Before reading chapter 3, at what point did you believe the Gay Rights Movement began? How and why did you have that knowledge and/or assumption? Next, explain how chapter 3 added to your understanding and/or shattered your previous understanding.
Before I actually comment this as related to the question I wanted to share something from good ol' FML since we talked about this on Thursday (and actually a few of us talked about it today, as per the "being gay is a choice" assumption many people make:
"Today my mother urged me to "get over this lesbian thing and give me some grandkids"- in front of my girlfriend of eleven months. FML"
I just found that post amusing in that dry, deadpan way.
Before this chapter, I believed that the Gay Rights Movement began a little later than the 1950s, somewhere in the 1960s. I remember from history class reading about the Beats and their openness with homosexual rights, but I never really thought that too much activism was really voiced before Vietnam and free love. I was unaware that the Red Scare plagued the gay community, in a personal, public, and political sense, as much as it did. The Soviet Union’s expansion and the fear of infiltration caused many Americans to act in ridiculous ways out of fear, however, these fears were preyed upon in hopes of fulfilling personal agendas (such as having an assortment of ready-made “reasons” for firing people and thus clearing the government of gays like President Ike did). I was unaware that magazines were circulating as early as the 1914s for the LGBT community. It was interesting to read about the discrimination of gay men from the military in World War II because of the unfairness to the straight men who would be in close proximity with men who were sexually attracted to them, which is a thought train still made today by some straight men and women that personally irritates me. I suppose I was also oblivious to the fact, in some ways, that homosexuality was illegal in the United States- though I knew this, I never really realized the extent of it. Chapter 3 added to my understanding more than changing any notions I already had. I was not surprised by any of the oppression I read about, just ignorant to the dept of it. This chapter highlights a lot of the nastier aspects of oppression in America that a lot of the population would prefer to keep under wraps- like a family feud we don’t want our neighbors to find out about. Compared to other Western worlds, the United States seems to be stuck on a conservative loop on with gay rights; most of the arguments made in the past that hold the LGBT community back from receiving their full rights are recycled ideas.
Before I read this chapter, I did not think there was a Gay Rights Movement until the very recent past, maybe in the 1980’s or 1990’s. I just assumed this not from any educated source, but just because of what seems to be a recent attitude of gay pride throughout the United States. Also, because of the stereotypical and close minded attitudes we see of the past, like in the perfect families and households of the 1950’s sitcoms. I did not think homosexuals in those times would feel comfortable enough to not only come out to the ones they love, but fight for the rights they deserved as well. Especially considering how taboo homosexuality still is to so many families and people, to have a gay rights revolution that early on was a total surprise to me. Chapter three opened my eyes a lot, especially to how terribly homosexuals in the military and federal positions were treated. The biggest surprise to me in the whole chapter is actually a little off topic. I had no idea that sex change procedures and operations were performed almost one hundred years ago. I definitely considered that to be something that was new to our society and generations. I was surprised that there were so many groups willing to fight for their individual freedom, and that the government saw them as a threat to the freedom they so desired. I also was unaware of the way society became kind of accepting but then did a complete turnaround once The Great Depression and World War II became factors in everyday life. Homosexuality was then seen as the reason for these occurrences, like God punishing the world for the “degenerates” of the previous years. It just seemed kind of strange to me how one decade could be so different from the next and so hypocritical.
Before reading chapter 3, at what point did you before reading Chapter 3, I figured, like Brandy that the Gay Rights Movement started around the 50s early 60s. You know the whole “hippies” era; I had no idea. I assumed this because I knew certain bands/groups during this “Beat Generation” were more open to homosexuality and gay rights. I knew more women were becoming more educated, but I was amazed to read that they were faulted for higher-ing their education; let alone considered “disgusting degenerates.” I didn’t know that the Harlem Renaissance, the era that provided a sort of sexual outlet for blacks was the same era that accepted homosexuality. I’m not surprised, though, that African American’s homosexuality caused more dangers and created an even bigger issue of discrimination for them. Ma Rainey and Claude McKay? Gay? Mind-blowing. Nevertheless, it seems as though significant figures, no matter what ethnicity or time period, could be open about their sexuality. Because both my parents are military, I was well aware of the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. However, I didn’t know to what extent the military would go to keeping out gay men and lesbians from serving. I actually found their [rationale] to be quite ridiculous. To protect non-gays from these “uncontrollable, untrustworthy” individuals is nonsense. It didn’t surprise me at all that homosexual men were more looked at than homosexual women. I found it particularly interesting that the idea of the government being overrun by Communists was linked to homosexuality. I had no idea that “mainstream media” were focusing articles on homosexuality, and homosexuality linked to mental illness. During a time when all homosexuals wanted was to be accepted by the “norm.” Even though I am a newcomer to the ideas and beliefs of the LGBT community, and though I don’t support all of these beliefs, I was saddened to read of their oppression in America. The police brutality and non-acceptance towards homosexuals is nothing short of that of African Americans. I agree with Brandy when comparing America to Western worlds. If the “World Health Organization” can stop viewing homosexuality as a disease, then why couldn’t the greatest nation in the world stop?
Before reading chapter 3 I assumed that the gay rights movement began in the late 1960s or early 1700s. I guess I should have known better becaue I know people older than that, that are open about being and/ or knowing homosexuals. I guess what led me to this assumption is my brother. Growing up he and his close friends were the first and only homosexuals I had known and my mother tried to shield me from that "behavior". But, like a child I knew that my brother was born in the 70s and he and his friends were all the same age so I figured it was something that began with their generation because they were different than anyone else i had known. Silly? I know, but that was what went on in my head back then. As I grew older and began to experience my life more on my own I started to have high school teachers and professors that were older than my brother who were also gay so I had no choice but to believe that the movement started before then. Chapter 3 for me was a shocker. It touched on subjects like the WWII and the Harlem Renaissance. The discrimination aimed towards the LGBT community was appalling. To be denied the ability to fight for your country because of you lifestyle just isnt fair. I knew that it wasnt a "walk in the park" for gays in the past but after reading this chapter, they went through way more than what I could even think of. Medical testing, communist threats and they were even fired from their jobs. They also went as far as to deem mothers responsible for their childeren being gay because to them gay was a disease and the cure was for a mother to get back into the workforce instead of staying home to take care of there children. I also learned that the first male to female sex change happened in the 1930s and that the first female to male sex change wasnt until much later in the 1970s. Reading this made me upset to know rigorous procedurures you have to go through to get a sex change, they have to go through psycological screening for the process to be done. Why is that that you have to be grilled to have a sex change but do they do the same for a nose or boob job? I dont think so. To have a lifestyle that doesnt hurt or harm anyone and its considered a punishable crime and you isolated someone for it is just wrong. Even after all the test that they ran and couldnt find anything that seperates them from you and me all of the judgement should have stopped.
I would like to think of myself as a strong independent woman. And as I read through the first few paragraphs of chapter three I found myself getting offended by the way Dr. William Lee Howard called unmarried woman "disgusting anti-social degenerates." I brought this quote up to a friend and he agreed to an extent. He says that gays and lesbians are degenerates in the sense that they are putting a stop to evolution. Gays and lesbians (those who don't procreate) are, in fact, degenerating. I would love to hear responses from the class. My aunts are lesbians. They have two children together through a sperm donor and artificial insemination. And I truly believe that these two (very strong, independent) women are their parents. I believe that only so many traits truly come from genes. More traits are picked up through how the children are raised (whether their parents are straight or gay). I don't think being gay or lesbian has anything to do with procreating. I believe it's about who you love, not what happens as a result of making love. I'm having a hard time putting this into words. Are you worried about not being able to have biological children? I know this is a little off topic, but I was really really bothered by my friend comments on this topic. Any thoughts?
[Epiphani] Before reading this chapter I had a vague idea of the movement as beginning with something I knew of only as “Stonewall”, which I will readily admit never did and still does not conjure anything more than a bizarre image of a huge wall in my head; I had no idea it was a bar. I thought some sort of huge massacre had occurred, actually. You know, I must really have something against my own country, because until I read an article in GQ about gay men being tortured and executed in Iraq (which apparently is still happening) while at the doctor’s office a couple years ago it never occurred to met all that being gay was a bad thing in any country but America. I’m not sure why I think that; I sort of assume that every bad thing I notice about the world is centered in America, I guess. So I was kind of surprised about it being considered a disease in China and even in that great and powerful little microcosm supposedly superior to the US– good ol’ England. And they even took longer than we did to remove homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses? Egad! [You’ll have to forgive me, I’m rather bitter toward the English.] The part about China just outright stopped me. I NEVER think of China as doing anything except being a Communist country and manufacturing toys. There was their part in past wars, but that’s about it. I’m beginning to wonder if I think only Americans are gay, or something. At any rate it was a funny thing to read that homosexuality is only so recently being removed from lists of illnesses and the like (1994? 2001? Really, people? Come on.) Not only that but I’ve NEVER heard of most of these organizations or people, saving Gertrude Stein whose name sounds extremely familiar to me but for no reason I can place at all. I sort of thought that as far as organizations and actual visible movements toward liberation are concerned the beginning was far more recent even than 1969. Clearly I’m either very confused about some things or outright ignorant of them. Funnily enough, reading about gay men and women being fired from working in the military or otherwise, and being evicted, led to me thinking about something completely unrelated– my own unwillingness to serve in the military. I have a lot of issues with it, and it kind of make me think just now to read about other people WANTING to serve but not being able to. I mean, I knew about that already, but I suppose I didn’t actively think about it, and now it’s sort of making me wonder how I would feel if regardless of whether or not I wanted to serve, I wasn’t allowed to. Not that I’m about to go join the army or anything drastic like that; it’s just interesting to think of it from that angle. And I have to say this in closing because I just found it hilarious: lavender menace.
Before I read this chapter I believed the gay rights movement started in the ancient world because that’s when homosexuality began but I was wrong. The movement started after gays and lesbians where suppressed after so many years. I don’t understand how being gay went from being part of the everyday culture to being taboo. This chapter also shows how female wasn’t seen as being gay. Some cultural norms were able to survive but not able to advance with the movement of the people. My assumption came from me being uneducated fully on how the LGBT society was suppressed. But the only time a movement for rights start is after the people are being tired of being mistreated and misused. Chapter 3 taught me how homosexuality was part of the Harlem renaissance. It’s crazy how black people couldn’t get a break in life. Imagine how hard it was for them at that time by being black first and gay second. Also how homosexuals were not allowed to be in the army. I understand the controversy behind being gay and being in the army. For a lot of straight people they do find themselves uncomfortable around gay people. But they should of asked those in the army how they fill about it. The army shows you the double standard for lesbians again. How is it they impose the rule for no gay or lesbians and allowed the women to stay in the army because 95% of them were gay? Also they so you how the American government was trying to call anything they didn’t want in America connected to communism. All unwanted things are communism at that time. Also it shows how sex and sexuality is conversational taboo. It still was a lot of mixed feelings about the matter then as it is now.
Prior to reading the chapter, I had believed that the gay rights movement started at around the mid seventies. This was indeed very incorrect as the chapter portrays. One could say that the science of sexology sought to provide gay rights much before that, given the fact that a number of sexologists, as well as an increasing number of psychologist strove to convince others that homosexuality was not However, it was quite depressing that despite these claims, one of the main purpose in medicine to seek out the cause of homosexuality was to cure it. The chapter also showed that the rights of homosexuals were extremely fickle throughout the times. In Germany for example, prior to the Nazis gaining power, they were one of the most liberal countries in accordance to acceptance of homosexuality. But the Nazis persecuted homosexuals relentlessly and even after the fall of Hitler; homosexuality was still seen as a crime. On the American side, prior to the United State’s entry into WWII, there was no definitive banishment of homosexuals from the military, however at the close of the war they sought through and discharged all of those they could find. The reason they had claimed to keep homosexuals out of the military was one that is even now ushered; that they didn’t want their heterosexual troops to undergo unwanted sexual advances, as well as a number of other reasons. However, contrary to that popular belief here in the United States, many other countries that allow homosexuals to join the military have released articles saying that they have not seen any of the problems that the United States believes they would find. A number of large cities also found that the homosexual population was starting to ban together, in part due to the increasingly number of attacks towards them in the media.
Like many others here, I assumed that gay rights didn't become an issue until around the 1970s. I also find it odd that homosexuality becomes more or less socially acceptable based on things like war and the overall "mood" of the country. It's absolutely ridiculous that the American people were such sheep around WWII. Our government told us basically that all gays are communists, and communists are bad. This is like saying that all Asians are good at math or that all women belong in the kitchen. We know these things to be untrue, so why did so many accept this broad, hate-based generalization? The idea of lesbian-hating feminists seems really weird. I don't see why straight women didn't think that lesbians (who were generally well-educated, independent women) couldn't help their cause. Also, by belittling this group of women they were contradicting themselves. Feminism is all about the rights of women. ALL women. They aren't proving anything by excluding certain women because of their sexual preference.
@Shakari, In reference to extensive counseling required before a sex change, I can see where you're coming from. However, it is a much more serious surgery than rhinoplasty or a boob job. It has many more risks and complications, and I would imagine it is extremely difficult to reverse. It is a life-changing decision, and should be treated as such. I'm certainly not saying that doctors should be able to deny transgendered individuals for arbitrary reasons, but I understand the need for some counseling about the matter.
Honestly, I have never thought about Gay Rights, so I happen to be very ignorant when it comes to actually believing when the Gay Rights Movement began. However, I knew that educated, independent women were disliked in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but I was unaware that they would automatically be seen as a lesbian for it. While today, most men admire independent women. I also knew that people were prosecuted and some were even executed for their homosexuality. One thing I had to agree with was the statement of German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld basically saying that homosexuality is not linked to gender variance. Though today, people still link homosexuality to gender variance and in most cases are correct, but it’s still not a completely successful way to identify all homosexuals, because like all people, they are also distinct. Many people and psychiatrists think that homosexuality is a result of a person’s upbringing, poor parenting, but I disagree. I’m not sure if a person chooses to be homosexual or if they are just born that way, but mothers or parents in general should not be held responsible for it. Before reading this chapter, I didn’t know that the formal policy against homosexuals serving in the U.S. military wasn’t in existence until after World War II. The formal policy is understandable, because some people would not feel comfortable in that situation. Something that shattered my beliefs was that the homosexual soldiers topped the average soldier in intelligence, education, and rating. I think Joseph McCarthy revolted against homosexuality greatly to get in the spotlight because he was practically unknown. Lastly, I learned all of the harsh treatment that gay men and lesbians received was somewhat like the treatment towards blacks back in the day, being harassed by police, being denied or losing a job, and being evicted with out a proper cause.
Prior to reading this chapter, I knew that the Gay Rights movement in America began in the 1960s post Stonewall. I knew this because when I began to identify as gay, I did a lot of research on the topic (mainly via Wikipedia during my computer classes in high school). I also read a lot of lesbian fiction, and I understood the radical difference in gay and lesbian literature pre and post Stonewall. Before Stonewall, a lot of lesbian literature was so subtle and discreet. However, after Stonewall, you got a lot of more publicly out writers, like Rita Mae Brown and Fannie Flagg and Jeanette Winterson, who wrote about strong, lesbian women. Writers didn’t feel the need to sugar coat the lesbian characters in their books anymore, and it was very clear that these women were definitely gay. I was really excited to read the section on McCarthy and the Purge of the “Perverts.” Homosexuality during the 40s and 50s is a topic that really interests me, especially during McCarthyism and World War II. I really, really despise McCarthy and Coen and Hay, and personally blame them for everything rotten in the 50s (and the 80s and even now). Homosexuals (especially men) put up with a lot of shit during this time, and Stonewall was a huge step for them. However, I was surprised to learn that the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness happened during this time. I would have thought it would have happened much later.
And @ Epiphani: About other countries thinking only westerners are homosexuals: One time I saw an interview with a Prime Minister of some Middle Eastern country. When asked what he thought about homosexuals (or something like that) he responded with "We do not have those here." It made me laugh, but no in the funny kind of way.
Before reading Chapter 3, I thought that the gay rights’ movement was sort of started around the time that women and blacks were also starting their movement. I thought homosexual movements went along with the women’s movement for the right to vote in the 20’s and the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. This seemed to prove true but it was also much harder for homosexuals to get recognition unlike heterosexual women or blacks. I was very surprised on the section about McCarthy and the purging of the “perverts”. I had always heard about him associated with Communism but when I heard that he blamed homosexuals also, it struck me. It amazes me that as an advanced society as our country is, we always have to put blame on another person. Like it stated in World War II in Germany, they put blame on Jews and gays. McCarthy blamed Communists and gays. No one likes to take responsibility for their actions or something that isn’t under their control, so they have to blame it on the minority. Yet, I was very surprised that during WWII in America, being lesbian was not as big of a deal as I thought it would be. At first, I thought of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and then I read that since there were so little women, they allowed them to still serve yet they were still condoned. It makes me also wonder why someone can not be allowed to serve their country freely just because of their sexuality? This chapter talks about how homosexuality was not considered an “illness” after the 1950’s yet, we still treat gays like they are inferior or diseased. This really strikes a chord about what we are teaching to our children and where the world is going. We are telling them that if you are different at all, then you might be subjected to being condemned and not allowed to do what you want with your life. This whole chapter really brought into perspective how America has changed but still has some growing to do for the future with acceptance and openness to different views.
Okay I'm new to the whole plogging idea, so beat with me, but to be honest I had no idea how hard the LGBT community has fought for equality in our country and the constant stream of obstacle thrown at them from everyone from Dr. William Lee Howard, who so affectionately referred to independant women as "disgusting anti-social beings", to a former president! I blindly assumed the Gay Rights movements were a very recent phenomenon, maybe starting in the 2000's. I found it interesting that despite the extreme persecution of the gays and lesbians, such as the fact that "when the remaining [concentration camp] prisonser were set free, only the homosexuals were still classified as criminals", their strength and ability to turn burdensome labels into positive symbols of awareness. We are all familiar with the horrors of the WWII concentration camps; however, when the physical war was over for some I found it awful that other innocent people still had to endure the harsh discrimination of closed minded individuals. What I found really inspiring, and almost a slap in the face to the Nazi's and Hitler's Germany, was the fact that the homosexuals transformed their pink triangle badges, a mere piece of facbric that "entitled" them to unimaginable torture, into a symbol of unity and awareness for LGBT community. I knew gays and lesbians had always endured prejudice for their lifestyle, for being who they are, but I think maybe now, ironically, people are a lot more open about being gay and I frequently even hear a lot of comedians and sitcom characters openly discussing sexuality every day on tv. It seems like there's a lot more exposure to sexuality in light of the entertainment industry today, as opposed to the dream family of the 90's that was the Brady clan; ironically with a father played by a man who was gay himself! Reading this chapter opened my eyes to the constant pushing of society to smother the gay out of America, however, it also showed me that the LGBT community can take whatever people want to throw at them and turn it into something positive to build strength and support for their rights. -Taylor Gardiner
About a year ago I saw the movie “Milk” and I honestly believed that Henry Milk was the breakthrough activist, per se. I had no idea that homosexuality was around so far into the past, as I mentioned before, and it does make total sense that there would have been activism at the time of societal change. My original guess was that activism did not exist until the late 1960s or early 70s, certainly not the early 19th Century. After reading the chapter, I feel guilty that I was so very uneducated in civil rights history. Chapter 3 has totally changed my opinion and has also educated me on just a couple of situations that were absolutely dreadful to do to a group of people. I did take a modern history class in high school, and I learned about the McCarthy trials, but I only knew about him purging the immigrants. To treat visitors to our country in such a manner was sinful to me, and now knowing the way gays were treated by this same human being is absolutely horrific. I cannot grasp why a group of people who have not done harm to anyone would have to go through such pain. I have started talking about some of the issues I learned from chapters 1 and 2 with friends, and I feel as though I am showing a lot of people who are not as aware of the history a shocking blow to their minds. Although I would probably feel as though someone was ignorant who had no idea about an issue I support strongly, I hope I am not coming off ignorant because I am learning so much by being in this class that I am personally blown away. Chapter 3 opened by eyes to issues that need to be addressed and understood by people before they have a right to make harsh judgments.
I was vaguely aware that the gay rights movement began at Stonewall, but had no real notion on what that consisted of. The reading helped to provide a clearer understanding of the specifics. Like almost everyone else I was equally amazed that someone could in (presumably) modern day American actually equate homosexuality with, any political ideology, most especially communism. Sadly, though these kinds of damaging, disparaging tactics can still be seen today’s in the political arena. The terminology may not be the same, one won’t always say, “blame it on the gays, reds, and perverts,” but conversely it wouldn’t be very shocking (I think) for us to hear, “it’s the fault of the terrorists, Arabs, or whomever.” This is part of a larger problem that faces American society and really all societies: there must always be ‘the other.’ We are genetically predisposed to see people and things in groups. There must always be an ‘us’ versus ‘them’. This is why people will so readily accept the demonization of others, because “if they aren’t a part of my group they can’t be correct, they can’t be valuable.” This kind of ingrained need for some kind of homogeny can’t just be turned on or off, but it can be encouraged and discouraged to varying degrees. In response to Sam’s question I personally don’t have any sort of fear or any feelings of reproach about not being able to have children the ‘traditional’ way, i.e. my children sharing the genes of myself and whomever I choose to be with. Mostly because it’s all a question about what you consider family. And the answer is very subjective. Some people may not be able to accept or love a child which they don’t feel is theirs (biologically), I don’t really have that problem. I if I was unable to have a biological child, and even if I am able to do so, I still feel really strongly about adoption and giving a home to a child who may not have one. It’s true that adoption isn’t active procreation, but in the end does it really matter?
I honestly have no clue as to when the Gay Rights Movement began. But I would definitely say it was not that long ago considering women didn’t get the right to vote until the early 1900s. Well I know that Milk’s triumph was during the early 70’s, so I’d probably say the Gay Rights Movement began around the beginning of the 60s because I know that it usually takes movements in general about a decade or so to get productive.
Well I’m proud to state that I was only a few years off. I have to say that I found it to be a little bit daunting that for the first two years of my life, according to the World Health Organization, I had a disease. I wonder if I could have gotten disability or something. Or how about the fact that during the 50’s I would have been considered a Communist. Through reading one chapter I’ve somehow gone from healthy and gay to a disease-ridden Communist…
I found the discussion about the military related history of homosexuality to be quite enthralling. I thought it was amazingly entertaining that studies showed that gay military men were ranking higher than straight military men in almost every aspect, including intelligence. Which is funny if you think about it, considering they had a handicap what with their “disease” and all. I also thought it was rather entertaining when that General tried to get rid of all the lesbians from his platoon and basically tried sending off every single officer. Of course I have to comment on the fact that as women were educating themselves and learning how to become more independent they were becoming more and more oppressed by their male counterparts. Not that “disgusting antisocial beings” doesn’t have a lovely ring to it. Just rolls off the tongue. I think its comical how the men were acting as if they had abandoning their unborn children by going to college.
Before I actually comment this as related to the question I wanted to share something from good ol' FML since we talked about this on Thursday (and actually a few of us talked about it today, as per the "being gay is a choice" assumption many people make:
ReplyDelete"Today my mother urged me to "get over this lesbian thing and give me some grandkids"- in front of my girlfriend of eleven months. FML"
I just found that post amusing in that dry, deadpan way.
[Epiphani]
Before this chapter, I believed that the Gay Rights Movement began a little later than the 1950s, somewhere in the 1960s. I remember from history class reading about the Beats and their openness with homosexual rights, but I never really thought that too much activism was really voiced before Vietnam and free love. I was unaware that the Red Scare plagued the gay community, in a personal, public, and political sense, as much as it did. The Soviet Union’s expansion and the fear of infiltration caused many Americans to act in ridiculous ways out of fear, however, these fears were preyed upon in hopes of fulfilling personal agendas (such as having an assortment of ready-made “reasons” for firing people and thus clearing the government of gays like President Ike did). I was unaware that magazines were circulating as early as the 1914s for the LGBT community. It was interesting to read about the discrimination of gay men from the military in World War II because of the unfairness to the straight men who would be in close proximity with men who were sexually attracted to them, which is a thought train still made today by some straight men and women that personally irritates me. I suppose I was also oblivious to the fact, in some ways, that homosexuality was illegal in the United States- though I knew this, I never really realized the extent of it. Chapter 3 added to my understanding more than changing any notions I already had. I was not surprised by any of the oppression I read about, just ignorant to the dept of it. This chapter highlights a lot of the nastier aspects of oppression in America that a lot of the population would prefer to keep under wraps- like a family feud we don’t want our neighbors to find out about. Compared to other Western worlds, the United States seems to be stuck on a conservative loop on with gay rights; most of the arguments made in the past that hold the LGBT community back from receiving their full rights are recycled ideas.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read this chapter, I did not think there was a Gay Rights Movement until the very recent past, maybe in the 1980’s or 1990’s. I just assumed this not from any educated source, but just because of what seems to be a recent attitude of gay pride throughout the United States. Also, because of the stereotypical and close minded attitudes we see of the past, like in the perfect families and households of the 1950’s sitcoms. I did not think homosexuals in those times would feel comfortable enough to not only come out to the ones they love, but fight for the rights they deserved as well. Especially considering how taboo homosexuality still is to so many families and people, to have a gay rights revolution that early on was a total surprise to me. Chapter three opened my eyes a lot, especially to how terribly homosexuals in the military and federal positions were treated. The biggest surprise to me in the whole chapter is actually a little off topic. I had no idea that sex change procedures and operations were performed almost one hundred years ago. I definitely considered that to be something that was new to our society and generations. I was surprised that there were so many groups willing to fight for their individual freedom, and that the government saw them as a threat to the freedom they so desired. I also was unaware of the way society became kind of accepting but then did a complete turnaround once The Great Depression and World War II became factors in everyday life. Homosexuality was then seen as the reason for these occurrences, like God punishing the world for the “degenerates” of the previous years. It just seemed kind of strange to me how one decade could be so different from the next and so hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading chapter 3, at what point did you before reading Chapter 3, I figured, like Brandy that the Gay Rights Movement started around the 50s early 60s. You know the whole “hippies” era; I had no idea. I assumed this because I knew certain bands/groups during this “Beat Generation” were more open to homosexuality and gay rights. I knew more women were becoming more educated, but I was amazed to read that they were faulted for higher-ing their education; let alone considered “disgusting degenerates.” I didn’t know that the Harlem Renaissance, the era that provided a sort of sexual outlet for blacks was the same era that accepted homosexuality. I’m not surprised, though, that African American’s homosexuality caused more dangers and created an even bigger issue of discrimination for them. Ma Rainey and Claude McKay? Gay? Mind-blowing. Nevertheless, it seems as though significant figures, no matter what ethnicity or time period, could be open about their sexuality. Because both my parents are military, I was well aware of the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. However, I didn’t know to what extent the military would go to keeping out gay men and lesbians from serving. I actually found their [rationale] to be quite ridiculous. To protect non-gays from these “uncontrollable, untrustworthy” individuals is nonsense. It didn’t surprise me at all that homosexual men were more looked at than homosexual women. I found it particularly interesting that the idea of the government being overrun by Communists was linked to homosexuality. I had no idea that “mainstream media” were focusing articles on homosexuality, and homosexuality linked to mental illness. During a time when all homosexuals wanted was to be accepted by the “norm.” Even though I am a newcomer to the ideas and beliefs of the LGBT community, and though I don’t support all of these beliefs, I was saddened to read of their oppression in America. The police brutality and non-acceptance towards homosexuals is nothing short of that of African Americans. I agree with Brandy when comparing America to Western worlds. If the “World Health Organization” can stop viewing homosexuality as a disease, then why couldn’t the greatest nation in the world stop?
ReplyDeleteBefore reading chapter 3 I assumed that the gay rights movement began in the late 1960s or early 1700s. I guess I should have known better becaue I know people older than that, that are open about being and/ or knowing homosexuals. I guess what led me to this assumption is my brother. Growing up he and his close friends were the first and only homosexuals I had known and my mother tried to shield me from that "behavior". But, like a child I knew that my brother was born in the 70s and he and his friends were all the same age so I figured it was something that began with their generation because they were different than anyone else i had known. Silly? I know, but that was what went on in my head back then. As I grew older and began to experience my life more on my own I started to have high school teachers and professors that were older than my brother who were also gay so I had no choice but to believe that the movement started before then. Chapter 3 for me was a shocker. It touched on subjects like the WWII and the Harlem Renaissance. The discrimination aimed towards the LGBT community was appalling. To be denied the ability to fight for your country because of you lifestyle just isnt fair. I knew that it wasnt a "walk in the park" for gays in the past but after reading this chapter, they went through way more than what I could even think of. Medical testing, communist threats and they were even fired from their jobs. They also went as far as to deem mothers responsible for their childeren being gay because to them gay was a disease and the cure was for a mother to get back into the workforce instead of staying home to take care of there children. I also learned that the first male to female sex change happened in the 1930s and that the first female to male sex change wasnt until much later in the 1970s. Reading this made me upset to know rigorous procedurures you have to go through to get a sex change, they have to go through psycological screening for the process to be done. Why is that that you have to be grilled to have a sex change but do they do the same for a nose or boob job? I dont think so. To have a lifestyle that doesnt hurt or harm anyone and its considered a punishable crime and you isolated someone for it is just wrong. Even after all the test that they ran and couldnt find anything that seperates them from you and me all of the judgement should have stopped.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think of myself as a strong independent woman. And as I read through the first few paragraphs of chapter three I found myself getting offended by the way Dr. William Lee Howard called unmarried woman "disgusting anti-social degenerates." I brought this quote up to a friend and he agreed to an extent. He says that gays and lesbians are degenerates in the sense that they are putting a stop to evolution. Gays and lesbians (those who don't procreate) are, in fact, degenerating. I would love to hear responses from the class. My aunts are lesbians. They have two children together through a sperm donor and artificial insemination. And I truly believe that these two (very strong, independent) women are their parents. I believe that only so many traits truly come from genes. More traits are picked up through how the children are raised (whether their parents are straight or gay). I don't think being gay or lesbian has anything to do with procreating. I believe it's about who you love, not what happens as a result of making love. I'm having a hard time putting this into words. Are you worried about not being able to have biological children? I know this is a little off topic, but I was really really bothered by my friend comments on this topic. Any thoughts?
ReplyDelete[Epiphani]
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this chapter I had a vague idea of the movement as beginning with something I knew of only as “Stonewall”, which I will readily admit never did and still does not conjure anything more than a bizarre image of a huge wall in my head; I had no idea it was a bar. I thought some sort of huge massacre had occurred, actually.
You know, I must really have something against my own country, because until I read an article in GQ about gay men being tortured and executed in Iraq (which apparently is still happening) while at the doctor’s office a couple years ago it never occurred to met all that being gay was a bad thing in any country but America. I’m not sure why I think that; I sort of assume that every bad thing I notice about the world is centered in America, I guess. So I was kind of surprised about it being considered a disease in China and even in that great and powerful little microcosm supposedly superior to the US– good ol’ England. And they even took longer than we did to remove homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses? Egad!
[You’ll have to forgive me, I’m rather bitter toward the English.]
The part about China just outright stopped me. I NEVER think of China as doing anything except being a Communist country and manufacturing toys. There was their part in past wars, but that’s about it. I’m beginning to wonder if I think only Americans are gay, or something.
At any rate it was a funny thing to read that homosexuality is only so recently being removed from lists of illnesses and the like (1994? 2001? Really, people? Come on.)
Not only that but I’ve NEVER heard of most of these organizations or people, saving Gertrude Stein whose name sounds extremely familiar to me but for no reason I can place at all. I sort of thought that as far as organizations and actual visible movements toward liberation are concerned the beginning was far more recent even than 1969.
Clearly I’m either very confused about some things or outright ignorant of them.
Funnily enough, reading about gay men and women being fired from working in the military or otherwise, and being evicted, led to me thinking about something completely unrelated– my own unwillingness to serve in the military. I have a lot of issues with it, and it kind of make me think just now to read about other people WANTING to serve but not being able to. I mean, I knew about that already, but I suppose I didn’t actively think about it, and now it’s sort of making me wonder how I would feel if regardless of whether or not I wanted to serve, I wasn’t allowed to.
Not that I’m about to go join the army or anything drastic like that; it’s just interesting to think of it from that angle.
And I have to say this in closing because I just found it hilarious: lavender menace.
Before I read this chapter I believed the gay rights movement started in the ancient world because that’s when homosexuality began but I was wrong. The movement started after gays and lesbians where suppressed after so many years. I don’t understand how being gay went from being part of the everyday culture to being taboo. This chapter also shows how female wasn’t seen as being gay. Some cultural norms were able to survive but not able to advance with the movement of the people. My assumption came from me being uneducated fully on how the LGBT society was suppressed. But the only time a movement for rights start is after the people are being tired of being mistreated and misused. Chapter 3 taught me how homosexuality was part of the Harlem renaissance. It’s crazy how black people couldn’t get a break in life. Imagine how hard it was for them at that time by being black first and gay second. Also how homosexuals were not allowed to be in the army. I understand the controversy behind being gay and being in the army. For a lot of straight people they do find themselves uncomfortable around gay people. But they should of asked those in the army how they fill about it. The army shows you the double standard for lesbians again. How is it they impose the rule for no gay or lesbians and allowed the women to stay in the army because 95% of them were gay? Also they so you how the American government was trying to call anything they didn’t want in America connected to communism. All unwanted things are communism at that time. Also it shows how sex and sexuality is conversational taboo. It still was a lot of mixed feelings about the matter then as it is now.
ReplyDeletePrior to reading the chapter, I had believed that the gay rights movement started at around the mid seventies. This was indeed very incorrect as the chapter portrays. One could say that the science of sexology sought to provide gay rights much before that, given the fact that a number of sexologists, as well as an increasing number of psychologist strove to convince others that homosexuality was not However, it was quite depressing that despite these claims, one of the main purpose in medicine to seek out the cause of homosexuality was to cure it. The chapter also showed that the rights of homosexuals were extremely fickle throughout the times. In Germany for example, prior to the Nazis gaining power, they were one of the most liberal countries in accordance to acceptance of homosexuality. But the Nazis persecuted homosexuals relentlessly and even after the fall of Hitler; homosexuality was still seen as a crime. On the American side, prior to the United State’s entry into WWII, there was no definitive banishment of homosexuals from the military, however at the close of the war they sought through and discharged all of those they could find. The reason they had claimed to keep homosexuals out of the military was one that is even now ushered; that they didn’t want their heterosexual troops to undergo unwanted sexual advances, as well as a number of other reasons. However, contrary to that popular belief here in the United States, many other countries that allow homosexuals to join the military have released articles saying that they have not seen any of the problems that the United States believes they would find. A number of large cities also found that the homosexual population was starting to ban together, in part due to the increasingly number of attacks towards them in the media.
ReplyDeleteLike many others here, I assumed that gay rights didn't become an issue until around the 1970s. I also find it odd that homosexuality becomes more or less socially acceptable based on things like war and the overall "mood" of the country. It's absolutely ridiculous that the American people were such sheep around WWII. Our government told us basically that all gays are communists, and communists are bad. This is like saying that all Asians are good at math or that all women belong in the kitchen. We know these things to be untrue, so why did so many accept this broad, hate-based generalization?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of lesbian-hating feminists seems really weird. I don't see why straight women didn't think that lesbians (who were generally well-educated, independent women) couldn't help their cause. Also, by belittling this group of women they were contradicting themselves. Feminism is all about the rights of women. ALL women. They aren't proving anything by excluding certain women because of their sexual preference.
@Shakari,
In reference to extensive counseling required before a sex change, I can see where you're coming from. However, it is a much more serious surgery than rhinoplasty or a boob job. It has many more risks and complications, and I would imagine it is extremely difficult to reverse. It is a life-changing decision, and should be treated as such. I'm certainly not saying that doctors should be able to deny transgendered individuals for arbitrary reasons, but I understand the need for some counseling about the matter.
Honestly, I have never thought about Gay Rights, so I happen to be very ignorant when it comes to actually believing when the Gay Rights Movement began. However, I knew that educated, independent women were disliked in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but I was unaware that they would automatically be seen as a lesbian for it. While today, most men admire independent women. I also knew that people were prosecuted and some were even executed for their homosexuality. One thing I had to agree with was the statement of German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld basically saying that homosexuality is not linked to gender variance. Though today, people still link homosexuality to gender variance and in most cases are correct, but it’s still not a completely successful way to identify all homosexuals, because like all people, they are also distinct. Many people and psychiatrists think that homosexuality is a result of a person’s upbringing, poor parenting, but I disagree. I’m not sure if a person chooses to be homosexual or if they are just born that way, but mothers or parents in general should not be held responsible for it. Before reading this chapter, I didn’t know that the formal policy against homosexuals serving in the U.S. military wasn’t in existence until after World War II. The formal policy is understandable, because some people would not feel comfortable in that situation. Something that shattered my beliefs was that the homosexual soldiers topped the average soldier in intelligence, education, and rating. I think Joseph McCarthy revolted against homosexuality greatly to get in the spotlight because he was practically unknown. Lastly, I learned all of the harsh treatment that gay men and lesbians received was somewhat like the treatment towards blacks back in the day, being harassed by police, being denied or losing a job, and being evicted with out a proper cause.
ReplyDeletePrior to reading this chapter, I knew that the Gay Rights movement in America began in the 1960s post Stonewall. I knew this because when I began to identify as gay, I did a lot of research on the topic (mainly via Wikipedia during my computer classes in high school). I also read a lot of lesbian fiction, and I understood the radical difference in gay and lesbian literature pre and post Stonewall. Before Stonewall, a lot of lesbian literature was so subtle and discreet. However, after Stonewall, you got a lot of more publicly out writers, like Rita Mae Brown and Fannie Flagg and Jeanette Winterson, who wrote about strong, lesbian women. Writers didn’t feel the need to sugar coat the lesbian characters in their books anymore, and it was very clear that these women were definitely gay.
ReplyDeleteI was really excited to read the section on McCarthy and the Purge of the “Perverts.” Homosexuality during the 40s and 50s is a topic that really interests me, especially during McCarthyism and World War II. I really, really despise McCarthy and Coen and Hay, and personally blame them for everything rotten in the 50s (and the 80s and even now). Homosexuals (especially men) put up with a lot of shit during this time, and Stonewall was a huge step for them. However, I was surprised to learn that the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness happened during this time. I would have thought it would have happened much later.
And @ Epiphani:
About other countries thinking only westerners are homosexuals: One time I saw an interview with a Prime Minister of some Middle Eastern country. When asked what he thought about homosexuals (or something like that) he responded with "We do not have those here."
It made me laugh, but no in the funny kind of way.
Before reading Chapter 3, I thought that the gay rights’ movement was sort of started around the time that women and blacks were also starting their movement. I thought homosexual movements went along with the women’s movement for the right to vote in the 20’s and the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. This seemed to prove true but it was also much harder for homosexuals to get recognition unlike heterosexual women or blacks. I was very surprised on the section about McCarthy and the purging of the “perverts”. I had always heard about him associated with Communism but when I heard that he blamed homosexuals also, it struck me. It amazes me that as an advanced society as our country is, we always have to put blame on another person. Like it stated in World War II in Germany, they put blame on Jews and gays. McCarthy blamed Communists and gays. No one likes to take responsibility for their actions or something that isn’t under their control, so they have to blame it on the minority.
ReplyDeleteYet, I was very surprised that during WWII in America, being lesbian was not as big of a deal as I thought it would be. At first, I thought of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and then I read that since there were so little women, they allowed them to still serve yet they were still condoned. It makes me also wonder why someone can not be allowed to serve their country freely just because of their sexuality? This chapter talks about how homosexuality was not considered an “illness” after the 1950’s yet, we still treat gays like they are inferior or diseased. This really strikes a chord about what we are teaching to our children and where the world is going. We are telling them that if you are different at all, then you might be subjected to being condemned and not allowed to do what you want with your life. This whole chapter really brought into perspective how America has changed but still has some growing to do for the future with acceptance and openness to different views.
Okay I'm new to the whole plogging idea, so beat with me, but to be honest I had no idea how hard the LGBT community has fought for equality in our country and the constant stream of obstacle thrown at them from everyone from Dr. William Lee Howard, who so affectionately referred to independant women as "disgusting anti-social beings", to a former president! I blindly assumed the Gay Rights movements were a very recent phenomenon, maybe starting in the 2000's. I found it interesting that despite the extreme persecution of the gays and lesbians, such as the fact that "when the remaining [concentration camp] prisonser were set free, only the homosexuals were still classified as criminals", their strength and ability to turn burdensome labels into positive symbols of awareness. We are all familiar with the horrors of the WWII concentration camps; however, when the physical war was over for some I found it awful that other innocent people still had to endure the harsh discrimination of closed minded individuals. What I found really inspiring, and almost a slap in the face to the Nazi's and Hitler's Germany, was the fact that the homosexuals transformed their pink triangle badges, a mere piece of facbric that "entitled" them to unimaginable torture, into a symbol of unity and awareness for LGBT community.
ReplyDeleteI knew gays and lesbians had always endured prejudice for their lifestyle, for being who they are, but I think maybe now, ironically, people are a lot more open about being gay and I frequently even hear a lot of comedians and sitcom characters openly discussing sexuality every day on tv. It seems like there's a lot more exposure to sexuality in light of the entertainment industry today, as opposed to the dream family of the 90's that was the Brady clan; ironically with a father played by a man who was gay himself!
Reading this chapter opened my eyes to the constant pushing of society to smother the gay out of America, however, it also showed me that the LGBT community can take whatever people want to throw at them and turn it into something positive to build strength and support for their rights.
-Taylor Gardiner
About a year ago I saw the movie “Milk” and I honestly believed that Henry Milk was the breakthrough activist, per se. I had no idea that homosexuality was around so far into the past, as I mentioned before, and it does make total sense that there would have been activism at the time of societal change. My original guess was that activism did not exist until the late 1960s or early 70s, certainly not the early 19th Century. After reading the chapter, I feel guilty that I was so very uneducated in civil rights history. Chapter 3 has totally changed my opinion and has also educated me on just a couple of situations that were absolutely dreadful to do to a group of people. I did take a modern history class in high school, and I learned about the McCarthy trials, but I only knew about him purging the immigrants. To treat visitors to our country in such a manner was sinful to me, and now knowing the way gays were treated by this same human being is absolutely horrific. I cannot grasp why a group of people who have not done harm to anyone would have to go through such pain. I have started talking about some of the issues I learned from chapters 1 and 2 with friends, and I feel as though I am showing a lot of people who are not as aware of the history a shocking blow to their minds. Although I would probably feel as though someone was ignorant who had no idea about an issue I support strongly, I hope I am not coming off ignorant because I am learning so much by being in this class that I am personally blown away. Chapter 3 opened by eyes to issues that need to be addressed and understood by people before they have a right to make harsh judgments.
ReplyDeleteI was vaguely aware that the gay rights movement began at Stonewall, but had no real notion on what that consisted of. The reading helped to provide a clearer understanding of the specifics.
ReplyDeleteLike almost everyone else I was equally amazed that someone could in (presumably) modern day American actually equate homosexuality with, any political ideology, most especially communism. Sadly, though these kinds of damaging, disparaging tactics can still be seen today’s in the political arena. The terminology may not be the same, one won’t always say, “blame it on the gays, reds, and perverts,” but conversely it wouldn’t be very shocking (I think) for us to hear, “it’s the fault of the terrorists, Arabs, or whomever.” This is part of a larger problem that faces American society and really all societies: there must always be ‘the other.’ We are genetically predisposed to see people and things in groups. There must always be an ‘us’ versus ‘them’. This is why people will so readily accept the demonization of others, because “if they aren’t a part of my group they can’t be correct, they can’t be valuable.” This kind of ingrained need for some kind of homogeny can’t just be turned on or off, but it can be encouraged and discouraged to varying degrees.
In response to Sam’s question I personally don’t have any sort of fear or any feelings of reproach about not being able to have children the ‘traditional’ way, i.e. my children sharing the genes of myself and whomever I choose to be with. Mostly because it’s all a question about what you consider family. And the answer is very subjective. Some people may not be able to accept or love a child which they don’t feel is theirs (biologically), I don’t really have that problem. I if I was unable to have a biological child, and even if I am able to do so, I still feel really strongly about adoption and giving a home to a child who may not have one. It’s true that adoption isn’t active procreation, but in the end does it really matter?
I honestly have no clue as to when the Gay Rights Movement began. But I would definitely say it was not that long ago considering women didn’t get the right to vote until the early 1900s. Well I know that Milk’s triumph was during the early 70’s, so I’d probably say the Gay Rights Movement began around the beginning of the 60s because I know that it usually takes movements in general about a decade or so to get productive.
ReplyDeleteWell I’m proud to state that I was only a few years off. I have to say that I found it to be a little bit daunting that for the first two years of my life, according to the World Health Organization, I had a disease. I wonder if I could have gotten disability or something. Or how about the fact that during the 50’s I would have been considered a Communist. Through reading one chapter I’ve somehow gone from healthy and gay to a disease-ridden Communist…
I found the discussion about the military related history of homosexuality to be quite enthralling. I thought it was amazingly entertaining that studies showed that gay military men were ranking higher than straight military men in almost every aspect, including intelligence. Which is funny if you think about it, considering they had a handicap what with their “disease” and all. I also thought it was rather entertaining when that General tried to get rid of all the lesbians from his platoon and basically tried sending off every single officer. Of course I have to comment on the fact that as women were educating themselves and learning how to become more independent they were becoming more and more oppressed by their male counterparts. Not that “disgusting antisocial beings” doesn’t have a lovely ring to it. Just rolls off the tongue. I think its comical how the men were acting as if they had abandoning their unborn children by going to college.