Originally I had planned to talk about Rupp’s third chapter, “Worlds of Men Worlds of Women.” But after having discussed it in such detail I’d rather discuss the fourth chapter of her book, “Definitions and Deviance.” In reading this chapter I found myself somewhat confused by her examples. After the sexologists studied and created the idea of homosexuality and deviance many found themselves unable to continue their romantic friendships for fear of being labeled. Others continued on, not caring, or identifying themselves in the sexologist’s terms. After discussing what started to happen in female boarding schools and colleges, and how their peers would humiliate those girls that were in romantic friendships she posed the examples of Jane Addams, Anne Shaw, and M. Carey Thomas. Though she said that these women were unselfconscious about their actions she attributes their lack of being labeled deviants to their respectability and ability to fit within society’s view of gender roles. Thus I ask you what constitutes respectability, was it the age of these women? How did they avoid Walt Whitman’s fate and the fate of the men in Long Beach, was it by working within female-only institutions? What makes a person respectable to society, while still being true to his or her own personal sexuality and idea of gender?
These issues also tie into our nation’s idea of religion and morality. In looking at the navy’s actions what I can’t quite fathom is why they were so interested in the morality of their soldiers. How can a government expect a person forced from their home and taught to kill another without question be expected to also follow the normative views of morality as well?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To the first question, about romantic friendships with women, I say we can not only look at the examples Rudd cited, but can also look into our current society to maybe understand this concept more. Only a few years ago, homosexuality was not so blatant on giant media channels like MTV, VH1, or ABC. During this time, women were still allowed to have close, even seemingly romantic friendships. Women are seen cuddling together in college dorms, in bed together eating ice cream when lover's hurt them, and older women are mostly seen together, in movies such as the Ya Ya Sisterhood. Women thoughout history have had an ability to be very friendly with one another, mostly because science for a long period of time, believed women were either non-sexual or could not please one another, so didn't. These views continue into the status quo, which is why the women Rudd mentioned were allowed to continue these friendships, while men like Whitman were somewhat punished.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second question, I totally agree and come to the same conundrum. Is it the ideal masculinity that became connected to violence and domination at this time? It could also relate to the idea that the government, its legislators, and service workers, both militarily and socially, are examples of the government, in some small way? Does the government, which is run by white, heterosexual men, need some type of control on men of this time as opposed to others? Why?
In this time, men were becoming quite free, many allowed the rights of citizenship, voting, etc. Also, the US was becoming a world power. This could also have played into the concept.
When it comes to the examples that Rudd explores in her chapter about sexual deviants I think they were able to pass because they lived in the veil of privacy. While when it comes to men in this era they lived the majority of their lives in the public sphere so they were free to create their own places to meet and socialize, women on the other hand were not as free to create their own public spaces so rather they engaged with the women that were close to them in the safety behind closed doors so it would be harder for anyone to study their behavior. And then when it comes to what makes a person respectable to society really depends on what the gender/sexual norms are for that society. In order to be deemed respectable one must adhere to the rules and be able to blend and succeed without standing out too much, if one chooses to do things that make them stand out they lose their social ability to be respectable but gain respect from who they are. In the end I think the whole notion of respectability is based on the idea that there is good and bad ideals of who and what we need to be and that we should not necessarily follow these norms because it causes us to lose our uniqueness and sense of self.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people who continued to pursue lifestyles and activities labelled as "deviant", were very few. We hear about them because they drew attention to themselves by protruding out of the picture of moral and ordered society. That being said, it is important to note that just because people openly defied community standards for genders and sexuality received attention, does not mean that there were not people who explored these things in private. I would assume that most people who drifted from their supposed gender or sexuality did so in secret (at least in Anglo-American society). Perhaps they were unwilling to undergo public scrutiny, or they only saw their activities as private. Today, sexuality is something to be announced and expressed in all realms of daily life, but this was certainly not the case until the second half of the 20th century.
ReplyDelete