Feminism has always included men- it is defined as equality of both sexes. Yes, there exist feminist separatists (just as there are those that base the world's worth upon that which is male)- but they are not and never have been the bulk of the various feminist movements.

Many of us have and have raised male children and as parents realized that a sexist society is not good for either females or males- society at large. However, women have traditionally received the shit end of the stick. That does not mean, however, that men, male, masculine is viewed as negative. The institutions of patriarchy are the problem, not individual men. The institution of marriage has evolved past many of the patriarchal limits it held in the past (lots of new data on marriage being published).

I sometimes get a little upset with many discussions on feminism completely focusing on middle class, white, childless perspectives. This too, is just not the reality any longer. Feminism has evolved and grown along with the changes in demographics of the US (including gender studies) and just cannot be viewed in the same old ways.

I think "reading-in" is part and parcel to the medium.... But yes, the separatism-in-my-direction did happen. It's okay.

I have become somewhat separatist on a number of so-called "women's issues". Reproductive rights is one of them. I use to be hugely invested in that issue, but I came to see that that this was an issue that potentially reproductive women needed to take the lead on. My reasons for that are complex, idiosyncratic and include the fact that I was spreading myself thin on issues that did not directly speak to my life circumstances, barring rape.



I mean lesbian women.


I was also very invested personally and professionally in the shelter movement, at one time. Now, I've opened my home to shelter women. I've had four women and several children stay at my home over the past two + years for, anywhere, from several weeks to six months.



Yeah, I'm good with being called a separatist, too. Even proud of it, though it's only provisionally true. I don't mind being called anything for that matter. I know who, and what, I am.

Yes, the amount of misinformation, herstoric ignorance and just plain fact spinning is amazing. Clarification on that matters to me in conversations like this one because so many people, even within the LGBTQ "community", mistakenly think of separatism as anti-male. It's not; it's woman-centricism.



Some of the issues in which I'm invested include the same constituency.



I remember a period when many "straight women" identified as lesbian as a political statement. It was a lovely gesture but not problem free because, of course, they weren't lesbians, or were only provisionally so at best. For one thing, it created the impression that lesbian was an unstable identity. This reinforces ideas about curing gayness.... It also created the superficial and false impression that women had already overcome the distortions patriarchy creates in female-on-female relationships. (The issue of female relationships is an unfinished constructive effort which I would like to see become a priority).

"Straight women" identifying as lesbians, did nothing to address the fact that many of those straight women were hetero-male-relational caretakers. Lesbians are gyna-relational caretakers. That's a huge difference, especially under patriarchy..... Patriarchy takes care of men. It only takes care of women who take care of men. That leaves gyna-relational lesbians to fend for themselves, and one another.

"[Male] comradeship/fraternity survives by draining women of their energy, female friendship is a bonding which is energizing/gynergizing. Female bonding is threatening to comradeship, because it is a relationship which ignores the brotherhood and exposes its relationships with women as property arrangements." - Nancy B. Howell (Nobody has to believe this, it's enough that I do.)

The movement-of-women is still blocked by patriarchy. It's all I can do to take care of myself and other gyna-relational lesbians. Even that can be a tremendous strain, as in when I was fighting a hetero-male-centric family court system with limited financial resources and emotional support.

I, and the lesbians I politik with, are seeking an ontological metamorphosis. That being, that women become the final cause of women under patriarchy. It's the only way I see to chip away AT patriarchy. It's become less and less a priority under post-modernist theories. Do I know that what I am saying is not popular in some circles- you betcha.


I don't know what a "goldstar" lesbian is, perhaps because I've never met one. Don't expect to, either. That's okay, too.

Interesting article by a butch about MWMF, trans inclusion, generational divides, and queer organizing.


http://www.bilerico.com/2011/09/an_o...ntent=FaceBook

First of all- Holy hell! So many labels! The politics of sex and gender have befuddled me since my teens.

I ID as GODDESS! Yep, thats right and it has nothing to do with my dissociation with patriarchy. I'm not any ONE thing but a clear evolution of many things. As I move through the universe I shift, change, explore and to be honest I wouldn't allow anything to influence my desires.

This is totally correct in my world perception. I too have a son and males I love. I often feel a need to teach them to love. I actually know LOTS of male feminist who love, honor and adore women. IMO feminine energy is Divine. This does not mean male energy is disregarded but not primary. You can't compare matriarchy with patriarchy. They each act differently or at less in my matriarchal world.

I find it hard to call myself a lesbian. I find it hard to call myself anything, however I do love and honor feminine energy wherever it is present.

Hi Tru Texan. I am also a proud lesbian and a butch, as well as a feminist.

Hopefully the debating and the heated discussing helps us to understand each other better. People see things differently. And that's hard to come to terms with. Especially when most of us are so sure that the way we see it is the way it is. It's tricky to make room for beliefs that are so contrary to one's own. I think venues such as this makes that happen for many of us over time. Maybe not for every issue every time, but enough that it makes the debate worth the effort.

Some people ID as female but not as a woman. Their sex is female but their gender is not woman.

Hopefully this helps.

Uhm, that just confused me even more?!??
Can you give me an example of a person in general, so I can fully grasp this concept?
I don't get it, I mean how can you ID as female but not as woman?
If I say I am female ID"d butch on this site, what exactly does that mean now that I am totally confused. Does that mean to another person reading my ID here that I don't equate my female to mean I am woman?
HELP???? And thank you Miss Tick for answering and trying to help me understand atleast this one particular IDying.

It probably involves interpreting "female" as a word referring to biological sex and "woman" as a word referring to gender. I've seen that before.

Female usually refers to biological sex and woman refers to gender. However, a lot of people on this site use female to refer to gender as well as biological sex, mostly because some butches consider themselves to be female but not a woman.

I personally don't use the term female-identified to describe myself, but it is frequently used here. However, when someone says they are female-identified, it doesn't necessary mean they don't consider themselves to be a woman. Some do, some don't. Sorry I can't make this any clearer because it isn't clear cut. It varies from person to person.

Reclaiming Lesbian Pride
 

[QUOTE=Heart;409361]You know.... maybe it's valid to ask oneself if one is appropriating or co-opting an identity.




Wow. I didn't understand what you were talking about at first but in the second reading it became much clearer. I hope the following is along the same thought lines as your post, but I doubt I can recreate your "ripples in a pond" writing style. It was very unique.
My ex was a concrete, dispassionate thinker, especially when it came to her fixed version of butch and femme roles. They were set in concrete that she mixed before we met, and she would never discuss the topic if it meant straying off of her masterly definition.
For a femme, she was very competitive with me and she had to be the top dog of our relationship. I didn't get it, but I loved her and went along with it.
Our B/F definitions never matched, but with her I had to choose my battles.
Now that I'm free, I realize that I am a lot more fluid about who I want to be from one day to the next.
Though I have always been sexually attracted to "pretty girls" who were usually femme, I think I would love to meet a pretty girl who was butch.
Just the sound of it makes me smile. Even a handsome one might do. Who can say?
Thanks for the thought provoking post.