The Blurring of Personal and Public: Violence Against Women and the Emergence of Homophile Movement

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Why did women and gays blur personal and public to be heard? What is the similarity between the homophile movement and the global campaign against violence and women? While there is little similarity in the homophile movement and the global campaign against violence against women, both groups initially referred to as minorities proved to arouse the global recognition of their existence. The campaign against violence against women motivated mothers, wives, and daughters throughout the world to express their problems. These courageous women stood up against the years of cruelty and violence at home and at the workplace. Women had to bring their personal life into the public to be heard. Gays and other people with untraditional sexual orientations blurred the personal and public as well. There is no need to mention that even today there are many people who oppose the whole idea that others may have sexual relationships with a person of the same gender. Nevertheless, lack of social support and overall negativity did not prevent gays from defending their political and social rights. Thus, the global campaign against violence against women and the homophile movement blurred the personal and public.

For many decades most women were patiently accepting the aggressiveness of their husbands, boyfriends, and even fathers. Nevertheless, the global campaign against violence against women started only recently. Why did women wait so long to speak about their person in public? Was it a matter of shame to tell the stories of their suffering to the world? Was it a matter of lack of power to deliver the message to the global audience? Most likely both of these matters played their role in delaying the development of the global campaign to stop the violence against women. It cannot be denied that only 50 years ago women did not enjoy the same freedoms and rights men. Females throughout the world, even in the most developed democratic countries, could not boast of having the same social and political position as men did. As a result, they were silent and their personal family life with aggressive partners remained unspoken.

A similar situation was common for the development of the homophile movement. Only in the early 1980s, gays started to speak about their rights and, more importantly, demand political recognition of their equality. Significant progress has been achieved in the last decade. Today gays can get married, adopt children, and are recognized as full members of society. Sexual orientation is a protected right and it cannot serve as a factor in employment-related decisions. Nevertheless, while politically gays and women are protected, the reality is not as colorful as the laws prescribe. Thousands of women become victims of domestic violence, as well as thousands of gays, who have to deal with prejudice and discrimination every day of their lives. Back in the 1960s, the legacy of left-wing movements was not recognized. Is the modern progress in both movements just a myth? Did anything change in the lives of gays and women?

Probably the keyword for both movements is visibility. For many years of women’s silence, the global community was unaware of the scope of the problem. Undoubtedly, the number of women who had to deal with aggressiveness and violence at home or at the workplace was no greater than it is today. Nevertheless, the male-dominated society preferred not to blur the personal and political. It was not right for the democratic society to have beaten and harassed women, was it? It was not right to speak about personal in public, was it? Probably, for the conservative society of the 1960s, it was wrong to raise such questions in public. The situation with the homophile movement is more complicated because the attitude toward gays has always been negative. While modern society has a mostly neutral attitude toward gays, most of the traditional families would not be happy to have a child who eventually starts relationships with a person of the same sex.

Back in the 1960s, sexual minorities and their rights were not recognized as well as were actively oppressed. As John D’Emilio argued, the society “adopted an ideology based on equal rights for minorities, engaged in direct actions techniques of protest, and affirmed the propriety of homosexuals and lesbians leading their own struggle for justice” (p. 150). As D’Emilio continues, “their confidence and determination won for the movement and for gay women and men generally a visibility that their predecessors had failed to achieve” (p. 150). In other words, prior to the 1960s, gays as a part of society were not visible. They were part of society but they were not accepted as such because they were not visible. Ironically, homosexuals and lesbians gained social support through active and sometimes aggressive protests while the global movement against violence against women was in essence anti-aggressive.

Furthermore, both women who suffered from violence and gays who were deprived of any rights and freedoms for several decades were not willing to blur the personal and political. Nevertheless, the relative status of personal experience has increased in public life. As D’Emilio highlights, not all homosexuals were ready or willing to discuss their personal matters because they did not want society to know about their ‘difference’ and they were not ready to the reaction of the society they lived in. “They didn’t want to hear about it. They would give you arguments: we don’t want people to know we look like everybody else. As long as they think everyone’s a screaming queer with eyelashes, we’re sage. We’re not suspected. We don’t want publicity” (D’Emilio, p. 158). Therefore, gays were not ready to speak up because they cared about their security. Probably, women kept silent for many years because of the same fear. Women preferred living with daily aggression and violence instead of speaking about their personal experiences in public. The reaction of male-dominated society was unpredictable and women could find themselves in a worse position. Nevertheless, homosexuals and lesbians managed to unite their efforts to gain the support of gays as well as society, in general, to be able to protect their rights granted by laws. Gays as well as oppressed women blurred the personal, public and political and turned their personal concerns into matters of global importance.

The first organized movement against violence against women started in the 1920s with the establishment of the Inter-American Commission of Women. The goal of this Commission was to get the provision of equal rights for women into the UN Charters and commending the formation of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The campaign against violence against women as well as the homophile movement developed through the network of non-governmental organizations. Interestingly enough, both movements increased in scope in the 1960s. For example, “ideas originating with feminists in the United States and Europe sparked global debate” in the early 1960s (Keck and Sikkink, p. 168). These ideas resulted in the draft of the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in 1967. It was only the beginning of the long and difficult campaign against violence against women. It is important to add that NGOs played a greater role in the development and global spread of the campaign against violence against women than in the emergence of the homophile movement.

With the help of networking and the support of NGOs, the campaign against violence against women became global. Women throughout the world formed networks and organizations with the single aim to increase the awareness of the problem of violence against women and to give women hope for a violence-free future. Moreover, the campaign against violence against women was more organized than the homophile movement. Women organized regular conferences in diverse parts of the globe to inform societies about the problem and to empower women suffering from violence to fight against it. As Keck and Sikkink noted, “International conferences did not create women’s networks, but they legitimized the issues and brought unprecedented numbers of women from around the world” (p. 169). Furthermore, these regular personal encounters helped women speak about their personal issues and speak about them aloud. International conferences were personal and public at the same time. They generated the trust, information sharing, and discovery of the common concerns that gave impetus to the formation of local networks. Some of the achievements in the 1990s are highlighted by Keck and Sikkink:

NGO meeting in Mexico City encouraged women to found the International Tribute Center (women used mailing lists to keep in touch with oppressed women around the globe)
NGO meeting at the Nairobi conference spawned new regional networks including three on women, law, and development (focused on violence against women)
Latin American Committee for the Deference of Women’s Rights
The Asia-Pacific Forum on Women, Law, and Development
Women in Law and Development in Africa

These were only several out of many conferences and committees established by women and for women who suffered against the violence but were no longer willing to keep silent. Unlike gays, women realized that it was necessary to blur personal and public to be heard. Moreover, women took full advantage of the opportunities NGOs offered in terms of global reach and social support.

Keck and Sikkink argued that “the movement to combat violence against women also has roots in local actions in the developing world” (p. 175). Gays, on the other side, started the homophile movement in democratic countries, the ones where they could freely express their opinion in public. Nevertheless, the focus on the democratic movement deprived homosexuals and lesbians of the opportunity to ask NGOs for assistance because non-government organizations are focused on developing countries more. While this statement can be debated, it cannot be argued that historically non-governmental organizations worked more with the developing world than democratic communities. As the issue of violence against women gained global recognition, women’s networks started to appear in the most remote regions of the world. Locally based projects and coalitions such as GABRIELA in the Philippines, Mujeres por la Vida in Chile, and various groups in India and Bangladesh had begun to work on issues of violence against women (Keck and Sikkink, p. 175). Networks and groups gained the support of local women very quickly because in these countries women suffered from violence the most.

While all communities throughout the world agreed that violence against women was morally, socially, and politically wrong, the homophile movement was not based on social support. On the contrary, the gays had to fight against the social isolation and overall negative image of homosexuals and lesbians. The personal experience and personal life affected the political and social reactions to the increasing scope of the homophile movement.

Earlier in the 1940s, “one important indication that changes had occurred in gay life … was the publication of The Homosexual in America, by Donald Webster Cory” (D’Emilio p. 33). This book has caused significant social debate on the matter. Cory wrote about the years of his personal experience as a homosexual. Thus, the book became the public expression of his personal life. He described the hostility and aggression he encountered as a gay man, the persecution and discrimination he faced, and the institutions of the gay subculture. One of the important arguments made by Cory was the declaration of the minority status gay men had. Homosexuals and lesbians were denied civil liberties and had to deal with almost legal discrimination against them.

In conclusion, the global campaign against violence against women and the development of the homophile movement occurred at the same time in the 1960s. Both movements required the blurring of personal and public, of the personal life and political issues. The NGOs played a special role in the emergence of global support for the campaign against violence against women while gays did not enjoy the same level of social support. While today gays and women are protected by law against violence and discrimination, the fight for equality and protection of rights was long and difficult.

References

D’Emilio, John (1998). Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 2nd edition Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists Beyond Borders.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Blurring of Personal and Public: Violence Against Women and the Emergence of Homophile Movement

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)