, or discussion starters, do you like to do in classes like ours to get the discussion going? I will bring in a range of different activities starting on Monday, but would love to know what works best for you.
Second, after reading the next few chapters in Queer Theory: An Introduction, please take time to reflect on the three different movements that Jagose describes. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the reading and raise whatever questions seem important to you. I would be curious to read more about the distinctions or differences you see between these three movements or approaches to sexuality, as well as anything they might be said to share in common.
I look forward to reading your thoughts, and would love to see you read and comment to each other, too. Thank you!
In the assigned pages of Queer Theory, Annamarie Jagose provides us with an elaborate summary of the three integral movements that shaped—and continue to shape—the inner and outer growth of the LGBT community: the homophile movement, the radical queer/gay liberation movement, and the lesbian feminist movement.
ReplyDeleteThe homophile movement seeks to uphold conservatism and establish a sense of sameness between homosexuals and their straight counterparts in the form of respectability politics. Homophiles embrace “…political reform designed to increase tolerance of homosexuality and, in some cases, to decriminalise it” while welcoming scientific theories that entertain the notion of an inborn (homo)sexual attraction (22-3). The radical queer, however, resents the homophile. From the perspective of the radical queer, the assimilationist homophile is the antithesis of LGBT justice; unlike the homophile, the gay liberationist takes to streets (e.g., Stonewall) and separates themselves from dominant culture, proudly establishing themselves as the “other” (32). However, both movements share important similarites; homophiles and gay liberationists both “…targeted…urban police forces, the federal government, the churches, the medical profession, the press and other media,” consequently creating an international impact (29, 35).
The lesbian feminist, angered by the ways in which patriarchy has infiltrated LGBT movements, distances herself from the dominant gay male narrative and finds solace in her own uniquely gendered experiences (44). She will be ostracized and generalized by homosexual men and other feminists alike; she has no community to turn to, so she must carve her own niche in the queer world (e.g., Lavender Menace) (46-7). Her identity, like that of the gay liberationist, is political and conscious rather than merely psychic or biological; however, her identity prides itself on a sense of universal sisterhood (39, 48). While radical queers urge others to, for lack of a better term, “get gay,” the lesbian feminist may urge other women to challenge male supremacy by engaging in acts of self-love and loving other women; in fact, she may even pander to the interests of straight women (40, 48). Despite this, she is still critical of (male) heterosexuality and gender (57).
I have a few questions/reflections regarding the reading:
1. During our last class, we discussed the average essentialist’s and constructivist’s views towards the social construct of biological sex. Based on the information that Jagose provides about the lesbian feminist movement, do you believe that the general lesbian feminist would have taken an essentialist approach and barred lesbian transgender women from their movement (while allowing female-assigned trans people who are attracted to cisgender women join it), or would they be more constructivist?
2. Would the early Mattachine Society be considered part of the radical queer movement due to its adherence to Marxist theory?
3. How might Karl Ulrich’s “third sex” theory be inconsiderate towards transgender identities (23)?
4. On page 39, Jagose mentions “effeminists,” or gay men who embrace femininity.
a. How might someone with little knowledge of the LGBT community conflate effeminists with transgender women? Why is it important to make a distinction?
b. Do you believe that effeminism may have influenced drag culture? Why or why not?
5. Page 52: “Gay men generally are in significant ways, perhaps in all important ways, only more loyal to masculinity and male-supremacy than other men.” After browsing the popular gay app Grindr with a few friends of mine and seeing “NO FEMS” and “I’m gay, but I’m not a f*ggot” in many men’s profile bios, I can say that this statement is not entirely untrue. Yikes.
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteI am still trying to find my “blog voice” so I am not sure how to write in a less academic way when talking about academic subject matter, but I am going to attempt to change my writing tone for this post.
Since we all did the reading, I don’t so much want to summarize each movement as Jagose wrote about them, but rather think out loud about what was interesting to me, confused me, or challenged me in these three chapters.
The chapter on the homophile movement was really interesting to me because I had no idea that LGBT activism had such conservative beginnings. While I am sure that the movement produced literature and information that helped give homosexuals at the time as sense of agency, I almost wonder if the movement could have delayed progress in certain ways. For example, could the acceptance of the notion that homosexuality was a “mental and psychic abnormality,” (24) be considered a step closer to homophobia rather than equality? It seems that the men and women involved in this movement had a great desire to “normalize” themselves to heterosexual society in order to gain acceptance in society, which was the main difference that I saw between the homophile movement and gay liberation. Homophile movement activists definitely displayed their own internalized homophobic oppression to some extent when they did things like reject association with drag queens or “butch” lesbians and placed a lot of stock in what the medical “experts” had to say about what it meant to be homosexual. I’m not trying to be overly critical of the movement, but I think its important to acknowledge the difficulties these oppressed people had with being liberated from their own internalized oppression.
Gay liberation completely switched approaches to their style of activism. They refused to ascribe the gender norms of the time and instead celebrate the ways in which they were different from mainstream heteronormative society. One part of this chapter that challenged and confused me was the idea of the “gay liberation” and the idea that heterosexuality and homosexuality can become to be recognized as “artificial categories.” I’m not sure what to make of the idea that “the gay revolution will produce a world in which all social and sensual relationships will be gay and in which homo and heterosexuality will become incomprehensible terms” (42). I’d like to go back to this page during class and further unpack what all these concepts mean.
The main thing I found interesting about the lesbian feminist movement was the purposeful separation from allying itself with gay men and choosing to rally support from heterosexual feminist women instead. Since gays and lesbians along with other gender and sexual minorities work so closely together in the equal rights movement, it was surprising to me that this was not always the case. One question I had about the reading was what one lesbian feminist had to say about gay men, “Gay men, in so far as they are men, are part of an oppressive social structure which lesbian feminism is committed to overthrowing” (50). Does this statement seem a little sexist to anyone else? It seems to make the assumption that men, not even men of a marginalized group, can be a part of the feminist cause for the lone fact that they are men. Thoughts?
To get discussions going, (I don’t usually participate), I like when the teacher asks what we found interesting, confusing, or something we disagree on. Once those are written on the board, you can see which things go together and which things should be discussed separately. But for me, writing it all down before discussing helps to add to the conversation for people who don’t like to talk (me), instead of having to try to jump into a conversation.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the three seconds I agreed most with Gay liberation. I liked that unlike the homophile movement, they used personal experience to get authority compared to going to professionals. The liberation movement, to me, seems more comforting for people to come out and be proud of who they are. On page 41, he lists off the goals of gay liberation, and this helped me to understand how accepting this association was compared to the homophile movement. I also liked how she brought up the idea of not having sexes at all on quoted on page 42, “if anyone were allowed to fall in love with anyone, the word “homosexual” would not be needed”. I agree that if we did not have sexes and did not have these social norms that have been put on our society, that people would love others for who they are; we might have a preference of whom we are drawn to, but it would not be odd to love someone different than us.
In chapter 5, Lesbian Feminism, she quotes on page 48, “Lesbian is the word, the label, the condition that holds women in line… Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dates to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives, who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs”. I think this quote has been proven in today’s society especially with feminist women. From my experience, quite often when guys hear that a girl is a feminist, they assume she is a lesbian as well. For me personally, I would consider myself a feminist who is not lesbian, but because of this stereotype, people assume I am until they get to know me. In this chapter, I also found it interesting when she says, “gay men can be seen as the conformists to male supremacy because they choose to love those whom everyone is mandated to love under this political system, that is, men” (51). I had to read this line over a couple of times because I had never heard this opinion before and found it very strange. To me, within the society, conforming is to be “straight” not to be gay.
First off, I love this course thus far. That being said, I cannot wait to read the other books we have assigned because this one, though important and a great starting point, is on the verge of boring.
ReplyDeleteThe chapters for this week, as the history geek that I am, were definitely worth reading. The homophile movement was interesting because it wasn’t at all a radical “movement”, per say, but more of an early effort. Not to say the work they did wasn’t effective, but it is what they did that turned into a predecessor for the work done in later movements. The particular focus of this movement was to integrate homosexuals and heterosexuals in society and in politics. They were giving themselves an identity and a “place” in society. The beginnings of the movement emphasized the idea of assimilation and theorizing homosexuals as a “minority group suppressed by the dominant culture” (26). This movement, though a precursor, was definitely more conservative than the later gay liberation movement. The gay liberation movement was more intense, gained more backing, and “by contrast, refused to pander to heterosexual anxieties and scandalized society with their difference rather than wooing it with claims of sameness” (31). With this movement came a brand new identity, I believe, for gays and gay activists. Another important thing to note, unlike earlier movements, was this movement was occurring in places all over the world.
The last chapter we read was on the lesbian feminist movement. Earlier in Queer Theory, Jagose had mentioned early movements were engineered for male membership and generally “disapproved of visibly butch stylings”, which is why the lesbian feminist movement was so important in our patriarchal society (27). The women of this movement were strong and dedicated, mainly due to the fact that they had been an incredibly marginalized group who were often forgotten even by radical feminists. The premise of their movement was securing equal rights for women, no matter their orientation. I’d like to hear more about the policies challenged in this chapter by the women, as well as ones adopted from their work.
Hey guys first time using this site and I'm not really a good tech person but I'll do my best. Here's what I wrote about this week's assigned reading. Feel free to tell me what you think.
ReplyDeleteQueer Theory Pages 22-57
Homosexuality has been a long term issue that has been hard to define consistently, in terms of acts that can classify someone in that identity. Acceptance for homosexuals has been such a large scale issue that it has reached a political level. Annamarie Jagose in Queer Theory states “The assertion of homosexuality as a politicized identity and insistence on the validity of gay-inflected knowledges are both enabled in the liberationist model by an emphasis on ‘coming out’ and consciousness-raising” (Jagose 38). What this means is that people with this identity have become more largely known about their differences. With larger scale knowledge this has promoted rights of gay people. Although acceptance would be more prevalent, standing up for demographics has to be all inclusive. “Lesbians have historically been deprived of a political existence through ‘inclusion’ as female versions of male homosexuality” (Jagose 49). In other words, now the problem is patriarchy. The reason for homosexual acceptance only applies to males because they are more empowered. Thus, coming from a peace and justice perspective, the question is how to be inclusive when promoting equal rights for all. Jagose states “the United States has influenced many spheres of western life, ranging from systems of government, economic developments, international trade and peace agreements to forms of popular culture, vernacular expressions and subcultural style” (Jagose 35). This statement emphasizes that there large scale factors that create a cultural identity. For gay men and lesbian women, it would be important to identify the same or similar types of oppression that they face. Whatever the oppression may be, pointing out that both these demographics suffer could promote unbiased equality.
I really enjoy having class-wide discussions about the chapter to clear up the confusion with some of the more detailed or confusing passages to create a stable foundation to delve deeper into thoughtful discussions about what the chapters are really saying, and if we all agree. I’m not partial to any particular methods; I enjoy having the opportunity to contribute, even though I can never get what I actually want to say to come out of my mouth.
ReplyDeleteThe homophile movement aimed to educate, persuade, and assimilate with society. This didn’t go over so well as there was a good deal of segregation in an already alienated group of people. Instead of banding together to work as a productive, unified team of people with differing sexualities, they devalidated each other (and probably each other’s efforts for progress) by pitting themselves against each other. There were many people working for the same goal but trying to achieve it in different ways, and ultimately I feel they undermined each other a lot. They made it seem like more of a condition than an identity.
The gay liberation movement stemmed from a desire to no longer politely sit and wait for society to decide that homosexuals could sit at their lunch table; there was a switch from attempting to be a model citizen to flaunting one’s identity and all of its differences (PRIDE!). While the homophile movement circulated information and texts to inform people in order to stimulate understanding and tolerance, the children of the gay liberation movement stormed in and demanded it. Hellbent on starting a revolution, they stopped trying to give people new information, but instigated doubts in information they already had that was to do with their socially constructed gender roles and the like. Gay liberationists wanted to redesign the way the world saw them; not as sick, or abnormal, but as human beings with a different identity. I thought, “As gays, we demand an end to the gender programming which starts when we are born,” (39) to be a very empowering statement. I love that this chapter talks about te deconstruction of gender roles; I find it very uplifting that it’s mentioned that this isn’t only for only gay sexualities, but for everyone.
The Lesbian Feminism movement came about to challenge the neglect to include lesbians in the fight to end oppression for homosexualities. I’m a little confused by the way the book describes this movement, but I’m under the impression that it was thought dangerous or damaging to the progress women had made with their rights recently? “Radical young lesbians without gay men,” (46) formed organizations to battle oppression particularly against lesbians. The world was late to acknowledge women homosexuality, and it is later to acknowledge women homosexual rights, as well. “Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal,” (48). The lesbian feminism movement was driven to fight the oppression pushed upon them for wanting to be acknowledged as equals, and in general, in matters of politics and much more. This movement involved a lot of political documents and gatherings.
Final world,
Homophile movement: Asking and informing others. Acknowledging oppression and giving others tools to fight it. Paper/media.
Gay liberation movement: Demanding and making people acknowledge that homosexuals are valid, real, human beings. Destroying the system and socially constructed gender roles and rebuilding, liberating sexuality. Grassroots/people-led movement.
Lesbian Feminism movement: the banding together of lesbians to be acknowledged as equals and included, to stand united in the name of women and fighting oppression upon their gender and sexuality.
Can we discuss the idea of homosexuality being a “third sex,” (23), because I don’t think I understand the concept entirely!
Overall the chapters described the history of the movements and their main points and focuses. While they are all different I see an evolution of definitions of sexual desire and gender norms within them.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding the homophile movement was mostly about acknowledgment that there was a community. This chapter brought me back to Geoffrey stating in class that there were persons that did not agree with gay marriage for the gay communities, because it was adapting to the hetero norms. For me this brought up questions of rights for the LGBTQ communities, and would they need or want to look adaptive now?
The gay liberation movement seemed to go beyond the needs of the homophile. I especially found it interesting that while the homophiles still sought opinions from psych/med experts, the gay liberation felt that their experience made them experts. I thought this was an important distinction since it was a validation of what the community felt and knows. Also, the further exploration of the term and oppression of the gender binary and sexual binary seemed to give momentum to the birth lesbian feminism.
Like the waves of feminism the movements develop more and more based on the unpacking of definitions and the development of the needs of the people. I also saw the parallel of acknowledging that there was still privileged people in each movement and that there was a need to become inclusive and aware of those still being marginalized. The closing statement, "Queer is also productively informed by lesbian feminism in three crucial respects; its attention to the specificity of gender, its framing of sexuality as institutional rather than personal, and its critique of compulsory heterosexuality (p57)." I feel these are good points that lead to questioning the normative structures in place surrounding the areas of gender and sexual nature or desire.
To engage in discussion I am enjoy when the teacher asks what stuck out the most, or what was most disturbing, or what made us think. I think those are the best type of questions.
ReplyDeleteIn Pages 22-57 of Queer Theory, Annamarie Jagose gives an elaborate summary of the three fundamental movements that shaped history and continue to shape the future. They are as follows, the homophile movement, the gay liberation movement, and the lesbian feminist movement. They are each their own movement with different goals and sometimes different and sometimes similar viewpoints. The homophile movement was not a mass movement like the gay liberation movement or lesbian feminism movement. It set up educational programs and worked towards political reform in order to increase tolerance of homosexuality and in some cases decriminalize it. They concentrated on circulating information about homosexuality in magazines, newsletters and broadsheets. The Mattachine Society was created and worked towards a gender-neutral homosexuality. The gay liberation movement called themselves gay liberationists and challenged conventional knowledge about matters such as gendered behavior, monogamy, and the sanctity of the law. Whereas the homophile movement had come to advocate assimilation, gay liberation was constructed around the notion of a distinctively gay identity. The gay liberationist movement talked about creating conditions in society, which people would be, valued as people, rather than in terms of their sex roles. Gay liberation movement transformed homophile reform into an international mass movement. The lesbian feminist movement is the movement that confused myself the most. From what I understood the lesbian feminist movement is dedicated to overthrowing an oppressive social structure in society where men are oppressive.
I think because I have been steeped in the culture of a Jesuit institution for nearly four years now it only makes sense that I was particularly drawn to Jagose’s discussion of gay liberationist movements, which were more or less ignited by the Stonewall Riots of 1969 (30). To me, the homophile movement was fine and relatively agreeable – a good start – and I think it’s very important that Jagose credits the homophile movement with providing the queer-conscious framework for gay liberationist action (42). Still, I felt the actions of homophile organizations were simply not enough, and as I consider my position transnationally in the present moment, I am really overwhelmed by and grateful for how much work has already been done on the behalf of politically, economically, and socially marginalized individuals; I am particularly glad that things became a bit more radical with the gay liberation movement. Jagose writes, “Gay liberationists … refused to pander to heterosexual anxieties and scandalized society with their difference rather than wooing it with claims of sameness” (31). This was in direct contrast to their homophile predecessors who argued that “apart from their same-sex sexual preferences, they were model citizens, as respectable as heterosexuals, and no more likely to disturb the status quo” (31). I was really troubled with the relaxed approach that homophile movements took to advocating for themselves and others. What really impressed me about gay liberationists is that they took the homophile cry of “we are just like you, we are just as good as you” and turned it into “we aren’t like you, and we don’t really care to be.” What I really read in these two different movements is that value and self-love were prioritized in drastically different ways. Those in the homophile movements placed value in actions of normalcy, ways of behaving that aligned them with others. To be like those around you was the only way to have merit and respect, to be a human being with a life worth fighting for. It seems the gay liberationists, on the other hand, looked deeper into the lives of others and recognized the intrinsic value and promise of human life. They realized – before any actions were taken and any words were said – that a human being is special and important, and their dignity should be respected regardless of how they appear or behave.
ReplyDeleteReflecting on possibilities to start discussions in class what always helps me is focusing on a discussion question or topic that is posed in the beginning. For example, I do really well when given a specific prompt to look at because that way I can focus on one aspect of the reading rather than scrambling all my jumbled ideas together. What I suggest is maybe students writing down ideas, questions, or topics from the reading that either challenged or resonated with them and possibly pulling out a few of those to focus on. In that way we can then address both topics that students want to speak about and topics that may need more unpacking.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the next few selections in Jagose’s book I was able to better come to understand three different important movements that have shaped change in the way LGBTQ issues are received or stand for today. Through reading the Homophile, Gay Liberation, and Lesbian Feminism movements comparisons and contrasts could be made. For example, the homophile movement was much more conservative and was not a mass movement like the next two and it focused mostly on appealing to others to accept homosexuality rather than express a homosexual identity. That being said, I think what I found most compelling in the reading was in the Gay Liberation chapter that focused on the idea of coming out, which still plays a large role in today’s LGBTQ culture. Jagose writes, “The assertion of homosexuality as a politicized identity and insistence on the validity of gay-inflected knowledges are both enabled in the liberationist model by an emphasis on ‘coming out’ and conscious raising” (Jagose 38). This I found extremely important because it differed so much from the homophile movement and simply did not just focus on it being acceptable to identify as homosexual, but also it is something to be proud of and used as a way of transforming oneself socially. Jagose continues with, “it is potentially a transformative identity that must be avowed publicly until it is no longer a shameful secret but a legitimately recognized way of being in the world” (38). It is easy to see how this movement could have contributed to the idea behind pride, which is a very important concept and place for celebration in the LGBTQ community today. This idea of essentially exposing oneself for something that makes them different and celebrating that difference as a form of true identity I think is very special and unique to the LGBTQ community that not many other communities have. Understanding this then, I believe it follows in the previous conversation in class of behavior vs. identity. Yes, society puts us in boxes and perhaps defines things that should not be defined, but I also think it is important for individuals to identify with what feels right and choose their own personal identities that are their own to claim. This way someone has something that is entirely theirs that cannot be diminished or changed by anyone else.
When it comes to the start of class I think that we should have a main question, like we did for the last class, and give our ideas before moving on from there. Then we can see what the whole group would like to talk about. It is nice to have a main idea that everyone can focus on. I also would like to have the question be about what we should get from the reading because sometimes I feel like I am not getting the right idea from the book.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this reading I could believe that it brought the same idea we ended class with; the importance of historical figures. I think these idea is very important because it brings a legitimacy that other ways are harder to bring the point across. "In order to demonstrate the valuable contributions made to society and culture by 'homesexuals', he listed famous ones from different historical periods - Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Michelangelo, Shakespeare and Byron" (23). In order to make it clear that these feelings are normal it is best to bring in historical figures, it also brings hope to those younger that you can be important and famous while still having these feelings. I guys my only problem with this is that it can turn people off. Those we are homophobic will take it as an insult that these famous people are being made fun of and the tables already placed on them under attack. Those who believe these people were straight will be very angry and say that people are just trying to make everything gay. It is such a hard balance because of the stigma around these issues.
I am a person who doesn't really like to talk. However, that doesn't mean i don't have an opinion. Because of my shyness, i need to be asked a direct question. Questions to the group is the best way to get me involved.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the next for chapters, I was surprised by the separation between the different movements. I always assumed that in order to achieve any change a community had to act as one. That is share common goals in order to achieve the best outcome for everyone. However that wasn't really the case with the gay community, as Jagose explained. First there was the Homophile Movement. As I understood it, this movement wasn't about creating a space for the homosexual community. It was about "coming out". this movement was really just creating a small space for those who maybe felt as though they experienced some homosexual desires.The homophile movement wasn't exactly a place in which one could admit that he/she was interest in the same sex. one couldn't admit to wanting to settle down with a person of the same sex. this movement was a start in which a person could at the very least admit interest in the same sex. " The conservative turn of these early homophile organisations can be seen in the fact that they now advertised themselves as organisations not for homosexuals but for those interested in homosexuality." (27). This was simply the beginning.
The gay liberation was a time for change. The people involved in this movement were those who could no longer sit down and take the discrimination and hatred. The gay liberation was a time for change in which a person could go out and exclaim that yes, he/she did like the same sex. The gay liberation was a time of action when Stonewall was no longer just a place to go but a place in which people took action.
lesbian feminism was an interesting chapter. up till this point, it was briefly mentioned that the movements before hand were based on gay men. Women played some role but the reader did not really know what was going on in the lesbian community. Women were struggling in more ways than one. Woman had to show the world that they deserved to be treated like men in the working field but that they also deserved to be able to love whom ever they chose (45). Lesbian women struggled with their identity. Some chose to continue acting and dressing like other women but some thought and chose to dress and act like men because they like women.
These different time periods show that the gay community has come a long way and they continue to fight for their own freedom.
The overarching theme that stuck out to me from the reading that I would like to continue exploring in class relate to building solidarity among intersecting struggles against oppression vs. the need for separate healing spaces. As with many movements for liberation, the LGBTQ movement seems to also be infiltrated by different structures of oppression such as classism, patriarchy, and racism. The homophile movement was presented as aligning itself very closely with many other aspects of the status quo. To make homosexuality “less threatening” to the existing status quo it attempted to exclude those whose identities fell too far from the norm. This lead to the movement reiterating and maintaining existing structures of oppression. While this movement can be credited for at least gaining some ground in a very hostile society, I think that it should still be criticized for setting back other communities. As with the origins of feminism, the homophile movement seems to be at the expense of all the other communities who faced other forms of oppression (i.e. people of color).
ReplyDeleteWe see the ways in which the gay liberation movement strived towards also addressing other forms of oppression along with “gay liberation”. Allen Young points out the development of intersectionality and solidarity between movements. He believed “there can be no freedom for gays in a society which enslaves others through male supremacy, racism and economic exploitation (capitalism)” (34). Though the ideology of gay liberation activist such as Allen Young worked to build solidarity among movements, Jagose joins other scholars in pointing out that gay liberationist leadership mostly came from “male, ‘white, middle-class, [and] educated’” (40). This regression demonstrates the difficulties of building a movement free of already established structures of oppression.
Lesbian feminism is initially framed as a movement which was aiming to defy the the patriarchy which was still present in the mainstream factions of the gay liberation movement. Lesbianism is seen as a political statement of resistance of the patriarchy, yet lesbian feminist create an ultimatum of which requires women to be lesbians if they claim to be against the patriarchy. This approach illustrates the importance of having separate spaces for different oppressed groups but it also shows the risk of taking the separatism too far where it also reiterates existing forms of oppression.
After reading this section of Jagose’s book I was a little disappointed about her dismissive attitude towards unconventional movements that were still a big part of the gay liberation movement. Jagose states, “A small number of transvestites, transsexuals and hermaphrodites were evident at the fringes of the movement” (40). First off, Jagose’s terminology is outdated and seemingly insensitive. And I was hoping that Jagose would bring more attention to the activism of these groups which often gets overlooked.