Dissolving the Wedge

[omega minimo]

There was powerful cooperation between early “First Wave” feminists and the Abolitionists. What kind of coalition do we have now?

Where is the cooperation between gays and lesbians who righteously challenge the gender status quo and the women who challenge it from a different angle?

The (stereotypical) gender role status quo is what is threatened by gay and lesbian and women's rights. Is it so embedded in society that people don't even notice it?

Would a successful Equal Rights Amendment lead to more equality for homosexuals?

Would civil rights for gays and lesbians lead to more equality for women?

[TygrBright]

1. I certainly agree that all of us "second class" citizens...

...(that is, those of us who aren't middle-class educated white males,) need to work together for justice and equity, and stop letting Our Corporate Masters set us against one another. But I don't see the connection you see about the specific (and presumably extra-potent?) "gender status quo" link 'twixt gay folk and women?

My generation of women worked to give women options other than dutifully popping out babies and letting some male Owner make all the important decisions, own all the property, etc. We still have ground to cover in terms of valuing all the choices and contributions women make equally with similar choices made by middle-class educated white men. We also still have ground to cover in enabling men (of all ethnicities and economic backgrounds) to make viable, socially-supported choices other than "breadwinner," but with the exception of the hardcore fundy frootloops I think the "stereotypes" are now pretty mutable, especially for the generation of young women coming out of high school today.

I think it's less a question of challenging stereotypes than it is ensuring value for all the different choices and roles that men and women make. While that's equally true of gays and lesbians (heck, it's true of EVERYONE who's relegated to 'second class',) are you saying that gays and lesbians are also expected to conform to particular gender-based stereotypes? The drag-queen gay and the bulldagger lesbian? Something like that?

Maybe I'm confused by the word "stereotype," maybe you have a different definition for that than I do.

confusedly,
Bright

[omega minimo]

2. Yes maybe the word "stereotype" makes it confusing

"Challenging the (stereotypical) gender role status quo" = "ensuring value for all the different choices and roles that men and women make."

"But I don't see the connection you see about the specific (and presumably extra-potent?) "gender status quo" link 'twixt gay folk and women?"

So maybe "The (stereotypical) gender role status quo....is......so embedded in society that people don't even notice it" :shrug:

"We still have ground to cover in terms of valuing all the choices and contributions women make equally with similar choices made by middle-class educated white men."

Agree with that, but not so much this:

"...but with the exception of the hardcore fundy frootloops I think the "stereotypes" are now pretty mutable, especially for the generation of young women coming out of high school today."

If anything, stereotypes about appearance and social behavior have gotten worse for young women, although they may have more career options available until they crash into the glass ceiling.

[VelmaD]

3. The relationship between early feminists and abolitionists...

was much more ambivalent than most people ever know. Many abolitionists were not at all in favor of votes for women. There were many schisms in the abolitionist movement between those who thought women should not speak in public and those who wanted a more active role for women in the movement. (Same with the temperence movement.) In fact, women elected delegates to some of the early interntaional abolition meetings were refused their seats and were not allowed to speak or vote on issues. It was one of the things that helped launch the women's rights movement...their anger over being denied in those venues. One of the saddest facts of history is that Frederick Douglas and other famous abolitionists were willing to sell out the vote for women, both black and white, to get the votes for black men. It has helped to poison the well of that relationship for the generations since.

Sorry to ramble on. Just saw your opening line and had to comment since it's an issue that still bothers me.

I agree with your basic point though, all of us are in this together and we have to work together in a united front to get equal rights for all. Otherwise the rich white guys will continue to divide and conquer and we all lose.

[omega minimo]

4. Thanks VelmaD

Yes it did fall apart, didn't it........ They recognized (to some extent) what their movements had in common. We don't seem to be doing that now.

I've posted before that the various "Wedge Issues" are different sides of the same damned wedge. IMHO it would help to recognize that and hook up.............................................................................

"I agree with your basic point though, all of us are in this together and we have to work together in a united front to get equal rights for all. Otherwise the rich white guys will continue to divide and conquer and we all lose."

:hi:

[bobbieinok]

8. it took me a long time to accept that 1of the reasons women finally got the vote

was b/c they made the strong argument to white male legislatures that black men and non-northern European male 1st and 2nd generation men could vote and WASP women could note. It appears that this was probably a deciding factor, but the 'necessity' really bothers me.

[Nikia]

5. I do think that a lot of opposition to gay marriage has to do w/ sexism

To right wing conservative types who oppose gay marriage and adoption by gay people, gender roles seem to be a big part of the issue. To them, men and women are very different and don't overlap. A marriage relies on one man, one woman not just for being able to reproduce but because they believe that someone has to be subservient and fit other gender roles. A child cannot be adopted by two dads or two moms because they believe that mothers and fathers have very different roles. At least one partner, if not both, violates their gender stereotype in order for the family to work.
I also think that they fear that women will realize that we are getting a bad deal in traditional heterosexual gendered relationships and all want to become lesbians if it would mean that we could get married and have children with a partner without being involved with a man.
I do think that these issues as well as general discrimination against gays and lesbians are mainly gender issues.
I think that the ERA could lead to equality for homosexuals. I think that it could be legally argued that the amendment would mean that gay marriage would be allowed because people cannot be discriminated against by gender, meaning that a person could not be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex who they could marry if they were the other sex.

[omega minimo]

6. Well put. Thank you Nikia

"To them, men and women are very different and don't overlap. A marriage relies on one man, one woman not just for being able to reproduce but because they believe that someone has to be subservient and fit other gender roles."

Great post. In another thread, someone said that the strongest opponents to gay marriage they know are fundamentalist couples with dominant husbands and very subservient wives.

[bobbieinok]

7. the anti-ERA people in IA in the 1980 election said ERA->gay rights

There was a big TV ad push in the final weeks. They ran one ad a lot. They picked out scenes from SF gay pride parades that would possibly shock conservative Iowans and ran them with a solemn voice over saying 'do you want THIS in IA???? vote no on ERA.'

It was also claimed that the ERA would lead to abortions everywhere; that's what neighbor women told me.

It was also claimed that the ERA would lead to uni-sex bathrooms. I always wondered if the opponents had ever traveled by plane or eaten in small-town IA restaurants, many of which had only one bathroom.

The background to this ERA referendum--

The IA legislature had passed the ERA amendment to the US constitution; this amendment had been making its way through the various state legislatures. Then the right noticed what was happening and mounted a national anti-ERA campaign; the Mormon church played a major role nationally and locally.

Friends who volunteered to travel the state speaking in favor were totally stunned by the anti-ERA sentiment that had been stirred up. I remember one woman asking us after one such trip: 'What is secular humanism?? Many women are saying the ERA is a secular humanist plot.'

Although it may not have been very clear at the time,it now seems obvious that the anti-ERA movement was part of the rise of the political activism of the religious right; the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell started at the same time. It was the 1980 religious right equivalent of anti-abortion and anti-gay rights.

I remember walking the precinct to get out the democratic vote on election day 1980 and being 80% sure that most of the people I talked to had voted or would vote for Reagan and against the ERA. It was an EXTREMELY DEPRESSING election.