MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4251984746 · doi:10.1353/hyp.2006.0066

The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights (review)

2007· article· en· W4251984746 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick D. Hopkins

Notice bibliographique

RevueHypatia · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLesbianTabooEconomic JusticeWonderGay rightsSociologyLawMainstreamGender studiesPoliticsPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Book Review Patrick D. Hopkins The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights. By Richard D. Mohr. Until 1987, the New York Times wouldn't even print the word gay. By 2003, the Times was running gay wedding announcements, complete with photographs, including the announcement of the Canadian-licensed marriage of the author of The Long Arc of Justice. Richard Mohr's newest book is a revised and updated version of his 1994 A More Perfect Union and, in the decade that has passed since that work, he has seen such enormous progress for the cause of lesbian and gay rights that his book practically shines with optimism. The backdrop idea of Long Arc is essentially that American culture has passed a turning point in the gay rights debate. While there is much yet to be accomplished and there is still a culture war going on, the taboo about discussing gay issues has all but collapsed, the cultural presence of gays and lesbians is so strong that gay kids will never again have to wonder if they are the only one, homophobic attitudes are no longer de rigueur, and phrases like "gay marriage" are no longer oxymorons but instead obviously meaningful, even if contested. With all these changes, gays have become less monstrous to the cultural mainstream and instead have become cultural curiosities, like "hippies and Mormons." Mohr's explanation for how this progress was made essentially points to culture. While acknowledging and analyzing important legal victories, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling eliminating sodomy laws, Mohr argues that even these successes are the result of cultural changes and not the producers of them. What has been most important for gay rights issues, it seems, is the presence of lesbian and gay television characters, increased personal openness of gay and lesbian people (which has bumped the percentage of those who say they know a gay person from one-fifth in the 1980s to one-half in the 2000s), sympathetic media portrayal of victims of antigay violence, and unsympathetic media portrayal of antigay rhetoric. This doesn't mean that harmful gay stereotypes and antigay discrimination are gone, but it does mean that the fundamental force in gay rights, both positive and negative, has been cultural visibility and this has radically changed for the better. As Mohr sees it, then, antigay forces can no longer rely on silence or the reaction of disgust in pursuing antigay aims. Instead, they must rely on argumentation and cultural moves of their own. In a bit of tension with his own position on the importance of culture, Mohr argues that the job for gay rights activists now is to make good arguments and he does this through analyzing the most important issues for [End Page 243] gay rights. He asks, Now that the taboo about discussing lesbians and gays has fallen, what should we be saying? It is these arguments that form the center of the book and it is these arguments that are important and useful for both classroom and public political airing. In the opening chapter, "Lesbian and Gay Basics," Mohr summarizes and criticizes the basic arguments against gay rights, including Biblical authority, natural law, psychopathology, and social harm arguments. Perhaps a measure of the progress that has been made on gay issues is that much of the rhetoric about gays as child molesters and how homosexuality will destroy civilization now seem so ridiculous that we can easily imagine the 2015 update of this book relegating such "arguments" to curious historical footnotes. In the chapter on sexual privacy, Mohr lays out his argument for why sexual privacy is so important and merits the status of a protected right. He invokes the Body Argument (the body is that through which we act, so if we are to be free in anything, we must have control of our bodies), the Sex is Special Argument (during sex, perception is inherently private and the world recedes), and the Sex is Personal Argument (sex is a unique experience that provides the only access to ecstasy for most people and so is crucial for our pursuit of...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,061

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,358
Écart entre enseignants0,321 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHypatiaMême sujetLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesTravaux en français237 207