LGBT and rurality

Throughout history, rural spaces have held multiple meanings and served various functions for LGBT individuals and communities, ranging from sites for political organizing[1][2] or sanctuary[3] to sites of repression[4] and violence for LGBTQIA+ individuals.

Many popular representations of rurality as well as anti-LGBTQIA+ discourse citing "protecting rural values" suggest these communities intrinsically place a heightened value on “traditional moral standards.”[5][6] Thus, communities in rural areas are associated with a lower tolerance for difference (including non-binary gender expression and queer sexuality) compared to urban environments. Some queer-identified individuals living in rural areas do experience antagonism, oppression, and violence matching the stereotypical representation of what it means to be queer in a rural community.

As of 2000, the U.S. Census found that 46 million people (roughly 16% of the nation's total population) live in ares with population densities of 999 people per square mile or fewer. Considering the high number of individuals and the small population densitity, the rural population of the U.S. exists across a wide geographical area. Despite the categorization based upon population density, "the rural population is not the same everywhere except in its distinction of not being urban."[7] The variation within the category of rural is reflected in the multiple, varied experiences of queer-identified people living in rural areas.[8][9][10]

In popular depictions, rurality is often portrayed as an inherently incompatible, or even hostile, environment for individuals who are not heterosexual and/or cisgendered. While this may be an accurate contrast between some urban and rural settings, there is significant variation within each categorization based on population density.

Patricia Nell Warren's third novel, The Fancy Dancer (1976), was the first bestseller to explore gay life in a small town and to portray a gay priest.[11]

Rural/urban dichotomy and visibility politics in the United States

Queer regionalist scholars such as Mary Gray have illustrated that organizing for LGBTQIA+ issues in the post-Stonewall U.S. has centered around a politics of visibility.[8] Within this political framework, publicly claiming a minority sexual orientation is viewed as inherently political. Visibility politics claim that, by making one's own queerness visible, 'out' individuals resist heteronormativity and the erasure of non-heterosexual behaviors and identities as well as illustrate to their local, national, and global communities that queer people exist and need equal rights and protection under the law. Therefore, visibility politics view a public declaration of queer identity as the primary road to political liberation and equality for queer communities.

Visibility politics also creates an understanding of queer lives through the metaphor of the closet (which Eve Sedgwick terms the epistemology of the closet).[12] Within the epistemology of the closet framework, LGBTQIA+ persons are born 'in the closet' or with a repressed sexuality until the catalytic moment of 'coming out' at which point they become 'out' or publicly queer. Regional scholars have argued that the reliance upon the epistemology of the closet and visibility politics within U.S. queer activism is urban-centric, excluding and erasing LGBTQIA+ individuals and communities in rural areas across the globe.[8][10] As the majority of national-scale queer activism reliant on visibility politics within the U.S. emerged from its major cities, this ideology was "tailor-made for and from the population densities; capital; and systems of gender, sexual, class, and racial privilege that converge in cities."[8] Mary Gray expands upon this point in her book, Out in the Country: Youth, Media, and Queer Visibility in Rural America:

"..."metronormative" epistemologies of visibility privilege urban queer scenes. The systemic marginalization of the rural as endemically hostile and lacking the cultural milieu necessary for a celebratory politics of difference naturalizes cities as the necessary centers and standard bearers of queer politics and representations. Along the way all those not able, or inclined, to migrate to the city are put at a notable disadvantage not just by the material realities of rural places but also by the shortcoming of queer theory and LGBT social movement in ways we have only recently begun to explore."[8]

U.S. scholarship on queer life within metropoles further perpetuates the centrality of metronormative narratives of queer life and identity. John D'Emilio proposed a contradictory connection between capitalism and homosexuality. He argued that capitalism emphasized the importance of family units and reproduction as the primary function of that unit. However, simultaneously the anonymity of U.S. cities, a product of capitalist development, enabled networks of same-sex desiring individuals to form and a homosexual community and shared identity to emerge.[13] George Chauncey is another historian whose work centered on queer life in urban centers. His book Gay New York examined how gay life in New York City formed around patterns of congregation and habit.[14] Both D'Emilio and Chauncey highlight the ways that urban environments distinctly, and possibly uniquely, enable queerness. Thus, their findings to some extent reinforce a binary view of urban/rural wherein urban is perceived as a space for liberated, 'out' queer communities while rural is a space for isolated, 'closeted' queer individuals.

Studies and fieldwork by contemporary scholars prove the existence of queer lives in rural areas and challenge a systemic erasure of non-urban queer life. In particular, scholars of the American South and Midwest have written on queer life in rural areas, challenging the belief that rurality is inherently not conducive to queer sexual expression.[9][8][10]

The presence of LGBTQ bars, bookstores, and neighborhoods within population-dense, urban areas makes the presence of queer individuals and communities more visible than in less populated areas; however, queer-identified individuals can also be found living in both densely and sparsely populated communities all around the world.[15][16]

Research on migration patterns between urban and rural areas also challenges a binary view of the two categories as well as the common narrative that queer-identifying individuals 'escape' to the city over the course of their lives. In Coming Out and Coming Back: Rural Gay Migration and the City, authors Meredith Redlin and Alexis Annes' find that the migratory flow between urban and rural is not unidirectional, but rather a series of movements over time between the two spaces. Their essay illustrates how queer individuals move within and between rural and urban areas in response to the ways that each space limits and/or enables their identity formation and sexual expression.[17]

Rural queer lifestyle

In rural areas, the heterosexual family unit is valued as an essential part of life. It is the overtly dominant lifestyle in these spaces, which makes being queer a different experience than one would have in a metropolitan area.[18]

Masculine and feminine gender representations operate differently for those in rural areas because work done by both genders is perceived as masculine behavior in other non-rural areas. Both men and women can exhibit masculine features and be perceived as normal.[19] Many rural women work alongside men on farms or in construction work, thus certain types of masculinity displayed by rural women are not interpreted as lesbian behavior as they might be in an urban or suburban environment. As a result of female gender representations being more masculine for women in rural spaces, femininity operates very differently there, and thus so does lesbianism. This masculine dynamic allows for some lesbians to blend in quite easily, where typical female attire can be wearing flannels and cowboy boots. However, deviations in style, such as short hair or wearing ties, can still result in judgment from the woman's surrounding community. Emily Kayzak notes that “the sexual identity of rural butch lesbian women is not invisible in urban lesbian cultures, their more butch gender presentations do not do the same work in rural areas because those gender presentations are also tied to normative (hetero)sexuality.” Generally, lesbian-butch women are compatible with rural lifestyles as long as they can fit in with the typical masculine-female appearance. Rural spaces have even been referred to as makings for “lesbian lands,” in part due to their ability to blend in.[20]

In the 1970s, women began to move to agricultural communes where they could live and work with other “country women”.[21] In these communities, lesbian women built communes where they grew their own food and created societies away from men. They believed that living and working in nature allowed them to embrace their inherent connection with nature. Gay men also partook in similar activities; Bell and Valentine note how the Edward Carpenter Community in England hosts Gay Men's Weeks where they conduct events related to free-spiritedness and the embracement of one's sexuality.

For rural men, on the other hand, “publicly disrupting normative gender expectations arguably remains as, if not more, contentious than homoerotic desires.”[8] In many places, as long as a gay man subscribes to masculine representations and activities, such as wearing traditionally masculine attire and working in manual labor, acceptance comes much more easily. Deviations in appearance, like dressing up in drag, would be seen as very unacceptable, and can result in harassment. Male effeminate expressions and rurality are generally seen as incompatible. Many gay men in rural communities reject femininity and embrace masculine roles. Feminine gays typically face persecution and disapproval from their community members.

Queer individuals in rural areas, as in many other places, face discrimination and violence. In small rural areas, perpetrators and victims are typically both known to the surrounding community. Even police, who are intended to hold up the law, are known to commit crimes against sexually marginalized people.[22] Brett Beemyn's review of John Howard's piece "Men Like That: A Southern Queer History" explains some of the roots of violent hate crimes and discrimination against queer people. In the 1960s, amongst the acrimony of racists was the tendency to depict African Americans as sexual deviants. In addition, during the civil rights movement African Americans were known to have queer allies, thus stereotypes of racial justice supporters as engagers in perverted sexual acts became prevalent in the 1960s and the focus of discrimination spread to include queer individuals in a more direct manner.

In contrast, queer urbanites have gained much more acceptance and visibility as a result of gay rights movements and the recognition of the potential of the queer economy. Acceptance of queerness is also much more common in suburban and urban communities, because there is a higher acceptance of diversity in general.[23] All cities have recognized, visible gay neighborhoods. Gay couples are more likely to live in urban areas than are lesbian couples,[24] as the urban setting can be much more conducive to gay culture and life. Amongst those with higher income or education, acceptance is also more prevalent. These two points have led to an increase of the migration of queer people from rural communities to metropolitan areas. The cost of moving to a city filters out some with lower incomes, creating a class bias for those who are more affluent. Yet discrimination from community members, local police, and even state governments still occurs in urban spheres, although cities typically maintain a relative liberalism.

Assumptions made about queer rural spaces are sometimes crude. In media, rustic sexual expression can take the form of homosexual rape, as seen in Pulp Fiction and Deliverance, and bestiality, which is also a theme in these films. After James Michael Taitt died after paying to be anally penetrated by a male horse, bestiality became linked to country happenings, and induced a nationwide “bizarre sex panic.”[25] Heterosexual activities that are not heteronormative become contextually queer activities, some of which take place in rural areas, because they are viewed as a place to retreat and sexually experiment. Practicing “dogging” occurs, in which people can engage in public sex, voyeurism, exhibitionism, swinging, group sex, or partner swapping. Quiet roadsides and rest areas make for private places to meet, making cars vital for maintaining heterosexual and non-heterosexual queer interactions as well.

Rural queer farmers

Other communities of queer farmers prefer to live a more conventional lifestyle with a house and agricultural land of their own. The documentary Out Here portrays the lives of many rural queer people across the United States, and it shows how many queer people make a living and are making a difference in their communities through agriculture.[26]

The documentary's creators also provide many biographies about queer farmers on their blog. The farmers documented have a wide variety of experiences, from being a specialty cattle farmer to an urban community gardener at a non-profit. The farmers surveyed state that they feel that farming provides a place where it is free to experiment, and is a place where queers naturally belong. They also describe the discrimination that they have faced throughout their agricultural careers, from social isolation to having fungicide dropped on them in the field.[26]

Farmers and Friends, a helpline for closeted gay farmers in England, was created to help farmers deal with discrimination and to provide emotional support.[27] Many closeted queer farmers risk being outed by their communities, which could lead to loss of their livelihoods and community ties.

The eco-queer movement aims to draw attention to the intersectionality of nature and sexuality.[28] Part of this intersectionality is the reason why many queer individuals may not feel comfortable in a rural setting due to the population dynamics that generally occur in these areas, which mainly consist of straight, middle-class, white men.[29] Because of this, many queer farmers have taken to growing food in urban environments so that they can be agricultural while maintaining their queer lifestyles.

Queer rural political activism in the United States

Many queer political organizers believe reform is more difficult to pass in rural communities that are less tolerant of queer lifestyles.[30] It is harder to mobilize communities in rural spaces where queer populations are less dense and financial contributions are limited.[30] This has led to a divestment in formal rural queer political organizing. Because political activism has been silent in rural communities, many Americans assume rural queer people do not exist, or that they only do so only before moving to more urban and accepting communities.[31] This assumption has created a misrepresentation of the US queer population. US Census data shows that 66% of South Dakotan same-sex households were located outside of urban areas.[31] Queer communities exist outside urban areas, although they are generally less visible.

A lack of visibility and political attention has left queer people more vulnerable to institutional discrimination. Compared to the heterosexual population, they have reduced access to housing and healthcare and face greater employment discrimination. In South Dakota, only 29% of rural same-sex households own homes, compared to 84% of married heterosexual couples.[31] There are generally fewer community resources and support groups for queer individuals in rural areas, as more limited local resources do not facilitate their existence.[30]

Legislation often neglects rural queer populations, leaving them without protection under the law.[31] In a 2006 custody case, a mother found herself unfit to care for her child and relinquished rights to a queer caretaker.[31] Once the new guardian's sexuality was discovered the court ruled against the biological mother's request, stating that "the adoption would not be in the best interest of the child." The court used rurality in their reasoning to reject the request, citing "stigma that the child may face growing up in a small, rural town with two women, in whose case she was placed at the age of six, who openly engage in a homosexual relationship." The court found the state of Georgia a more fit guardian than a rural queer couple.[31]

Despite similar cases, many fights in rural areas are won in state courtrooms. The Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state's defense of marriage statute, which made it one of the first states to allow same-sex marriage, affecting the predominantly rural population.[31] This action was met with political resistance. The Iowa electorate voted to not retain all three judges, marking the first time in Iowa's history that a judge had not been retained since 1961.

Many rural politicians have cited their reluctance to come out in support of same-sex marriage, for fear of similar political repercussions. Representative Paul Davis, the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Kansas, voted against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage three times in the state legislature, but did not take a definitive stance on the issue in his run for governor.[32] More liberal and urban districts can offer public officials a politically safe place to take stances on issues that are not popular in predominantly rural states.

In recent years, the country has seen a shift in national public opinion on queer issues, which has spread to rural communities. In 2006, 71 Wisconsin counties voted to ban same-sex marriage, while only one county voted against the ban.[33] Opinion has since overwhelmingly shifted. According to a 2014 poll by Marquette Law School, only 35% of voters in the Green Bay media market, a predominantly conservative area, still support the marriage ban, compared to 65% of the population in 2006.

Queer visibility plays a critical role in political activism, though this has not been a viable strategy for many rural queer people. Being openly queer can lead to more discrimination and isolation in rural spaces.[30] Rural queer individuals have had to reimagine how to make political and social progress in their communities. New digital media has opened more political options for rural queer people. Social media is a means to expand local communities and allow rural queer individuals to take part in a larger queer community. Access to queer people's experiences are available on blogs and websites and provide access to the terminology needed to describe and understand their experiences.[30] New media can give rural queer individuals the political tools and connections to make changes in their own communities.

See also

References
  1. "Starkville Pride event largest parade in city history | Starkville Daily News". www.starkvilledailynews.com. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  2. "Lexington gets 'all-star' rating for LGBTQ rights. One Kentucky city scored higher". kentucky. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  3. Wong, Curtis M. (2013-01-24). "Vicco, Smallest Town In Kentucky, Passes LGBT Non-Discrimination Law". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  4. "U.S. Supreme Court will let 'religious freedom law,' HB 1523, stand". Mississippi Today. 2018-01-08. Retrieved 2018-08-19.
  5. Queering the countryside : new frontiers in rural queer studies. Gray, Mary L.,, Johnson, Colin R., 1974-, Gilley, Brian Joseph, 1972-. New York. ISBN 9781479830770. OCLC 926743492.CS1 maint: others (link)
  6. Bell, David; Valentine, Gill (1995). "Queer country: Rural lesbian and gay lives". Journal of Rural Studies. 11 (2): 113–122. doi:10.1016/0743-0167(95)00013-d. ISSN 0743-0167.
  7. Bureau, US Census. "Life Off the Highway: A Snapshot of Rural America". The United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  8. Gray, Mary L. (2009). Out in the Country: Youth, Media, and Queer Visibility in Rural America. New York: New York University Press.
  9. Howard, John (2001). Men Like That: A Southern Queer History (1st pbk. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226354705. OCLC 48881184.
  10. Johnson, Colin R. (2013). Just Queer Folks: Gender and Sexuality in Rural America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 9781439909980.
  11. Warren, Patricia Nell (1996). The Fancy Dancer. Wildcat Press. ISBN 9780964109971.
  12. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (2008). Epistemology of the closet (First ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254060. OCLC 154697778.
  13. D'Emilio, John (1983). "Capitalism and Gay Identity". In Snitow, Ann, Christine Stansell, Sharan Thompson (ed.). Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. New Feminist Library Series. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  14. George., Chauncey (1994). Gay New York : gender, urban culture, and the makings of the gay male world, 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465026333. OCLC 29877871.
  15. "A Crowdsourced Map of the Queer World". CityLab. Retrieved 2018-08-27.
  16. "Queering The Map". Queering The Map. Retrieved 2018-08-27.
  17. Annes, Alexis; Redlin, Meredith (January 2012). "Coming out and coming back: Rural gay migration and the city" (PDF). Journal of Rural Studies. 28 (1): 56–68. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.08.005. ISSN 0743-0167.
  18. Johnston, Lynda; et al. (2010). Space, Place, and Sex: Geographies of Sexualities. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp. 79–112.
  19. Kayzak, E. (2012). "Midwest or Lesbian? Gender, Rurality, and Sexuality". Gender and Society. 26 (6): 825–848. doi:10.1177/0891243212458361.
  20. Valentine, G. (1997). "Making Space: Separation and Difference". Thresholds in Feminist Geography. Difference, Methodology, and Representation: 65–75. ISBN 9780847684373.
  21. Bell, D. (2006). "Bodies, Technology, Spaces: On". Sexualities. 4 (9): 387–407. doi:10.1177/1363460706068040. JSTOR 20003016.
  22. Beemyn, B. (2001). "Gay Men and the Rural South: No Contradiction in Terms". American Quarterly. 53 (1): 178–184. doi:10.1353/aq.2001.0001. JSTOR 30041881.
  23. Barrett, D.C.; et al. (2005). "Whose Gay Community: Social Class, Sexual Self-Expression". The Sociological Quarterly. 46 (3): 437–456. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.576.1525. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00021.x. JSTOR 4120947.
  24. Gates, G.J. (2004). The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute.
  25. Brown, M.; et al. (2009). "Bestiality and the Queering of the Human Animal". Environment and Planning D: Society and Space.
  26. "Queer Farmer Film Project". queerfarmer.blogspot.com.
  27. Jesse Hirsch (15 April 2013). "A Lifeline for Gay Farmers". Modern Farmer. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  28. Sbicca, Joshua. (2012). Eco-queer movement(s) Challenging Heteronormative Space through (Re)imagining Nature and Food European Journal of Ecopsychology, Volume3, pp .33-52
  29. Sbicca (2012). "Eco-queer movement(s) Challenging Heteronormative Space through (Re)imagining Nature and Food" (3). Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  30. Gray 2009.
  31. Jerke 2011.
  32. Lieb and Beaumont, David and Thomas (10 August 2014). "Gay marriage in Kansas throws political twist". Retrieved 9 December 2014.
  33. "FINAL PRE-ELECTION MARQUETTE LAW SCHOOL POLL FINDS WALKER LEADING BURKE IN WISCONSIN GOVERNOR'S RACE". Marquette Law School. Retrieved 9 December 2014.

Bibliography
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.