Margot Canaday’s Straight State is an examination about the relationship between homosexuality and the United States government’s legal definition of citizenship. She focuses on three areas; the immigration, welfare, and the military. Her analysis of the relationship between the state and the individual was a Foucauldian argument about the complexity of discourse which causes both the actor and the acted upon to actively redefine the parameters of one another through the complex discourse of “bureaucratization.” As she stated in her introduction, “The state did not, I argue, simply encounter homosexual citizens, fully formed and waiting to be counted, classified, administered, or disciplined. . . Rather the state’s identification of certain …show more content…
In this chapter she demonstrates that while homosexuality between women was defined in a much more approving manner. Acts of affection between women were not seen as inherently perverse. Army officials became suspicious for misogynistic reasons, believing women were inherently more secretive and private therefore harder to detect when they were misbehaving. This led to the kind of sting operations which Grace Garner and Fannie Clackum were subjected to in which they were invited on a trip which turned out to be a trap designed to accuse them and another woman of homosexuality. However, in Garner and Clackum’s case they, unlike Quiroz, were able to demonstrate their ladylike characteristics and the unfathomability of one of either of them being homosexual. The two women were the first in history to successfully appeal a military discharge for homosexuality. However, antihomosexual mentality and antilesbian policy flourished within the U.S. military. This was despite a lack of clear criteria by which to examine many of these …show more content…
While chapters 1 and 2 both highlighted the publics distrust of homosexuality, Canaday’s first welfare chapter ties homosexuality as a direct threat to the heterosexual family . Transients and homosexuality became interlinked, and poisoned opinion about welfare distribution against single men. The Social Security act of 1935 and the handling of the surplus four years later, demonstrated that the federal government’s resources were being given to settled and married men and their families. Single women and men were left outside of this framework deliberately. Canaday’s second chapter on welfare focuses on the GI Bill of 1944 which by 1948 constituted 15% of the national budget. This act which has been largely read historically for its inclusion across racial and economic lines, actively disenfranchised soldiers who had been dismissed for homosexuality. This act as Canaday put it, “. . . relied on ascriptive charactersitics such as sexual identity to separate the deserving from the underserving” . The veteran’s affairs office struggled with the legality of the World Wars Veterans’ Act of 1924 which outlined that soldiers must have been convicted of a crime to be denied benefits, and most homosexuals were not. In 1945 it was made clear how offices should handle cases involving homosexuality, all were to be
In Vicki L. Eaklor’s Queer America, the experiences of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender people in the years since the 1970s gay liberation movement are described as a time of transformation and growth. The antigay movement, threatened, now more than ever, created numerous challenges and obstacles that are still prevalent today. Many of the important changes made associated with the movement were introduced through queer and queer allied individuals and groups involved in politics. Small victories such as the revision of the anti discrimination statement to include “sexual orientation”, new propositions regarding the Equal Rights Amendment and legalized abortion, were met in turn with growing animosity and resistance from individuals and groups opposed to liberal and
...e social changes brought about this period. He cites the growing sensationalism of sex covered in the media as a prime driver behind the sexual orthodoxy in American culture (Chauncey 1994, 359). During this witch hunt, he draws a silver lining. Using the scholarship of others such as John D’Emilio, he cites that this period brought a greater bond to the gay community by forging brotherhood of adversity which would then come back into play in the 1960’s as an experiential touchstone for the Civil Rights era (Chauncey 1994, 360). Chauncey nestles his own narrative of the gay community in New York within the larger narrative of gay life in America filling in the gaps of secondary sources through his own primary work.
On November 2, 1872 Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly published a story reporting that a prominent and well known minister, Henry Ward Beecher, allegedly had an extra marital affair with Elizabeth Tilton, the wife of a well known editor and Beecher’s assistant, Theodore Tilton. Both Tiltons were members of Beecher’s congregation. Victoria Woodhull, supporter of free love and a proponent of women’s suffrage, implied in her article that Beecher, a pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church in Brooklyn and an advocate of strong moral values, did not practice what he preached and committed adultery, something he advised against from the pulpit. It is believed that Mrs.Tilton confessed the affair to her husband in 1870 and subsequently retracted her confession under pressure from Beecher as well as Mr. Tilton. Mr. Tilton, apparently seeking to unburden himself, told the story to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a women’s movement activist, who in turn repeated it to Mrs. Woodhull.
Included in the amendments of Bill S.1028 is the proposal for the inclusion of various groups of elderly individuals who had been excluded from the original Older Americans Act of 1965 with the social benefits awarded to this specific population. That is, elderly people with sexual orientations other than heterosexual, and people with certain illnesses – that qualify, will be afforded the benefits under the old law and the amended law…if passed. The amendments in bill S.1028 are suitable for the current cultural as there is a clear paradigm shift in: 1. the growth of the elderly population, 2. the acceptance of individuals with different life-styles and, 3. the subjective socioeconomic circumstances the elderly may face.
In the past decades, the struggle for gay rights in the Unites States has taken many forms. Previously, homosexuality was viewed as immoral. Many people also viewed it as pathologic because the American Psychiatric Association classified it as a psychiatric disorder. As a result, many people remained in ‘the closet’ because they were afraid of losing their jobs or being discriminated against in the society. According to David Allyn, though most gays could pass in the heterosexual world, they tended to live in fear and lies because they could not look towards their families for support. At the same time, openly gay establishments were often shut down to keep openly gay people under close scrutiny (Allyn 146). But since the 1960s, people have dedicated themselves in fighting for
In “Disorderly Women: Gender and Labor Militancy in the Appalachian South,” Jacquelyn Hall explains that future generations would need to grapple with the expenses of commercialization and to expound a dream that grasped financial equity and group unanimity and also women’s freedom. I determined the reasons for ladies ' insubordination neither reclassified sexual orientation parts nor overcame financial reliance. I recollected why their craving for the trappings of advancement could obscure into a self-constraining consumerism. I estimated how a belief system of sentiment could end in sexual peril or a wedded lady 's troublesome twofold day. None of that, in any case, should cloud a generation’s legacy. I understand requirements for a standard of female open work, another style of sexual expressiveness, the section of ladies into open space and political battles beforehand cornered by men all these pushed against conventional limitations even as they made new susceptibilities.
In the 1940s, homophobia was extremely prevalent in the United States. People who were openly gay were often stigmatized. “Homosexuality was discussed as ‘an aspect of three personality disorders: psychopaths who were sexual perverts, paranoid personalities who suffered from homosexual panic, and schizoid personalities’ who displayed gay symptoms” (Kaiser 29). Many regulations and practices discriminated against gays. The military found homosexuality to be a direct threat to strength and safety of the U.S. government and the American people, in general. In 1941 the Army and the Selective Service banned homosexuals from participation in the war (Kaiser 29). All major religions considered it sinful and throughout the country, more and more people found it to be immoral. Life was hard for homosexuals in the early and mid-twentieth century. They were forced to hide their sexuality in order to escape derision or imprisonment.
Karen Bridget Murray’s article, “Governing ‘Unwed Mothers’ in Toronto at the Turn of the Twentieth Century”, is a valuable reference into the struggles and triumphs of social welfare for unwed mothers. For me the article highlighted how government ideologies influence social welfare, how important the change from religious reformers practices to social work was and finally how appalling it is that the struggles and barriers these women faced are still relevant to single mothers today.
Halperin, David. "Is There a History of Sexuality?." The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry
The United States government’s continuation of a discriminatory policy poses people to question the extension of freedom in a nation where “all men are created equal” and that boasts about their protected rights. For 17 years, the United States government’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy barred homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces. Military commanders could not ask military personnel about their sexual orientations or begin an investigation except upon the receipt of “credible information” of homosexual conduct. The policy was a compromise between President Bill Clinton, who sought to repeal the military's ban on gay personnel, and the opponents of that repeal
Her use of the metaphor “the prime rib of America” is a reminder that freedom and equality are the right of all citizens according to the American Constitution but the American government are flouting this right when it comes to the Gay and Lesbian community. She also draws a parallel between the defendants of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and the defendants in the murder of Matthew Shepard. By incorporating the highly publicised case of the torture and murder of homosexual Shepard , and reminding America how his death became a catalyst for a nationwide movement of advocacy for laws against homophobia, Germanotta works to expose the hypocrisy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because the same situation is occurring but at a government level. This parallel of prejudice is especially important and effective in building her argument because the defendants of discriminatory laws seem to distance themselves from accusations that their discriminations are based in racism, sexism, or in this case, homophobia. The use of rhetorical questions such as “doesn't it seem to be that ‘don't ask don't tell’ is backwards?” and “shouldn't I be made aware that some of us are just not included?” are used to persuade the audience of the injustice of “Don't ask don't tell” because. Germanotta also uses her personal voice throughout her speech and statements such as “I am gay” because she is voicing her opinion and lending her personal support to a cause for she feels profoundly. She detests the hypocrisy and is calling those people who hide behind their positions to be held accountable for flouting the rights of a sector of America’s citizens for whom they have no respect. Germanotta’s references to political figures such as “John McCain” is an exercise in holding these men and women ,responsible for denying homosexuals of their constitutional rights, accountable. Germanotta uses McCain’s words
Smith, David. ‘Lesbian Novel was danger to Nation.’ Sunday 2 January 2005. The Guardian. Web. 20 Nov 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/02/books.gayrights
The “Same-Sex Marriage Ruling’’ speech was a speech given by Barack Obama on June 26,2015 in the Rose Garden outside of the Supreme Court in Washington. The purpose of the speech was to let the world know what history was taking place, how big of a step it was towards equality, and to enlighten the world on the fact that love has no boundaries. The speech is considered a seminal US document because it has a historical and civil significance . A careful literary analysis of the speech will reveal why this speech continues to resonate in the American consciousness.
Colonel Fitts, a strict, military man is acutely homophobic, which we see a glimpse of at various points within the film when Fitts makes such statements as “What is this? The f***ing gay pride parade?”, consistently refers to gay people as ‘faggots’ and directly tells his son: “I'd rather you were dead than be a f*ckin' faggot.” Towards the end of the film, it is revealed that Fitts himself is homosexual who has never come out about his sexuality, having instead suppressed it under the facade of his marriage with his wife Barbara Fitts - whom we understand is not mentally well, a likely result of their debilitated marriage. When hearing these verbal slurs we understand how deeply rooted Fitts’ hate for homosexual people is, the phrases letting us delve deeper into his satirical opinions and personal beliefs. Upon the reveal of Fitts’ homosexuality, one could assume he has simply become a product of his environment. It could be suggested that he is so verbally brutal because those thoughts were ingrained into him when he was younger, authority figures causing him to believe this about himself, ultimately forcing him to believe he should hate himself as well as other gay people for their sexuality. Verbal slurs can be unpleasant and discomforting to hear, and the brutal, stinging force of Colonel Fitts’ barbarous words are instantaneously able to diminish one’s sense of comfort and security. Thoug harsh to hear, the use of verbal slurs in American Beauty is successful on the director’s part as we now have a more in depth perception of how deeply, psychologically damaging Fitts’ forcefully homophobic beliefs have been on him, and how this extreme homophobia can cause such an intense hate for people against others, reflecting the underlying hate they may hold against themselves. While it is unjustifiable to use such harsh
The discrimination on the basis of homosexuality is a subject of much debate. In this paper I shall discuss an argument by Jeff Jordan to the conclusion that it is wrong and immoral to discriminate on homosexuals and how they do not differ from heterosexuals. In this paper I will show that Jeff Jordan’s argument, that it is right to discriminate on homosexuals is moral, is not very convincing because it is based on a questionable premise. I will use an argument from Andrew Sullivan to show how weak Jordan’s premise is on the basis of homosexuality. Then finish off with my views on the basis of homosexuality.