Open Letter: Dear Femme

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by blush

I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out that gay male groups do this as well?

I think that just as women encompass masculine traits, men emcompass feminine traits. That was my read on it.

[Kosmo]

Originally Posted by evolveme

I love what you're saying here, and it's important to me too. I don't want to get caught in the trap of negative stereotyping, especially not of other feminine people.

But I posted earlier about how female and feminine people are socialized to "be good" (so that they are more easily controlled and thus more palatable to male/masculine others) and how this is so overwhelming that it forces natural tendencies to aggression into what is termed relational aggression.

You can witness these types of behaviors as early as kindergarten, even pre-school.

Girls will gather and isolate. They will shun and gossip. They will punish one another by way of social mechanisms (you can even see these behaviors displayed among certain gay male groups). It takes a strong sensibility and a compassionate heart to avoid these behaviors, because they too are heavily socialized.

ETA: I think it's much more useful to understand it than to rage about the tendency.

Originally Posted by blush

I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out that gay male groups do this as well?

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I think that just as women encompass masculine traits, men emcompass feminine traits. That was my read on it.

Not sure either. I read it as certain gay male group behaviors = shun and gossip. Shunning and gossiping can hardly be a female only trait. Maybe it's thread topic specific. From my experience and perspective, males gossip just as much if not more (they have more opportunity for it; again, my experience only). Females seem to engage more in comparison discussions (I am in position at work to overhear a lot *where's my iPod?*) . As for shunning, not really sure. I've had experience to be shunned by both female traited and male traited people.

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by Kosmo

Not sure either. I read it as certain gay male group behaviors = shun and gossip. Shunning and gossiping can hardly be a female only trait. Maybe it's thread topic specific. From my experience and perspective, males gossip just as much if not more (they have more opportunity for it; again, my experience only). Females seem to engage more in comparison discussions (I am in position at work to overhear a lot *where's my iPod?*) . As for shunning, not really sure. I've had experience to be shunned by both female traited and male traited people.

This is for both Blush and Kosmo, and really anyone else that thought I might be asserting something negative(?) about a particular set of gay males.

Relational Aggression is a theory of social psychology. I believe that whenever it is not acceptable or ALLOWABLE for the human animal to attend to their aggressions openly as masculine people more often do (via threats, intimidation, posturing or acts of socially condoned violence) that she or he will attend to them in a relational way. So not only do we see these behaviors in the culture of certain gay males, but also in the business/organizational culture.

I simply didn't want to go into all of that as it isn't relative to the feminine people on the whole and how women and girls are primarily socialized.

[Jess]

Feeling a need to post something.. anything just to say thank you to all of you for just being. The willingness and openness with which this thread has progressed is absolutely beautiful, powerful and passionate.

I love my grown ass woman, the "femme" to my "butch" not for her support of "me" but for the exacting entity that she is. She is strong, tender, gracious, protective, elegant, driven. My girl and my grown ass woman all day, everyday.

I love you all for being exactly whom you all are and for what my perfection is as well. For me, THIS is what the butch-femme dynamic is about. It isn't so much about completing the duality as it is the reverence for that which is familiar strange, reflected and reciprocated between the two.

This is one of those times when my words will surely fail me, so I will remain brief.

In awe,
Jess

[Hudson]

Originally Posted by SyrJess

Feeling a need to post something.. anything just to say thank you to all of you for just being. The willingness and openness with which this thread has progressed is absolutely beautiful, powerful and passionate.

I love my grown ass woman, the "femme" to my "butch" not for her support of "me" but for the exacting entity that she is. She is strong, tender, gracious, protective, elegant, driven. My girl and my grown ass woman all day, everyday.

I love you all for being exactly whom you all are and for what my perfection is as well. For me, THIS is what the butch-femme dynamic is about. It isn't so much about completing the duality as it is the reverence for that which is familiar strange, reflected and reciprocated between the two.

This is one of those times when my words will surely fail me, so I will remain brief.

In awe,
Jess

I'm curious then, SyrJess, why you would refer to her as "the 'femme' to your 'butch"?

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by Ben-Her

I'm curious then, SyrJess, why you would refer to her as "the 'femme' to your 'butch"?

See, I saw this as problematic too, Jess. Even though you go on to say, "not for her support of me, but for the exact entity that she is."

While I love the love and respect you are showing her here, I also want to see you simply allow her the autonomy and agency she deserves (not that I believe you are necessarily disrespecting her). I understand that "the dance" has us thinking often of the bright space between us, the sharp contrast. But what was it about her that you loved before she was yours?

Who is she fundamentally? How can you define her without mentioning a role she inhabits (lover, sister, mother, friend)?

Tell us about her independent of you or even what she means to you.

I want to know if we are ever seen clearly enough in the skin we're in, or if we're always bleeding into our roles.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by evolveme

See, I saw this as problematic too, Jess. Even though you go on to say, "not for her support of me, but for the exact entity that she is."

While I love the love and respect you are showing her here, I also want to see you simply allow her the autonomy and agency she deserves (not that I believe you are necessarily disrespecting her). I understand that "the dance" has us thinking often of the bright space between us, the sharp contrast. But what was it about her that you loved before she was yours?

Who is she fundamentally? How can you define her without mentioning a role she inhabits (lover, sister, mother, friend)?

Tell us about her independent of you or even what she means to you.

I want to know if we are ever seen clearly enough in the skin we're in, or if we're always bleeding into our roles.

I don't allow her anything. She is, therefore, she deserves. She was a "strong, tender, gracious, protective, elegant, driven" woman BEFORE we met. This is whom I was attracted to then and it hasn't changed.

I knew my words would fail me and in an attempt to simply say thank you, THIS is how we can easily become silenced. ( Some folks asked for examples. Here is one). Sometimes, as it has been pointed out, we use different vernaculars or even "less words" to say something poignant. I said thank you, I will leave it at that.

[Linus]

e, as I read your response to Ben-Hur I was thinking of my wife, K, and how she has evolved in her definition of femme. I have found that it evolves over time as she does and she redefines it again and again in her own terms. She has many roles (i.e., student, wife, partner, friend, lover, social worker-to-be, daughter, sister) and desires (mostly related to wanting to be a mom and license social worker as well as to have me permanently around her) but in her core, from my POV, there remains that femme that comes through -- both in the superficial visible and the deep inner being.

I wanted to find a way to define this and so I did my usual Google search. This time I entered in "define femme" and hit upon the nefarious Wikipedia's (yes, yes, I'm the biggest advocate of staying away from there but I got distracted and.. oh! Shiny!) definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme and was surprised. Lots of mention of what a butch is but very little mention of what a femme is (in fact, unless my old eyes are failing me I can't find a true definition in there other than the fact that the term is a derivative of the french term for woman). HUH? A woman's woman? Maybe that's it.

She is what a woman strives to be: strong in her own right and knows when to let her guard down. I'd almost say that my aunts and grandmother fit into this except they miss that one last key point: they are straight. Part of what makes a femme a "woman's woman" is that she sees love in others that society turns their back on. She is, to me, stronger than narrowness of society.

My brain has more to add, if it's ok, but I cannot find the words. It'll come, I'm sure. (not like I'm known for brevity )

[blush]

Originally Posted by evolveme

See, I saw this as problematic too, Jess. Even though you go on to say, "not for her support of me, but for the exact entity that she is."

While I love the love and respect you are showing her here, I also want to see you simply allow her the autonomy and agency she deserves (not that I believe you are necessarily disrespecting her). I understand that "the dance" has us thinking often of the bright space between us, the sharp contrast. But what was it about her that you loved before she was yours?

Who is she fundamentally? How can you define her without mentioning a role she inhabits (lover, sister, mother, friend)?

Tell us about her independent of you or even what she means to you.

I want to know if we are ever seen clearly enough in the skin we're in, or if we're always bleeding into our roles.

Gawd, I want to needlepoint your last sentence on a pillow.

And I've been thinking a lot about what you've said about roles.

And that got me thinking about my child. If I were to ask her to describe me without referencing the fact that I am her mother, would she be able to do it to my satisfaction?

No.

If I were to ask a friend to describe me without referencing my role or my contribution to their life as a friend, would they be able to do it to my satisfaction?

Probably not.

Your post resonated with me, e, but I don't know why. SyrJess's post resonated with me, but I don't know why.

My question is this:
Is it asking too much for our masculine counterparts to separate themselves from their devotion to us as life partners(or what-have-yous) and "objectively" describe us without mentioning our role in the relationship?

[hippieflowergirl]

SNIP...

Originally Posted by evolveme

I want to know if we are ever seen clearly enough in the skin we're in, or if we're always bleeding into our roles.

day-um!

[wolfwalker]

While I love the love and respect you are showing her here, I also want to see you simply allow her the autonomy and agency she deserves (not that I believe you are necessarily disrespecting her). I understand that "the dance" has us thinking often of the bright space between us, the sharp contrast. But what was it about her that you loved before she was yours?

Autonomy???????? Do any of you know Jess and Christie?

I do and Jess loves her from here to the next universe and she, jess. Jess doesn't to give her autonomy. She is a grown ass woman and fully ready willing and able to provide her own autonomy. If anyone even thought about trying to take that away. I will gladly call 911 for ya. or send flowers LOLOLOL



wolfwalker

[apretty]

this makes sense to me:

Originally Posted by evolveme

Tell us about her independent of you or even what she means to you.

I want to know if we are ever seen clearly enough in the skin we're in, or if we're always bleeding into our roles.

lord i hope so! (and i really think so) ...but we can't do this (define us/others) while identifying ourselves dependent on anything/one else.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by evolveme

See, I saw this as problematic too, Jess. Even though you go on to say, "not for her support of me, but for the exact entity that she is."

While I love the love and respect you are showing her here, I also want to see you simply allow her the autonomy and agency she deserves (not that I believe you are necessarily disrespecting her). I understand that "the dance" has us thinking often of the bright space between us, the sharp contrast. But what was it about her that you loved before she was yours?

Who is she fundamentally? How can you define her without mentioning a role she inhabits (lover, sister, mother, friend)?

Tell us about her independent of you or even what she means to you.

I want to know if we are ever seen clearly enough in the skin we're in, or if we're always bleeding into our roles.

Hi there.. I wanted to take a moment and apologize ( if necessary) for my earlier response if it was taken as any way other than brief. I admittedly felt that my words felt picked apart and focused on rather than my intent, which was to just say " wow... y'all rawk!"
I know in hindsight ( after several, MANY re-readings) the questions you posed are really great questions and would be a great thread for both butch and femme folks to ask of themselves regarding how they "see" their partners "outside of their "roles" " . I never wanted to derail the purpose of this thread, which is why I never responded more.
I would like to ask evolveme to start such a thread if she feels so moved, because the words she chose to use in the asking really did give me pause to consider these things. I would also love to see a thread that that might expound on how our "roles" ( not necessarily butch-femme per se) do contribute to how we define others as well as self.
" seeing ourselves clearly" is the beginning of embracing ourselves. Or is it the result of embracing that we are truly able to "see" ?
At any rate.. Thank you. and I mean it this time!!!!!

[Lynn]

I truly love and respect the duality of a butch-femme relationship. It's the type of relationship I choose, and I find it exhilarating and intoxicating. I know that my partner reveres me and derives much of her identity from the nature of our relationship. But, I still struggle with the idea that I am defined in relation to her. "Her butch to my femme." Without the two, one is incomplete. That is why I end up concluding that my femmeness is a trait, not an identity, even with the butches in my life nodding affirmatively to the idea that I am "a" femme. I can't be "a" femme until my femme isn't dependent on anyone's butch, neither their approval nor their partnership.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Ben-Her

I'm curious then, SyrJess, why you would refer to her as "the 'femme' to your 'butch"?

Basically, because this is a butch-femme website. I was referring to my experience within this dynamic.

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by bonne-maman

I agree strongly. All of this, "I am not good enough" crap is part of the human condition that we play out in all environments in our lives at times. We have to work at acknowledging ourselves as whole and good all of our lives.

BonneMaman, I actually think humans as a whole *tend* to think they are not good enough. I'd go into a long diatribe about competition in all things (and I do like competition) that make children feel like failures if they don't bring home straight A's.

I remember getting HYSTERICAL (no, I am not inflating that) over a C on my report card. I was sure I would never go to college and never amount to anything.

I was 10.

I think I've dragged that grade baggage into my world now. Am I just a "C" femme if I speak my mind? Do I get a "B" if I wear a dress instead of slacks? Is it "A" behaviour to bake a pie?

Originally Posted by Passionaria

I think it is important to note, that we did not create these conditions, we were born into them. So, do we owe allegiance to these false pretenses? What purpose does keeping women in competition serve on a sociological level? Control of women??????

I think that worse than being born into them, many of use (myself included) perpetuate them. I nearly smacked myself for correcting my 8 year old niece with "nice girls don't do that." WTH? Right out of my mouth. In front of my sister and cousins who all nodded in agreement.

And the feminist dyke trapped inside was raging about what I'd just done. She did not get a chance to correct that. I hope I will live to be a better example for my darling niece.

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I don't feel that the syndrome of gossip, shunning, or the naming of the slut is entirely based in misogyny. I think it is first and foremost Fear based. So many of us have found a place where we belong after a lifetime of NOT belonging.

As someone who was one of the ones who did shun you and ostracize you, A, I can only say thank you for forgiving me. I bought into negative gossip (and participated in it.) It is one of the reasons I have been working on myself to NOT gossip/backstab/talk ugly about others. I fail. Oh Gods how I fail. I fail at this so much but I will try to correct myself immediately.

I am not proud of how I treated you, but I am glad we made up.

Now about you dating a femme.

Originally Posted by bonne-maman

I just think if ya don't wanna be friends with someone, ya don't, like, point it all out and such. "if you can't say something good about your neighbor, don't say nothin at all"

That's the Thumper quote for me. "If you can't say nothing nice, don't say nothing at all." Need to tattoo it to my TONGUE. laughing

Originally Posted by evolveme

Girls will gather and isolate. They will shun and gossip. They will punish one another by way of social mechanisms (you can even see these behaviors displayed among certain gay male groups). It takes a strong sensibility and a compassionate heart to avoid these behaviors, because they too are heavily socialized.

ETA: I think it's much more useful to understand it than to rage about the tendency.

Do you think we (girls) were taught to internalize our rage as opposed to hit or fight physically like boys so that we were more controllable? I mean not necessarily intentionally in this day and age, but back when this "feminine corralling" started? I am not sure I'm making sense.

I do think women punish one another by shunning them. I don't know what men do. But the ostracization is stunningly effective on many of us because it feeds directly into that fear of not being good enough. Not an "A" femme.

Originally Posted by Bit

People have beliefs that are vitally important to them--usually they involve "Truth" in some manifestation--and they seem to feel driven to keep others from expressing anything different.

This spoke so directly to my heart, Cath. I had to requote it. Thank you.

Originally Posted by julieisafemme

Don't judge yourself so much. Take a chance. Put yourself out there. You can't hide behind your wall forever. Or I guess you can but look at all the wonderful things that have happened since you have taken it down, just a little bit at a time!

Oh how I loved this letter. I can't begin to count the ways. Julie, hang in there. Check around to see if there is a femme tea or anything in your area. One of my most vivid "wakeup" moments was in a Hamburger Mary's in Orange County when a certain superfemme smacked me upside the head and told me to stop wearing baggy clothes. And then proceeded to buy me a t-shirt 2 sizes smaller than I normally wore. OY! She's a mean one, that bobble-headed girl.

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by Arwen

[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3][COLOR=Purple]
Do you think we (girls) were taught to internalize our rage as opposed to hit or fight physically like boys so that we were more controllable? I mean not necessarily intentionally in this day and age, but back when this "feminine corralling" started? I am not sure I'm making sense.

I do think women punish one another by shunning them. I don't know what men do. But the ostracization is stunningly effective on many of us because it feeds directly into that fear of not being good enough. Not an "A" femme.

What I believe is that the result of teaching women/girls to "be good" and "not fight" was that they were made easier to control. What I believe is that the primary incentive was an evolutionary one: if females acted out aggressions physically they would be too likely to miscarry. This would directly impact the survival of our species in a negative way at a time when it mattered, i.e. a long ass time ago when we hadn't yet overfuckingpopulated the planet.

In this way, I believe that tools of the patriarchy, and the patriarchy itself, arose out of an evolutionary incentive. Their time has come and gone.

This belief is not a popular one. I'm sure you can see why.

And I could talk a long time about it, but I won't. <cheesy grin>

[blush]

Originally Posted by SyrJess

Feeling a need to post something.. anything just to say thank you to all of you for just being. The willingness and openness with which this thread has progressed is absolutely beautiful, powerful and passionate.

I love my grown ass woman, the "femme" to my "butch" not for her support of "me" but for the exacting entity that she is. She is strong, tender, gracious, protective, elegant, driven. My girl and my grown ass woman all day, everyday.

I love you all for being exactly whom you all are and for what my perfection is as well. For me, THIS is what the butch-femme dynamic is about. It isn't so much about completing the duality as it is the reverence for that which is familiar strange, reflected and reciprocated between the two.

This is one of those times when my words will surely fail me, so I will remain brief.

In awe,
Jess

Jess,
This is a beautiful testament to femmes, and to YOUR femme.

[blush]

Originally Posted by evolveme

This is for both Blush and Kosmo, and really anyone else that thought I might be asserting something negative(?) about a particular set of gay males.

Relational Aggression is a theory of social psychology. I believe that whenever it is not acceptable or ALLOWABLE for the human animal to attend to their aggressions openly as masculine people more often do (via threats, intimidation, posturing or acts of socially condoned violence) that she or he will attend to them in a relational way. So not only do we see these behaviors in the culture of certain gay males, but also in the business/organizational culture.

I simply didn't want to go into all of that as it isn't relative to the feminine people on the whole and how women and girls are primarily socialized.

I didn't think anything negative, it just jumped out at me.

I'm familiar with that theory, although I probably need to brush up on it.

I would call it into question when applied to the queer community.

Come to Austin for coffee and we'll debate, yes?

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by blush

I didn't think anything negative, it just jumped out at me.

I'm familiar with that theory, although I probably need to brush up on it.

I would call it into question when applied to the queer community.

Come to Austin for coffee and we'll debate, yes?

Only if you bake me a pie.