12 Mar. Boswell 10-12 and Padgug, “Sexual Matters: Rethinking Sexuality in History” on ereserve
13 Mar. 
The Times of Harvey Milk
14 Mar. Chauncey, Gay New York: Introduction; Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, Chs. 1 & 2
12 Mar. Boswell 10-12 and Padgug, “Sexual Matters: Rethinking Sexuality in History” on ereserve
13 Mar. The Times of Harvey Milk
14 Mar. Chauncey, Gay New York: Introduction; Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, Chs. 1 & 2
Chauncey/Faderman
Is there anything in Chauncey or Faderman that surprises you?
In Chauncey, his description of the pre-war gay world seemed reminiscent of Boswell’s description of the comparatively tolerant ancient Greek culture. It seems that in modern-day society we do not think about this being a possibility, which Chauncey says is a result of the dominant heterosexual society’s trivialization of the study of the gay world, but I suppose that America was “the land of opportunity” on many levels (at least for a time).
It was also surprising how many of the special words used to describe homosexuality at different periods in history have become less prominent in society, but are still thrown around as insults on elementary school playgrounds.
In Gay New York, George Chauncey identifies three widespread myths that largely shape our current view and understanding of gay history before the rise of the gay movement. The myth that I found particularly interesting was Chauncey’s myth of internalization. I immediately related and compared this myth to themes in the film, The Boys in the Band. The film itself, as well as the reception it received after its release, largely defines and portrays the characters as struggling with some form of internalized self-hatred that is the result of an intolerant and oppressive society. The movie, which shows the effects of this repressive society on the characters through their constant policing of each other, would support Chauncey’s idea that change is not always progressive and that there hasn’t always been a steady movement towards freedom, while also offering an example that complicates the idea that the post-Stonewall liberation movement was exclusively about an “I’m gay and proud” rhetoric. Chauncey’s internalizing myth did, however, also allow me to think about the behavior of the characters in the film as potentially being forms of resistance in the context of an overwhelmingly powerful opposition. Instead of viewing the characters as simply having accepted the dominant culture’s view rather than resisting it, I was able to think about the characters’ appropriation of language and rituals in dominant culture as forms of affirmation.
Faderman discusses the history of lesbianism from the late eighteenth century through the early twentieth century. I was surprised that tolerance for same-sex female relationships decreased even as women gained more rights and independence. It appears that a rise in feminism decreased tolerance for lesbianism and increased suspicion that female rights activists were in fact lesbians. Academia and the industrial revolution were originally opportunities for women to freely engage in romantic friendships. As time progressed however, society in general and women in the college setting became more suspicious and dismissive of romantic friendships. I was surprised by how strongly the difference in class dictated the nature of relationships.
Faderman articulates in Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, the way in which romantic friendships or lesbian relationships are formed. I found it interesting that they were not created on the basis of love or some form of attraction, though they later evolved to being such, but were instead a means of escape. A means of escaping the mental and financial oppression that would be a result of them entering into a relationship with a man. Educated women became interested in woman of similar status due to the fear that they presented to men and the lack of interest many had in men after attending all female facilities. College for women became the gateway for lesbian relationships as women saw more freedom and comfort with the companionship of another woman. It surprised me that even in these unions many women would not recognize themselves as lesbians even if they carried out the full extent of the lifestyle and its actions. Almost as if to undermine the reality of the relationship.
I was shocked by Chauncey’s description of prewar America, particularly New York. I discussed the nuclear family and its values at length in my first project and I find it incredible that any sort of gay culture could have existed, let alone flourished, in the years preceding the 1940’s and 1950’s. One journalist noted that the “streets and beaches are overrun by fairies”. Chauncey describes the gay community as being “highly visible” and discusses the prevalence of balls (I could not imagine a ball like we saw in Paris is Burning in the Gatsby era, even though I know that the ball culture changed heavily over time), the wearing of coded insignia (red scarves), the use of coded language, the play on ‘negative’ terms – pansy, sissy, the horticulture men. I was also alarmed by the idea that the gay community emerged from the working immigrant classes of New York. My first thought is that immigrants would want to assimilate – not necessarily crush their own culture but at the very least tone it down. Chauncey suggests the opposite; ‘degenerates’ and ‘perverts’ off kinds emerged from these working class slums, particularly in the Italian, African American, and Irish (what about catholicism?) communities. Chauncey’s observations surprised me on many levels.
Though I know it to be true, I am always surprised by the lack of “evidence” (presumably scientific studies) for the essentialist model of lesbianism, especially in contrast to the ample evidence for the essentialist model of homosexuality in men. Faderman states in her introduction: “I believe that some women, statistically very few, may have been ‘born different,’ i.e., genetically or hormonally “abnormal.” the most convincing research I have been able to find indicates that such an anomaly is extremely rare among lesbians.” I think Faderman here is neglecting the fact that there are extremely few genetic or endocriological studies that examine female homosexuality. Of course, one of the major problems with these studying female homosexuality is that women in general tend to be less “definite” in their sexuality than men – but whether this is a societal construction or has a physiological basis remains to be seen. Faderman suggests that the genetic differences occur predominantly in cases of lesbians who identify more as transsexual, and thus ties genetic differences to gender inversion as separate from sexual preference. I find it interesting that we often view both gender and sexuality as constructs, yet tend to attribute sexuality more to experience and transsexuality as genetic. Of course, the two are linked hormonally in terms of biological sex and sex roles, but it is not uncommon to find stereotypically “masculine” gay men or “feminine” lesbians. Rather, I would argue that research focuses on the transsexual notion of sexuality because it encompasses hormonal pathways with which we are familiar – the development of a fetus to either male or female via androgens and estrogens has been extensively studied. What science has less familiarity with is the neurobiological basis of sex preference (if there is such a basis, though there is ample evidence in research on gay men suggesting there is). Perhaps Alderman is a victim of the scientific limitations of her time, as our ability to study genetics, brain structure and hormonal pathways has grown immensely since the publishing date of 1991. But overall, I was surprised that Alderman does not touch on the lack of research for the essentialist model of lesbianism in comparison to that of gay men.