Tagggggg

Against the Tide: Stonewall Riots

The timing of the Stonewall Inn Riots is significant for a number of reasons. These riots, which sparked the movement for gay rights, occurred only after a newly discovered sense of community took root among gays and lesbians. This sense of identity developed along side and was influenced by the growing struggle of other minority groups for equal rights and acceptance.

In the late 1920’s the covert formation of gay communities started to take place due in large part to the migration toward rapidly growing urban areas. The number of gays and lesbians who began to move to cities like New York to escape rejection from families and find others who were like them did more then carve a community out for themselves. They became involved in the African American community already thriving in these places. This influence on the young homosexual mindset would be pivotal in creating the foundation for a gay rights movement.

The time leading up and in to WWII was a mixed blessing for gays and lesbians. Due to increased homo-social interaction and financial opportunity it was a time of acceptance and increased freedom. Shortly after the war though this acceptance diminished, as lesbians and other women lost their financial independence, male and female soldiers returned home to a strict gender roles and the military that these individuals loyally served began kicking them out with no place else to go. Many gays and lesbians were unwilling to return to life as it was before the war but didn’t know what other choice was available.

After WWII and into the years of Senator McCarthy’s service, homosexuals experienced a very different sentiment. Discrimination and fear of what was not understood set the mood of the time as America took it’s place as global superpower. Dishonorable military discharges, police brutality, public outings in local media and loss of government employment to name a few became a daily part homosexual life. Meeting places had been frequently stormed by cops leading to arrest (a phenomena that was increased during local elections), exposure as a deviant, loss of ones job, home and possibly family. The gay community was used as a political punching bag. It was through the homophile organizations that those who experienced these acts were able to realize that these experiences were a common thread in all “queer” lives. This realization would motivate many gays and lesbians to take more critical notice of their situation.

Through this impromptu community building that occurred before the war, homophile organizations like the Mattachine Society, which would be followed by ONE and the Daughters of Bilitis, came in to being. These groups provided the first space for homosexual’s mostly gay men, to meet others like themselves and seriously discuss issues that touched one another’s lives. This conciseness raising helped overcome the feeling still shared by so many gays and lesbians that they were stood alone.

Often discussions that took place at these group meetings were centered on topics like ”What to do with these effeminate queens and these stalking butches who are giving us a bad name?” feeding into a self fulfilling prophecy of disrespect and apathy. As the post war anti-gay climate grew, these discussions gradually became more focused on the treatment of homosexuals and how to resolve the issue of discrimination that existed in psychology texts, employment, and law to name a few. Ultimately what developed was an atmosphere of self -hate and the eventual structure of a self perpetuated hierarchy of power similar to the one responsible for homosexual oppression.

This self-loathing was a reaction to the simultaneous forces of growth and suppression acting upon the gay community as it continued to grow and struggle to define itself in a changing world. The challenge of being the voice for a growing number of people was not easily met and the homophile movement began to fracture as those who felt their voices were ignored began to form their own groups. As time passed and membership in these new groups expanded, the voices of the varied community were better able to represent the growing diversity within the gay movement that so echoed the plight of other minority groups across the country.

Inspired by the early African American civil rights actions, gays and lesbians wanted to deal with more immediate concerns such as what to do if one were lose their job or how to change unfair laws. Homosexuals were increasingly ready to take action. For the first time thanks to the Kinsey report, there was common knowledge of just how many homosexuals existed in the U.S. Unfortunately, rather then those large numbers of people coming together the movement had started to divide into more specific organizations such as the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) and Gay Activist Alliance (GAA) . The rift within the gay community continued to grow. Jean O’Leary says” How could I work to exclude transvestites and at the same time criticize the feminist who were doing their best…to exclude lesbians” as lesbians, influenced by the blossoming feminist movement started to feel that gay men drove the Homophile movement and ignored lesbians issues entirely. As Morty Manford puts it “In the early years of the GAA’s activism, there was an awful lot of resentment from other gays over our tactics and at our openness.” These splinters of the community would eventually create their own niche in the movement.

The movement for gay rights also took inspiration from the popular movement against the “Viet Nam war”. It is important to acknowledge that this was during the heat of the Vietnamese war. The atmosphere of the time was increasingly one of self-expression and public protest against all that was perceived as unjust.

It was the push and pull of these external as well as internal forces that would lead to the desperate frustration evidenced in Greenwich Village in June 1969, the mentality that this community had had enough and were willing to set the example for future generations who would keep the movement moving that there was no excuse for such oppression.

The struggle for gay rights, the rights of all are still pertinent today. Their needs to be an effort made at understanding between the oppressed groups in an effort to work together and bring an end to the inequality that still persist. Until this is done Stonewall will only be the beginning and the end will remain just out of reach.


Eric Marcus, Making Gay History (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 23
Chris Bull, Come Out Fighting (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press,2001),25
Eric Marcus, Making Gay History (New York: Harper Collins, 2002),
Ibid,156
Ibid, 55
Eric Marcus, Making Gay History (New York: Harper Collins, 2005), 149

The New Woman a Figment of the Imagination

Defining the New Woman

Observers in the first two decades of the twentieth century used the term “New Woman” to refer to women who gained independence through a variety of means; be it education community resources or via the American justice system. The New Woman cannot be defined as a movement but rather as a shift in thought. The New Woman was one who broke away from the private sphere assigned to her through religion and politics and began to fight for increased influence outside of her home as society started to become more industrialized.

During the early stages of industrialization white, middle class society viewed the female as a guardian of hearth and home. She was considered in charge of the moral upbringing of the nation. It was feared that if she were to venture from this post, the more civilized portion of our culture would be lost. Such a concern was aptly expressed by former President Grover Cleavland when he stated, “[f]or the sake of our country, for the sake of our homes, and for the sake of our children, I would have our wives and mothers loving and devoted, though all others can be sordid and heedless; I would have them disinterested and trusting, though all others may be selfish and cunning”[i] This statement was made in response to the increasing numbers of women who were forming and joining “women’s clubs”. Cleavland’s statement illustrates resistance to the mobility of the “New Woman”. Like Cleavland many men who were increasingly called to work away from the home in a new and competitive economy, expressed a desire to come home to a nurturing environment like the one they had growing up.

As a result, the new woman was at constant odds with herself as well as with society. There was an attempt to merge the “true woman” who tended hearth and home, with a new persona of woman who was able to extend hearth and home to the larger community. As there were so few opportunities for women to have a feeling of belonging to the world around them, various organizations provided a critical outlet for the new woman’s development of self. Community was a large influence on the formation of the new woman. Women began gathering together and whether intentionally or otherwise they started discussing their current plight. Organizations began forming all over America, called clubs that gave women a place to talk about their concerns other then the house and children’s schooling. Women shared their desire for the vote and other possibilities to gain influence in a changing society. This club concept became so popular, and as a result threatening, that Grover Cleveland states “[m]embership in one such organization is apt to create a club habit, which if it does not lead to other smaller affiliations, induces toleration and defense of club ideas in general”[ii]

As might be apparent by the former President’s statement, government expressed concern over the development of the new woman. The new woman was seen as a threat to the patriarchal system already in order. Fraternizing among woman was seen a threat to the power paradigm. The only clubs critics like Grover Cleveland found acceptable were those which amounted to “nothing more than women’s association or cooperation in charitable benevolent and religious work…entirely fitted to a woman’s highest nature and best impulses”[iii]. Ironically some of the interest women took in politics came from a sense of ownership or expertise gained from “true womanhood” regarding issues such as welfare. Women like Charlotte Perkins Gilman in “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” put forth the idea of taking pride in their work and furthermore, a division of labor among woman working together into jobs that bought individual pleasure to them. Gliman declares “ the growing social need is for the specializing of the industries practiced in the home and for the proper mechanical provision for them.”[iv]

Not all women who were shaping the “New Woman” identity knew they were taking an active part. There were those who were merely trying to be a “better woman” within the confines of the true woman. This was accomplished via physical labor as in the case of the lower classes. One example of this is found in “The Burden of Rural Women’s Lives”. According to the article, “[r]ural women had it especially hard. Not only did they have the full responsibility for bearing and raising children and maintaining their households, as their urban counterparts, but they also actively participated in farm labor.”[v] Another point for this is seen in “Female Perspectives on the Great Migration”. The poor new woman was stepping up to try to help make ends meet in hard times. An example of this can be seen in a letter written by a seventeen year old to The Defender magazine asking for information about employment. She writes, “I have a mother and father my father do all he can for me but it is so hard.”[vi]

Indeed many working class women were facing particularly hard struggles. Occasionally women worked across class lines to better the lives of others. A strong example of women joining together in this struggle for respect and opportunity comes from the experiences of reformer Jane Addams. Addams struggled with the options available to her after graduating from Rockford Seminary College. Jane Addams combined the spheres of public and private, in her push for women to have a voice beyond the home. As a reformer she became the founder of Hull House. Hull House was a settlement house where women were able to offer their services within their sphere to others then were considered her family. While helping others in the community, “[s]settlement home residents, primarily college educated women from the middle class, also reaped rewards. They found useful roles that allowed them to move beyond charity working the “Lady Bountiful” tradition to the scientific investigation that characterized Progressive era reform”[vii].

Although Hull House was run by educated women, higher education for woman was still a rare occurrence. Very few females went to college and those who did were from upper class families. Many educated women were ostracized from society as evinced in “Present Tendencies in Education” written by M. Carey Thomas. Published in 1908 this essay claims that there were great concerns regarding the effects higher education would have on women. The president of a prestigious woman’s college shares her concerns regarding higher education and it’s ramifications, she writes, “[b]efore I myself went to college I had seen only one college woman. I had heard that such a woman was staying at the house of an acquaintance. I went to see her with fear. Even if she had appeared in hoofs and horns I was determined to go to college all the same.”[viii] This quote from Carey illuminates the stigma that society had about college educated women. Despite all of this there were still those who pushed on to attend colleges and try to forge a place for themselves.

With more education women also became increasingly interested in legal rights and protections. But educated women were not alone in the struggle for legal protections. Many working-class women also sought to tackle issues of legislation. As labor became more industrialized there was an increase, especially of poor woman in the workforce. Mollie Schepps, in an address to the New York senator declares “[s]ince economic conditions force us to fight our battle side by side with man in the industrial field, we do not see why we should not have the same privileges in the political field, in order to better the conditions under which we must work.”[ix] The new woman struggled with issues of equality with male coworkers despite feelings of competition. Labor laws were passed to try to protect females in the workforce. This is illustrated in Muller v Oregon, a legal case regarding the number of hours a woman can work in a week. It can be argued that these laws were in fact a means to confine women to what was defined as their sphere in the home. Mr Justice Brewer declared “[H]ealthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring , the physical well-being of women becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race.”[x] This court decision had a large impact on working women who needed the ability to work excessive hours to support the families they already had. These women were not making an effort to be subversive but rather trying support their families. This working class struggle is part of the struggle of the new woman.

It can be argued that the “New Woman” label was only true for certain white woman of the middle and upper class, often excluding the majority of poor, working class women. The working class female had little opportunity to partake of the privileges of the new woman due the subsistence level lifestyle they upheld. Such hardship is evinced when Mary Church Terrell states with reference to a need for childcare, “[w]hen one reflects on the slaughter of the innocents occurring with pitiless persistency every day, and thinks of the multitudes who are maimed for life or rendered imbecile…it is evident that by establishing day nurseries colored woman will render one of the greatest services possible to humanity and to the race.”[xi] Nevertheless many working class women struggled for the newly found freedoms of all women, and played a large part in the creation of this “New Woman” ideology. The “New Woman” was simply a woman who broke away from the ultra-strict roles established by the patriarchy. These women worked for pay, raised their families, sought rights, established clubs, and fought on the many social and political fronts of freedom.


[i] Cleveland, Grover. “Women’s Mission and Women’s Clubs”

[ii] ibid.

[iii] ibid.

[iv] Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home”

[v] “The Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives”

[vi] “Female Perspectives on the Great Migration”

[vii] “Jane Addams Struggles with the Problem of “After College, What?”

[viii] Thomas, M. Carey. “Present Tendencies in Women’s Education”

[ix] Schepps, Mollie. “Senators v. Working Women”

[x] Muller v. Oregon

[xi] Terrell, Mary Church. “Praises the Club Work of Colored Women”