Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

This makes sense to me.

I am feeling pretty confident that the patriarchy is the grand pooh-bah of oppression, the prototype which all other forms of oppression emulate.

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

I believe internalized misogyny is certainly an effective method of control and keeps us separate. But I don’t think it is the most effective control mechanism. I think misogyny of any stripe cuts across generations, race, class etc. And it is no more recognizable than the internalized version. Even the blatant, violent, horrific encouraged by society and sanctioned by a government misogyny on display all over the world is not recognized for what for what it is – organized and supported hatred of women. Instead we tend to say, with a measure of sadness and even a little disgust in our voices, that women are still oppressed in some countries. Hell, well, ya, I guess. But divide and conquer is quite a successful ploy and is used to keep all oppressed people separate from each other. We are taught to separate by race, class, sex, gender, sexual preference, religious beliefs, government ideology etc… We are also taught not to show each other mercy but instead to hold each other suspect.

Originally Posted by Kobi

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

I agree that we do not live in a perfect world. And I certainly can attest that words and actions very often do not match. But I think individuals should be held accountable for their actions, not groups of people that these individuals identify with. I certainly wouldn’t want any incongruency on my part attributed to butches who identify as women and are lesbian feminists. But perhaps you mean there is an actual organized attempt at infiltration by groups of people with a particular ideological agenda. I have trouble believing I can be threatened sufficiently to call in the troops by an ideology. I know I’m probably alone in this, but I’ve always been suspicious of simply an ideology as a weapon of mass destruction. In my experience it has often been the desire to destroy an ideology that has caused the mass destruction.

Originally Posted by Heart

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.
Heart

I also see the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism. It makes me sad and angry. I don’t know how to combat it. I just don’t see any change coming. All I can do is to continue to speak out. To explain how I see misogyny and the patriarchy as the real root of all evil whenever the opportunity presents itself and sometimes even when the opportunity doesn’t present itself but instead hides in some deep dark hole.

But I don't really get how people identifying as trans/gender-queer or whatever translates as a loss for the identity of women. I don't think it's an either/or kind of thing. I doubt anyone is thinking, Oh I was going to identify as a butch woman but now I'm going in this direction. I think it just fits for them. And I don't think anyone is going to be choosing one identity over another for any other reason than that is how they feel, that is who they believe they are. And it's not like we win something if we have more people on our side. I do however think we win if we have more people with an understanding of sexism, misogyny, male privilege and the patriarchy.

One thing I believe very strongly is that no one can take my identity away. Or make me identify differently from how I feel. And I don’t believe I have the power to do that to anyone else. Even if I wanted to. Which I surely don’t. So I don’t see any reason to worry about losing anything or having my identity erased or its border destroyed. How could that happen? Would I be assimilated into another identity? Without my believing I am that how could it happen? I guess I get confused by ideas of vigorous border patrolling. How can one identity be in danger from another? I mean you can’t take anyone’s identity away can you? I get that you can dismiss people, set up hierarchies, undervalue female identities, but how is that different from what has always been true? No one can make me believe that I am less than. But it is frustrating to know so many turn a blind eye and really and truly have no idea whatsoever the depth and breadth of pain and hurt that misogyny causes us all. But I don’t really understand how that translates to danger to my identity. I don’t see any threat to how I identify in any real, this is war the enemy is at the gate, kind of way.

[Heart]

Miss Tick - I basically agree that misogyny is a scourge that is under-estimated and under-examined, and I agree that it is the root of homophobia, however I am not prepared to say that it is the root of racism or classim, nor am I prepared to create any kind of ranking about which of those are worse or greater or lesser. Suffice to say they are all linked.

I also agree that identity is personal, but I see a definite relationship between misogyny and the undervaluing of woman in terms of social, systemic, and academic trends related to identity. Plus I have a personal reaction to what I have seen in my own communities about people's decisions to jettison their identities as women, and I shared that.

No one makes choices about their identity as a woman/not-a-women free of the impact of misogyny because we are all swimming in it everyday. It's inescapable, as you yourself point out, so I don't really understand how you can say that they have zero relationship.

But whatever. I'm sick of this thread now, frankly.

I experienced something here that was pretty eye-opening: Treated as suspect, termed a flip-flopper, a political liability even, because I don't conform to someone's very rigid and policed notions of lesbian identity. In my years as an active member of political lesbian communities, that hasn't happened before. And then guess what? A transman stood up for me and a non-lesbian identified femme repped me. Huh.

I'm not granting it more power than it deserves, (though I'll admit my feelings were hurt), but it certainly gives me pause in terms of what some queers/lesbians/femmes/etc are talking about when they rant about the closed ranks of old-school lesbian-feminists.

I'll reiterate something I said in a prior post -- that I get it, that it's actually patriarchy that creates this suspicion and policing. But while I get it, I don't like it, and I will also say that it's a decidedly un-feminist way of engaging, as it divides women from each other in ways that reduce our collective power. If women don't organize across race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, etc - we have no hope of fighting patriarchy.

Heart

[Heart]

There are so few of us addressing women's oppression these days to begin with.

Off to start a rebellion....

Chazz - you ain't startin' it -- cause there's women globally, lesbian and otherwise, who are doin' it -- adressing women's oppression that is.

All of this feels like it's gotten a bit grandiose at this point. If you're isolated, maybe that's on you.

I'm out.

Heart

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

Chazz - you ain't startin' it -- cause there's women globally, lesbian and otherwise, who are doin' it -- adressing women's oppression that is.

All of this feels like it's gotten a bit grandiose at this point. If you're isolated, maybe that's on you.

I'm out.

Heart

Heart, you misread.

I'm not isolated, I have a strong lesbian/Feminist community online and off. I though I was clear about that in my last post????

As to grandiosity, well you're entitled to your opinions, but no, not really. Perhaps you're mistaking a sense of empowerment and incentive with grandiosity, or perhaps, you're administering a slap down. Either way, it's okay.....

But to be clear about the empowerment and incentive.... I think it's time for woman IDed lesbians to get back to basics, to refocus our energies on ourselves, one another and the forces that continue to oppress women. No, that's not separatism, it's self-care. The fact that a statement like that sounds like separatism (albeit a misapprehended, extreme version of separatism) to some (you?), is the problem manifest.

You have used the term "separatism" in my direction before. The inherent put-down down did not go unnoticed. Of more importance, the implied vilification of self-focusing lesbians did not go unnoticed, either. I'm good with the former, the latter not so much.

To be clear Vol. 2.....

I live in the world. I work, socialize, friend with, co-parent, professionally counsel, and LOVE some males. One of my best friends on the planet is a straight, biker dude.... I prefer some men's company to some women's company. So no, this is not about "separatism", wanting to sequester myself away from men, trans people, queers, or anyone.... It's about getting back to Lesbian Feminist basics - a certain kind of "politik". It's conversation like this one that have convinced me of the urgency of that....

My basics don't have to be yours (or, do they?). I'm not male-phobic, trans-phobic, mollusk-phobic or any other presumed insult or epithet anyone may subtly or overtly lob at me.... I'm lesbian/woman-centric. That may be heresy to admit these days, but there you have it.


Lesbian Separatism, partially or wholly, is: "The separation of various sorts or modes from men [sexually, for instance] and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, [male-value inculcated] and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege—this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women." [Oh no, willfull women ! ! ! !] - Marilyn Frye

[Heart]

Chazz - Yes, you're right, I did misread. I see that you very clearly state that you don't feel alone or isolated. I was also reacting to the implication that anyone who doesn't fall in line with a particular version of lesbian empowerment is somehow not working against the oppression of women, or is suspect as a feminist. It's highly possible that at this point, I'm reading in. I don't recall using separatist in your direction, but perhaps I did. I'm too tired to go back and look.

Even in the quote below Chazz, you imply that lesbians should "focus on themselves and the forces that oppress women." Well... do you mean women, or do you mean lesbians?

It's interesting, looking back on my own lesbian feminist politics and activism... many of the lesbians I worked with side-by-side in the shelter movement were working for the benefit of all women, in fact mostly straight women, (being that there was less awareness at that time, of the amount of domestic violence in lesbian relationships). I have always defined my feminism as being on behalf of women, including lesbians, but not just lesbians. So I find this term: lesbian/woman-centric, confusing. Is it lesbian centric or women centric?

I've been called a separatist many times - often by other queers, usually when I was talking about the need for women's space, usually in the context of trans inclusion/exclusion. But I remember a young straight woman accused me of separatism based upon my anti-violence-against-women work. (She claimed, erroneously, that men were "as likely" to be abused as women.) I gave her a lesson in statistics and then said something along the lines of: As long as patriarchy and gender-genocide separate women out to be objectified, violated, oppressed, and murdered based upon being female -- go ahead and call me a separatist. I'll wear it proudly.

When I said all women, I meant lesbians. I also meant married women in Appalachia, young girls in Nepal, old women in China, and trans women in Philli.

This makes me recall a trans person I knew about 10 years ago, (we've lost touch), who took T, had facial hair, could pass as male, used a gender neutral name, and insisted on female pronouns. Why? Because she wanted to express her solidarity with women, even as she shifted her own gender life. And not just queer women, all women. It was a very interesting political decision using her own personal identity as the landscape. It's something, actually, that butch women do by virtue of their very existence -- which is why the pronoun thing (using he, hy, hie, zie, etc), sometimes leaves me feeling a sense of loss.

I have realized in the course of this discussion that I am woman-centric. I always have been. Even when I was a straight, married mom. Perhaps I confused that with being a "goldstar" lesbian, which obviously I'm not, but this thread has helped me to clarify my own focus - so for that, I am grateful.

Heart

Originally Posted by Chazz

Heart, you misread.

I'm not isolated, I have a strong lesbian/Feminist community online and off. I though I was clear about that in my last post????

As to grandiosity, well you're entitled to your opinions, but no, not really. Perhaps you're mistaking a sense of empowerment and incentive with grandiosity, or perhaps, you're administering a slap down. Either way, it's okay.....

But to be clear about the empowerment and incentive.... I think it's time for woman IDed lesbians to get back to basics, to refocus our energies on ourselves, one another and the forces that continue to oppress women. No, that's not separatism, it's self-care. The fact that a statement like that sounds like separatism (albeit a misapprehended, extreme version of separatism) to some (you?), is the problem manifest.

You have used the term "separatism" in my direction before. The inherent put-down down did not go unnoticed. Of more importance, the implied vilification of self-focusing lesbians did not go unnoticed, either. I'm good with the former, the latter not so much.

To be clear Vol. 2.....

I live in the world. I work, socialize, friend with, co-parent, professionally counsel, and LOVE some males. One of my best friends on the planet is a straight, biker dude.... I prefer some men's company to some women's company. So no, this is not about "separatism", wanting to sequester myself away from men, trans people, queers, or anyone.... It's about getting back to Lesbian Feminist basics - a certain kind of "politik". It's conversation like this one that have convinced me of the urgency of that....

My basics don't have to be yours (or, do they?). I'm not male-phobic, trans-phobic, mollusk-phobic or any other presumed insult or epithet anyone may subtly or overtly lob at me.... I'm lesbian/woman-centric. That may be heresy to admit these days, but there you have it.


Lesbian Separatism, partially or wholly, is: "The separation of various sorts or modes from men [sexually, for instance] and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, [male-value inculcated] and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege—this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women." [Oh no, willfull women ! ! ! !] - Marilyn Frye

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

Chazz - Yes, you're right, I did misread. I see that you very clearly state that you don't feel alone or isolated. I was also reacting to the implication that anyone who doesn't fall in line with a particular version of lesbian empowerment is somehow not working against the oppression of women, or is suspect as a feminist. It's highly possible that at this point, I'm reading in. I don't recall using separatist in your direction, but perhaps I did. I'm too tired to go back and look.

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.

Originally Posted by Heart

Even in the quote below Chazz, you imply that lesbians should "focus on themselves and the forces that oppress women." Well... do you mean women, or do you mean lesbians?

I mean lesbian women.

Originally Posted by Heart

It's interesting, looking back on my own lesbian feminist politics and activism... many of the lesbians I worked with side-by-side in the shelter movement were working for the benefit of all women, in fact mostly straight women, (being that there was less awareness at that time, of the amount of domestic violence in lesbian relationships). I have always defined my feminism as being on behalf of women, including lesbians, but not just lesbians. So I find this term: lesbian/woman-centric, confusing. Is it lesbian centric or women centric?

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.

Originally Posted by Heart

I've been called a separatist many times - often by other queers, usually when I was talking about the need for women's space, usually in the context of trans inclusion/exclusion. But I remember a young straight woman accused me of separatism based upon my anti-violence-against-women work. (She claimed, erroneously, that men were "as likely" to be abused as women.) I gave her a lesson in statistics and then said something along the lines of: As long as patriarchy and gender-genocide separate women out to be objectified, violated, oppressed, and murdered based upon being female -- go ahead and call me a separatist. I'll wear it proudly.

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.

Originally Posted by Heart

When I said all women, I meant lesbians. I also meant married women in Appalachia, young girls in Nepal, old women in China, and trans women in Philli.

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

Originally Posted by Heart

This makes me recall a trans person I knew about 10 years ago, (we've lost touch), who took T, had facial hair, could pass as male, used a gender neutral name, and insisted on female pronouns. Why? Because she wanted to express her solidarity with women, even as she shifted her own gender life. And not just queer women, all women. It was a very interesting political decision using her own personal identity as the landscape. It's something, actually, that butch women do by virtue of their very existence -- which is why the pronoun thing (using he, hy, hie, zie, etc), sometimes leaves me feeling a sense of loss.

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.

Originally Posted by Heart

I have realized in the course of this discussion that I am woman-centric. I always have been. Even when I was a straight, married mom. Perhaps I confused that with being a "goldstar" lesbian, which obviously I'm not, but this thread has helped me to clarify my own focus - so for that, I am grateful.- Heart

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.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Heart

Miss Tick - I basically agree that misogyny is a scourge that is under-estimated and under-examined, and I agree that it is the root of homophobia, however I am not prepared to say that it is the root of racism or classim, nor am I prepared to create any kind of ranking about which of those are worse or greater or lesser. Suffice to say they are all linked.

I did not mean to rank oppression. I was trying to say it is the meeting point of all oppression, it is where oppression intersects, not that it surpasses every other oppression in severity or is the root of all oppression. My statement was
"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."

When i said misogyny was the patriarchy's most effective tool I meant it intersected with more oppressions than for example classism or racism does. That is what makes it so effective. Not that it is inherently worse.
And when I said it "transcends all the isms" I was using the definition of transcends that means to pass beyond the limits of. Meaning it is not limited by race or class. Not that it is the worse form of oppression.

Originally Posted by Heart

No one makes choices about their identity as a woman/not-a-women free of the impact of misogyny because we are all swimming in it everyday. It's inescapable, as you yourself point out, so I don't really understand how you can say that they have zero relationship.

You're absolutely right. I don't how I could have missed that. It's not possible to make a decision about identity in a vacuum. Absolutely. I don't know what I was thinking.

I think I got here late to the party and feelings are running awfully high. I don't have that much emotion invested yet and I guess I should just back out quietly.