Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Heart]

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Heart

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

I also agree with some things you said, Heart, but it seems as though the right has succeeded in its attempt to divide and conquer.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Hunter Green

I also agree with some things you said, Heart, but it seems as though the right has succeeded in its attempt to divide and conquer.

Hi, Hunter Green. I'm glad you joined the conversation.

It's not just the "right" who has succeeded in its attempts to divide and conquer. We've done it to ourselves by placing certain subjects off limits for discussion. It's as Heart said:

Originally Posted by Heart

....gender theory, at least as enacted in queer communities, seems to lack any political analysis of institutionalized power....

There is is no analysis of institutionalized power in gender theory.

Analysis of gender theory isn't tolerated in most quarters.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Those who began by investigating the construct of maleness seem to have ended by fetishizing it instead. It's quite clear to me that although the intent may have once been to destabilize the gender binary, gender studies have had great success in promoting it....

As if there wasn't enough fetishizing of maleness to begin with ! ! ! !

Creating terms like "masculine of center" does not destabilize the gender binary, it reinforces it. How many people outside of the LGBTQ community (or, inside of it for that matter) make a distinction between maleness and masculine? I mean, REALLY.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

...Is there something transgressive about a female bodied person claiming that they are male because they resemble traditional males? Isn't that just saying that those who look and act traditionally male must BE male? What happened to dismantling assumptions about traditionally gendered behaviours?....

This statement cuts to the core of the issue, doesn't it....

In the absence of a epistemological consideration of gender theory, all that can be said of it is that it's a self-justifying, inaccessible, meme that reinforces stereotypes. There is nothing remotely transgressive about that.


meme = information held in an individual's mind, which is passed on to another individual's mind.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?

[Chazz]

CherylNYC, I, too, have been a gender transgressor my entire life.

In recent years, I've felt like an exile caught in the cross hairs of two competing, though disconcertingly similar, gender binaries - hetero-normity and queer-normity.

If hetero-patriarchists and queer theorists, alike, see me as transgressive because of my buzz cut, skinny jeans and Harley boots.... where do I go to be seen as gender congruent woman?

[Kobi]

Thanks for the links.

I am having a bit of trouble articulating what i am looking for.

The purity I am seeking isnt in a movement per se. It is purity in getting back to myself. Have had to compromise a bit much of myself of late. I was referring to getting back to my roots.

Originally Posted by Heart

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Those who began by investigating the construct of maleness seem to have ended by fetishizing it instead. It's quite clear to me that although the intent may have once been to destabilise the gender binary, gender studies have had great success in promoting it.

Is there something transgressive about a female bodied person claiming that they are male because they resemble traditional males? Isn't that just saying that those who look and act traditionally male must BE male? What happened to dismantling assumptions about traditionally gendered behaviours?

I see a great deal of this. The construct, within gender studies, is that if a woman likes, for instance, trucks, baseball, fishing, beer and power tools that person is 'masculine of center'. If said person then goes ahead and transitions, this is supposed to be transgressive and demolishing the gender binary. How is it though since it appears to recapitulate the existing gender construction of male = trucks, sports, fishing, beer and tools?

I would argue, like you do, Cheryl that I am transgressing gender boundaries/roles because, even though my passions lie in typically 'male' things such as the physical sciences, Linux and the Free/Open Source Software movement generally, skepticism and a certain holding to living my life rationally none of that makes me 'male' or 'masculine'. The problem, in other words, does not lie in my being a woman who is a geek rather, it lies in society defining certain things which are not really gendered as having gender traits. I don't 'think like a man', I think like a scientist.

Originally Posted by Heart

Kobi, feminism never died and there are many many feminists and feminist groups engaged in action across the globe.

Start with Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/...-against-women, and take a look at the book I have linked in my sig line (by Nick Kristof, a feminist man).

I understand the urge, but I don't think a "pure" form of feminism exists. As has been talked about, feminism as a movement has been guilty of racism, classism, even misogyny. No social movement is without its serious blind spots and drawbacks. None can be glorified.

Heart

This is merely to say that feminism is a movement made of people who came to feminism with their own predilections and cultural baggage intact. Given the time period where NOW was formed, it would have been remarkable if feminism had *not* had a non-trivial amount of racism, certainly, and homophobia. This is not to excuse anything, it is merely to remind that people are products--to some greater or lesser degree--of their time and the movements they spawn are also products of that time.

Cheers
Aj

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I see a great deal of this. The construct, within gender studies, is that if a woman likes, for instance, trucks, baseball, fishing, beer and power tools that person is 'masculine of center'. If said person then goes ahead and transitions, this is supposed to be transgressive and demolishing the gender binary. How is it though since it appears to recapitulate the existing gender construction of male = trucks, sports, fishing, beer and tools?

I would argue, like you do, Cheryl that I am transgressing gender boundaries/roles because, even though my passions lie in typically 'male' things such as the physical sciences, Linux and the Free/Open Source Software movement generally, skepticism and a certain holding to living my life rationally none of that makes me 'male' or 'masculine'. The problem, in other words, does not lie in my being a woman who is a geek rather, it lies in society defining certain things which are not really gendered as having gender traits. I don't 'think like a man', I think like a scientist....


Cheers
Aj

This is one of the most obvious contradictions of the gender theory bandwagon. I shake my head in disbelief every time I meet a young person who I would peg as butch, who I find claims a male ID and then talks about how transgressive it is to do so. The young person inevitably then goes on to try to prove how 'male' they are by enumerating all of the ways they fit into a traditionally male stereotype. I think it must be a case of the Emperor's new clothes that others fail to point out the obvious.

This is a subject near and dear to me. That said, I feel a little guilty going on an extended tear about the way male IDed people who, in another time, would likely have been lesbians and are now not making sense to me. No matter where my lesbian ID falls in the world of fashionable theorising, my ID isn't changing. We're talking about pride in that ID. Those who've eschewed the ID of which I'm proud may or may not make sense to me, but that doesn't change who I am.

The academic pendulum is probably swinging back. It always does. Those whose work was considered young and edgy are abandoned for the next hot theorizer. Needless to say, the new theory doesn't have to make any more sense than the old ones. It's like any other fashion, it just has to be fresh. Academics make their careers by coming up with something that seems new and interesting. That's cold comfort for a young person struggling with their ID, but I have no influence over those who treat human ID as a game through which they can make career splash. I'll just keep offering huge, loud support for butch lesbian women.

[Kobi]

Heart,

I am hoping words will not be as difficult for me today but no promises here.

To me, I remember feminism as both a macro and mirco level endeavor. Until women had "their consciousness" raised on a macro level, the mirco level of the manifestations of their oppression couldn't be put in its proper perspective or addressed on the multiple levels that would seem logical.

With people being people, I dont expect a movement as such to be immune from the foibles of being human. I also see including every single possible variation in women as statistically impossible.

Also, being people with differing realities i.e. race, religion, sexual orientation, class etc I dont expect a totally cohesive approach to anything. People are most concerned with and have an easier time relating to that which most affects them on a day to day basis.

It seems to me that sometimes we cant see the forest because our view is obscured by all the trees. The trees are very important but so is the forest. If we lose sight of the forest, how successful can the trees be?

When I do an internet search and find a lot of stuff on the trees i.e. the many ways in which sexism and misogyny is a reality for women all across the globe it is good. It seems to me, we have become very focused on the trees to the detriment of the forest.

The divisiveness is a boon to that which you are ultimately fighting against.

When I do a search on the forest and am drawing, to me, a blank, I get concerned. When gender theory, which seems very male oriented to me, seeks to surpass or undermine feminism, I get concerned.

In the same way, I get concerned when I cant find "womanspace". I define this as a place when women go to be with other women period.

I see a lot of effort directed at cooperation, compromise, lets all be one happy family. It sets off all kinds of red flags for me.

We, as women, have a very complex, complicated and funky coexistence with all things male or masculine. There is a very different dynamic between women exchanging energy in a butch femme community, and the male-female energy exchange in the same community. The mixture leads, to me, to a different dynamic for everyone invloved. And, it feels odd.

When I see "lesbian" websites welcoming males - not just transmen but heterosexual cismen, it makes me wonder. When I see chat rooms owned by young gay women open to gay, lesbian, straight...I wonder. When I see young women who seem ok calling themselves gay but are hesistant to call themselves lesbian, I wonder.

There is something very wonky going on. And, from where I stand, it doesnt bode well for women or feminism or lesbianism given the direction it is going.

Seems to me, it is time to reclaim a lot of things, refocus on women, revisit consciousness raising, and just get back on track.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I see a great deal of this. The construct, within gender studies, is that if a woman likes, for instance, trucks, baseball, fishing, beer and power tools that person is 'masculine of center'. If said person then goes ahead and transitions, this is supposed to be transgressive and demolishing the gender binary. How is it though since it appears to recapitulate the existing gender construction of male = trucks, sports, fishing, beer and tools?

I would argue, like you do, Cheryl that I am transgressing gender boundaries/roles because, even though my passions lie in typically 'male' things such as the physical sciences, Linux and the Free/Open Source Software movement generally, skepticism and a certain holding to living my life rationally none of that makes me 'male' or 'masculine'. The problem, in other words, does not lie in my being a woman who is a geek rather, it lies in society defining certain things which are not really gendered as having gender traits. I don't 'think like a man', I think like a scientist.



This is merely to say that feminism is a movement made of people who came to feminism with their own predilections and cultural baggage intact. Given the time period where NOW was formed, it would have been remarkable if feminism had *not* had a non-trivial amount of racism, certainly, and homophobia. This is not to excuse anything, it is merely to remind that people are products--to some greater or lesser degree--of their time and the movements they spawn are also products of that time.
Cheers
Aj

Concerning racial variables with the Second Wave, I continue to be baffled at how our historical minds stop at these initial flawas instead of going further-

Many women of color took issue with the white, middle-class influence at that time with the movement and were very outspoken. They then brought issues of women of color to the discussion and widened (thankfully) this discussion and have since been a major force in feminist theory. This brought brown women to the table as well.

Social movements do exactly this- bring all of the variables out that need to be addressed. They are not static, nor are they perfect- just like individual people. Consciousness at one level gives rise to consciousness at other levels. Growth happens this way.

Yes, given the times (as was true of the First Wave), it was an imperfect movement. Yet, it gave rise to all voices because those voices realized there was a space in which to speak.

I get so tired of historical cherry picking. History needs to be studied with a fluid and open mind. I stood with many WOC "back then" that needed to add to the conversation and give it breadth. Actually, there were many WOC in the early days that spoke up.

[Heart]

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

[*Anya*]

"Because women's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

~Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, 14 September 1987

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

"Because women's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a "real" man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

~Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, 14 September 1987

Actually, these are the words of Joyce Stevens...

Written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet, International Woman's Day, 1975.
Joyce Stevens is author of Taking the Revolution Home, Work Among Women in the Communist Party of Australia 1920 -1945 and other books.

Just wanted to give credit where credit is due...

[Heart]

Chazz - My responses in blue. I understand that you wish to move on, this response is not about the content (we have places we disagree, which is fine), but it is about the tone and the kinds of divisions/accusations/justifications that come up over and over when feminism and genderism cross -- always seeming to be at cross purposes....

I think we may have a differing points of view about the "privilege" "transmen garner". I don't see "passing" as a privilege for anyone.

Nor do I - I was not referring to "passing."

It's a much as most lesbians can do to provide for themselves, their children and one another, to the extent that they do and can. (Hell, my community has an impossible time keeping lesbian businesses open because lesbians are so short of resources.)

But, in the spirit of fairness, I promise to refer my lesbian and straight DV clients to DV shelters started, operated and financed by transwomen.

Huh? I do not get this statement (sarcastic?). Ouch.


I have worked with other lgbtq advocates to help grass roots feminists shift their thinking on this. Yes, we have used "gender theory," which frankly hasn't been very useful. I did a presentation about using a more "gender neutral" lens at a conference once and the mainstram feminists in the room got up and walked out.

I'm sorry that happened to you. It must have felt awful, but people are entitled to vote with their feet.

Chazz, my point here was that gender theory was NOT going to work for all the reasons you, among others, have elucidated, and that I agree with. I'm talking about my learning curve and you seem to be chastizing me.


I think it's okay for Feminists to have different perspectives about what constitutes "suspicion, threat, and betrayal" and any given identity. I think it's okay for women to choose, for themselves, how they wish to allocate their time and resources (where and to whom) without being pressured, cajoled or guilt tripped.

Nothing I have said was intended to pressure or guilt trip. Not my style.

The afore mentioned happens all the time in "our" current community. We are uniformly expected to jump onto the band wagon of the day, when it's all some of us can do to master our own particularistic destinies and self-understanding.

I'm sensing that the direction in which I took the discussion feels to you like a derail of the issue of lesbian pride and more specifically of lesbian BUTCH pride. Is that true? Coming off of the BV/BN thing, I get that, but this thread is not only about butches, but about all of us who are lesbians, and also those of us who are feminists.

My interests and proclivities lie elsewhere. Their deal doesn't speak to me. It doesn't further my understanding of myself as a woman IDed butch. Should I ignore my imperatives in the name of someone else's version of "solidarity"? Rally around other's cause(s) rather than my own? Send a check? What? ....I listen, I introspect, I choose, and then I act according to the beat of my own drummer.

This doesn't sound strident -- just defensive, as if you felt attacked or dismissed by the issues I raised. Of course you get to choose your focus, your imperative, and act accordingly. I don't know how what I raised opposes that, unless it was my belief that transwomen should be allowed at MWMF. It just doesn't strike me as very feminist for a transwoman to be barred, while transmen, male-pronoun-using, transmasculine, male-butch-3rd gendered people have access.

One of the worst elements of 2nd Wave Feminism, in my estimation, was the pressure mostly white and/or privileged Feminists brought to bear on all women to adopt their agenda. And when "we" (lesbians, WOC, B&Fs....) didn't, we were castigated, vilified and tagged as being - %*#^@.

Am I doing that?

What I am reminded of, (thanks to this thread), is that patriarchy makes it hard for us to trust each other. - Heart

Exactly.... My "trust" isn't garnered when my personal agenda is set for me. Nor is it nurtured when I'm pressured or guilted into supporting people, places and things that don't "speak" to me, honor my boundaries or identity, or my take on reality.

Again, is that what you have experienced from my posts here? Because truly that was not my intention or goal. And I wonder, feel both mystified, confused, and - okay yes, upset that we are in this place.

When I talk feminism, I highlight issues of race/gender that feminism erased or essentialized. When I talk gender theory, I highlight issues of feminism and patriarchy that gender theory erased and denigrated. So, lesbians think I'm being anti-feminist, and queers think I'm being anti-genderist. Guess I can't win. But none of it - NONE of it is intended to personally erase anyone else's experience or choices. It's all in the interest of dialogue, intersection, and growth. I was kinda hoping I wouldn't have to make that disclaimer in this thread.

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Actually, these are the words of Joyce Stevens...

Written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet, International Woman's Day, 1975.
Joyce Stevens is author of Taking the Revolution Home, Work Among Women in the Communist Party of Australia 1920 -1945 and other books.

Just wanted to give credit where credit is due...

Thanks, I appreciate it a lot. It is a quote of a quote of a quote.

I am always glad to know the origin of quotes I have come across over the years that are not atributed to the right person, in order to give credit where credit is due!

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but....... The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory.

Despite its problems, the tools of 2nd Wave Feminism were collectively liberating to all women. Even when women splintered off from the main body of Feminism to focus on oppressions of particular interest/importance to them, they took Feminism's "tools" with them. This is how Womanism, Lesbian Feminism, Third-world Feminism, Postcolonial Feminism, etc., were birthed. Thank HP for all of that.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Feminism is empowering and unifying even in its diversification - not solipsistic and individualistic like gender theory.

(Solipsism is the position that anything outside of ones mind is untrue. If a solipsist thinks or imagines something, it exists, objective, tangible reality be damned. Other people's reality be damned, too.)


I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but.......

There are STILL knotty issues. It still gets ugly.

The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory.

As a femme, I have had to confront vilification from feminists.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Not sure I understand the reference to Mich Fest. I am also not sure that feminist WOC would agree that there has been no oppressive consequences.
As a femme lesbian, I do not agree with that assessment.

I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

Hmmmm.... I'm feeling pretty uncomfortable with the "this-vs-that" direction this discussion is taking. Does this mean that if I, as a feminist, point to warts, I am somehow enacting a betrayal? That feels possibly divisive and oppressive.....

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tone here, or maybe I'm pushing a point at the wrong juncture... but I am unwilling to wear rose-colored feminist glasses. It's funny, since I have been one of the most ardent feminists on these boards for years to be in this position, but I'm firm in both my feminism and my willingness to critique it.

Heart

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tone here, or maybe I'm pushing a point at the wrong juncture... but I am unwilling to wear rose-colored feminist glasses. It's funny, since I have been one of the most ardent feminists on these boards for years to be in this position, but I'm firm in both my feminism and my willingness to critique it.

Heart

Heart, maybe you're "misunderstanding the tone or pushing a point at the wrong juncture" of my post. Maybe, maybe not..... I don't know.

I don't wear "rose-colored feminist glasses", either.

I do think that Feminism (warts and all) offers much better tools for challenging patriarchy than gender theory. I also think the needs of, and issues of importance to, lesbians/butch/women have been marginalized under gender theory.

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Chazz

Yes, there were knotty issues; it got ugly sometimes, but.......

There are STILL knotty issues. It still gets ugly.

I didn't say there weren't still "knotty issues". (I was using the past tense because I was referring to the Feminism of the 1970', 80's....) WHAT I AM SAYING IS: There a Feminist process (heuristic) which offers a way of talking about knotty issues without vilification. Here we are doing it.

A Feminist not utilizing a Feminist heuristic is NOT Feminism.

The beauty of Feminism is that issues are addressed and redressed. Discussion, debate, heuristic inquiry are not vilified as they are, now, within the LGBTQ community under the reign of gender theory. And that has been unproductive and the source of much strife within the LGBTQ community.

As a femme, I have had to confront vilification from feminists.

As a butch I have had to confront vilification from so-called feminists, too. Again, that's not Feminist process.

Unlike today, that splintering-off was not cast as divisive, oppressive, phobic.... Think Mich Fest.... How crazy and self-centered to think any of that?

Not sure I understand the reference to Mich Fest. I am also not sure that feminist WOC would agree that there has been no oppressive consequences. As a femme lesbian, I do not agree with that assessment.

As a Lesbian Feminist, I support your right to disagree. As a Feminist, I assert that Mich Fest and women WBW events have a right to exist. As do WOC-only events, etc., etc......

I have always found it suspicious that genderists point to the the "warts" of Feminism rather than its successes. The vilification of Feminism and Feminists is strategic. It's about the "tools".... Feminist "tools" do bring the "master's" house down.

Hmmmm.... I'm feeling pretty uncomfortable with the "this-vs-that" direction this discussion is taking. Does this mean that if I, as a feminist, point to warts, I am somehow enacting a betrayal? That feels possibly divisive and oppressive.....

Umm, don't know where I implied betrayal on anyones part, but....

I feel uncomfortable with "this-vs-that", too. I'm just calling it out because it exists within the LGBTQ community. Naming it, isn't doing it.

I acknowledge that skirting around certain issues is considered PC, and often, an act of self-preservation. (Not that I am saying you're doing that, Heart, 'cause I'm not.)

However, it does matter to me that lesbians, female IDed butches and Feminists have been marginalized under gender theory. Calling that out on the heels of this "masculine of center" business seems like the thing to do. It should cause discomfort because discomfort is a motivator towards change.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Feminism is empowering and unifying even in its diversification - not solipsistic and individualistic like gender theory.

What's individualistic about it? i am sure there are explanations that focus on individuals, but what is individualistic about it. i don't actually know what gender theory you mean, so it's hard for me to speculate.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Martina

What's individualistic about it? i am sure there are explanations that focus on individuals, but what is individualistic about it. i don't actually know what gender theory you mean, so it's hard for me to speculate.

Postmodernism is a mix of philosophies: Primarily, subjectivism and epistemic relativism. These philosophies hold that no epistemic standard is defensible, true or factual.

A postmodernist might argue “that modern science is nothing more than a “myth,” a “narration”, a “social construction.” (Professor Steven Luper, Trinity University)

Gender theory is the offspring of postmodernism. One of its primary tenets is that gender performativity is a way of destabilizing/deconstructing gender conventions.

Feminists hold that gender conventions are fictional, grotesque myths; and that re-enacting them in any context perpetuates oppression.

Gender performativity is an individual, self-focused activity – even when performed in a group…. Models at a Playboy photo shoot are individually re-inscribing gender constructs even when posing for a group photograph.

The enactment of real-world, gender conventions - of performing/embodying fictional constructs – makes them appear (feel) natural, organic, real. This reinforces gender stereotypes whether the performativity is meant to be parody or not; whether it’s meant to be a burlesque metaphor or not.

African Feminist and author, Nnameka, had this to say about sex roles: Western European and North American epistemologies since ‘post structuralism’s [now referred to as postmodernism] focus on discourse and aesthetics instead of social action encourages the egocentricity and individualism that undermines collective action.’ (Nnameka, 2003, p.364).

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

Right AJ, I was not at all suggesting that I expect feminism as a movement to be free of warts, nor was I suggesting that WOC have not spoken up and come to the table. But I do feel a mite nervous when we start to get all nostalgic for the "good ol' days" of the 2nd Wave.

Heart

No, there are areas of those "days" that I cannot embrace. What I know is that without the Second Wave (and the days of my Grandmother before it), we would not be having this discussion at all. By definition, "movement" includes a change in place or position- it is not static, therefore, gives rise to critical thought throughout time- as time gives us new perspectives.

We have a feminist foundation that begs us to explore and grow even when we have to re-examine ourselves and accept the warts. It was the second Wave that brought awareness of gender theory to the forefront as a feminist paridigm.

Given this, it is difficult to accept that gender theory remains a block to the entire LGBTQ population continuing to remain separate. The irony I spoke of earlier and what is at the heart of deep wounds.

This has actually come full circle for me as a butch woman. The very same tactics and male power structures of "old" are wounding me in ways within our very own community using what the Second Wave believed to be a means to heal.