Times haven't really changed.

I found it so very, very interested that a show from a little while back is so similar to shows depicting gay men today. Such as the show Happy Endings. Max, the gay male in the group of friends, is depicted as your average guy, lazy, doesn't like to do much cleaning, but when it comes to certain things he is depicted as completely feminine. The way the media shows gay men hasn't changed very much at all. If they aren't flamboyant and promiscuous, then they are masculine in most occasions.

My question is when are we going to have lesbians depicted in a show as a main character? When are we going to have a popular television show that is beloved by most of America that involves lesbians as main characters that aren't there just for some sexual context?

Sullivan - Ch. 11

Sullivan spends a lot of chapter 11 talking about the context of “camp,” and symbolism of the generic gay, male representation of imitating feminine characteristics, and how the stigma has transpired into popular culture as a seemingly accurate representation. He also spends a lot of depth talking about the context of “Batman Forever,” which apparently has a lot of underlying homoerotic symbolism that I was unaware of. Another representation of “queering popular culture” was generally highlighted in the Austin Powers movies, which is seen to many as a satire of the US perception of homosexual stigma. Has anyone heard of the BLO social experiment of switching the voice boxes of the Barbie’s and the G.I. Joe’s? I am shocked that I have never heard of this and nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read that someone took the initiative of actually doing this.

Binaries, Binaries, Binaries, OH MY!

In the selling out article I read the words, "The poor necessarily hate the rich, so much that the rich have reason to fear the poor. Moreover, the rich deserve to have civil government protect them and, by extension, their God-given right to happiness via property ownership. One critical function of liberal democratic government, then, is to defend wealthy people against poor people"

This statement is true applied to every binary. Black and Whites, or more realistically whites and non-whites for example. Even omnivores and and herbivores ( you knew I was going here.) Just look at  the Hardees ad that says "No one gives a high five after eating tofu." The meat eaters are purposely conditioned by the media to be against people who don't eat meat. The straights are conditioned to be afraid of gay people unless they are in an "appropriate" service position that serves women exclusively. But when that gay man is trying to sell you a rifle at the sporting goods store, now you have a problem. This is all the media conditioning us. Just like it does to fear black people and even mentally challenges people, who are often portrayed as murderers, like in The Long Hot Summer by William Faulkner.

Do you think it is impossible for people to break through this social conditioning that causes us to fear each other? It sounds like we need to hijack the media if we ever want social change.

Objective vs Subjective Freedom

First, I really want to say that I appreciate Chasin's contribution to this topic. I really think she has touched on some important issues. However, as I was reading, I did have a question for her: Is the problem here that the gay movement is fighting for rights in general or is it that even if they gained those rights, not all could access them equally?

To me, this is extremely important and it points to a distinction between objective and subjective freedom. The gay movement is pushing for objective freedom because they are asking for the same rights as everyone else. What seems more important, though, is the subjective freedom to actually take advantage of those rights. Chasin touches on this, though she uses slightly different language. It seems like her critique of the gay movements rests more on the need for subjective freedom rather than objective and she's right to say that the movements would need a lot of re-focusing in order to achieve this. This would require a more systemic change than simply passing a bill that grants rights to gays and lesbians. In order to be subjectively free, there has to be some measure of equality that enables access to carry out one's rights. Like she mentioned, it may be great to have rights, but if I don't have a lawyer to defend those rights or the education to understand them, then what has really been accomplished? So, basically, I agree with her on this point. The gay movement needs to go beyond rights if we expect social change that can really make an impact for everyone and not just a select few at the top. I also think that the way to do this is for all of the social justice movements to come together and start fighting together as one movement toward achieving not just rights, but subjective freedom for all.

Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces

This article discussed how gay characters on television, though they give more visibility to LGBT people and give people who may or may not have been exposed to an LGBT person a chance to understand at least a little of queer culture, are often often quite stereotypical or are forced into heteronormative story lines. For example, Will and Grace was used as an example to show how Jack is portrayed in a very stereotypical manner and gay relationships and life experiences are often forced into a heterosexual mold. A square peg in a round hole if you will. (Didn't mean that to sound as dirty as it did.) My question is: Because this article is a little bit dated since it focuses mainly on shows that are no longer on the air, do these ideas still apply to television shows which feature gay characters today? Or has it gotten more progressive?

My opinion is that just because LGBT visibility on television is greater today does not necessarily mean that things have changed very much. Shows that I have watched such as Glee, Project Runway, True Blood, etc. that feature gay characters still portray many of them in stereotypical ways. I mean, not all gay guys like showtunes and haute couture. No, really. Many lesbians on these shows are portrayed as the white, porn star ideal that has become so popular. Also, many LGBT characters are still being forced into heteronormative story lines where relationships are meant to evolve in the same manner that many heterosexual relationships do. While not bad per se, this forces many viewers to see LGBT people in situations and scenarios that may not be accurate to a queer identity or reality and may harm many people's perceptions of LGBT people when they realize this.

Selling Out

My question comes from Chasin's 'Selling Out.  'Targeting' in advertising is a fundamental term that means you zero in on where you want to spend your money based on who(m) you want to reach to spend their money on your product.  In the early 1970s, talk began in the ad world discussing the possibilities of reaching the gay and lesbian target audience.  Initially, belief was that the gay community had double the money and no children and were buying everything they saw with all of that discretionary income.  Some of those facts were of course wrong, but it was forgotten temporarily in the panic of the 1980s that was known as AIDS.  Later, the ad world became more versed in their facts and began in earnest to make the distinction between the gay and the not gay market.
My question is this: Chasin seems one of the more credible sources on the subject, both as an observer and a subject-did I just miss it or did Chasin decided the audiences were one and the same?

Sullivan and Gay Batman

First, I have to say when I read Wertham's hypothesis about Batman and homoeroticism, I was skeptical. Reading the comic books, playing the video games, and watching the newer movies always gave me a permeating sense of hegemonic masculinity. Thinking about it more, however, Batman does not kill people, which is the ultimate manhood act. His character traits do conflict with stereotypical masculine behavior. What I thought was most interesting was how she showed that even though Batman himself displays homoerotic behavior, the "campier" characters are vilified and often take their homoerotic roles over the top to emphasize that this is what you should not do or be. It is to the extreme that one assumes Batman is straight because his behavior is the polar opposite of his villains.

I wanted to get your all's opinion on this theory, because I have read it to multiple groups of people who would argue against it. I think she made a sound argument though.

The less education, the better? Naw.

The conclusion of “The Trouble With Normal” highlights the negativity of seeing societal normalcy is troubling in all aspects of education, safety, and self-perception. Using HIV/AIDS as a prime example of sexual epidemics, diseases have spread like wildfire due to the shame and guilt presented from negative stigmas concerning sex and sexuality. Heteronormative behavior has shaped how sex is perceived, and in turn is devastating the masses. Particularly speaking, the “hush hush” of sex and gender identity has greatly influenced youth education toward this “abstinence only, sex is wrong, the less you know- the better” connotation, and it has really become prevalent in how harmful that is to society and the role of sex in humanity. Sex is a natural instinct, and policing the way it is perceived has been a disaster in terms of safety and identity.

Gay Male Social Experiment

So I had to do this ridiculous assignment for one of my classes, I thought I would share it with you all since this is a LGBTQ Theory course. Offensive or appropriate? Here were my results...

 http://vegansteven.blogspot.com/2012/04/gay-male-social-experiment.html

That's right! I'm talkin' about porn....again...

So while I was reading Warner chapter 4 and they were talking about the whole redefining of what an adult business is and singling out porn shops, I kept thinking to myself.....I am someone who is pretty much against pornography. I wouldn't mind to see pornography disappear off the face of the planet. I must be a bad guy.... HA HA HA just kidding folks, I am the best guy ever!

Obviously what's being done by good old Rudy, is not even attack on the porn industry but the singling out of gay and lesbian related adult oriented things. Probably the only reason sex toys fell into a gray area is because they are possibly being used by heteros. Those silly heteros and their homophobia. But we can't blame it all on Rudy even though he is a gigantic McDouche, because what he did unfortunately reflects the wants of the majority homophobic population. Yeah I know, it's a sad world we live in.....Anyway back to the porn!

So I don't that the solution to any problem is banning anything, I just want that to be known. It really bothers me that this happened, they launch an attack against the LGBTQ Community by attempting to displace and destroy their "adult entertainment" of sorts. What a douche move! I mean think about it, they force the people to have to defend pornography and other sexual related things, making it look like to the idiot general public that LGBTQ peoples are SEX CRAZED. When in reality I am sure the LGBTQ people are not any more sex crazed than any normal person is. I'm not sure where I'm going with this because I don't really have a good question this time around. I guess I just wanted to put down some thoughts I had during this reading.

“Without pornography, there could be no manhood—and humans would desire to embrace sexual selfhood instead” -J. Stoltenberg


What do you think about this quote when applied to gay pornogrpahy?

Public Sex, Public Knowledge

As I was reading the chapter from Warner, I was really just kind of amazed at the arguments presented (in a good way). I think the part that stood out to me the most was the following: "Autonomy requires more than civil liberty; it requires the circulation and accessibility of sexual knowledge, along with the public elaboration of a social world that can make less alienated relations possible." My research deals somewhat with the alienation that occurs in modern society, so this definition hit something very interesting for me. I think there is something undeniably true about needing more than just liberty to be truly autonomous. Liberty without open access to knowledge is useless; that includes sexual knowledge. This ties into the thoughts Warner presents about the exchange of sexual knowledge within queer circles as well as the governmental and societal crackdown on both what can be known and what can be said. If you think about all the times we edit ourselves in "public" I think you can see what I mean.

Therefore, instead of a question, I propose a challenge. I propose that we all stop editing ourselves in public. I know that's not as easy as it sounds, so maybe we can just all start with saying one thing that we want or need to say that we would usually refrain from saying. What might be accomplished by simply refusing to censor ourselves?

Who are the tourists?

When I think of New York City, one of the first attractions that comes to mind is the night life. Reading Chapter 4 of Warner and Giuliani's crack down on publicized sex, clubs, gay bars, and even gay book stores, I couldn't help but wonder why he would want to eliminate this association of New York with sexual freedom. Warner says it is supposedly to create an environment more clean and appealing to tourists, but I feel like many tourists would be disappointed in finding a tame, boring, familiar state because it is so far from the image people have in their heads of New York.

Aside from the monetary benefits, in privatizing sexual identities and openness they are eliminating any emphasis on safe sexual practices and accessible resources/places to meet without having to fear their safety. It also adds to the shame people experience in exploring their sexuality.

Zoning out Sex

Okay, my first question is: Wrestling videos? Really?

My second, more legitimate question is this: This chapter mentions how often laws like Giuliani's "quality of life" rezoning and real estate interests override what the public actually wants or cares about. For example, Disney's control over Times Square made it impossible for adult stores and the like to remain open while many viewed these places of business as harmless or even, if I may be so bold, as a daily hangout. Because these places were, and are, some of the only vestiges of open sexuality in the modern world, they remain important to safe and free sexuality. What happens when all these businesses are closed because of these kinds of ordinances? What will the repercussions be?

I believe that if all adult businesses were to close it would be a grave miscarriage of the constitution as well as a form of denial.  People want to go around and pretend that sex and all its variances don't exist, (or that missionary is the only position,) and, while it is their right to think however they please, if I want to go to an adult store and buy some fuzzy handcuffs I am perfectly within my rights as an American to do so. Getting rid of adult stores won't get rid of deviant sex, or any kind of sex for that matter, so to ban them is really a moot point. Getting rid of adult stores, while not the end of the world, shows a bias towards any kind of sex that is considered to be abnormal. If it is possible to ban adult stores, what else could be banned?

Zoning out Sex

Ethics, politics and sex.  Is the 'neighborhood' dangerous to city planning? Only if, as the author points out on page 189, that the fantasy is that sexuality only happens in the home.  Zoning helps to keep the heirarchy as it exists today, alive and well.  We all visit communities that don't share our mailing address, some of us have made regular visits to neighborhoods we don't call home in order to express or share our sexuality.  I feel sometimes, that I simply find new ways to devise an old sentence in order to rephrase a similar question.  Here it is:   In order to enable or allow those whose sexuality does not always conform to the top of the food chain, queer politics must have public representation  on City Planning Commissions that establish these zoning laws-right?

Enke

Some of the details written in Enke's article really hit home due to some personal experiences I had this week, and I wanted to share. If you 'tl;dr' me, I totally understand.

I thought the insight, particularly from the Introduction piece on the formation of the feminist movement, was a fantastic piece into seeing the "movement outside of the movement," so to speak, and for getting a sense of understanding from people who weren't in the forefront of the movement, who may not have identified as a feminist for one reason or another, but still grasped the concept of liberation and tried to initiate grass root change in their own systems. We hear the "feminist movement" and we think of organized protests, or well established groups who worked both independently and together to impact this great social change; yet this was only one facet of initiating that change. Why were certain groups the faces of change, while others who may have made a significant impact were left out of history books? Stemming to the previous readings we've had about the feminists vs. lesbian feminists, I have started to see trends that social movements, while advocating for the rights of a targeted minority group, are still ranked in accordance to how they fit on the scale of dominant culture. On page 11 of the text, Enke writes, "How, then, do we understand the exclusions and hierarchies, and the ways that they contributed to the differential visibilities of actors and agendas within the movement? What was "white" and "middle class" about the movement when women of color and working women helped generate it from the beginning? A spatial analysis shows that conflicts within feminism gained form and name with tangible spatial contestations over environments already laid through with race, class, and sexual hierarchies."

This hit home;

I have been infrequently attending the meetings for the campus gay-straight alliance this school year, better known as the former LGBTieS, and was sitting in on a meet Monday evening. I have been looking for ways to become more involved in LGBTQ issues, but for the length of time that I have attended ETSU, the club has done the bare minimum in terms of organizing, getting their name out, or serving the needs of its members. I have become somewhat involved over this semester and last in trying to push for the club to make changes to serve a mission and to make a name for itself and the LGBTQ "community", but it has failed to do so. I was recently nominated to run for office within the organization and feel as though this will be a strong outlet to really try to initiate some change for our non-active yet still growing LGBTQ population.

Community; we've asked the question in class, "Who IS the community? Who ISN'T the community?" This is has been on my mind in a significant portion over the past few weeks, both from the perspective of someone who feels often left out of the "community" as an open and devout bisexual, and yet someone whose goal over the next school year is going to be to encompass "community" through one of the only LGBTQ outlets on campus.

Walking out of the meeting, I was approached by an acquaintance I hadn't even noticed. I had been sitting in the front of the room and paid little to no attention to who else was there, but knew he wasn't a regular to the group. I had never seen him in a meeting before, and that was the first thing he really brought up to me; he was also an African American male. He said that he wanted to talk for a minute both because I was a familiar face and because he found out I was nominated to run for office. He begins explaining that it isn't the first club meeting he's ever attended there, but that he's never felt a sense of acceptance or comfort by being there. He expressed that despite the fact that the club doesn't do much for anyone, they specifically exclude any concept of race, and that he has several friends who identify as both gay and African American, and would love to get involved with the LGBTQ community if they thought for a second that they would be accepted.

To shed light back to Enke's perception of the feminist movement, but also to cross-culturally connect the """Gay and Lesbian Movement""", it seems that these groups too frequently exclude more than they include. The "Gay and Lesbian Movement" has changed to include Bisexuals and Transgender People to their name,forming the "LGBT/LGBTQ" acronym, but they're still in the back of the movement; they "complicate" things. Same with race; it's an excluded issue because it "complicates" the movement.

In reflection to the meetings the campus organization has had, regardless of the lack of diversity at ETSU, the club is 75-80% white, homosexual, males. I'm excited to hopefully win election as the President of the organization (which by the way, was voted on Monday to change it's name to H.E.R.O.E.S - Helping to Educate, Regarding Orientation, Equality, & the Spectrum) and will be working very hard to try to open up its door to becoming a more inclusive group toward race, orientation, sex, gender identity, class, and toward hetero allies.

"no one is free when others are oppressed."

Men Like That

On page 31 in this excerpt there is a discussion on the silence and silencing of gay identities and how keeping quiet about one's sexual identity does not necessarily mean that the dominant society and dominant society members are forcing the silence. I found this to be a very interesting point especially when paired with our discussion on how just coming out of the closet will not solve homophobia or heterosexism. So, my question is this: In your opinion, does keeping silent about being LGBT harm the goals of gay-liberation and equality?


I have two spools of thought about this question. On one hand I completely agree that a person's sexuality is their own business and if they want to keep it a secret they should have the autonomy to do so. There is a double standard where straight people are allowed to keep silent about their relationships and sexuality because they are considered "normal" but LGBT people are not. On the other hand I feel that that keeping your sexuality a secret is letting the dominant heterosexist culture win and continue to maintain dominance.  The more pandering that is done to heterosexism, the stronger it will become.

Finding the Movement

This has been my favorite article this semester.  Enke connected dots very clearly about how the women's movement evolved.  There were lots of historical nuggets that I was not aware of, like Amazon Bookstore being the oldest feminist bookstore.  My question is: although we have all acknowledged the progress made, wonder why a 'fourth' wave hasn't been initiated so that equality for sexuality and gender can become a reality.

Reliance on religion?

One aspect of both readings I found confusing was the strong presence of religion and political organizations holding meetings inside the churches. Today religious organizations and their members are, for the most part, strongly against homosexuality and feminist practice, so it was difficult for me to read these excerpts and understand how feminist activists and homosexuals were welcomed into the churches to organize and even worship.

It seems as if churches rely on patriarchy because the majority of religious leaders are male and religious doctrine suggests submissiveness in women to their husbands. With this in mind, the fact that women formed coffee houses in churches, planned feminist activism, and held women's socials/lesbian dances there was baffling. I feel that if this were common practice today, preachers would be spiking the punch and eliminating all the "crazy feminists trying to make all women lesbian and convince them not to have families."

Gay is Good, Labels are Not

Like Jayke, as I read Shelley's article I was at first very surprised by her "extremism." While I can't necessarily agree with all of her ideas, there is an overarching concept that I find very appealing. For instance, I don't necessarily believe that being a homosexual is about simply being in "revolt against the sex-role structure and nuclear family structure." But I can say that as a person who's life is greatly shaped by denying majority rule, maybe this could carry weight for some. I also love her statement about being a person in private and a homosexual in public. Rather than saying that we (radical/non-radical gays) should have others get in touch with their "inner homosexual" (which I do believe exists) we should just all be people. We need to get past all the labels and all the bullshit of society and just be people. Drop the characters and the pretending and the trying and just be a person in a community of people where all differences are seen as a part of being a person.

What purpose, what positive purpose, do labels serve? Why should we even try to find a label for something as complex as who we are and who we are attracted to? For instance, I don't truly consider myself to be bisexual and attempting to find the right label has been utterly exhausted. I am attracted to people. I am attracted to a person's mind (which is now known as being sapiosexual) more than any physical characteristic. I happen to have found the person I want to spend my life with and that person happens to have male genitalia. But it's not his physical appearance that drew me to him. It was his mind and his personality. If he had been a woman or a transsexual, that would not have changed. I may have had more difficulty in coming to terms with my feelings, but I firmly believe that I still would have the same relationship I have with him now. If we talk only physical, though, I am primarily attracted to women. So what does that make me? It makes me a person just like anyone else and I think any other labels are superfluous and should have no place in our lives.

Community of patriarchal mimicry

Obviously by now, Sullivan points out how communities are problematic for movement. The legendary Ashley Fox asks us the question:

Are legit communities even possible?

We may have different views on pornography or assimilationists but we are working for the greater goal right?

In a classroom, sure we are! When you start putting things into action, that's when things get problematic. I can understand this from personal experience as a member of the animal rights and vegan "communities". That's correct that they are not one in the same. Before I go on let me break it down to you.

Vegan Community - Consists mostly of health vegans and ethical vegans. Some health vegans are also ethical vegans, while some are not. Some ethical vegans are health vegans, while some are not. Some health vegans do it to be healthy, some do it because they are already dying and heard that a vegan diet can save them. Some ethical vegans do it for animals, some for environment. And many other random combinations occur, some more rare.  The one thing they can all agree on is that they want to live off of a plant based diet. This community is totally divided right in half. With health vegans on one side and ethical vegans on the other.

Vegetarian Community - Take everything I said about vegans and replace the word vegan with vegetarian.

Animal Rights Community - This group is focused on animal welfare. Some eat animals and their products and use them for entertainment while at the same time fighting for animal rights. This can be problematic for vegan members of this group.


Ok there is a short version, kind of describing three communities that I am involved with.

Overall (excluding the pure health vegans for the following example), we all just want a better world for people and animals. We should be able to unite and work on that basis alone. I personally strive for it and reach out as much as I can to non vegans. But when conversation and action begins, that's when things get problematic and it gets hard.

I am the founder and president of a local group that tries to include vegans, vegetarians, and anyone even curious or interested. It ends up being a mostly vegan group. Why? We want the same thing right?

A lot of vegetarians get scared off when people start revealing the truth about dairy and eggs. We make a point not to preach to someone, "Oh my god?! You are just a vegetarian? Do you not know that cows......" You get it. We don't do that. However, I am not going to put limits on people's speech. If a certain conversation comes up, I don't see why we should have to lie for the sake of the vegetarians.

"Did you hear about that investigation they did at that Ohio DAIRY farm?"
"Yeah man, that shit is FUCKED UP that they do to those cows....."

This is enough to divide ethical vegans and vegetarians. I can't help but feel like it stems from some kind of guilt.

Now here is where things get REALLY problematic.When you bring in all the non vegan animal rights folks.

"I want to save dolphins, you want to save dolphins.....But wait you are eating products that kill dolphins, you are eating the dolphins food source....wait a minute.... Why do you care so much about dolphins but you have no problem eating pigs? Pigs are smarter than dogs, but you actually spend money to support their torture and murder!? HYPOCRITE SPECIEIST!"

You get it? This is the general thought pattern in this situation, even if never spoken aloud, that causes community to fail. Instead of pointing the figure, I should be thinking, "Well....we don't see eye to eye, but we both want to save dolphins lives and that's a good thing."

As the "leader" of Tri-City Veg, even I  make this mistake. It's so hard not to. When I hear that a vegan ate went back to vegetarian, sometimes all I can think is, "Oh my god, how? What happened to that person? What were they thinking? Maybe they don't even care? I would never do that!". (Policing)

When I should be thinking, "No one is perfect and I know this person cares, they are doing more than most people".

Communities.... Tough stuff here. Are they truly possible, truly able to work for the group and self? I believe so. Even though Sullivan doesn't actually say this, I feel that being able to read all this about the queer community and have it all pointed out. It challenges us to find a way.

It's also interesting to realize that what divides us is what we believe, our ideals, and politics. Not race, religion, gender, sex, or ethnicity.

(It's interesting to me how I can often see the similarities of the "queer community" and the "ethical vegan community". Ever since I took gender and comm I have been drawing similarities. Is anyone else able to do this with groups that you are a part of?)

Question:

It seems to me that in most communities, there lies a practice of patriarchal ways, saying "This is the way how we are suppose to look, this is how we will be seen."

How do we truly get away from that? Because so far I don't think any "community" as a whole has done so.

Hiding Homosexuality

One thing that struck me when reading the article by Young was the discussion on how even doctors and lawyers who help LGBT people must constantly try and prove that they are not gay. This was attributed to "moral" standards that everyone, not just these doctors and lawyers, are expected to live up to. Many laws on the books prohibit "solicitation," "wearing clothing of the opposite sex," and "sodomy," while seemingly not geared toward homosexuals, are often enforced only when LGBT people are involved. While some of the laws have been repealed in certain states since the publication of this book, many are still enforced. Back to the initial point: How do these "moral" standards hold back the LGBT community?

Not only is it wrong for people to have to hide who they are, but it is also wrong that there is a double standard between LGBT people and heterosexuals. For homosexuals to be charged for crimes that heterosexuals usually aren't perpetuates stereotypes, promotes heterosexism in a big way, and helps create an environment where violence and discrimination against LGBT people is not just accepted, but expected.

Martha Shelley – Gay is Good

I write about Martha Shelley’s perspective this week because of how severely I was caught off guard by her extremism, along with my new found infatuation with this concept of radicalism versus assimilation. As I openly speak in class as a proponent of the integration perspective, I tried to put myself into the shoes of Shelley while she was writing this and to gain insight of essentially why she feels the way she does. At both my first and second reads of this, I still find a lot of her voice in her literature to just be a little too eccentric, but I also read with the realization that self discovery is not half as easy for most as it was for me. An excerpt that stood out in particular was on page 32, which reads, “Understand that- that the worst part of being a homosexual is having to keep it a secret. Not the occasional murders by police or teenage queer-beaters, not the loss of jobs or the expulsion from schools or dishonorable discharges- but the daily knowledge that what you are is so awful that it cannot be revealed. The violence against us is sporadic. Most of us are not affected. But the internal violence of being made to carry- or choosing to carry- the load of your straight society’s unconscious guilt- this is what tears us apart, what makes us want to stand up in the offices, in the factories and schools and shout out our true identities.” This truly hit home with me, realizing that my experiences with self-identity and my personal “coming out process” has been so easy and so well-received in comparison to how many others have it. There are virtually no facets of my life in which I feel that hiding my identity is necessary anymore, and forget those feelings of angst when I was unable to be self-liberated in both my life and my culture. Although it is a shorter read and still a very radical approach that I don’t feel is the true answer to acceptance, it really shaped my perspective on radical literature. Shelley even notes that “we” don’t even want to be tolerated or to be accepted- we simply want to be understood; this piece indeed helped me understand the radical approach much better. How have your all's perspectives changed throughout the semester in terms of the concept of pride, assimilation, tolerance/acceptance, radicalism, integration, etc?

I think as Ashley has pointed out, Sullivan in chapter 8, appears to question the effectiveness of activist groups that have conflict. Today in another class we watched 'After Stonewall' and I was reminded of the history we have read in this class this semester. There is no question that the gay community has moved forward in some respect because different groups have coalesced into one movement. On the first page, Sullivan points out that community 'is a sense of commonality'. Also, as Sullivan points out the terms 'home' and 'family' are oftentimes used in political rhetoric . The desire to belong and to have credibility as well as the desire for the same rights as those who are heterosexual, are the commonalities for this cause. Like church denominations, splinter issues hinder the rate of progress for those who chose to continue to marginalize by the continuation of labelling and pointing out the differences that can often hinder the 'big picture'.
My question comes from the first complete paragraph on pg.146. Why has it been so difficult to recognise that 'shared characteristics' 'exist as such only within a given community of understanding'? When the agenda is really all about the understanding and recognising of the gay community and the rights that entails..why shouldn't the recognising begin from within on this issue, in this community of sexuality like it should begin with any other movement addressing inequality and oppression? The rate of success quite possibly could be measured much quicker to the betterment of those communities.

Is community possible?

My previous post was a frustration with a disconnect within activism which, oddly enough, is what Sullivan addresses in chapter 8. She uses theories of Secomb and Nancy to show that differences within a community that are irreconcilable keep movements from moving in one direction. Instead 'community' is an umbrella term, like the queer community, that serves to show generally where the conflicting groups stand in their struggle. The 'identity' of the community is not essential or fixed but changes as the groups struggle to become the majority that will speak for the community and police it's boundaries. She ends, however, by using a quote from Derrida saying that community is not possible with this lack of unification. I have to disagree, simply because in looking at the diverse perspectives coming from our class, we still form a close community that agrees that there are major problems that need to be addressed, and I feel like even though we have different opinions about issues concerning assimilating and pornography, etc, we could still work together in a community on other concerns for lgbt people.
I personally would still say we were working with and for the same community.

Sexing and the Body

I had already researched and discussed this topic a bit in the past but I have to say, this article still disturbed me. Its hard to imagine how much is kept from us, even in such an important situation as the medical details of our children. I cant even explain the rage I feel at the thought of doctors lying to parents about how common these issues are or how serious what they are doing is. I feel as if instead of making a snap decision, however based on what chromosomes and what parts are there, they should wait a while for the child to mature to certain extent so if the child doesn't in fact need a series of complicated surgeries and hormone treatments, they wont have done something unnecessary. They cant know what sex a person is going to be at birth and it makes me sick to think of how many people have been assigned to something they will never feel comfortable as. This is, of course, not even delving into the fact that this shouldn't even be an issue. Society has such strict and ridiculous gender constructs that they are forcing on these babies and parents that don't know or are too frightened to fight back. This whole thing sickens me and I hate thinking of how many lives are being ruined.

I guess my question is, do you guys think there is a possibility of educating people of these statistics and practices and causing a change within medical practice to correct it. If so, how?

Prejudice and Socioeconomic Status Within Gay Activism

My comments and question(s) this week come from "A Queer Ladder of Social Mobility".


As I've read this, a few things have come up for me. The most prominent for me is still how sections of the gay community (the homophile activists in this case) can completely reject and even belittle other members (the gay bar-goers/owners). This also applies to the relationship mentioned with the covert/overt homosexual. Both the activist and the covert homosexual depends upon their counterpart in order to achieve their own ends, but at the same time manage to express disdain and disrespect for these people.


I also noticed that socioeconomic status seems to play a large role in gayness. For example, the author states that many secret homosexuals have a higher socioeconomic position than do more "out" homosexuals. Later, she talks about how the DOB lost half its founding members when the working-class and middle-class women disagreed on the group's function. I find it interesting that in this case it was the working-class women who subsequently left the group and the middle-class women got their way. This leads me to question where we would be now if those of lower socioeconomic status had been allowed to make more decisions about the movement. 

The magazine published by the DOB

Finally, I noticed on a few occasions that perhaps the underlying issue (especially in the first case) is that the fear of being prejudiced against may lead to the prejudice of others. For instance, when the DOB was scared that "butch" women would scare away the "proper" lesbians, they instituted rules banning women from wearing "men's" slacks (whatever those are). Essentially, in order to avoid the prejudice of others, they worked very hard to play into mainstream gender roles that didn't necessarily fit with would-be members. In this way I think it can be said that their fear led them to commit injustices against their own, i.e. the fear of prejudice begets prejudice.


Questions: What do you think would be different if poor gay men and women had had more control over the gay movement? 


Did the activists actually harm the community more with their actions?

Greenwich Village

I admittedly knew nothing about the history of Greenwich Village before reading Gay New York, but was very enlightened toward the “Bohemian” subculture. The Village sounds like it was such a progressive place to be during the early 1900’s, and although it later became known for it’s “artistic” (artistic = homosexual?) endeavors, it seems like Bohemian culture was established with a genuine purpose.  The text mentions that it was easy to fit in and to find friends in that type of open-minded community, and that was obviously an extreme rarity anywhere during the 1910’s.  What I found to be depressing was the industrialization of the area after the War, due to the establishment of the subways, fighting the prohibition with local Italian wine, and the reputation that the Village that had developed for being this “artsy, modern center” and transformed it into something completely different. A subculture creates something beautiful and then mainstream society jumps on the bandwagon and sells it out - I thought high school was bad. Unlike what you would expect, the subculture didn’t die down, but it changed drastically and became this overemphasized and dramatized version. Although the subculture didn’t die, its reputation to mainstream society took on an expected alteration – from open-minded center for art and self-expression to "slum like" homosexual perversion. My question this week stems along the lines of believing that the media plays such a significant role in societal opinion of self-expression, and thinking that subcultures and other walks of life would be much more likely to be accepting and embracing of each other if we didn’t have so many bigots publishing work to dictate who is more elitist than who (subculture soap opera, anyone?) So I’d like to ask somewhat rhetorically, how has the media turned society to belittle you?

The Village and Harlem

In the chapter from Gay New York, Chauncey discussed how African-American communities in Harlem would  police the lives of its members. For example, many of the tabloids and gossip columns of the time would publish reports about a person's suspected homosexual activity or any other juicy tidbits they happened to pick up. This was a way to "correct" the other person's behavior and shame them so that they would conform to social and gender norms. This still occurs on a national and global level with tabloids lie the National Enquirer, websites like The Smoking Gun, and television shows like ET and TMZ that constantly criticize the lives of celebrities and public figures. What would happen if this still happened on a community level with neighbors policing the relationship and sexual behavior of other neighbors?

I believe that if this were to happen in today's world there would not only be a large number of privacy violation lawsuits but what would be reported would also be drastically different. While homosexual behavior would probably still be whispered about and looked down upon, it probably would not be as devastating to a person's social standing as it was back then. Exceptions to this would include religious leaders, those involved in heterosexual relationships or marriages, and those who work with children. These people would, and do, lose social standing, and in some cases, their lives are ruined. It is interesting that even though many things have changed, a lot hasn't over the years.

Freedom or Friction?

After reading Chauncey's Gay New York excerpt, I started to wonder if major social change is possible when people are still divided over some of the same issues they were battling over in the early twentieth century. Class conflicts with race, race with sexuality, sexuality with gender... Seriously, if people cannot come together and fight for HUMAN issues as opposed to their own private interests, we will never see a downfall of heterosexism and heteronormativity. Maybe it does take a gradual change, but it is frustrating to reading about W. E. B. Du Bois, someone I was taught to respect in high school for his promotion of education, dismissing an employee based on their sexuality to prevent smearing his name and the name of his cause. This is the same situation we see in social organizations today; instead of addressing different perspectives about the shape change will take and coming to a consensus on how best to avoid excluding anyone, we eliminate the variance and proceed.

What exactly are we all fighting for? Do we want our perspective to be the right one? Or do we want freedom for everyone to live in whatever ways they choose? I'm going with the latter.

Ladders and "Village" People

"A Queer Ladder of Social Mobility", whew, what a read! Gender appropriate queers on top and trans folks down at the bottom, it makes perfect sense. I believe this type of social mobility latter manifests (in some way or another) itself in every group of people. For example, I'm sure if Sinem Ketenci would have kept her veganism to herself, she would have her PhD right now instead of a pending lawsuit. Overall, I enjoyed reading about it. It's always interesting to learn about things you know exist through a new lens.

Gay New York! The title says it all, this historical journey through the "gay twenties" was like riding a roller coaster that you never want to get off of! Ok.....so maybe that's overdoing it....But still interesting!

So what's my question? Well it's not some hypothetical situational stuff like usual. I couldn't help but think this when I was reading Gay New York.......

Is this why they called themselves "The Village People"? (You know....YMCA....In the Navy....you know what I'm talking about!) It just instantly made sense to me, if I'm wrong and this is inappropriate feel free to correct/assault/straight up school my ass in the comments!

How's that for a question?

My response comes from 'Sexing the Body'. As a parent, this topic holds great interest to me because I see so many ramifications in making a choice this important with only the advice of a medical professional and not waiting for imput from the person (child) most directly affected. A prenatal diagnosis? Prenatal therapy? Often, even today, it is difficult to pinpoint with 100% accuracy what limitations or problems are possible during delivery or after birth. Three years ago this week, my youngest granddaughter was born with the expectation that she would have Downs Syndrome. She has no medical issues at all. What if my daughter had reacted immediately on this diagnosis? This article concedes that 'doctors are not sure what to count as a normal penis'..and the author argues that downsizing an overgrown clitoris 'is simply not necessary'...

My question is: medicine is often not an exact science and usually does not involve a crystal ball. Therefore, what is the sense of urgency in deciding so early how to 'fix' an intersex child?

Sullivan blowing my mind, part 9000

I am drawing from the Sullivan reading this time.

First of all, as usual this book fascinates me as I turn the pages, causing my mind to be blown for the 9000th time so far! The part I want to talk about mostly is the part that discusses MTF lesbian feminists. If you are to believe in Raymond's explanation and theories about MTF lesbian feminists going through extreme lengths to control women and penetrate them, rape them so to speak. THEN HOLY SHIT! I am not sure if I can agree with this, but at the same time if there is something I have a good understanding of it's masculinity and it's madness. Perhaps this is a theory that should be applied case by case. What are your thoughts classmates? I'm dying to know!

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION ALERT!

My question of the week? Remember the part about trans people and our social conditioning and gender roles, and genital disgust and all that? Well I can't help but to wonder...... If social conditioning, gender roles, all of the non sense we are brainwashed with about men and women and gay and lesbian and trans and all that did not exist and everyone was comfortable with their personal sexuality without labels would people who end up being trans be comfortable with themselves the way they are? Is this all a product of culture and society?

Welcome to our class blog!

No more need to be intimidated by emailing your questions / comments on the readings. Blog away!