Response to "Queers Read This, I hate Straights"

I think it’s interesting how there’s pretty much a large divide between how much of a role emotion should play in activism and consciousness -raising. I personally think that strong emotion is necessary to a certain extent in terms of activism. Emotion is necessary for the organizing aspect of activism but takes a lesser importance when it actually comes to execution. However, without emotion or some expression of frustration, then most people just won’t get “it” (whether “it” denotes race, class, sexuality). It seems as though there’s only a certain amount of passiveness that can be tolerated. That’s primarily why when I read “Queers Read This; I Hate Straights”, my very first reaction was that the authors were frustrated and in search of change. I think it’s a very effective piece with regards to organizing because how can you not respond to this? Whether it is good, bad or somewhere in between, I think any response certainly beats none.

After I read this piece, I personally did not feel offended even though I’m straight. Instead (and in a strange way) I felt fired up because it put so much into perspective. This was written 17 years ago, which really isn’t that long, considering that we still in a highly homophobic society, and it’s strange to acknowledge how much privilege we have, being the “hetero” in “heteronormative”.
With regards to privilege, it’s an interesting question of whether it is a give or take process. Does some group need to give up privilege so that another can have it? I think to a certain extent, but that in turn raises the question of how exactly do you GIVE up privilege? I think it has something to do with changing a mode of thinking, and in a piece such as “Queers Read This; I hate Straights”, there’s a certain “click” that’s occurring which triggers change in some aspect (even it’s just in thought and belief). I think this same discussion occurs outside of sexuality, and specifically in the context of race. An article I’m always reminded of in the discussion of race and privilege is Peggy McIntosh’s piece “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack”. In the piece McIntosh basically addresses how everyday whites experience privilege, and in the conversation on sexuality, it’s essentially the same: we (i.e. whoever the majority maybe) don’t really recognize our privilege until someone points it out or takes it away. So, from my perspective, I didn’t exactly see it [Queers Read This] as material meant to make straight people feel bad, but rather something meant to open their eyes (and ears as expressed in the proclamation “Shut up and listen”!)

*I really believe that an image is worth a thousand words. Notice how these are from popular sellers (like Calvin Klein) and how it promotes love & sex (but only between men and women)

Lesbian Fashion

An aspect of Butch/Fem culture that I find particularly interesting is the emphasis on dress and the messages that are conveyed through appearances. In “The Fem Question”, Nestle emphasizes the importance of dress for lesbians in the 1980s. Before commenting on this, it is worth noting that dress also played an important function for lesbians during the height of the bar subculture in the late 50s and early 60s. During this era when bars were popular meeting places for lesbians, mode of dress was a direct means through which sexual identity could be expressed. This is evident in the very distinct ways in which butches, fems or kikis presented themselves in the bar scene and the roles they were expected to fulfill based on dress (for example, butches were considered to be dominant, fems submissive). Hence, in the 1950s and 1960s, the way lesbians dressed was a direct expression of their sexual identity as well as a comment towards sexual preferences.
In addition, for fems specifically, the way she dressed was also key to developing a certain way of life. Since looking like anything other than what was prescribed by the heteronormative society was considered taboo, the way fems dressed often helped them “pass” in a heterosexual world. Nestle supports this notion when she states, “…in the earlier decades, many fems used their appearance to secure jobs that would allow their butch lovers to dress and live the way they both wanted her to…”(Nestle).

In the 1980s, the function of a lesbian’s mode of dress took on new meaning, especially with regards to identification with the lesbian movement.
Nestle comments “…if I wore the acceptable movement clothes of sturdy shoes, dungarees, work shirt and back pack, I was to be trusted…” This implies that for lesbians, especially fems, dressing outside of this uniform was seen as conforming to heteronormative standards which required women to dress “feminine”. Another example of acceptance based on dress is evident in Nestle’s narrative when she is giving a talk, and is the one identified with more by her audience because she “looks” more like them-(heterosexual women) because she wore a dress and high black boots while her partner wore pants, shirt, vest and a leather jacket.
This offers insight into the complex situation that fems were often faced with in terms of expressing their identity. Especially in the case of Nestle, she had to make the choice between expressing her solidarity with the lesbian movement, or with simply being comfortable in her own style-which became problematic since it happened to coincide with the dress of heterosexual women.

The importance of dress and the messages being conveyed are still an important aspect of lesbian identity today (and undoubtedly, a part of everyone’s identity). However, discussing lesbian fashion becomes problematic since it is often discussed in stereotypes. In an interview with Cynthia Summers, the stylist of the popular TV show “The L Word”, Summers discussed how difficult of a task it was to dress the cast of the show (who all play lesbians), without relying on stereotypes. Some present day stereotypes of the way lesbians dress are “…the butch [who wears] husky jeans, T-shirt, blunt haircut and blue-collar work jacket; the lipstick lesbian: long, styled hair, makeup and a combination of pretty dresses and power suits. The sporty dyke: athletic wear, from sneakers to track jackets. And there's the granola lesbian: hemp fabrics dyed with organic earth tones, necklaces made with symbolic stones, Birkenstocks (often with socks) and lots of fragrant patchouli oil”.

Generally speaking, the way we dress conveys messages about everything from our personality to socioeconomic status (stereotypically that is). With regards to lesbians, in the urban bar subculture that emerged after World War II, mode of dress was used to express sexuality. Eventually their identification with the lesbian movement was further added on to the meanings that their mode of dress conveyed.

Images (Butch/Fem stereotypes Past and Present)

AIDS in the Mind of America

In the reading, “AIDS in the mind of America”, Dennis Altman discusses the rise of the AIDS epidemic and its impact on the gay community. In relation to a move by health officials to close down popular bathhouses of the time (which inevitably would affect gay sex culture), Altman poses the question for thought: “what should be the respective roles of individuals, businesses, community organizations and the state in fostering such changes?” (Altman, 156). Where should the line be drawn between private matters and public concerns? In my opinion, there is no one, clear-cut answer for this question. Bathhouses played a key function in gay culture in the mid 1980s, in that it was essentially a safe haven for gay men to engage in sexual activities. With the rise and wildfire spread of the AIDS virus, from one aspect, it can be understood why it seemed necessary that community organizations and the state intervene: public education and consciousness raising are usually left up to them. However, this becomes complicated considering that AIDS was primarily viewed as a “gay disease” and essentially a “gay problem” by the society in general, thus hindering effective education and consciousness raising because of this bias. Douglas Crimp addresses this issue in his critique of Randy Shilt’s book “And the Band Played On” when Crimp comments: “The idea of AIDS as a gay disease occasioned two interconnected conditions in the US: that AIDS would be an epidemic of stigmatization rooted in homophobia, and that the response to AIDS would depend in very large measure on the …gay movement…” (Crimp, 250)

This offers a transition into the role of the media in AIDS awareness and the promotion of safe sex practices. Since AIDS was viewed only as a gay disease, the media portrayed it that way, capitalizing on the stereotypes of the gay community, as well as on America’s ignorance of gay sex practices.
Eventually, the education on AIDS was no longer about AIDS: it was about discouraging gay sex practices, which reflected the deeply homophobic beliefs of the time. For example, Crimp discusses an amendment in 1988 under Senator Helms in which it stated “none of the funds made available under this Act to the Centers for Disease Control shall be used to provide AIDS education, information or prevention materials and activities that promote or encourage, directly, or indirectly, homosexual sexual activities” (Crimp, 264). Here it is evident that it was not about preventing even further the spread of a virus, but about preventing the practice of gay sex.

Returning to Altman’s question posed earlier, when the widely held belief is very biased and homophobic, should it still be able to promote “educational” materials for the equally biased homophobic community? It makes me wonder, who were their actually audience? Crimp addresses one aspect of this issue when he suggests: “…instead of the specific, concrete languages of those whose behaviors put them at risk for AIDS, community values require a universal language that no one speaks and many do not understand…“Don’t exchange bodily fluids” is nobody’s spoken language. “Don’t come in his ass” or “pull out before you come” is what we say…” (Crimp, 265).
Considering the attitude of the state towards gay education and the manner in which “consciousness raising” occurred, it seems like the message being sent out was actually counterproductive to the message that needed to be heard. That message being that safe sex could still be practiced without sacrificing intimacy.

*Note: A friend of mine found this vid. on condoms and AIDS awareness directed towards gay men and sent it my way...Check it out!

Portraits of Stonewall & After

In finishing up Duberman's section on "Post-Stonewall" and reading about the differences between the GAA and the GLF, I tried finding primarily posters by or about the two movements... I thought initially that since there was a tension between the GAA and GLF because of their different primary agendas, it would be easy. Needless to say, three hours later I was still coming up empty handed. I was able to find numerous images of the GLF poster (on Duberman's cover) but from various sources. I did however find an image of the GAA during a meeting in the Firehouse (NYC's first LGBT community center) sometime in 1970.

In giving up on my initial intentions to find differing posters, I shifted my attention to finding reports of how the Stonewall riots were reported from various resources...i.e. how popular New York periodicals would have reported the riots. I was slightly more successful in finding reports and it deepened my understanding of the "zeitgeist" of the time.

From many of the sources I read, it seemed as though some were fairly objective to reporting the raids and they coincided for the most part with Duberman's reports. However, in contributing more to understanding the zeitgeist, an article I found entitled "Homo nest raided, queen bees are stinging mad" was printed in the New York Daily one week after the raids. This particular one was interesting to me, because of the title alone. In reading it "Homo nest raided, queen bees are stinging mad", I had a very mixed reaction since it seems primarily to be very condescending and almost in coherence with the perspective of the older members of the homophile movement... it in essence describes the "queens" as being showy. This is even more evident in the article itself when it's stated "[The Queens] pranced out to the street blowing kisses and waving to the crowd"

Miscellaneous Images

These images are snapshots of what I would consider the effects of Stonewall. That is, since the Stonewall riots are often deemed the benchmark of the LGBT movement,the "spark" of the revolution, the long term result was ultimately the recognition and acceptance of the LGBT community. These are images from marches in New York and Chicago in 1970, and also snapshots of the first and most recent Gay Pride parades(the first is considered the Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day March)

Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day March:

Gay Pride Parades (Chicago, New York and Brazil)

Separation of social movements?

In the novel/text Stonewall, Martin Duberman sketches the lives of six people and their journey in establishing an LGBT identity as well as their various involvements with the LGBT community. Through the very different lives and experiences of Craig, Jim, Foster, Yvonne, Karla and Jay/Sylvia, the readers (or at least I do), undoubtedly find some aspect to identify with…which makes the reading much more novelesque as opposed to strictly history- textbook like. This mixture of narrative and fact is so refreshing since voices are actually provided and there is a subjectivity-which is more often than not, excluded from the reporting of historical events.

Should social movements be separated?
One aspect of the narratives in Duberman’s Stonewall that I found particularly interesting was the idea that the homophile movement should be a separate entity from other movements including the feminist movements. Throughout the course of Karla, Craig and Foster’s narratives in the mid –late sixties, we see the different perspectives of the time regarding the two being reflected in the narratives. We learn from Karla’s narrative, that women were still seen as secondary players not only in the homophile movement but also in any semi-political movement of the time. We also learn through Foster’s narrative, that he first believed that the homophile and feminist movements should be separated because of the belief that separate agendas will be pursued. And, indirectly through Craig’s narrative, we get a greater sense of women in general and their role in specifically the homophile movement. Take for example, that in Craig’s bookstore, the literature was predominantly male oriented…this makes me wonder whether this is just a result of women not actively participating in the homophile movement (and if so, why the lack of participation?) Or can it actually be attributed to some other reason?
In general, from reading the narratives, I was left with the question of whether social movements-whether they be homophile, feminist and even civil rights should in fact be separated? What happens when people can identify with more than one movement at once? Like we see with Karla, who identifies as a lesbian but is still separated because she is a woman. Can we actually assume that one political agenda is more important than another without causing a huge rift and affecting the entire networking system (which is crucial in maintaining social movements)? Basically, to what extent should the line be drawn in social movements and in the pursuit of an agenda?