Spring 2013: US Gender/Sexuality – Tentative Syllabus
Professor Daniel Hurewitz
This class is an opportunity to discuss recent work in the history of gender and sexuality in
the U.S. As a field, this is a wide and still expanding area of historical research, including studies
in women's history, gay history, histories of sexual behavior, abortion, masculinity, femininity,
dating, marriage, transgender identity, and more. Additionally, historians have been approaching
this already wide array of topics from a mix of cultural, social, and political perspectives. As a
result, there is a lot of interesting work for us to investigate.
We'll focus in on a different book each week to get a sense of how this field has emerged
and is continuing to grow. The sequence of books is roughly chronological, starting from the late
19th century and going to the late 20th century. My hope is that, in addition to learning about the
field, we'll also be developing some narratives about how ideas about gender and sexuality
changed over the last century or so.
By the end of the semester, we should have both a stronger sense of the history of the 20th
century in terms of sex and gender, and a greater sense of the kinds of questions historians have
been pursuing to further that understanding.
In addition, over the course of the semester we'll be working on presenting our ideas in
both written and oral forms, and developing our abilities to critique the work of others.
General Expectations
First, I expect you to be present and participating every day: taking notes, asking
questions, and joining in class discussions. The class will operate as a seminar which means that all
of our participation will be vital in keeping the conversation interesting and moving forward.
Secondly, I expect that you will come to class having read the book for the day and
prepared to discuss it. In order to do so, you will need to take notes on the book. That means not
just marking up passages in the books, but writing out questions and ideas that you want to discuss
in seminar together. And once seminar begins, that means sharing your ideas and reactions with
the group. We will also talk together about effective reading strategies and how to get the most out
of your reading hours.
Third, we have to take each other and each other's ideas seriously. We'll all be working
together in a variety of ways for the duration of the semester. That means we need to be respectful
of one another's views, time, and commitments. We have the opportunity to learn from one
another, and we have to appreciate that. This kind of respect also, of course, includes not texting,
emailing or using your cell phone during class.
Required Class Texts
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kathy Peiss, Cheap Amusements, Temple, 1987.
Gail Bederman, Manliness & Civilization, UChicago, 1996.
George Chauncey, Gay New York, Basic Books, 1994.
Christina Jarvis, Male Body at War, Northern Illionis, 2004
Marilyn Hegarty, Victory Girls, Khaki-Wackies, and Patriotutes, NYU, 2010
David Johnson, Lavender Scare, UChicago, 2004.
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Danielle McGuire, At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape & Resistance,
Vintage Books, 2011.
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution: An Unfettered History,
Routledge, 2001
Cynthia Gorney, Articles of Faith, Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Joanne Meyerowitz, How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the United States,
Harvard, 2004.
Marc Stein, Rethinking the Gay and Lesbian Movement, Routledge, 2012.
Dagmar Herzog, Sex in Crisis, Basic, 2008.
In addition, several articles will be used in class. I will place PDFs of these readings on
the Additional Readings page.
Assignments
Discussion: Twice during class, you and one or two classmates will be responsible for helping to
frame our discussion that day. The first part of your task will be to offer up a mini-presentation
(7 minutes or so) with your teammates that identifies the key issues and features of the book for
that day. What do we learn from it? What arguments does it demonstrate? What kind of evidence
is used? How is the argument structured? What are the major themes of the book? We'll use your
opening comments as a point of reference throughout the ensuing discussion. The second piece
of your task, which we will come to more naturally in the general discussion, will be to think
about the book in relation to other scholarship. In large part that will mean thinking about and
explaining how this book relates to previous books we have read together, either building on
them, challenging them, or something else. But this will also include sharing with the class from
the external essays that you read, and noting how our main author’s work connects with them.
Short Papers: In addition to the reading, you will have to write four short papers and one long
essay for the class.
•
The first will be a 650-700 word analysis of Kathy Peiss’ book, due February 21. In it,
you will identify the focus of the book, its argument, its evidence and its structure: you
will explain how the book works. Your short essay is intended to be a distillation of the
book, not an evaluation of it. Your goal should be that a person who had not read the
book could read your essay and feel like they got a pretty good handle on the opening.
From your essay, they would be able to say...
what kind of historical study it is
what its argument / main points are
how those points are proven
how they are woven together or organized
what kind of sources are used
If you pull all of that together with clear writing and good examples, your reader should
ultimately have a good understanding of what Peiss is up to in the book.
If you want to look at examples of short reviews, just go onto the databases J-STOR or
2
PROJECT MUSE via the Library website and look at the reviews in the back of a
journal, like the Journal of American History. Those reviews (which tend to be around
500 words) usually have some evaluative element which you can ignore, but are often
good examples of tight clear distillations.
•
The second will be a 750-word analysis of how Peiss and Bederman differed in their
observations, techniques, and approaches as historians: this will be due February 28.
Your goal with this essay is still to offer a kind of distillation of the two books, as with
your first essay, and so you still want to aim to explain their arguments and main points,
and how the books function to prove what they claim. And you still want to use clear
writing and good examples (and Chicago style footnotes) to explain yourself.
But much more your framework for explaining the books will be in highlighting how
they compared to one another -- how did Bederman follows Peiss' path and approach, and
how did she do something very different. Try to divide your emphasis -- in terms of
quotes, details, and descriptions -- on the books fairly equally
•
The third paper will be tied to your preparation as a discussion guide. On the first day that
you are a discussion guide, you will write a 750-word written analysis of the book that
both explains how the book works, and compares it to one of the previous books we have
discussed. This paper will be due the day your first book is discussed.
•
The fourth short paper will be a 650-750-word "review" essay of one of the books for
your long essay. It will be due April 4.
All of these papers should be double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, and use Chicago
style footnotes for citations.
Long Essay: The larger essay will be a 13-15-page historical/historiographic research essay,
utilizing 4 books and an article on a gender & sexuality topic that falls somewhere between 1900
& 1990. Your assignment will be both to develop a historical narrative of your topic and to
analyze the different and evolving ways that historians have tackled the subject. So even as you
describe the significant events you are interested in, you will also explain the different
perspectives that your key historians have had, the varying tools and evidence they have used,
and the different arguments they have offered. Chicago style citations are required for this essay
as well.
An emailed topic proposal will be due February 14.
A proposed bibliography will be due March 7.
A review of your first book will be due on April 4.
A one-page argument will be due on December 4.
A draft of at least the first half of the essay will be due on December 11.
The final essay will be due on December 18.
Grade Breakdown
Participation: 25%
3
Discussion Guides: 20%
Short Paper 1: 5%
Short Paper 2: 5%
Short Paper 3: 10%
Short Paper 4: 5%
Final Essay Bibliography & Argument: 5%
Final Essay Draft: 5%
Final Essay: 20%
Reading Schedule & Discussion Questions
** The essays listed for each date are either noted as required for all to read, especially
marked for the discussion guides to read, or optional for everyone. Even if you are not a
discussion guide, you may wish to read some or all of the additional essays. All the essays
listed are available in the 'Additional Readings' section listed on the left-hand menu, and if
there is any problem with Blackboard, they may be found via JSTOR or Project Muse.**
1. January 31: Introductions
Discuss class goals, assignments, and ourselves. Discuss meaning of sexuality and gender.
2. February 7: Thinking Historiographically
Our focus is two-fold today. In part, the essays are to help us develop a deeper understanding of
how the fields of gender and sexuality history developed. As you read the essays, keep track of
the theoretical questions that have dominated each field: what have they been? how have they
changed? why?
At the same time, these essays serve for us as examples of historiographic thinking – a
model of the kind of work that we will be doing over the course of the semester. What tools and
frames does Thurner use to map feminist history? How does Stein organize the developments of
LGBT history? How can we describe Kerber’s approach and what is achieved by it?
Essays for All:
• Ruth Padawer, "What's So Bad About a Boy in a Dress?" New York Times
Magazine, 8 August 2012
• Joan Scott, "Gender: A Useful Category..."
• Manuela Thurner, “Subject to Change: Theories and Paradigms of U.S. Feminist
History,” Journal of Women’s History, Vol 9, No 2 (Summer 1997), pp. 122-146.
• David Halperin, "Is There a History of Sexuality?" in The Lesbian and Gay
Studies Reader, eds. Abelove, Barale, and Halperin (New York: Routledge,
1993).
• Jeffrey Weeks, "The Invention of Sexuality," in Sexuality, (New York: Routledge,
2003).
• Marc Stein, “Theoretical Politics, Local Communities: The Making of U.S. LGBT
Historiography,” GLQ Vol 11, No 4 (2005), pp. 605-625.
Additional Optional Readings:
4
•
•
•
•
Joan Scott, “Feminism’s History,” Journal of Women’s History, Vol 16, No 2
(2004).
Linda Kerber, “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Women’s Place: The Rhetoric
of Women’s History,” Journal of American History, Vol 75, No 1 (June 1988),
pp. 9-39.
Nancy Cott, et al., “Considering the State of U.S. Women’s History,” Journal of
Women’s History Vol 15, No 1 (Spring 2003), pp. 145-163.
John D’Emilio, “Not a Simple Matter: Gay History and Gay Historians,” Journal
of American History, Vol 76, No 2 (Sept 1989), pp. 435-442.
NO CLASS FEBURARY 14: Paper topic due via email.
3. February 21: Kathy Peiss, Cheap Amusements
Map out the content and structure of the book: how is the book built? what is its
organization system? what is its overarching argument? what are its main themes? what kind of
evidence does it rely on? what kind of theoretical frame does it use?
What vision of working women does it leave you with? What were their lives like? How
did they understand themselves and their place in the world? What ideas about “womanhood”
were floating around, about “men,” about “sex,” about work, and about leisure? What were the
different ways that each of these were understood?
Optional Readings
· Joanne Meyerowitz, “Sexual Geography and Gender Economy: The Furnished
Room Districts of Chicago, 1890-1930,” in Vicki Ruiz and Ellen Dubois, eds.,
Unequal Sisters: A Multi-Cultural Reader in U.S. Women’s History, 2d ed. (New
York: Routledge, 1994).
· Ann-Louise Shapiro, “Working Girls,” International Labor and Working-Class
History, No 45, (Spring 1994), pp. 96-107.
· Don Romesburg, “’Wouldn’t a Boy Do?’ Placeing Early-Twentieth-Century Male
Youth Sex Work into Histories of Sexuality,” Journal of the History of
Sexuality, Vol 18, No 3, (Sept 2009), pp. 367-392.
4. February 28: Gail Bederman, Manliness & Civilization, Chicago, 1996.
Discuss content & structure of book.
In preparation: From a content perspective, beyond identifying what you learn from the
book, also identify the arguments that she is making about gender at the turn of the 20th century,
the importance it had, and the various factors that shaped its meaning. In terms of mechanics,
pay careful attention to Ch. 1. Try to understand how she frames the book, in terms of the
structure she maps out, in terms of the theoretical language and ideas she embraces, and in terms
of the work of other historians.
Also develop a clear understanding of the relationship between this book and the
previous one.
Discussion Guide Readings:
5
•
Gary Gerstle, “Theodore Roosevelt and the Divided Character of American
Nationalism,” Journal of American History Vol 86, No 3 (Dec 1999), pp. 12801307.
• Karal Ann Marling, “Writing History with Artifacts: Columbus at the 1893
Chicago Fair,” Public Historian Vol 14, No 4 (Autumn 1992), pp. 13-30.
Additional Optional Readings:
Robert Johnston, “Re-Democratizing the Progressive Era Political Historiography,” Journal of
the Gilded Age and Progressive Era Vol 1, No 1 (Jan 2002) pp. 68-92.
5. March 7: George Chauncey, Gay New York, Basic Books, 1994.
Be sure to get a handle on what Chauncey means by a "gay world" and who populates it.
By what rules does that population operate, and how does that population fit in with the larger
world? We'll look at the introduction, to get a handle on the basic argument as well as where
Chauncey is claiming to be staking new historiographical ground. But we'll also consider how
the various chapters develop that argument and what kind of information they offer. To that end,
explore the footnotes and essay on sources to understand the kind of research Chauncey did. And
again give some thought to where you see overlap, dovetailing, or conflict between this book,
Bederman and Peiss.
Discussion Guide Reading:
• Peter Boag, “Sex & Politics in Progressive-Era Portland & Eugene: The 1912
Same-Sex Vice Scandal,” Oregon Historical Quarterly, Vol 100, No 2 (Summer
1999), 158-181.
Additional Optional Readings:
• John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” in The Lesbian and Gay Studies
Reader, eds. Abelove, Barale, and Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1993).
• Andrea Friedman, “’The Habitats of Sex-Crazed Perverts’: Campaigns against
Burlesque in Depression-Era New York City,” Journal of the History of Sexuality,
Vol 7, No 2 (Oct 1996), pp. 203-238.
• Andrea Friedman, “’In the Clutches of Lesbian’: Legitimating Regulation on
Broadway,” in Prurient Interests: Gender, Democracy and Obscenity in New
York City, 1909-1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000).
6. March 14: Christina Jarvis, Male Body at War.
Here is a history of war told through the lens of the sexed and gendered body: how does it
differ from histories of war that you’ve read or imagined? What is added both by a sex/gender
history,? How do you suppose this shifts the historiography of the war? How should we describe
this kind of a history?
Pay attention to Meyer’s structure, argument, and evidence. Where does the body appear
in the historical record? Who was documenting it? Additionally, consider how Meyer’s women
relate to the women – and men – narrated by Bederman, Chauncey, or even Peiss: what is the
relationship, and what is the historical trajectory of femininity? How many versions of femininity
are afoot?
Discussion Guide Readings:
6
•
Benjamin Alpers, “This Is the Army: Imagining a Democratic Military in World
War II,” The Journal of American History, Vol 85, No 1 (June 1998), pp. 129163.
7. March 21: Marilyn Hegarty, Victory Girls, Khaki-Wackies, and Patriotutes, NYU, 2010
8. April 4: David Johnson, Lavender Scare, U Chicago, 2004.
Discuss the structure of the book and the different arguments in it.
This book is “in dialogue” with several of the earlier books. In what way is it “talking” to
Chauncey? What narrative of gay history does it help to form? In what way does it extend or
challenge Bederman? How different or similar is masculinity in the 1950s from the 1890s or
1940s?
How much does Johnson’s book read as a gendered history of the Cold War era? What is
added to the traditional narrative of American politics? How is it shifted? How well can
Johnson’s account be incorporated into the broader narrative of the Cold War?
Discussion Guide Readings:
• John D’Emilio, “The Homosexual Menace: The Politics of Sexuality in Cold War
America,” in Passion & Power: Sexuality in History , eds. Peiss and Simmons,
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989).
• K. A. Curodileone, “’Politics in an Age of Anxiety’: Cold War Political Culture
and the Crisis in Masculinity, 1949-1960,” Journal of American History, Vol 87,
No 2, (Sept 2000), pp. 515-545.
• Thomas Reeves, “McCarthyism: Interpretations since Hoftstadter,” Wisconsin
Magazine of History, Vol 60, No 1, (Autumn 1976), pp. 42-54.
Additional Optional Readings:
• Estelle Freedman, “’Uncontrolled Desires’: The Response to the Sexual
Psychopath,” Journal of American History, Vol 74, No 1 (June 1987), pp. 83-106.
• Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine
Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s, Journal of the History of
Sexuality Vol 10, No 1 (Jan 2001).
9. April 11: Danielle McGuire, At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape & Resistance,
Vintage Books, 2011.
Let’s think of McGuire’s book in at least two ways. One, examine it as a history of
something relatively familiar – the broad African-American civil rights movement. How does it
change your conception of that movement? In what ways does it offer a new approach to
thinking about it? What connection can be made to Johnson’s book as a rewriting of Cold War
politics? What’s different here?
Secondly, think about how McGuire’s book occurs in conjunction with the later parts of
Reagan’s. In what ways does he point toward a sex/gender revolution and in what ways not?
What’s significant in the difference?
Discussion Guide Readings:
• Belinda Robnett, “African-American Women in the Civil Rights Movement,
1954-1965: Gender, Leadership, and Micromobilization,” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol 101, No 6 (May 1996).
7
•
Robyn Spencer, “Engendering the Black Freedom Struggle: Revolutionary
Womanhood and the Black Panther Party in the Bay Area, California,” Journal of
Women’s History, Vol 20, No 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 90-113.
10. April 18: David Allyn, Make Love, Not War, Little Brown, 2000.
Discuss the framework, style, and impact of the book. How does it differ from the others
we’ve read?
How does it function as a history of sex? In what way is it different from a gender history,
and in what ways is gender central? How does it compare to Clement or Chauncey as a history of
sexuality? How much more or less is the body present here than in Jarvis?
How well does the book convey a national phenomenon? Does the concept of a “sexual
revolution” seem to fit? In what ways? And how does Allyn’s narrative connect with Johnson
and McGuire?
Discussion Guide Readings:
• Beth Bailey, “Prescribing the Pill: Politics, Culture, and the Sexual Revolution in
America,” Journal of Social History, Vol 30, No 4 (Summer 1997), pp. 827-856.
• Julie Berebitsky, “The Joy of Work: Helen Gurley Brown, Gender, and Sexuality
in the White-Collar Office,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol 15, No 1 (Jan
2006).
• Alan Petigny, “Illegitimacy, Postwar Psychology, and the Reperiodization of the
Sexual Revolution,” Journal of Social History, Vol 38, No 1 (Autumn 2004), pp.
63-79.
Additional Optional Readings:
• David Johnson, “Physique Pioneers: The Politics of 1960s Gay Consumer
Culture,” Journal of Social History, Vol 43, No 4 (Summer 2010), pp. 867-892.
11. April 25: Cynthia Gorney, Articles of Faith, Simon & Schuster, 2000.
How does Gorney’s book work as a kind of history? What connections can be made
between this book and the previous ones in terms of the overlaying of morality, criminality and
sex? What might a history of the way sex was moralized in the 20th-century begin to look like, and
what changes does Gorney suggest were occurring across the sweep of her book? Can you see a
“sexual counter-revolution” taking shape?
Discussion Guide Readings:
• Angus McLaren, “Illegal Operations: Women, Doctors, and Abortion, 1886-1939,
Journal of Social History Vol So26, No 4 (Summer 1993), pp. 797-816.
• Rickie Solinger, “’A Complete Disaster’: Abortion and the Politics of Hospital
Abortion Committees, 1950-1970,” Feminist Studies, Vol 19, No 2 (Summer
1993), pp. 240-268.
• Johanna Schoen, “Between Choice and Coercion: Women and the Politics of
Sterilization in North Carolina, 1929-1975,” Journal of Women’s History Vol 13,
No 1 (Spring 2001), pp. 132-156.
Additional Optional Readings:
8
•
Carole Joffe, “Portraits of Three ‘Physicians of Conscience’: Abortion before
Legalization in the United States,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol 2, No
1 (July 1991), pp. 46-67.
12. May 2: Joanne Meyerowitz, How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the United
States, Harvard, 2004.
13. May 9: Marc Stein, Rethinking the Gay and Lesbian Movement, Routledge, 2012.
14 . May 16: Dagmar Herzog, Sex in Crisis, Basic, 2008.
Herzog’s book is an interesting last book for us, as it’s a historian’s account of the recent
past and her take on the present. How does it work as a historical argument, and how does it
seem as a contemporary argument? In what way do those elements work together in the book?
Use Herzog as a chance to trace broad themes across the semester, in terms of both
historical and historiographical trends. What historical developments that she describes can be
rooted in the earlier periods of the other books? Where is there continuity, where subtle change,
and where dramatic shifting? Similarly, what kinds of arguments about the history of sex and
gender does she echo from the other historians? Where do you see her agreeing with them and
building on them, and where is she pushing into yet a new direction?
Discussion Guide Readings:
• Julian Zelizer, “Reflections: Rethinking the History of American Conservatism,”
Reviews in American History, Vol 38, No 2 (June 2010), pp. 367-392.
May 23: Final Papers Due
9