Just Queer Folks: Gender and Sexuality in Rural America

Sexuality Studies

by Colin R. Johnson

Most studies of lesbian and gay history focus on urban environments. Yet gender and sexual diversity were anything but rare in nonmetropolitan areas in the first half of the twentieth century. Just Queer Folks explores the seldom-discussed history of same-sex intimacy and gender nonconformity in rural and small-town America during a period when the now familiar concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality were just beginning to take shape.

Eschewing the notion that identity is always the best measure of what can be known about gender and sexuality, Colin R. Johnson argues instead for a queer historicist approach. In so doing, he uncovers a startlingly unruly rural past in which small-town eccentrics, "mannish" farm women, and cross-dressing Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees were often just queer folks so far as their neighbors were concerned. Written with wit and verve, Just Queer Folks upsets a whole host of contemporary commonplaces, including the notion that queer history is always urban history.

Genres: Nonfiction, LGBT, Queer, History, Sexuality

264 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Ai Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good solid read, though some of it feels repetitive if you've read other pieces of queer history (I literally just finished portions of Jack Halberstam's In a Queer Time and Place which makes the argument about the urban-centric focus on queer communities really not look as fresh as it might have otherwise.) The best chapters in my opinion were the chapter on "hard women" (chapter six) and the chapter about community policing or non-policing (chapter four.) Those were the chapters were Johnson's point about pushing queer historiography were really most obvious and challenging. Otherwise it was... fine? I enjoyed the chapter about the CCC in the same way I love all stories about drag shows in male homosocial spaces, but I didn't find it particularly groundbreaking. But I did leave it grateful that I had read it, so I think that is worth something (hence the four stars.)

[Sushie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read and one I'm pleased to have on my shelf!
This book helped solidify what I already sort of knew as a country queer: we're here, we've been here, it's okay to like it here, and- least surprising- homophobia isn't a rural export, it was an urban import.
There was one concept in here though, that really put things in perspective for me: the idea that identity politics are a byproduct of capitalism. Labels are useful and we, as a community, make a lot of good out of them. However, as I've gotten older I've become less and less interested in them as applied to myself, and understanding them from the perspective of capitalism's need to "flatten and sort" things reaffirms my attachment to the term queer as political identity. Turns out I feel more "anti-capitalist" than I do "gay."
I am still chewing on the penultimate chapter about queerness as related to rural women, I haven't quite decided if it's disappointing or just challenging.

[Lev · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to write a 5 page book review about this for school, so not hugely inclined to talk much about it anymore. Well, I've got a lot of bones to pick over many things here - mostly I'm just...not great with queer history, too personally invested, etc - but this did have a lot of cool details and touched on some interesting thoughts. Know that you're signing up for an author who's got a very clear argumentative agenda that he pursues singlemindedly and occasionally not very considerately before you start reading, I guess.

[Tyler Amick · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing addition to the genre of queer history. This is not necessarily a definitive history, necessarily. It does not set out to concretely establish how queer culture developed in every rural area. Rather, Johnson focuses on blowing assumptions of rural queer life out of the water by digging up examples that disprove stereotypes. Johnson provides a framework to think about homosexuality and gender identity in rural America as well as the forces that shaped it.

[Larry · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found parts of this book valuable and will definitely be using some of the material in my research, but overall I was frustrated by the episodic nature of the relatively disconnected chapters and, here I will seem old-fashioned, the too frequent first person language. On the other hand, the author's extensive and impressive command of the secondary literature in the field is clear.

[Sarah Shepherd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty fascinating!! Especially loved the chapter on the CCC. Again more of a history book that focuses on queering history as an analytic device rather than on queer history.

[H. Givens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conflicted. On the one hand, I liked a lot of this content. There's valuable research here on often-overlooked topics like the rural/agricultural origins of the American eugenics movement, or the function of cross-dressing in homosocial environments like the CCC. I liked that it's truly a queer history, not just a history of gay men. I liked his distinction between rural and regional. He makes various good points, and is often interesting.

BUT. It doesn't always work, I don't always buy it. It's so "queer" that it's not always even about queer people. Gender history is relevant, and interesting, and I appreciate that he addressed historical concepts as potentially quite foreign rather than as only "precursors" or veiled versions of something we'd recognize today. But just because a topic is related doesn't mean it's the same thing. I accept his rural/regional distinction, but he doesn't address the way some regions are coded as inherently rural. Beyond that it often seems like he's arguing against points I never heard in the first place, like "there are no queer people in rural areas." Obviously there are, the point is that they often wanted to ESCAPE those rural areas. Likewise, I appreciated his descriptions of rural queer lives that made use of silence, took advantage of open closets, BUT the fact that they DID it doesn't mean everything was fine and it was better before people started coming out. Functioning under a hegemonic blanket doesn't mean we shouldn't throw off the blanket. The fact that they HAD to be silent is a problem in itself. He never addresses choice or lack thereof, just presence.

Anyway. Final significant criticism is that it reads like a desperate student paper, when you have one example and are desperately trying to convince your professor/yourself that it's representative when actually you have no idea. When you repeat the thesis of the chapter multiple times to try and convince your professor/yourself that all the interesting stuff you're writing is relevant to the thesis you totally actually have. Typos. Sometimes contradicting yourself in vague ways because you weren't super sure of your thesis in the first place, just trying to get the paper written. Stuff like that.

Again, I'm conflicted. Possibly with some stylistic work and closer attention to the argument, it could've been fantastic. As it is, I recommend it for interested researchers who are reasonably familiar and want leads to follow or an argument to dissect, but not as an introduction to rural/queer issues.

[willowdog · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scholarly in its approach, this is queer historicist work that is more interested in reminding people of the many forms of gender and sexual differences which could not be forged iinto just two categories. The eugenics movement, the rural reform movement of the early 1900's, the homosocial world of itinerant workers, the CCC, are presented as just that--homo-social networks. Are these necessarily gay? No. Just as prisons are not necessariy gay. Found it stimulating, but not LGBT.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brief and heavy on anecdotal evidence, but Johnson acknowledges both this fact and makes it clear why it is that way. Otherwise, this is a fascinating look at a very under-discussed aspect of history.

[Aja · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book to the fill some of the gaps in knowledge about sexuality in rural America and the role it has played in the development of gender and sexuality in our nation.