Expert answer:Source Summary Help Needed
Answer & Explanation:Summary Assignment
Student Name
[Your Institution
Here]
Summary Assignment
The purpose of the following assignment is to
effectively summarize and attribute information from a source.
Use the library databases to retrieve an article from
the Course Theme Reading List on the topic you selected last week. If you
are considering a new topic, confirm your choice with your professor. Once
you retrieve the article, print it or save a local copy of the full text
article to your hard drive so that you can refer to the contents of the
article offline.
Read the source carefully, noting the thesis, topic
sentences, headings, supporting details, and conclusion. To become more
skilled at summary and paraphrase, you will practice writing summaries of
different lengths on the same assigned source.
For each part of the assignment, follow the
instructions provided. When you are finished, save the document as
by the end of the week.
Source Summary Prewriting
Include
specific information as it pertains to your chosen source below.
Theme: (Choose: Education, Technology,
Family, Health and Wellness.)
Topic: (Choose one of the Course Project topics listed under
the column for each theme.)
Title: (List the title and what the title tells you about the
point of view of the author.)
Intended audience: (Based on
what you can tell about the publication, who do you think is the intended
audience?)
Writer background: (What kind
of authority does the author have to write on the topic?)
Writer’s angle: (Write one to
two sentences on whether the topic presents an arguable claim. Is there more
than one side?)
Part 1: The one-sentence summary
In your own words and in just one
sentence, summarize the overall main point of the source.
Frame your summary
using a signal phrase. See Chapter 26, pp. 496–500 for examples. The signal
phrase indicates to a reader that you are preparing to introduce source
information.
Part 2: The one-paragraph summary
Using the same source, write a full-paragraph summary in your own words.
In this version, state the main point but also key supporting points that are
used in the source material. Use a signal phrase to present the source. In the
paragraph, you can emphasize a key point that the author makes. You can also
rephrase the main point of the source material in simpler terms. Do not add
your opinion or reactions.
Part 3: The multiple-paragraph summary
Using the same
source, in your own words write two to
three paragraphs to state the main point and supporting points. In this
version, you may use selective quoting, additional paraphrase, and in-text
citations for any quoted material. Note the way the source material is
organized for ideas on how to divide the paragraphs of your summary. Do not add
your opinions or reactions.
Part 4: Your reaction
In this section, provide your positive
or critical reader reaction to your source. The purpose is to respond directly
to the published issue, story, or opinion. Your reactions should be specific,
precise, and well-supported. State your purpose, which is typically to agree,
disagree, analyze, interpret, or clarify an idea in the original (i.e., “I
agree with [topic/issue/author] because…” OR “I do not agree with [topic/issue/author]
because…”). Avoid errors in logic and monitor your tone to avoid seeming biased
in your presentation of the information.
Use the bullets below as considerations
to further develop your reaction section:
•
Is the author
persuasive in arguing the main point?
•
How does the
publication meet the needs of the intended audience?
•
Do you trust the
author(s)? Why or why not?
•
Are there
statements of fact and specific examples? Are these persuasive?
•
Do you detect any
appeal to your emotions such as fear, anger, or contentment?
•
How is the
document designed? Does it use headings? Does it use graphics? Are these
effective?
Part 5: References
Type the APA Reference
information for your source at the end of your assignment. Refer to the APA
formatting information in the syllabus and resources in Doc Sharing. Points
will be deducted for APA formatting this week because the Reference citation
already models correct APA citation format for you. The attachment below is the article to be used to answer the above questionsdocument(1).pdf
document_1_.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
597453
research-article2015
NLFXXX10.1177/1095796015597453New Labor ForumAshley
The LGBT/Q Working Class: An Invisible Majority
Gay Liberation: How a Once
Radical Movement Got Married
and Settled Down
New Labor Forum
2015, Vol. 24(3) 28–32
Copyright © 2015, The Murphy Institute,
City University of New York
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1095796015597453
nlf.sagepub.com
Colin P. Ashley
Keywords
sexuality, social movements, racism, gender discrimination, neoliberalism
As the advance of gay rights,1 primarily in the
form of marriage equality, spreads over the
country, the casual observer might be excused
for believing that the Stonewall Riots happened
once upon a time, but now gays and lesbians
have fought their way into the democratic process of rights-based legislation and have made
real social gains. This tale of success imagines
that, despite the long road to and from Stonewall,
gay equality will naturally and eventually triumph thanks to the ultimately unassailable
demand for marriage equality. The Stonewall
Riots of 1969 are often forgotten as a rebellion
of the poorest and most marginalized among the
gay community, who were the patrons of the
Stonewall Inn. That amnesia includes a failure
to recall the fact that gay organizations in the
1950s initially imagined gay liberation through
social revolution and that LGBT/Q protest
movements, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s,
were closely tied to other social movements,
including civil rights and women’s rights, antiwar, and poor people’s struggles. Because of
these shared visions of social change and leftist
political leanings, earlier manifestations of the
LGBT/Q liberation movement sought more
than political and institutional inclusion. Rather,
they asserted that “complete sexual liberation
for all people cannot come about unless existing
social institutions are abolished,” and they
mobilized around such claims.2
The “marriage equality strategy” for LGBT/Q
liberation may have won considerable mainstream support, but it overlooks the interests of
most LGBT/Q people and diminishes their
potential to build common cause with other
oppressed groups. This approach also enshrines
marriage as the apex of gay liberation despite
marriage being an institution that the women’s
movement, other left allies, and even the older
Gay Liberation movement, have critiqued for
its relationship to the state, its economic underpinnings, and for the ways in which it has institutionalized women’s oppression. Forgotten are
the Marxist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, and antiimperial underpinnings of many facets of the
LGBT/Q movement and the riots, rebellions,
and insurrections of decades past.
LGBT/Q protest movements,
particularly in the 1960s and 1970s,
were closely tied to other social
movements, including civil rights
and women’s rights, anti-war, and
poor people’s struggles.
Many current supporters of “marriage equality” defend it as an incremental step that lays the
groundwork for harder legal and social changes.
Those tougher issues include: barring the state
from approval or disapproval of the forms that
love and family may assume; equal economic
security for all family and household structures;
freedom of gender expression in work, private,
and public spheres; and an end to workplace discrimination on the basis of gender, gender
expression, and/or sexual identity. In political
practice, this means that issues of gender and the
needs of gender non-conforming and trans-identified folks wait in line behind issues of gay civil
Corresponding Author:
Colin P. Ashley, colinpashley@gmail.com
Ashley
rights; the economic needs of poor LGBT/Q
folk are erased under a politics crafted through
middle-class values; and the policing of youth
sexuality, desire, and gender socialization is
deemed too divisive. And, even more importantly, the narrowness of the marriage equality
struggle, and its self-depiction as a middle-class,
mostly white struggle for mere acceptance, forgoes the chance of solidarity with movements
like Black Lives Matter or the Fight for $15.
The campaign for marriage equality assumes
a monolithic LGBT/Q political constituency
and has ignored the internal segmentations that
produce starkly unequal rights within the
LGBT/Q population. In fact, it is often the segmented and partial gains won by the LGBT/Q
movement that reinforce ideological differences within the LGBT/Q movement itself.
Those who benefit the most from partial gains
have less of an impetus to support larger collective gains that would benefit the whole of the
movement as well as coalition partners.
The campaign for marriage
equality [has ignored] the internal
segmentations that produce starkly
unequal rights within the LGBT/Q
population.
Much of the contemporary gay rights rhetoric
works to position good gay subjects versus bad
queer others (a form of respectability politics),
further marginalizing those already marginalized
within the LGBT/Q spectrum. This rhetoric creates compulsory forms that gayness3 must take
and increases queer precarity for racial others,
poor and homeless queers, and transgender and
gender non-conforming individuals. For many
of these individuals, queer precarity is compounded by economic inequality and social fears
of discrimination, surveillance, and attacks
based on queer bodily comportment.
Our Left History
The narrowing and mainstreaming of today’s
single issue brand of gay politics is at least in
part the product of certain gains that resulted
from decades of far more rebellious and broadly
29
allied LGBT/Q liberation struggles. But it is
also a product of conciliatory moves of privileged actors within the LGBT/Q movement.
This tension can be found in tracing the radical
history of the LGBT/Q liberation movement.
Over a half century ago, the homophile
movement of the 1950s (which is often reductively seen as a conservative moment in the history of gay liberation) has roots that were
actually quite radical. Henry Hay, Bob Hull,
and Chuck Rowland, who were all members of
the Communist Party, were founding members
of the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest
homosexual advocacy groups in the United
States.4 Their Marxist proclivities meant the
initial members of the Mattachine Society articulated a structural analysis of social oppression.
As such, they saw homosexuals as an oppressed
minority. For members of the Mattachine
Society, this meant homosexuals were not psychologically disturbed or ill but were oppressed
under a sexist and heterosexist society that regulated gender identity and sexual orientation
through institutions such as the nuclear family.
Advocating for consciousness-raising as a
means of galvanizing this oppressed minority,
the group held meetings where they would ultimately begin to reject pathology models of
homosexual identity and begin mobilization
attempts to target the police entrapment of
homosexuals. As the organization grew, the
virulent McCarthyism of the 1950s increasingly made the communist roots of the
Mattachine Society troublesome to the newer
members of the society. In 1953, the organization was transformed from a closed, close-knit
private organization to a publicly recognized
one, and the society was expunged of its communist members and left ideological leanings.
The values of collective liberation shifted to a
reformist model that also brought with it a new
push for gay passivity. Instead of fostering a
critique of a larger oppressive society, the new
leadership promoted the belief that homosexuals should behave in a way, “that is acceptable
to society in general and compatible with [the]
recognized institutions . . . of home, church,
and state.”5 The Mattachine Society began to
assume the posture of defending homosexuals
as psychologically damaged individuals
30
deserving of pity and protection. New leader
Hal Call would later acknowledge that “[we
made] a definite decision that by working
through research projects and people in education and religion that we would get acceptance.”6 The accommodationist posture of the
transformed homophile movement would continue within these organizations until the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.
As new left organizations in the 1960s and
1970s began to form around large-scale social
movements for racial and economic justice,
women’s liberation, and anti-war politics, many
LGBT/Q organizations followed suit. No longer content with the accommodationist politics
of the homophile organizations, the new activists were more militant. The Stonewall riots of
1969 catapulted the Gay Liberation movement,
but its early stirrings could be found even earlier in the 1960s. From 1965 to 1969, Citizens
Alert and Vanguard, two predominantly gay
organizations in San Francisco, concentrated on
abusive policing and profit-oriented development.7 These queer activists had aligned their
issues with the poor and with third-world
issues, anti-racism, anti-war, and anti-sexism.8
Violence against the LGBT/Q community was
generally seen as an element of state power, and
the police were seen as the major agents of violence against the LGBT/Q population.
It is from this countercultural spirit that
sought large-scale social change that the
Stonewall riots emerged and would lead to the
more aggressive and sometimes purposefully
scandalous forms of LGBT/Q activism of the
1960s and 1970s to be known as the era of Gay
Liberation. Like the earlier stances of the
Mattachine Society, these liberationists saw
homosexuality as a socially oppressed identity.
Much of the gay activism during this period
sought to challenge the state as opposed to simply assimilating within society. Rising up next
to a second-wave feminism, the Gay Liberation
movement critiqued stereotypical gender roles
and identities, patriarchal family arrangements,
and traditional understandings of sexual desire.
The Gay Liberation Front (GLF)—named
after the National Liberation Front of Vietnam—
formed and spread to various cities and was
inherently anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.
New Labor Forum 24(3)
AIDS activist and gay movement leader Ferd
Eggan said of the Chicago GLF that “it had a
political view that world capitalism dominated
by the U.S. military/industrial complex, was
not something to reform or ameliorate, but
rather to destroy and replace with a system of
equality and justice.”9 Adding, “We came to
understand that our gay rights would be nothing
but privileges for the well-to-do unless we
acted for the most vulnerable, most easily victimized queers.”10 The Philadelphia chapter of
the GLF worked on issues of housing, equal
rights for all, and discrimination in the gay
community against blacks and women. Of the
Philadelphia GLF, Tommi Avicolli Mecca
writes, “The Stonewall Riots were born from
the fires lit in the ’60s by the civil rights and
anti-Vietnam War movements.”11
The Gay Liberation Front [named
after the National Liberation Front
of Vietnam, was] inherently anticapitalist and anti-imperialist.
In 1969, members of the GLF who were dismayed by their relationship to the Black Panther
Party and put off by critiques of capitalism and
U.S. imperialism would form the single-issueoriented Gay Activists Alliance (GAA). The
GAA sought to develop its political work on
issues that pertained solely to gay identity,
believing that coalitional issues were too divisive. Although the GAA only lasted until 1981,
it was the formal precursor to the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force and articulated the new,
more conservative desire to primarily operate
within political channels. The burgeoning AIDS
crisis in the 1980s and 1990s would also work
to deplete some of the militancy of the 1960s
and 1970s. However, the government’s nonresponse to the AIDS crisis would awaken radical activism in the form of ACT-UP. Like the
other radical moments in LGBT/Q liberation,
the activism around ACT-UP would also
include a more critical stance on systematic
inequalities, especially regarding health care,
and racial and economic inequality. However,
despite ACT-UP’s infusion of new radicalism
into gay politics, the AIDS pandemic forced the
31
Ashley
devotion of much of that radical energy to focus
on mere survival. And, of course, many gay liberation activists did not survive, draining the
movement of so many of its leaders and
activists.
Despite ACT-UP’s infusion of new
radicalism into gay politics, the
AIDS pandemic forced the devotion
of much of that radical energy to
focus on mere survival.
In the late 1990s, as the AIDS crisis abetted,
with much of Gay Liberation’s fervor depleted,
the movement’s mainstreaming accelerated. The
Human Rights Campaign (HRC)—whose “corporate partners” include Citibank, Northrop
Grumman, and Apple—became the go-to organization for a corporate media in search of the
“gay view.” The HRC adopted a hierarchical
structure with a membership largely devoted to
fundraising support and letter writing. In its
search for corporate sponsorship for gay events
and activities, the HRC honed an “acceptable”
image of gay people, which mostly excluded
blacks, Latinos, the poor, and transgender people. The organization’s agenda represents a narrow, interest-group brand of politics, emphasizing
marriage equality and a truncated version of the
still-to-be-passed federal Employment NonDiscrimination Act for gays and lesbians that
excludes transgender people and makes invisible
issues of importance to the least marginal within
the LGBT/Q population.
Toward a Compulsory
Homosexuality and Queer
Precarity
As a result of the mainstreaming of contemporary LGBT/Q politics, the movement has come
to rely on at least three tactical approaches: (1)
to advocate for privatized rights granting equal
access to traditional social institutions, (2) to
make gayness acceptable by portraying it as
virtually the same as straightness except for a
differential desire, and (3) by advancing a postgay rhetoric that describes gay equality as all
but nearly achieved. Although this politics fails
to address the marginal experiences of working-class and poor queers, gender non-conforming queers, and queers of color, it has
indeed benefited those members of the LGBT/Q
community who already maintain a certain
privileged status within society.
In the late 1990s, [the Human
Rights Campaign became]
the go-to organization for the
corporate media’s search for the
“gay view.”
Today’s mainstream gay rights movement
not only furthers racial and class divisions, it
also makes a visible queerness obsolete—an
unnecessary throwback to the days of the gay
ghetto and the loud-and-out politics of gay liberation assumed to no longer matter. Underlying
this insistence on a more socially acceptable
brand of homosexuality is the persistent
homophobia and transphobia that earlier movements like the GLF—in all its bawdy and unrepentant celebration of gayness—sought to
challenge. For obvious reasons, these efforts
toward “acceptability” counteract the potential
for solidarity with poor, working-class, and antiracist movements, or even the inclusion of the
impoverished, transgendered, and queer people
of color within the gay rights movement.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. There have been many types and forms of
political engagements and movements around
same-sex desire across time, across geographic
location, and across cultures. I use the term
gay rights to refer to the specific contemporary moment of LGBT/Q liberation struggles, primarily within the United States. The
Homophile Movement refers to those forms
32
of gay politics advanced in the 1950s, and Gay
Liberation refers specifically to the history of
struggle that dominated the 1960s and 1970s. I
use LGBT/Q liberation to reference the whole
of the historic struggles and politics (including the above) of gender non-conformity and
same-sex desire.
2. The Gay Liberation Front’s statement of purpose stated, “We are a revolutionary group of
men and women formed with the realization that
complete sexual liberation for all people cannot
come about unless existing social institutions are
abolished. We reject society’s attempt to impose
sexual roles and definitions of our nature…” As
quoted in John D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual
Communities: The Making of a Homosexual
Minority in the Uniteed States, 1940-1970
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1983), 234.
Many of the radical queer groups of the 1990s
also had similar revolutionary leanings.
3. Adrienne Rich defined compulsory heterosexuality as the ideological manifestation of
a patriarchal and heterosexist social structure dependent on male access to women that
entrenches heterosexuality as a morally superior and the necessarily right form of sexual
desire. I use compulsory gayness to describe
the emergent ideological and belief system that
emerges out of systems of homonormativity.
4. Annamarie Jagose, Queer Theory: An
Introduction (New York: New York University
Press, 1997), 24.
New Labor Forum 24(3)
5. John D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual
Communities: The Making of a Homosexual
Minority in the Uniteed States, 1940-1970
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1983), 83.
6. Ibid.
7. Christina B. Hanhardt, Safe Space: Gay
Neighborhood History and the Politics of
Violence (Durham: Duke University Press,
2013), 65-69.
8. Ibid.
9. Ferd Eggan, “Dykes and Fags Want Everything:
Dreaming with the Gay Liberation Front,” in
That’s Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting
Assimilation, ed. Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
(Berkeley: Soft Skull Press, 2004), 13.
10. Ibid., 15.
11. Tommi Avicolli Mecca, “It’s All about Class,” in
That’s Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting
Assimilation, ed. Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore
(Berkeley: Soft Skull Press, 2004), 30.
Author Biography
Colin P. Ashley is a PhD candidate in the Sociology
Program at the Graduate Center of CUNY and is a
member of the Africana Studies, Women’s Studies,
and LGBT/Queer Studies Certificate/Concentration
programs. He is a student leader, community activist, and organizer. His research interests include
race, sexuality, queer theory, affect, aesthetics, and
space.
Intern at a New York City labor
union or labor-affiliated organization
Earn a certificate in
Labor Studies from CUNY
Network with other
young activists and leaders
in the social justice movement
MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Contact us for more information:
Phone: 212-642-2075
Email: unionsemester@sps.cuny.edu
On the web: www.unionsemester.org
The Murphy Institute, School of Professional Studies, CUNY
25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036
Copyright of New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.) is the property of Sage Publications
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades