Lesbian Space, Lesbian Territory Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Wide-Open Towntraces the history of gay men and lesbians in San Francisco from the turn of the century, when queer bars emerged in San Francisco's tourist districts, to 1965, when a raid on a drag ball changed the course of queer history. Bringing to life the striking personalities and vibrant milie...

Description

Tessel ten Zweege 18th of September, 2018 920011635 MLA Citation

‘Lesbian Space, Lesbian Territory’: San Francisco’s North Beach District, 1933 – 1954

Boyd describes the history of lesbian culture throughout the 1930’s and the 1940’s, and the importance of tourism and laws surrounding sex work on this process. There is an interesting dynamic between the historical period – post-war America in the run up to the Cold war – and tourist exploitation and admiration of cultures that did not precisely fit the post-war ideals in the United States. The scene Boyd is examining is not a strictly gender-based division in LGBTQ+ club-scene, however the emphasis lies on lesbian culture throughout the article. The lesbian culture in this era is however very much intertwined with gay clubbing areas, sex work and transgender or cross-dressing identities. The essay starts out by taking bar “Mona’s” as a case study: “Mona’s” was called a ‘bohemian’ club, which was basically a term to cover up that it was a space inclusive to “sexual unconventionality”. (Boyd: 2003, 70) “Mona’s” was one of many bohemian clubs at that time that allowed marginalized sexualities a space to freely be, and more clubs like this started popping up in the surrounding area, claiming territory as a lesbian community, contrary to the results of Manuel Castell’s landmark study and Deborah Wolf’s ethnographic study. (idem: 71) The significance of the lesbian territory, which was formed around North Beach and Telegraph Hill, lies in its political value. In the post-war years, formally organized political resistance projects occurred on a much smaller scale then before, making everyday life and the private

sphere the new predominant site for political action and “resisting dominant social structures”. (idem: 71) This took place with the McCarthy era as a backdrop: Anti-communism inspired governmental control also manifested itself in the sphere of sexual identity. The McCarthy era turned out to be an intense witch hunt targeted toward any form of “internal decay”. (idem: 72) The repression of these identities sits opposed to the tourist interest in these sexually ‘deviant’ spaces. Tour buses would drive through North Beach & China Town, filled to the rim with tourists coming especially for the cross-dressing acts and liberating atmosphere of San Francisco’s LGBTQ+ bars. “Tourists wanted to experience unfamiliar sexual worlds as much as lesbians wanted their lives reflected back at them.” (idem: 75) The financial income the bars gained from the tourists’ interests, gave them more power as a site for LGBTQ+ activism. Their successes paved the way for other LGBTQ+ entrepeneurs to open venues and expand on LGBTQ+ culture as well. (idem: 81) Tourists weren’t merely attracted to the sexually liberated atmosphere the city had in store for them, race tourism also drew people to certain areas in San Francisco. In a different paragraph, Boyd points to the correlation of lesbians and prostitutes in their social status. In post-war America, “homosexuality, prostitution, drugs, and juvenile delinquency both bled tautologically into each other as both the cause and the effect of America’s failure to defeat the Russians.” (idem: 72) The American ideal consisted of a heterosexual marriage, resulting in sufficient and healthy offspring. Both lesbianism and sex work were considered ‘bad’ for they were not conforming to the monogamous heterosexual married lifestyle. (idem: 84) This moral panic eventually led to police brutality in the lesbian territory, or spaces “suspected of being frequented by sex deviates”. (idem: 93)

This article importantly points out that progress regarding LGBTQ+ emancipation, for example the emergence of a lesbian territory and culture in San Francisco, should never just be celebrated, but should always be approached with a critical eye. When lesbians gained a space for them to express themselves freely and get paid for their entertainment skills, they still remained objectified by “voyeuristic tourist economy”. (idem: 100) A similar phenomenon can be seen when we take a look at LGBTQ+ events today, for example Gay Pride Amsterdam. Annually, Pride is being celebrated, attracting numerous members of the community to the capital of the Netherlands along with countless tourists. The canal pride, which is a parade of boats with LGBTQ+ folk dancing on it, is a platform for queer people to express themselves on a special day: The city might not be as tolerant on other days. Simultaneously though, many tourists attend the event that are not necessarily that sympathetic with the queer community, but might just appropriate queer culture for the spectacle. Alongside this voyeuristic character of the tourists attending Pride, their ability to attend and them remove themselves from the community may reinforce rather than erase any prejudices or hypersexualized views they would have of LGBTQ+ culture. Even now, in a time when “cold war domesticity” is less prominently a part of American life, these limitations on LGBTQ+ emancipation are still engrained in societies across the globe. (idem: 100) Creating a safe space, especially for lesbians who always deal with the intersectional oppression on basis of gender and sexuality, is an important step towards emancipation for all LGBTQ+ individuals. However we should always remain critical and cautious of any unwanted effects these territories could have. Works cited:

Boyd, Nan alamilla. “LESBIAN SPACE, LESBIAN TERRITORY: San Francisco’s North Beach District, 1933–1954.” Wide-Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965, 1st ed., University of California Press, 2003, pp. 68–101. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnvgp.8....