If We Want To Understand The Politics Of The 1970s

‘If we want to understand the rights revolutions in gender and sexuality commonly associated with “the sixties”, we really need to study the politics of the 1970s.’ Discuss.

The rights revolutions in gender and sexuality commonly associated with the sixties represented a major challenge to the heteronormative ideals that had been enshrined within policy making since the New Deal, producing significant progress for women and the LGBTQ+ community. However, whilst the sixties were encapsulated by explosive social movements, it was not a period of linear progress. The politics of the 1970s was fundamental in exposing the unstable nature of the change produced in the rights revolutions, highlighting disparities between the legal equality secured

The politics of the 1970s was marked by a reinvigoration of individualist sentiment, sowing the seeds for the rise of neoliberalism--based around economic deregulation, free market capitalism and privatisation-- under Ronald Reagan.4 Jonathan Bell convincingly argues that the parallel development of the rights revolutions and assaults on America’s social safety net had a profound, negative impact on access to medical care and social services.5 The Hyde Amendment in 1976 banned the federal funding of abortion, placing responsibilities around upholding reproductive rights firmly in the hands of local government. Consequently, a distinct discord between legal rights to abortion, and the physical obtainment of these rights emerged, with conservative local governments able to further a pro-life agenda which would reinforce class boundaries without breaking federal law by refusing to fund the purchase of resources which would facilitate safe, legal abortion for women regardless of their socio- economic standing. The long-term impact of this decision, with only 17 states currently funding abortion through Medicaid, demonstrates that studying 1970s politics is instrumental in offsetting narratives of the revolution in gender as a major, uncontested victory. Moreover, the barriers to abortion

As with antifeminist arguments, the growing presence of gay rights movements motivated a backlash centred around homosexuality’s threat to healthy family dynamics.13At the epicentre of this conservative assault on gay rights was Anita Bryant and her 1977 Save Our Children Campaign in Miami, lobbying for the repeal of a local gay rights ordinance. In her book, The Anita Bryant Story: The Survival of Our Nation’s Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality, Bryant employed a child protectionist ideology to denounce homosexuality in American society, asserting that “Homosexuals cannot reproduce-so they must recruit...and to freshen their ranks they must recruit the youth of America.”14 Drawing upon the vulnerability of the youth, parents’ protective instinct, and the perceived importance of child bearing in US society, Bryant’s homophobic rhetoric gained significant traction within the religious right whilst expanding America’s conservative base. As a consequence, voters forcefully overturned the non-discrimination ordinance, marking a significant rejection of the gay rights revolution in the South. The enduring impact of this counterrevolutionary politics is underlined by the fact that antidiscrimination policies in Miami were not reintroduced until 1988, and in 2002 there