Many of us have grown up with the language of civil rights, yet rarely consider how the construction of civil rights claims affects those who are trying to attain them. Diane Miller examines arguments lesbians and gay men make for civil rights, revealing the ways these arguments are both progressive–in terms of helping to win court cases seeking basic human rights–and limiting–in terms of framing representations of gay men and lesbians. Miller incorporates case studies of lesbians in the military and in politics into her argument. She discusses in detail the experiences of Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer, who was dishonorably discharged from the National Guard after 27 years of service when she revealed that she was a lesbian, and Roberta Achtenberg, who was nominated by Clinton for the job of Assistant Director of Housing and Urban Development and became the first gay or lesbian to face the confirmation process. Drawing on these cases and their outcomes, Miller evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of privileging civil rights strategies in the struggle for gay and lesbian rights.
Оглавление
Diane Helene Miller. Freedom to Differ
About NYU Press
FREEDOM. TO. DIFFER
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PREFACE
1 CONSTRUCTIONS AND DECONSTRUCTIONS Gay Politics, Lesbian Feminism, and Civil Rights
PROLOGUE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOOK
THEORETICAL CONTEXTS FOR THIS WORK
Gay Studies
Lesbians in Feminism
Voice and Visibility
The Ambivalence of the Closet
Queer Theory
CONCLUSION
2 CLINTON’S “DAMN LESBIAN” Politics and Visibility in the Achtenberg Debate
INTRODUCTION
ASSIMILATING DIFFERENCE
HOMOSEXUALITY AS A “NATURAL” CATEGORY
DISPLACING THE CLOSET
CIVIL RIGHTS: LIMITS AND CONTRADICTIONS
CONCLUSION
3 AND THE BAN PLAYED ON Politics and Prejudice in the Cammermeyer Case
PROLOGUE
INTRODUCTION
A BATTLE OF NECESSITY
MILITARY POLICY AND THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF HOMOSEXUALS
HOMOPHOBIA, RACISM, AND SEXISM
SPEECH AND SEXUALITY: CONSTRUCTING THE HOMOSEXUAL
IMMUTABILITY AND THE PRIVACY PRINCIPLE
SODOMY AND SEXUALITY
THE GREAT DIVIDE: DISTINGUISHING STATUS AND CONDUCT
THE PERILS OF PRIVACY
CONCLUSION: “OUTING” HOMOPHOBIA IN MILITARY POLICY
4 CONCLUSION Envisioning Our Future
THE LIMITS OF LEGAL STRATEGIES
RESISTING THE MAINSTREAM
THE POWER OF OPENNESS AND THE PROTECTION OF SPEECH
CONCLUSION
NOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Отрывок из книги
Thank you for buying this ebook, published by NYU Press.
Sign up for our e-newsletters to receive information about forthcoming books, special discounts, and more!
.....
Historically, within much of feminist theory, gender has provided the primary (if not sole) lens through which to analyze structures of oppression. In response to the historical silencing of women’s voices, some feminist critics have sought out the lives and words of women who were neglected by traditional scholarship, at the same time developing approaches that value women’s contemporary experience and facilitate the telling of women’s stories. By emphasizing the distinctiveness of women’s ways of knowing, reasoning, speaking, and writing, these scholars often highlight differences between men and women and constitute women as a group with important shared characteristics (Belenky et al. 1986; Gilligan 1982; Showalter 1985).
Such an awareness suggests that the differences among women are of a significance equal to, if not greater than, our commonalities, and that the predominance of white, middle-class, heterosexual perspectives in the feminist movement has often silenced other women’s voices by glossing over such differences in the name of sisterhood. What is lost in succumbing to such illusory unity is the precision and incisiveness that enables a persuasive critique of oppression. As Cherrie Moraga cautions, “The danger lies in failing to acknowledge the specificity of the oppression” (1983, 29). Responding to the call for specificity, women who are multiply marginalized have begun to develop their own critical methods to explore texts from more complex and particular perspectives of race, class, and gender (see Anzaldúa 1990b; Collins 1991; Flores 1994; Lugones 1990; Minh-ha 1990; Rebolledo 1990).
