Mourning and Militancy

There are three important main arguments the author is expressing in this article.  First, explaining the slogan Silence = Death where as a figure it works a striking image to bring attention to itself and not a mere logo.  Two, the internal opposition or struggle of activism and mourning in response to the AIDS crisis early on.  Three, the gay community (primarily the gay men) should be more militant or active in combating AIDS.

Reading this article I felt the author was trying to get the LGBTQ community mobilized to combat a serious disease that affected that community much more than any other in the early days of the pandemic.  I felt it relates to other concepts we've discussed in class in that it shows how dynamic the LGBTQ community really is. "Mourning and Militancy" complements "Medicalizing Homosexuality", by Jennifer Terry, by quoting Freud and discussing the libido and objects of affection.  In "Mourning Militancy", Douglas Crimp, mentions Freud as saying (of mourning), "The testing of reality, having shown that the loved object no longer exists, requires forthwith that all the libido shall be withdrawn from its attachments to this object"  and "....it may be universally observed that man never willingly abandons a libido-position, not even when a substitute is already beckoning to him"(Crimp, pg. 6).  Where in "Medicalizing Homosexuality", Jennifer Terry mentions  Freud's reworking constitutional disposition as, "He suggested that the intends sexual repression characteristic of bourgeois Victorian society led to a perversion of the body's inherent sex drive away from its normal aim and object, as expressed in heterosexual reproduction, toward fantasies and practices involving substitute objects." (Terry, pg. 58).  Crimp describing the object as a loved one being lost through AIDS and Terry describing the object as reproduction through heterosexual reproduction.  Two very different topics but both related through the libido.  I found Douglas Crimp's text somewhat confusing in that he quoted Freud throughout the text and I am not sure if he was using Freud to strengthen his argument against mourning or for militancy.

Studies from around the world suggests the rates for new cases of HIV among gay men continue to rise among all age groups, has the gay community become silent in the 21st century in the face of AIDS?

Why do think the author equates activism with militancy?

Queens In Exile, the Forgotten Ones by Sylvia Rivera

I’m sorry there are no page numbers! There are no page numbers in the document!

In her work, Sylvia Rivera discusses her entrance into the “queen” culture on the streets of New York in the 1960’s.  She walks us through her childhood, beginning with the suicide of her mother when Rivera was just three, growing up “without love” in her grandmother’s house because she was born a boy instead of a girl, how she began to experiment with make-up and sex in elementary and middle school and how she began to turn tricks on the street with her uncle for money at age 10.

I found it interesting how she uses such different and sometimes conflicting rhetoric when talking about her early life experience as a young transwoman working on the street.  She says, “my grandmother used to come home and it smelled like a French whorehouse, but that didn’t stop me”.  But also that she found the trick turning, which she needed to do to survive, “disgusting...I used to go home and scrub myself clean”.  She talks about her excessive drug use incredibly casually, but also discusses STAR’s priority in keeping kids off the street and off of drugs.  I think these dual narratives speak to Rivera’s own personal mechanisms of coping and resistance.

I was also very moved by Rivera’s analysis suggesting that the gay movement that began to emerge in the 60s and 70s “did a lot of good just concentrating on the gay issue. But they left the queens behind...And after all these years, the trans community is still at the back of the bus”.  This movement was clearly not for all individuals with non-dominant sexual and gender identities. But out of this exclusion came a grassroots, trans-specific organization, STAR, which Rivera considers to have been an incredible gift to her community.  Out of the exclusion came solidarity and an identity-specific coalition.

1.     How do Rivera’s statements about the ambivalence of the gay rights movement toward trans* individuals and rights speak to the larger nature of the movement and how does intersectionality play into this issue?

2.     How do Rivera’s experiences with systems and structures make her experience and needs different from those of individuals who are gay, and not trans?

3.     Has the environment for trans* individuals improved since the times Rivera writes about?

4.     What are some present day examples of the concept of the oppressed becoming the oppressors? And how can we, as social movers, prevent that from happening?

Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto

The manifesto points out the factors in society that oppress the gay community, then examines how these factors specifically harm gay people and keep them oppressed. The manifesto then moves to suggest and demand change. Some main points in the manifesto included the analysis of the patriarchal family, current systems of education, religious influences, and violence as detrimental to gay people's lives. The manifesto insists that sexism works against gay men and women, and that the current power structures in society (ruled by heterosexual men) needs to be taken apart and reconstructed. There should be a collaboration with women and the women's movement in order to move forward and abolish oppression of the gay community. This radical manifesto also insists on action and advocacy, and aims to "rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression." 

There were many different parts that could use deep analysis, but I found the manifesto's understanding of homophobia's connection with sexism interesting, especially as it pertains to our short papers on intersectionality as well as our readings.  The piece essentially calls for the deconstruction of the family and insists that it oppresses women and supports male privilege. Revolution is essential because the family reinforces sexist ideologies and lifestyles. I also found the Butch and Femme section really interesting because the manifesto condemns the imposition of masculine and feminine stereotypes. I always thought of butch and femme as more of a physical gender expression rather than an identity that could potentially dictate personality and behavior, and this part of the piece made me wonder how often masculine and feminine stereotypes are imposed (or self imposed) on people who identify as butch or femme. The piece also had other very radical statements and suggestions such as the critique of compulsive monogamy that I'm eager to discuss in class. 

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think that a same-sex family that operates similarly to a heterosexual family detrimental to the queer community? 

2. The piece cites self oppression as the "ultimate success of all forms of oppression," and uses examples such as the femme woman who dislikes butches or the "virile gay man" who thinks of queens as pathetic. Is it self oppressive for a masculine woman to resent a feminine presenting woman, or for an effeminate gay man to look down on a more masculine presenting gay man? 

3. Do you agree with the manifesto's analysis of compulsive monogamy? Is there a way to be monogamous without instilling some a power dynamic or feeling of ownership? What are the benefits of monogamy?

Jennifer Terry "Medicalizing Homosexuality"

The rejection of homosexuality was a consequent of Judeo-Christian religious practices, until the turn of the 19th century when the rejection of homosexuality became the result of medical theories that renounced homosexuality as either an inborn anomaly, a manifestation of a defunct evolutionary progression or a perversion caused by stress of the modern life. Terry examines the spectrum of theories, and there are two dominant sides 'innate' versus 'nurture'. Naturalistic scientist believed that homosexuals were born with sexual inversions. Most of these congenital theories were negative; however, there were scientists like Hirschfield who saw homosexuals as a natural variation of humans. Degenerate theorists, like Krafft-ebhing, saw homosexuals as unfinished specimen of a “lagging evolutionary process”. This assumption came from the inability for same sex couples to procreate, a threat to the advancing society. Ellis believed that children subjected to "unhygienic" circumstances such as going to a same sex school, would develop homosexual desires. Nurture seemed to lead the more recent research. Freud theorized that homosexuality was caused by an impediment of psychological development. Terry also writes about lesbianism, and the dominant thought was that lesbianism was a result of women gaining independence from men. Freud talks about how women develop "penis envy", which refers to when a woman suffers from the lack of penis/masculinity that causes her to develop hostility towards men.

Homosexuality was seen as a punishable crime until medicalization came along, which shifted the society's perception from criminalizing homosexuality to pitying these "specimen". Today, homosexuals are viewed as an eccentric minority or as characters of entertainment in pop culture. I feel like there seems to always be an extent of marginalizing homosexuals, and this act shows how society still sees homosexuality as a deviance from heterosexuality. Although people have arguably become more open-minded, hetero-normativity (Fausto-sterling’s piece) or compulsive heterosexuality is still the assumed sexual preference. I realize, despite these intensive medical theories on homosexuality, none of the scientists, apart from Hirschfield who started the world's first humanitarian effort for homosexual emancipation, even considered accepting homosexuality as a variation of society. Is recognizing homosexual existence enough? I find this to be invalid. Instead, we should focus on integrating homosexuals into the norm, and understand that homosexuality is just a sexual preference, not a defining characteristic of a person. 

I find myself to be a strong advocator of female rights, and so the theories on lesbianism had the biggest impact on me. There seemed to be an existing belief that men drove the decisions of women and it appeared to be unfathomable that a woman would choose to be a lesbian based on her own prerogative  Yet, when I read the diagnosis for male homosexuals, it was focused on either genetics or environmental pressures, not women. Today, there are still theories that women become lesbians as an act of rebellion against men. I ask, why does there always have to be a 'phallus' involved with women? It bothers me that society thinks that women still have to revolve their decisions around men. This prevailing attitude of male superiority in a woman's sexual life is regressive and sickening, and I feel that society needs advance from sexism at a faster pace.

Questions:

1. Krafft-ebing believed the lesbianism wasn’t as powerful nor threatening to social order as male homosexuality. He claims that this is because female's weaker sex drives means lesbians do not have excessive sexual needs. Why do you think he uses this measurement to define whether one's sexuality is ‘threatening’ or not?

2. Many of these theories are written more than a century ago, to what extent do you think our society has progressed in understanding homosexuality or the queer community in general? Are we a more advanced and sophisticated society, or are there still obsolete, discriminating notions?

3. Psychological theorists stated that homosexuals had a psych inversion - gay men adopted a female mindset. These scientists often define sexuality in terms of gender identification instead of looking at the different variations of sexuality. What measurements would you like scientists to define sexuality? Should there even be measurements to something as fluid as sexuality?

Michel Foucault's "We 'Other Victorians'"

In "We, 'Other Victorians,'" philosopher Michel Foucault examines the history of sexual discussion in Western culture. Sexual repression, which is strongly associated with the Victorian Era of the 19th century, began in the 17th century. Society forced most people to conform to its expectations of sexuality, enforcing "its triple edict of taboo, nonexistence, and silence" (293) upon discussion of sex and sexuality. Those who did not comply with society's repression, namely prostitutes and the mentally ill, were considered outsiders. Foucault links this increase in sexual oppression to the expansion of capitalism that began during the 17th century. In a capitalistic system, he argues, labor capacity leaves little room for "pleasurable pursuits," except for the purpose of procreation. This mentality led to increasing silence surrounding sexuality, which "[became] an integral part of bourgeois order" (294). Foucault argues that it is difficult to free ourselves from this repression, that an upheaval of the social order is required in order for sexual discourse to openly occur. While "a great sexual sermon" swept through in 1960s and 1970s and "denounced the old order" (296) to make the discuss of sex less taboo, there are still problems with the system. Lastly, Foucault's challenges the basis of sexual oppression, asking readers, "Is sexual repression truly an established historical fact?" (298). He is challenging conceptions of sexual oppression, though he makes it clear that he believes the prohibition of sexual acts and discussions did occur. We, however, must look beyond prohibition to fully understand the sexual discourse and oppression of the past several centuries

What I found interesting about Foucault's piece was how he linked the beginning of Victorian-style sexual oppression to the advent of capitalism. It's an argument I have never heard before and adds yet another layer to the incredibly amount of changes that occurred when capitalism began to spread. I also liked how he questioned the roots of sexual oppression, since it is usually a topic that receives little insight. However, I wish Foucault had discussed the implication of sexual oppression on our current era and on sexual minorities. There is much to say about how Victorian-era ideals still influence our modern day perceptions of sex and sexuality. While the discussion is continuously becoming more open, both women and sexual minorities face excessive scrutiny of their sexual practices and sexuality.

Questions:

1) In what ways does Foucault's piece apply to modern-day discussions of sexuality?

2) What sexual oppression does the LGBTQ* community face?

3) Foucault identifies prostitutes and the mentally ill as "Other Victorians." Who would you classify as "Other Victorians" and why?