Part I: What did you find most interesting from Ch. 6? Explain why you found it interesting and what it taught you about inclusion and Equality.
Part II: How would you summarize Canady's argument from her introduction?
Part III: Canady's chapter on the military centered on WWI up to the 1930s: how do you think her argument in that chapter can be related to the contemporary crisis over the "Don't ask; Don't Tell" policy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I found most interesting about Chapter 6 was how strict Africa still is regarding homosexuality, especially since South Africa offers such good protection to its gay community. What the leaders of the countries said about gay people shocked me, and I did not think people were still getting arrested and evicted there just because of their sexual orientation. I thought the United States was one of the more conservative countries regarding homosexuality, but I see now that we are not. I would summarize Canady’s argument in her introduction as saying that homosexuality, though it was not a new phenomenon to the military, did not really start getting persecuted until world war two. The government was aware and had been aware for a while about homosexuals in the military but it was not until the ideas of people like McCarthy became prominent that they decided to start purging the military of homosexuals. I think her argument can be related to the modern “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in several ways. You can look at it from the positive and negative points of view. In the positive way, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could possibly prevent some of the homosexual discrimination and rape she tells stories of in the World War I times; if soldiers did not discuss who was gay, then they might not want to act so violently against other soldiers knowing they may not be who they think they are. In the negative light, by not talking about who is homosexual and who is not, someone could be unfairly discriminated against even if they are not homosexual. It is not fair to the soldiers for them to have to hide their true identities and fear being assaulted if they act upon what they feel and who they are.
ReplyDeleteI found the arguments between different groups in the LGBT community about who could be in which group and who shouldn’t be involved at all the most interesting. Before listening to the radio program in class on Thursday I was unaware that so much strife existed between the subgroups. Chapter 6 introduces a lot of turmoil that is generally not talked about such as the transgender woman who could not attend the lesbian festival because she wasn’t a natural born woman and therefore was thought of as not being able to understand the oppression of women in society, as well as certain groups not being able to offer support to specific assemblies because of the risk of being ignored by higher organizations they need help from. All of this has shown me that inclusion and equality is a much more difficult subject to understand and push for than I originally thought. There are perhaps too many different subgroups of LGBT for them to all agree on terms and conditions to push the nation for but that doesn’t mean that support shouldn’t still be found among members of the LGBT community. Canady’s argument according to her introduction is that policy in the United States changed after WWII to prevent homosexuals from being admitted rightfully and wholly into America: “it was the federal government that gradually developed the tools to target homosexual personhood or status, the condition of being homosexual”. The United States is a relatively new “state” compared to other foreign powers and yet the mentality towards sexuality is far behind that of many of these other and older countries. Canady’s chapter on the military states that WWII is remembered as being the war in which sexual perversion in the military was discovered on a large scale when in reality it was just the first war in which a policy acknowledged the homosexuality taking place and the numbers it existed at. Degenerating theories were made and believed by many about homosexuals and their psychological tendencies. Like the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, the focus on a soldier’s sexuality takes away from the focus on whether or not he or she can do the job appointed to them and handle himself or herself with dignity. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is as dated as some of the theories scientists came up with after WWI to describe a phenomena that wasn't really new.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Chapter 6 was interesting in its entirety, what I found most interesting was that LGBT activist groups and the argued issues of “inclusion and equality” within their own ranks. I find it odd that people fighting for the same rights can’t come to terms. After reading Ch. 6, I feel like in order to have inclusion and equality within society; and to be accepted by society, the LGBT community and various LGBT organizations need to show inclusion and equality to their own people.
ReplyDeleteI will presume that Canady is the author. Canady’s argument in the introduction reflects the opinions and views of, what seems like the bulk of the LGBT community; based on the radio interviews we listened to last Thursday. She argues that there is a “crucial distinction” to make between civil rights and human rights. Like the radio interviewees, she claims that we can be blinded to the needs of people, including LGBT people. It seems to me that not just the LGBT community, but society as a whole, unconsciously neglects the terms civil- and human rights. Canady argues that it was the government that targeted idea of being homosexual. We have read numerous times that the United States is seriously behind when it comes to the acceptance of individual’s sexuality, compared to other foreign countries.
Her chapter on the military focuses on such policies like the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Although I can’t say I completely disagree with them, policies such as these do detract from a soldier’s true abilities. In the contrary, why can’t the military say who they do and don’t want to serve, when they have LGBT organizations that do the same? It’s a bit hypocritical that members of the LGBT community find the, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (and similar policies) so wrong, and they do it themselves. I mean if the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival has it’s reasons for denying transsexuals, then the military and the Boy Scouts of America have the right to deny homosexuals for whatever reason they see fit too.
In this week’s chapter “Inclusion and Equality,” the part I found most interesting was the section on inclusion versus assimilation. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has received a good deal of criticism from many LGBT organizations because many feel that the HRC has focused much of their attention on gays being assimilated into American culture. HRC’s approach has consistently emphasized the need for equality with straights. However, many other LGBT organizations feel this is too tame an approach, and yearn for something more out there and rebellious. Personally, I have always supported HRC’s views, goals, and approach. I am not one to participate in flamboyant, violent, or aggressive protests, and I would certainly never participate in a gay pride parade where “I Hate Straights” was on the leaflets. Even though I understand that the pamphlet was not as “anti-straight” as it might seem, I will never be aggressive about my sexuality, and it frustrates me when other homosexuals force acceptance of their sexuality on others. I believe this will only cause further discrimination and hatred. And while I am fully of supportive of the “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it” philosophy, again, I do not believe in aggressively forcing acceptance. Just not my cup of tea.
ReplyDeleteIn Canady’s article “The Straight State,” there were many comparisons between the current crisis “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the military during WWI up until the 30s. A homosexual serving in the military was an issue then, as it is now. Although homosexuality was not a crime, there were policies against being homosexual, and states and localities policed homosexual acts. One report from 1919 concluded that “the presence of sexual perverts among the commissioned and enlisted personnel [was] common.” However, the military hesitated for many years to ban homosexual soldiers from service, although there were many screening tests to try and weed them out. But as it turns out, the military learned that banning homosexuality is a tricky thing to do. After all, what constitutes a homosexual?
Chapter six was interesting, but I can’t say the information struck me as new. I can’t speak from the standpoint of any LGBTQ organization, but I can say from a personal standpoint that it is very clear that there are divisions between different groups in the LGBTQ community. In one of the earlier chapters/discussion there was a mention of the use of exclusion by gay men. I’ve always found this to be very true. Usually in the fight for rights (rights of any kind, I suppose) everyone relegated to their own community. This could just be a comfort phenomenon: you want to fight alongside the people who share your interest. I think though in this kind of modern society we (the gay community) can and must band together and recognize that on the most basic level everyone is fighting for the same thing. Everyone is fighting for inclusion of some sort. For this inclusion to happen everyone must become aware that what’s important isn’t becoming part of an oppressive system (so they may one day oppress others), but to change the system completely. This kind of change is alarming even for people who themselves don’t fit into the system, but it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think what Canady is saying in her introduction is that there is a question about how such a new state/society (America) could have evolved with such complex mechanisms to regulate something like homosexuality. For the most part homosexuality wasn’t something that was that the framers of the constitution expressly considered during the formation of the nation. Yet, structures and institutions availed themselves to have a regulatory role with regard to homosexuality.
Reading the information about military/immigration views or morality and sexuality and the related policies, makes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” seem almost tame in goals. The use of sort of perceived physical manifestations of gayness and perversion I found absolutely alarming. It would seem that using these characters to bar people from entering the country or the armed services is almost like a kind of eugenics program aimed at maintaining some preconceived notion of heterosexuality as the superior state.
What I found interesting is that people of the LGBT fight to be included in things or places that they are not want. Example with no gay men in boy scout. What’s the problem with that? Boy scouts are more of a male bonding thing to advance male traits, not to say that gay men don’t have these traits but the average gay man I see, they display female traits. If gay men didn’t dress or act in the way they act I don’t think it would be a problem for them to be involved in boy scouts. Also why in the LGBT community does it seem like they discriminate against each other more than those people who are not members of LGBT. It seems to me that gay men and lesbians are at the top of it, with bisexual’s next and last transgender people. I don’t agree with changing your sex. I feel that’s just wrong because if you were born gay, why would you change your sex. It’s also unfair to me that you can be with a woman who uses to be a man and never know. And with the MWMF I understand where they are coming from with the WBW. They aren’t doing anything violate and they are just making a unity between women. I always think of south park when I think of transgender man to woman, Mr. Grayson gay lover left him because he decided to have a sex change because he like men not women. Canady's argument from her introduction was the change the military was doing not to lets gay men into the military. I agree with Brittany on the positive and negative events that could happen in the military. That’s been one of the things I said in class often. I feel that the violate towards gays would increase in the military if it was ok to be open. From what I have listen to and seen I think gay people purposely try to spark certain arguments. Like I’m black, the odds of me getting in to NASCAR are slim to none and I know that but there is so many other things I want to do it doesn’t bother me, that’s just like the military gay people know what’s expected of them in the military before they join, so why join in you can’t do what they asked?
ReplyDeleteReading this chapter, I found it interesting that at the end of the chapter, the book talks about all the extremes of the LBGT community and what they have faced over the years. From the MWMF to the issues with boy scouts and NAMBLA, it is crazy how many different groups there are in the LBGT community. Like Andrew mentioned, while reading this chapter I didn't realize how many different groups there were in the LBGT spectrum. Many groups seem divided and non-tolerant of each other. This confuses me because if they are all working for the same goal of getting rights and recognition, then why would they want to isolate themselves rather than working together?
ReplyDeleteIn Canady's article, she is stating that after WWII, homosexuals were persecuted more than ever before. This was the turning point that really topped off the anti-gay groups and the exclusion from them in the military. People didn't know what to do about the gays and they felt like they had to make laws to restrict them. People try to include sexuality in state matters and it just doesn't work.
She states that up to WWI, people were carefully looked over and made sure they weren't gay in appearance or in action. This is like today when you show any sign of being gay, you could be discharged. This was just as much a problem then as it is today. Everyone should have the option to serve for their country no matter what race, sexuality, or gender. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy makes it easier for people to join the military, but if you are gay and in the military it is hard because you have no way of expressing yourself or showing your true personality.
I enjoyed reading this chapter, but like Andrew, I didn't find that any of the information to be surprising. I've always felt like there was a problem within the LGBTQ society when it comes to banding together. It’s just like during the Women's Rights Movement when the straight women and the lesbian women started to separate from each other, as opposed to coming together and supporting one another. They were both basically fighting for the same cause. We so often find it easy to create strife among ourselves over the smallest of differences. I did find it interesting that they spoke about the differences between civil and human rights. I don’t think I have ever really thought about the difference between the two, but now that it has been brought to my attention I find that the difference is very important. We as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, straight, asexual, black, white, orange or pink community all deserve the both equal human rights and civil rights. I don’t think that anyone deserves to have more or less rights than another human being. That’s why they are called “rights” in the first place. In her introduction, I think that Canady is trying to tackle the design behind the evolution of what really is a brand new country, America, and how they somehow managed to have such an explicit and intricate system for managing Homosexuality. I think that the Canady’s argument on the military during WW1 is almost a parallel to the current “Don’t ask; Don’t Tell” policy. It’s almost alarming how little the policies have changed. I realize that now it’s more like an issue that we try to ignore as opposed to completely obliterating homosexuals from the armed services, but I don’t see how that’s much of an improvement. I have yet to really wrap my mind around how a man or woman’s sexuality is going to hinder him or her from properly serving their country. I mean I know they talk about how they other soldiers, men in particular, would feel uncomfortable knowing that another man was sexually attracted to him, but I don’t really see how that’s any different from what women in a bar have to go through. It shouldn’t be something that prohibits one from entering the armed forces. Why deny someone from serving the country if they want to? Is it really that big of a deal? I thought it was particularly funny how they tried to completely ban homosexuals from the armed forces, but then they had to deal with the question of “What really constitutes a homosexual?” Even now I think we might have trouble defining what a “homosexual’ really is.
ReplyDeleteI found the “inclusion and equality” part most interesting in Ch. 6. I had no clue that the different homosexual groups had tension toward each other. I did know that some gays are attracted to certain types of gays but that is a very common in heterosexual attractions also. This chapter talked about different groups disabling other groups from taking part in certain organizations because of their previous genders and simply because of their type of homosexuality. I would have thought that they would all stick together because of the simple fact that they are fighting for the same rights.
ReplyDeleteCanady’s introduction is basically talking about how homosexuality wasn’t a new phenomenon before World War II. State officials were aware of homosexuality but it just was not an essential issue. Homosexuality became an issue during or after World War II when gays and lesbians became more visible. I also agree with Brittany about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy preventing some violent acts towards gays but on the other hand prevent them from being who they really are. I think the policies against homosexuals are created to protect them even though it is somewhat prejudice, because some homophobic people discriminate against gays in a pervertible manner.
Many aspects of Chapter 6 were interesting, if not surprising to me. I already knew about NAMBLA and the exclusion of gay men from boy scouts. The story I found most interesting was Barry Winchell. Though I know it shouldn't surprise me, I can't imagine killing someone because you assume this person to be gay. Since he was dating someone with a vagina, I don't really see how he could be presumed gay. People's intolerance for things that they don't understand will always astound me.
ReplyDeleteI think this ties into Canady's article pretty well. She discusses the division between civil and human rights. This relates to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy pretty closely. Being who you are without being persecuted should be a basic human right. If you have a right to the "pursuit of happiness," you have a right to be who you are. When the constitution was being written, homosexuality probably wasn't on the author's mind. However, certain basic rights were guaranteed to all citizens. We should not deny anyone their basic rights to health and happiness because of their sexual orientation.
I found several things interesting about chapter six. I was suprised to learn that gays were banned from the boyscouts. If the boyscouts believe in "traditional family values," wouldn't they want to counsel the boy into being straight, instead of shunning him? That would just make the boyscouts look stupid. I also found it surprised that Addams didn't feel like she received any help from gay and lesbian organizations.
ReplyDeleteI think Canady was saying that being gay and lesbian isn't something new but with World War Two came more radical ideas against them. It really started with McCarthay.
I think the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is a way to target people. I don't think the military should ask whether a person is homosexual. That's personal. But I don't think they should be punished if they found out a soldier is gay or lesbian.