Butch Femme Planet

Butch Femme Planet (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/index.php)
-   The Lesbian Zone (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   Reclaiming Lesbian Pride (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3580)

Martina 08-31-2011 08:30 PM

Lots of lesbians have slept with men -- by choice -- pretty much as long as we've been free to live as lesbians.

Sexuality is like that. People do the unexpected where sex is concerned. Trying to argue about who people will fuck and what that means is not going to get us far.

citybutch 08-31-2011 08:33 PM

*sigh*

I am going to post this one more time and then I give up... LOL... Been making the same point for oh so many years and it just gets lost...

Anyhoo:

"Woman
From the Old English "Wyfmon," meaning, "wife.""

http://www.westegg.com/etymology/

I dunno ... the roots of words matter to me... It's why in so many ways I love to reclaim the words like Crone... which they believe comes from early dutch for "old ewe"... To Crone means to "pick out and reject the old ewes from a flock" according to the OED. Subsequently applied in a derogatory sense to old females (and in the patriarchal way.. old women). To ME this is a reclaimable word.... or Hag (oh, Hag is MARVELOUS!), "1....an evil spirit, demon, or infernal being in female form; applied in early use to the Furies, Harpies, etc.... 2.... a witch.." OED. There are so many entries on Hag!

My friend Mary was so into reclaiming these words... and made magic out of them. They came alive with her....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chazz (Post 409693)

SEX (biology) = female/male, woman/man, girl/boy (nouns)

GENDER (a cultural construct based on sex) = feminine/masculine, womanly/manly, girlish/boyish (adjectives)


Chazz 08-31-2011 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobi (Post 409664)


The individualization of identity is a very complex thing. Yet, it has an impact on a broader scale. That concerns me greatly because the potential political ramifications are frightening.

I am a lesbian i.e. a female homosexual. I dont think even OED has changed that definition. If people who do not fit "female homosexual" start claiming lesbian, it impacts my personal identity as well as lesbians in general. It renders lesbian to mean essentially nothing.

And that is supposed to be ok with me? I dont care who anyone sleeps with but when what it is called impacts me, I care a lot.

Part of why this bothers me is, it is someone else's circumstances that have changed not mine. But, there is the presumption that I have to make adjustments to accomodate their changing circumstances. In essence, to me, it is someone else deciding they have the right to change things to suit themselves without regard as to how it affects others. I have a real problem with this kind of thinking.

On a larger scale, gay rights, in part, has used the paradigm that our gayness is an inherent part of who we are. Our minority status is from our gayness being something we have no control over. It is not a choice per se, it just is.

Now we are muddying the waters by saying we are lesbians who sleep with men? Either we have control and make a conscious decision or we dont. And there is no political implications to this?

Another part of gayness being something we have no control over is the fight we have with religious fruitcakes ( ok bad choice of words) who say we can change our behavior and become unsinners. They can deprogram us. Well, lesbians sleeping with men gives them a wee bit of ammunition on that one.

Someone posted somewhere that in Iran or Iraq, they would rather perform sexual reassignment surgery than have homosexuals in their midst. Do you really think this doesnt matter?

Feminism is predicated at its simplest level on a male versus female paradigm. Gender theory, at its simplest level is masculine versus feminine. Wow, that blows the binary to pieces eh? There are very real, very everyday implications inherent in this for every single female and women. And our response to this is to argue about the definition of woman? Does that strike anyone as odd?

Sometimes I read this thread and I dont know which is worse...the flashbacks to Anita Bryant's antigay stuff or the ones of Phyllis Schafly arguing against the ERA.



[Women’s] authority is effective only so long as [she] identifies wholly with [her male] sponsors’. What happens for the feminist is that she somehow discovers her own authority, and comes to understand herself as authorized by her own knowledge of right and wrong to assume the agency of the judge, director, instructor, planner, policy maker, administrator [and namer of her own reality]. - Marilyn Frye

atomiczombie 08-31-2011 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chazz (Post 408783)
How about jettisoning the concept of gender entirely? I know, it's a lot to get ones brain around. Patriarchy is counting on that.

Jettisoning the concept of gender because you think it's all a product of patriarchy? Wow. My gender ID is transguy. If you want to give up the concept of gender, then you are saying this part of who I am, which is important to me, is something produced by patriarchy and therefore not real or valid. I am not saying that being a transguy is the only or most important thing about me, but it is an important thing, to me. It isn't something that years of being raised and socialized as a girl could make go away. It isn't something that I decided I wanted so that I could gain privilege that I haven't had while living as a woman (even after hormones and top surgery I still don't have any more privilege). I can assure you I am not a woman who just isn't satisfied with any conventional definition of "woman". I don't strictly ID as a man, because my being trans is an important part of who I am. I do have a herstory, as someone else on this site pointed out to me. I don't deny or reject all the years that I lived as a girl/woman. Those years are part of who I am today. But I'm not a woman, and I knew I wasn't when I was 6 years old. My gender is not some cultural construct. There is something hard-wired about it. It is part of who I am, inside.

So, tell me Chazz: do you think my gender identity is something meaningless, or just a product of patriarchy?

Heart 08-31-2011 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess (Post 409700)
I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

This makes sense to me. I get it. I honor it. I respect it.

What is beginning to bother me a great deal, is that all of the sudden I feel like being bisexual is bad. Or being queer is bad or pansexual. Why not use the words already there? What is wrong with being bisexual?

I don't have issue with how anyone else decides to id themselves. I ain't sleepin with ya, so why should I care? Except, in the realm of issues Kobi mentioned above. On a personal level, call yourself avacado if you so desire, but on a political level, can we please decide on which version of the English language we are going to use? It would just help in the long run.

Heh. I've called myself everything. When I was sleeping with gay men, I called myself a fag hag. When I was sleeping with straight girls and guys, I called myself bi, when I was married, I called myself straight, now I sleep with butch women so I'm a dyke and a femme. What do I call myself when I'm not sleeping with anyone? A celibate?

I do not get why any of these labels, based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism. In fact, my id as a lesbian is in part, a political choice, an assertion of my political alliances, as much as who I fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate in my post #430.

Heart

Chazz 08-31-2011 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomiczombie (Post 409729)
Jettisoning the concept of gender because you think it's all a product of patriarchy? Wow. My gender ID is transguy. If you want to give up the concept of gender, then you are saying this part of who I am, which is important to me, is something produced by patriarchy and therefore not real or valid. I am not saying that being a transguy is the only or most important thing about me, but it is an important thing, to me. It isn't something that years of being raised and socialized as a girl could make go away. It isn't something that I decided I wanted so that I could gain privilege that I haven't had while living as a woman (even after hormones and top surgery I still don't have any more privilege). I can assure you I am not a woman who just isn't satisfied with any conventional definition of "woman". I don't strictly ID as a man, because my being trans is an important part of who I am. I do have a herstory, as someone else on this site pointed out to me. I don't deny or reject all the years that I lived as a girl/woman. Those years are part of who I am today. But I'm not a woman, and I knew I wasn't when I was 6 years old. My gender is not some cultural construct. There is something hard-wired about it. It is part of who I am, inside.

So, tell me Chazz: do you think my gender identity is something meaningless, or just a product of patriarchy?

I can't say.......

Jess 08-31-2011 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart (Post 409730)
Heh. I've called myself everything. When I was sleeping with gay men, I called myself a fag hag. When I was sleeping with straight girls and guys, I called myself bi, when I was married, I called myself straight, now I sleep with butch women so I'm a dyke and a femme. What do I call myself when I'm not sleeping with anyone? A celibate?

I do not get why any of these labels, based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism. In fact, my id as a lesbian is in part, a political choice, an assertion of my political alliances, as much as who I fuck. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate in my post #430.

Heart


K... Got it. You changed how you ID based upon what your ( then ) present situation reflected. I get that. I am way cool with that. I am also cool with and comprehend that our life circumstances do change and most of us adopt whatever new term most closely defines whom we are then.

The part I highlighted in red, I don't quite understand. If one one hand whom we sleep with should have no bearing on politics ( which I disagree with 1000% see christian right wings who hate homo-SEXuals), then why would you align yourself sexually for a political reason?

Just trying to follow. Thanks!

citybutch 08-31-2011 08:48 PM

Hey Jess,

The dictionary goes through a lengthy entry on the etymology of the word. The definition itself is more than 4 pages of the OED... so really extensive. I am not an online subscriber but own a hard copy of it... so I cannot cut and paste.

THAT being said, I can say that one of the definitions IS " an adult female human being". However, it goes on to say that it is always JUXTAPOSED against a male or man... OR "to make like a woman in weakness or subservience".

Female on the other hand is defined as "belonging to the sex which bears offspring". It seems to come from popular Latin, femella, which includes all "lower animals"... masculus being the male version of this.

*sigh*... maybe it is just me :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess (Post 409311)
Without having a subscription to the OED and not owning a copy, what is the current definition of "woman". I am aware that the OED gives probably the most accurate origins of words and you have given a good historical definition/ origin. I am curious and perhaps you could help me, with what they use as the current definition.

Thanks.


Cin 08-31-2011 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CherylNYC (Post 409682)
A man who IDs as a snake is never going to be allowed to live in the reptile enclosure at the zoo. No, I don't feel compelled out of politeness to humour that man, or the man who IDs as a lesbian. Why would I? Why should I?

As Kobi explained above, there are real repercussions to us, (lesbians), when we allow the word that describes us to become meaningless. Go ahead and call me a bigot.

Call you a bigot, nah. Maybe you’re an ophidiophobe. Maybe you're Indiana Jones for all I know.

Seriously though I just find it impossible to tell someone they can’t be who they feel they are. It makes me feel bad. That’s all I meant. And that’s just me. Nobody else needs to feel that way.

I don't think a word always becomes meaningless when it is stretched a tad. Maybe it's just me, but my identity as a lesbian has more meaning for me than just who I sleep with. It is not just a sexual identity. It has political connotations and deep herstory. At least for me.

Kobi 08-31-2011 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heart (Post 409709)
Kobi - I'm a lesbian because I sleep with women, but I have also had erotic and sexual relationships with men. So, as I've been told, I'm not a "goldstar" lesbian. In your view, in order to be able to identify as a lesbian without somehow muddying the waters or detracting from your lesbianism, or threatening gay rights, does one have to be "goldstar?"

Also, I don't happen to be one of those that essentializes my lesbian identity. Meaning, its not as simple as "I was born this way." I think I was actually born with the capacity for a fluid orientation and I have landed on lesbian at this point in my life for a whole host of reasons. (And I don't happen to think that it not being a choice will in any way protect us from religious fanatics or anti-gay zealots). So, in order to support your status and rights as a lesbian, does one have to believe that it's not a choice?

I see that I am now basically asking the very same question that SA asked. "Am I lesbian enough for you?" Ironic.



Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.





Jess 08-31-2011 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citybutch (Post 409727)
*sigh*

I am going to post this one more time and then I give up... LOL... Been making the same point for oh so many years and it just gets lost...

Anyhoo:

"Woman
From the Old English "Wyfmon," meaning, "wife.""

http://www.westegg.com/etymology/

I dunno ... the roots of words matter to me... It's why in so many ways I love to reclaim the words like Crone... which they believe comes from early dutch for "old ewe"... To Crone means to "pick out and reject the old ewes from a flock" according to the OED. Subsequently applied in a derogatory sense to old females (and in the patriarchal way.. old women). To ME this is a reclaimable word.... or Hag (oh, Hag is MARVELOUS!), "1....an evil spirit, demon, or infernal being in female form; applied in early use to the Furies, Harpies, etc.... 2.... a witch.." OED. There are so many entries on Hag!

My friend Mary was so into reclaiming these words... and made magic out of them. They came alive with her....

While I totally understand your disdain for the origins of the word "woman", I still can not find the OED current definition of "woman", so I do not understand why it is so offensive today.

Much of the discord in this thread has been about the "traditional" definition of "lesbian". I would assert then, that perhaps we should also toss out female, because it is offensive to me to be just a being that produces eggs.


ETA: I just saw that you had responded to my question. Thank you. I am growing weary of this conversation. It will just continue to go in circles. It is not binary. ;)

citybutch 08-31-2011 08:58 PM

*sigh*... this is why I like conversations better face to face... We could have a lot of fun discussing this... I can see where my next response would be misinterpreted and so I will step aside. :)

Maybe someday we can have the conversation in person, Jess... :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess (Post 409738)
While I totally understand your disdain for the origins of the word "woman", I still can not find the OED current definition of "woman", so I do not understand why it is so offensive today.

Much of the discord in this thread has been about the "traditional" definition of "lesbian". I would assert then, that perhaps we should also toss out female, because it is offensive to me to be just a being that produces eggs.


Jess 08-31-2011 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by citybutch (Post 409743)
*sigh*... this is why I like conversations better face to face... We could have a lot of fun discussing this... I can see where my next response would be misinterpreted and so I will step aside. :)

Maybe someday we can have the conversation in person, Jess... :)

Always down for that! I agree, sometimes it is only through face to face that we can begin to lower our defenses enough to truly "hear" one another. Because, believe me, I am laughing at a lot of this.. LOL... Mostly, the faces I feel cross my face when I just go " huh?"

Thanks again!

Heart 08-31-2011 09:14 PM

Kobi, I think I'm pretty clear about what I stand for. I guess I just don't have a very either/or sensibility. It's more of a both/and sensibility. If that feels like flip flopping to you, so be it. I notice you didn't engage with any of my questions.

Jess, what I was trying to express was something that I was saying when SA was feeling that her identity as a lesbian was being challenged in this thread: That our individual twists and turns, (including who we are sleeping with at any given moment), tells us very little. This goes back to one of my original arguments (just to be consistent Kobi), about how circling around and around identity (labels, roles, who one sleeps with, etc), is politically unproductive. What concerns me are the broader issues of what happens to those of us that the patriarchal world sees as lesbians, and more broadly, as women.

I hope that's clearer.

ETA: Also, when I said this: I do not get why any of these labels based upon whom I'm sleeping with at any given moment, has any bearing upon my politics or my political activism," I was responding to what I felt was implied in Kobi's prior post, that if one has slept with men, one might be politically suspect. Of course, I am aware that this is a common perception in separatist communities, and actually I understand where it comes from -- the reality of patriarchy means women will be suspicious of other women who have consorted with men.


Heart

atomiczombie 08-31-2011 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobi (Post 409737)


Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.


Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Kobi 08-31-2011 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomiczombie (Post 409763)
Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?


Well lets see. I said:

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

I dont see any mention of sleep partner.


atomiczombie 08-31-2011 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobi (Post 409768)

Well lets see. I said:

Heart,

I enjoy your posts, your intellect, your knowledge.

I'm not quite as fond of the general flip flopping I see in them.

Makes it hard to get a handle on exactly what it is you stand for.

I dont see any mention of sleep partner.


Mkay, so may I ask what you specifically mean by her flip-flopping?

Heart 08-31-2011 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomiczombie (Post 409763)
Are you really questioning what Heart stands for based on who she sleeps with?

Yes, I do wonder what it is that Kobi sees as flip-flopping. I actually have no problem with people re-inscribing their identities any number of times in any number of ways. I never said I did. In fact, I asserted in this thread that I think people can and should self-identify, and I accepted SA's self identifying as a lesbian regardless of who she was sleeping with (transmen, etc). So I don't see where I flip-flopped. I think Kobi must have had some expectation or assumption about my lesbian identity that I did not fulfill. But that's not my problem.

There is one thing though that I will cop to just to be very clear about where my focus lies. Perhaps this will clear things up a bit for Kobi: What agitates me is not whether a lesbian sleeps with a man. What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.

So, having said that as clearly as I can, I realize that its not about the thread topic of "lesbian pride," and I will bow out so as not to derail further.

Maybe I'll start a thread.

Peace,
Heart

betenoire 08-31-2011 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess (Post 409700)
I think and have always understood the definition of lesbian to be a word of action. Lesbians "actively" ( vigorously and lovingly) have sex with other women.

There is another word for women/ females who actively have sex with women AND men. That word is bisexual.

Most folks I know who engage in sex with women, men and trans-persons call themselves "queer" or "pansexual".

I hope it's okay that I post here for a moment.

I really think it's more complicated than "actively have sex with other women". I mean, honestly, if that were all it took then I would be a Lesbian. I mean, maybe functionally I am - but functionality doesn't count for shit with me.

I have been sleeping with, and exclusively with, my lawfully wedded wedded person (who, incidentally, is a woman) for I think 6 years now. Historically, prior to getting together with my spouse, I slept with both men and women. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that I will ever sleep with a man again (presuming that my current relationship lasts the rest of my life). However, I am still not a Lesbian. I have slept with far more women than I have men, but I'm still not a Lesbian.

It's got to be about more than just fucking. It's got to be about intent, and political alignment, and intentional political alignment. Do you feel me?

(Also - big ups to Heart. I liked where she asked (to paraphrase) "If I'm not sleeping with ANYBODY - what am I?")

Sorry for crashing in on your party, peoples. I do that on occasion.

Cin 09-01-2011 05:53 AM

I don’t know if I ever stopped laying claim to lesbian pride. I don’t think so. Although I did at times feel like lesbian pride needed to reclaim me.

For me, being a lesbian and a feminist are inexorably linked and I am proud to label myself a lesbian feminist. When I examine my ideas about what is a lesbian and what is a feminist I find myself thinking about them in the ideological sense, although, hopefully, I am also a lesbian feminist in the practical sense as well. But I can see a place for ideological lesbian feminists. Although I suppose defining them as allies could work almost as well.

I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives.

Of course there is oppression enough to go around and while an understanding of sexism, misogyny and the patriarchy is extremely useful (I would say necessary), the focus of everyone’s work is not going to be on that particular form of oppression. And just as an understanding of sexism and misogyny is invaluable for all those who battle oppression in any form, it is also useful for lesbian feminists to understand, in depth, other forms of oppression as well.

There is always softness at the borders. Where things intersect slippage often occurs. The edges of things often feel dangerous because of this natural fluidity. Yet, understandably, it is also the place where perception is heightened. I suppose it is only natural that people feel the need to patrol borders. Nobody wants to be taken over or erased. But I think it is much much more difficult than we could even imagine to eliminate or erase things. Change though I suppose is inevitable.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 AM.

ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018