Gay Oppression

The movement of the gay and lesbian population in the United States is one that has been in progress since the early 1900s, and is still facing overwhelming controversy and backlash today. The push for gay liberation in a country founded on Christian morals and beliefs has subsequently led to struggles over equality of marriage, adoption, jobs, and healthcare. One side of the controversy argues that every individual deserves the same rights, while the opposing mindset argues that being homosexual puts you into a group of people that is different, and will therefore be treated as such.

John D’Emilio’s “Capitalism and Gay Identity” contracts what life was like for gay men and lesbians throughout the 1970s and 1980s. During the 1970s, gay men and lesbians were able to come out freely, and eventually started to get accepted by everyone in society. They were able to express themselves without any regards, and started to become the person they were destined to be. People within the gay community have always expressed tendencies of liking the same sex, but societal norms did not allow them to express themselves. However, during the 1980s, as more people decided to openly come out, it started to take a toll on their identity. Society then started to question the importance of people who were brave enough to come out to the world.

Firstly, Frye discusses the etymology of the word ‘oppression’ stating that it has its elements from the word “press”, 1983, p: 2. She then gives imagery in order to demonstrate that the word is very restrictive in nature as if something were; “caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing’s motion or mobility”, (Frye, 1983, p:2). Frye makes the point that he first criterion in defining oppression is that the oppressed is restricted or limited in some manner, giving the sense that they have been moulded, immobilised or reduced. She exemplifies this notion with the following comparison using her theory of the “double-bind” theory. According to Frye, in the United States, young women, are locked in a bind where if they exhibit that they are heterosexually active, then she is explicitly regarded as “loose, unprincipled or a whore”, 1983, p:2. The woman may then feel that she must hide her behaviour from her parents who are likely to look down on her for her promiscuity. She will also face criticism by her peers as being an “easy lay” and put down in comparison to her friends who practise more restraint, (Frye, 1983, p:3).

“Sex was something mysterious which happened to married couples and Homosexuality was never mentioned; my mother told me my father did not believe it existed at all ‘until he joined the army’. As a child, I was warned about talking to ‘strange men’, without any real idea what this meant. I was left to find out for myself what it was all about.” Mike Newman, who was a child during the 1950s America recalls how homosexuality was perceived during the post-World War II era (F). This sexual oppression was not only in Newman’s household, but in almost everyone’s. While the civil rights movement began in the mid-1950s and ended late 1960s, the LGBT community started to come out of the closet slowly. The gay rights movement stemmed from the civil rights movement

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer community also referred to as LGBTQQ is no stranger to oppression. “In 1600-1800, colonists discovered buggery (sex between men or between women) among Native Americans. In 1869, Dr. Karoly Benkert coined the term “homosexuality” to describe same-sex acts. In 1870-1910, homosexuals

Over the past 150 years, there have been many groups who have sought the North American dream of "liberty and justice for all." Examples are:

Jones observe (2002: 15). In these ways, institutionalized heterosexuality is central to some of the key motivation(s) behind and design of public policy frameworks in the United States. By “institutionalized heterosexuality” I am referring to the set of ideas, institutions and relationships that make the heterosexual family the societal norm, while rendering homosexual/queer families “abnormal” or “deviant” (Ingraham 1999). My queer analysis of social welfare involves examining how sexuality and gender can be rethought and reorganized in economic and social policy frameworks, theories and practices. Throughout the article I examine how heterosexuality is assumed to be the natural basis for defining the family, and by extension, society, both explicitly (by excluding LGBT people from the analysis and by stigmatizing certain individuals as “non-family” or “anti-family”) and implicitly (by assuming that all people are heterosexual, that marriage is a given and exists only between a traditionally-defined man and woman, and that all people fit more or less into traditional gender roles; see Foucault 1978; Fraser and Gordon 1994; Ingraham 1999; Phelan 2001;

Common views on homosexuality and how it affects a person’s wealth/income is divided into two wholly contrasting opinions. Homosexuals are either seen as impoverished and suffer as a result of their open sexual orientation in a country that is largely Christian influenced and looks down upon them, or they are seen to be slowly becoming advantaged as a result of a growing liberal and LGBT & Feminist sentiments among the younger generations of Americans. With this, common perception of homosexuals and how they fair economically is split in two wholly different parts, and yet both sides are right if at different points in time. With four sources using both unique sources of their own and sharing certain studies to develop educated conclusions, it can be seen that within a period of a year homosexual economic status can somehow go from being called advantaged to suffering from an unfair wage gap and back again. How and why? That would require both examining the article’s conclusions and their sources as follows.

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

Homosexuality has been an issue for the public for an extremely long time dating back to even Ancient Rome and Greek. Especially with the birth of Christianity, the religious society has been persecuting anyone claiming homosexuality, forcing people to hide their own sexuality for centuries. It is important to understand and know the past of the homsexuality to understand the reason for their fight and the mentality of their opposition. Homosexuality has never been accepted into the norms of society and was even viewed as a mental disease by the American Psychiatric Association (Bowman). Not until a few decades ago has the movement for gay rights began to kick off. The event that really set off the movement was the Stonewall Riot of 1969. “New York’s gay community had grown weary of the police department targeting gay clubs, a majority of which had already been closed. The crowd on the street watched quietly as Stonewall’s employees were arrested, but when three drag queens and a lesbian were forced into the paddy wagon, the crowd began throwing bottles at the police” (“Stonewall”). This event is regarded as the foundation for the modern gay rights movement including the formation of many gay, lesbian, and bisexual civil rights organizations.

A reoccurring theme that has been evident throughout many systems of oppression is the necessity to define the group being oppressed as criminals. In the book Queer (In)Justice it is impossible to mistake the purposeful intent of church authorities, prosecutors, and other influential citizens who had an agenda. They were threatened by the progress being made by the gay community. Sodomy laws were falling and they began to worry about queers recruiting their youth to a “perverted” lifestyle. Most often the only crime that these LGBT people committed was being homosexual. This discrimination would be a little too evident so a feeble attempt was made to cover up hatred by producing these undeserved characteristics that queer people supposedly

Throughout the article Queens for a Day: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the Neoliberal Project written by Katherine Sender the argument that is presented is the fact that heterosexual men are under a greater pressure to become “more effectively self-monitoring citizens” (144). Sender suggests that this pressure can be directly linked to the ideas of flexible capitalism as well as “inadequate consumption” (140). Due to how the social and cultural changes that were being made in the second half of the twentieth century a shift was being made that allowed women to be more independent and economically secure. This meant that heterosexual men were no longer able to rely on woman being dependant of a man in order to survive. These men now had

I found this article specifically interesting due to the controversies found in American history. Gay identity emerged from the rise of capitalism which allowed both men and women in families to go out and work on free labor. John D’Emilio writes, “In divesting the household of its economic independence and fostering the separation of sexuality from procreation, capitalism has created conditions that allow some men and women to organize a personal life around their erotic/emotional attraction to their own sex” (D'Emilio 470). With everyone being out of the house, family ties have “weakened”, leaving room to provide individuals with more freedom. Lesbians and gays were given the opportunity to express their emotional and sexual desires towards the other sex. Capitalism promoted happiness and pleasure. I agree with the workplace allowing families to have more freedom. My dad was unemployed for a period of time due to an injury caused at work. Throughout that period I felt almost suppressed due to him being around all the time, watching my every move. Maybe I’m being a little dramatic, but he always had this image of “daddy’s” perfect little girl and him being home, seeing what actually was going on always made me feel like his perception of me changed. I didn’t “change” though, I was just growing up. Once he went back to work I felt as though this huge

John D’ Emilio brood over this very query when he composed his essay. Emilio disputes that the buildup of capitalism, and its free labor system, has permitted gays and lesbians to generate a “homosexual identity”, contrasting the idea that this distinctiveness has forever been present for them. “Here I wish to challenge this myth; I want to argue that gay men and lesbians have not always existed. Instead, they are a product of history, and have come into existence in a specific era. There emergence is associated with the relation of capitalism” (Emilio 170). With technical advancement and free labor, folks were kicked out of their present existence, and into the work force. Populace was therefore better able to make same sex relationships with individuals in their place of work, promoting gay activity to transpire into an everyday life, rather than a silent

Adrienne Rich also speak compulsory heterosexuality in her work, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Compulsory heterosexuality as discussed by Rich is how we view heterosexuality as a part of institution of capitalism that maintains power through the ideas of heterosexuality being acceptable to society and how we do not allow for differences in the binary system. As Rich states, “the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness” (Rich, 135). Meaning that we understand how heterosexuality is maintained by our capitalism system just as we understand oppression of classism, racism, and gender differences. Heterosexuality becomes institutionalized by maintaining through the normalization of forcing us to believe in the capitalism