Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[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?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

How does BF play into these gender roles?

It's difficult to dismantle what we seem to play into.

This is a worthy question, Apocalipstic.

As a lesbian woman with a Feminist sensibility, I don't see me "playing into" anything. There is no place in my relationships for misogyny of any kind.

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

But I completely see that discussions about gender analysis do nothing to help the issues facing Women eccept as it related personally.

I think gender analysis has it's place, but not to the exclusion of everything else women and other disenfranchised people face.

[Reader]

SNIP

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I can't speak for Kobi, but I can say unequivocally that when I use the word 'lesbian' to identify myself I have been met with some hostility from people who, in another time and place, would have certainly been called lesbians, and probably would have called themselves lesbians. In some circles, including b-f communities, calling oneself a lesbian is considered uncool, a relic from former times...

SNIP

I could not help but recall the term "Lavender Menace" after reading this.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Hunter Green

Great post. Just the other day I was thinking about NOW and wondering if there even was a chapter nearby any longer. I happen to think that, globally speaking, there is a war raging against women that almost no one is acknowledging.

Does anyone even know who Gloria Steinem is? Or that ERA has nothing to do with baseball or real estate? Anyone remember the Lesbian Herstory Archives? How about "Sisterhood is Powerful"?

The right has so bastardized the term Feminist that many refuse to ID as a feminist, even though they believe in feminist ideals...as long as you don't call it "feminist". Argh.

Well... I don't want to be oppositional, but NOW is one of those organizations that really had to work through its own homophobia and racism. NOW did not originally consider the voices of lesbians or women of color. In fact, the Lavender Menace was formed in 1970 to protest the exclusion of queer women from the feminist movement. Many feminists of Color are still having to carve out a voice in the feminist movement, especially in relation to issues of poverty. Femininsm is a notoriously white middle/upper-class movement.

I respect Gloria Steinem, but as recently as our last presidential election she wrote an editorial that constructed some problematic comparisons between Clinton and Obama in terms of which is worse - sexism or racism, and totally ignored the existance of women of color who deal with both. (Oppression olympics is a very bad idea.)

Nonetheless, NOW is still active and there is an upcoming PBS special about Steinem that I'm looking forward to seeing.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a fierce feminist -- it's perhaps the most relevant social movement on the planet, but I feel that its important to keep a critical perspective.

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

[Jess]

me in blue, except the excerpt of yours I highlighted in red... I hope this isn't too confusing...

Originally Posted by Heart

Well... I don't want to be oppositional, but NOW is one of those organizations that really had to work through its own homophobia and racism. NOW did not originally consider the voices of lesbians or women of color. In fact, the Lavender Menace was formed in 1970 to protest the exclusion of queer women from the feminist movement. Many feminists of Color are still having to carve out a voice in the feminist movement, especially in relation to issues of poverty. Femininsm is a notoriously white middle/upper-class movement.

It is historically correct that it began from very privileged origins... with a half- joking nod, I think this is because they were the only ones with time and means to begin to organize. They shifted portions of the time devoted to "quilting bees" or their "husband approved" book clubs/etiquette classes/ etc to fighting for their rights and became incredibly visible during the Sufferage/ Prohibition era. The organizing efforts began years before, but they only became truly effectual during this period , approx. 1920- 1933 giving a few years on either end. Their efforts , I can not dismiss, as they made available to women less "advantaged" the time and space to join in the struggle. The old saying , "it doesn't matter how you got here..." comes to mind.

I respect Gloria Steinem, but as recently as our last presidential election she wrote an editorial that constructed some problematic comparisons between Clinton and Obama in terms of which is worse - sexism or racism, and totally ignored the existance of women of color who deal with both. (Oppression olympics is a very bad idea.)

I respect Gloria Steinem also and have to disagree with your take on this article she wrote during Pres. Obama's campaign. I felt very clear that her message in the context of this article was a simple observance of the still very disproportionate ranking of women in the political sphere. It was not at all a dismissal of Women of Color, moreover a statement that a woman ( her example was a woman of mixed ethnicity) of ANY color would not have had the same credence ( based on served/ lived political experience) as a man ( of any color).

Here is the article she wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/op...=1&oref=slogin


Nonetheless, NOW is still active and there is an upcoming PBS special about Steinem that I'm looking forward to seeing.

HBO is showing " Gloria: In Her Own Words" currently. I believe tonight was the first running. We recorded it and I am looking forward to watching it!

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a fierce feminist -- it's perhaps the most relevant social movement on the planet, but I feel that its important to keep a critical perspective.

I totally agree with the reminder to keep a critical eye on this, OUR movement and any other movement of such magnitude. Most begin from frustration/ agony and are almost always fraught with turmoil in their infancy, like stretching limbs or taking that first breath.

Heart

Thank you, as usual, for your insights. I truly believe that until Women's Rights are fully embodied ( since we are a mere HALF of the world population) then no other "ism" will be fully eradicated. Women, and lesbians in particular, are at the forefront of EVERY human rights movement. I can't imagine a world where lesbians weren't fighting for the next right thing. This , in huge part, is why I become fearful for "lesbians" , to become "passe/ obsolete/ unfashionable".

I am a hair short of a tangent, so I will go read a fluff thread and hopefully drift off to sleep. Pride/ Equality/ Human Rights are words that call to me from my waking slumber, in these "tired" years of struggling. It renews me to read the words of everyone here who seem to really "get it", that it is NOT about a "battle of oppressions" , but a convergence of all oppressed that will rise.

Wonderful conversation! Thank you to all ya'll from the dirty south!

[Dean Thoreau]

As I read these posts, I could not help but recall a long number of years when my activity level in feminism/women's rights was high and it seemed every waking moment was somehow devoted to the cause or earning money so I could work for the cause.....then due to life circumstances my enthusism died down and the more my involvement in the Butch Femme community grew the further i strolled from feminism, women;s rights and thought it was my Identity, their lack of my identity acceptance or some such thing...
It has been a long road and I must confess at times a lonely one....No organization is without warts, or callusses nor are they deemed perfect after all mere humans are what keep them going.
Over the past year or so, I reentered society in many ways and rekindled and built my alliances with the women's movement, the hunger projects and a few other socio political organizations that I feel very strongly about. I must confess I am better able to see myself in the mirror after recommitting energy to the women's movement;

Until all women in the world young and old alike receive education, healthcare and the right to control their bodies no woman on earth will be free nor equal.
Maternal health, fistule repair, education things we take for granted must be granted to all woman in the world, for as long as there is a place on the earth where it is ok to beat a woman, rape a woman, not educate a woman, use her only as a male producing machine without regard for her as a human or her body....no woman in the world is equal. We are all still second class citizens and we as a group do not have human rights...

dean

[Heart]

Good points all around Jess, however one of the things I've learned to do as a white feminist is listen to the voices of women of color about their experiences with racist constructs. Since you linked to the Steinhem article, I am providiing some links to responses written by WOC:

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/...gainst-gender/

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/...inton_0108.asp

And because I can't link to it, I'm posting the full text of a blog post by
"AngryBlackBitch." You can find her blog here: http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/

Jan 8th, 2008
I’m worried too, Ms. Steinem…
This isn’t an easy post to write. I am a proud black feminist who holds a deep respect for feminist leaders and has done a lot of inner work to come to terms with feminism’s history with race and class. Yeah, this is not an easy post to write…but a sistah’s got to do what a sistah’s got to do.

Gloria Steinem has an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled Women Are Never Front-Runners. I read the Op-Ed and I feel compelled to address it here. I highly recommend that you read the piece before you go on reading this post.
After reading Steinem’s Op-Ed I felt invisible…as if black and woman can’t exist in the same body. I felt undocumented…as if the history of blacks and the history of women have nothing to do with the history of black women.

When I read “Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).” I felt both attacked and ignored at the same time.

I think of the women and men in my family who were not extended the protected vote until 1965. I wince at the lack of acknowledgment for the black women of Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery who had to march with their brothers in the 1960s to attain the vote because the suffrage movement abandoned them in a Southern strategy to get the vote in 1920.

And there it is again…that invisibility; like a brutal weight that I am so bloody tired of carrying. When I consider Steinem's “So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one?” I’m left confused. What country does Gloria live in where race barriers are taken seriously? I’d love to know…shit, maybe I’ll move there. But I’m a black woman and this is America where none of my barriers are given more than a token consideration and I’ll present this Op-Ed as exhibit A in that argument.

Steinem goes on to say, “I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.”

But this article is soaked in the fluid of competition. It reeks of frustration that I fear is born from a place of entitlement even though it is dressed in the language of the oppressed. And I’ll point out again, the suffrage movement progressed without racial or true class unity and many a sister were damaged by that division.
We should remember that, but first we have to know it.

What worries me is that Gloria bought that bullshit about Obama’s race being a unifying factor. C’mon now, these are early dates yet and campaign operatives have already taken a dip in the race baiting pool. Not for one second do I believe that the unifying power of Senator Obama’s blackness will not eventually collide with the same elegant condescension contained in Steinem's Op-Ed.

What worries me is that this is kind of article that makes some black women wary of feminism…wary of the sisterhood…because eventually, just give it time, it will all come down to black and white or women and men with black women vanished from the equation.

What worries me is the ease with which Ms. Steinem tossed out the insult of implying that Iowans, when faced with a black male candidate, went with that candidate because they are somehow more comfortable with black male leadership than female leadership. It begs the question how John Edwards failed to win by a landslide.

What worries me is that the author is frustrated that Obama hasn’t been accused of playing the race card for his civil rights references and feels that Hillary is getting a raw deal when she gets accused of playing the gender card. Let’s keep it real…Steinem is just frustrated about that race card because a black man is supposed to get called on that shit and she didn’t give permission for any rule change.

What worries me is the patronizing tone with which Steinem dismisses the choices of young women voters. Is it any wonder that young women pause before embracing the feminist movement? Steinem concludes that young women are not radical yet. Will she conclude the same of black women should Clinton lose South Carolina?

I agree with Ms. Steinem that we have to be able to say that we are supporting her, a woman candidate, "because she would be a great president and because she is a woman." But we also have to be able to say I’m not supporting her because I’ve evaluated her and examined her resume without being labeled a victim or self hating or not radical enough or not feminist enough or easily dazzled by great oratory skills or more black than woman or just too darn stupid to do what Ms. Steinem thinks we should do.


Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Heart

[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

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Heart

Here's where it's at for me: If we are going to talk about feminism and the erasure of women, (butch women in the case of the recent BV/BN split), and if we are white, we must develop conscious around the erasure of women of color and actively seek to reverse it. Frankly, If women of color are saying that Steinhem's article is problematic, then even if I don't see it myself, it's not my role to "disagree," it's my role to listen. Just as we want BV to listen to the voices of butch women when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Heart

I get this. Thank you. I had not previously read the article, so when you mentioned it, I made a point of looking it up. Likewise, I had not read responses to that article. I can understand that frustration much better having read their actual words. I realize that when I read an article, I read it with different filters ( those being created by my life experience).

I am glad you posted those links and the last response. It gave me a chance to look at it a different way. I do not think it changes at all the overall point Ms. Steinem was making. I do, however, see how women of color can feel invisible in what has been seen historically ( by many) the "white heterosexual financially advantaged" feminist movement. I can certainly understand the anger that accompanies those feelings ( as expressed in the response that was fully posted).

I have had difficulty at times in being able to "hear" all of the nuances of white privilege. I think a great deal of this, for me, was in my questioning of much of the source material for this new "wave" of racism awareness coming from a white heterosexual male. It is much easier for me to hear the reality of life in America for People(s) of Color FROM People of Color. It rings crystal clear to me then. This is not me asking for someone else to do my work for me. This is me saying, I can hear what Shark-Fu ( the author of the last response) said far easier than I can hear Tim Wise saying it or something similar. I have been extremely bothered for a couple of years now that the most often quoted person in this country addressing white privilege is a white man. I ran across an article that at least allowed me to see I am not completely off base in this feeling. While some folks will probably want to rip my head off for what they may see is me besmearing Tim Wise, I would ask that they have a look at it first.:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com...lege-tim-wise/

I don't mean to derail or veer too far off topic, but I guess for me a huge part of my life as a lesbian has been wrapped in my feminism. My feminism tells me to listen ( I agree with your statement above, Heart, completely) to the voices of all women. I can not affect change if I don't understand completely what needs changed.

Thank you sincerely for sharing those responses as that act is the difference between saying "Steinem dismissed WOC" and "women of color felt dismissed by her and here is what they said". Too often I find the position of many white anti-racists to be so adamant they forget to "allow" someone else to really hear the feelings, thoughts, ideas of our women of color sisters. Their actual words are very important to me. I need to hear them. I do not need to be told to "go do my own work" when my work IS listening.

This is how feminism and my lesbian feminism works for me. I am equal to engage and that is a very powerful and freeing thing.

[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.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Jess

....Thank you sincerely for sharing those responses as that act is the difference between saying "Steinem dismissed WOC" and "women of color felt dismissed by her and here is what they said". Too often I find the position of many white anti-racists to be so adamant they forget to "allow" someone else to really hear the feelings, thoughts, ideas of our women of color sisters. Their actual words are very important to me. I need to hear them. I do not need to be told to "go do my own work" when my work IS listening.

This is how feminism and my lesbian feminism works for me. I am equal to engage and that is a very powerful and freeing thing.

Well said, Jess....

There are times when, for good reason, women cannot "hear" one another. It may be because a woman cannot witness another woman's unearned privilege and listen to her at the same time. Hurt, anger, a need for healing is occupying the foreground.... This needs to be okay.

These are the times when women need to be afforded the intrinsic right to separate and coalesce around a common experience of pain or their particular experience of oppression. This should be okay, too.

Not everything can be resolved on command, or in one sitting, especially when the source of the pain and oppression is a day to day, lived experience.

That WOC (or lesbian women, for that matter) are asked to sideline their needs/imperatives for the greater good, or the benefit of others, or in the service of a "big tent" metaphor, it NOT okay.

That said, not everything can be resolved in one sitting or conversation, especially when the source of pain and oppression is ongoing.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Chazz

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.

I agree.

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

Ahhh... as a feminist, this I don't agree with. I vehemently support women-only spaces, (as I do POC spaces, which may have people in them who "appear" to be as white as me). Trangender women belong in women's spaces. Woman-born-woman is an exclusionary term to my feminist mind, based upon the extreme experiences of misogyny that transwomen deal with. To me, this is a feminist, (not a gender-theory) issue. I run a shelter for battered women and teach self-defense classes to women survivors of assault. Both spaces include transgender women.

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.

I agree about the marginalization and the calling out. Perhaps I was personalizing.... thank you for the dialogue, warts and all.

Heart

[Heart]

Chazz is right about the pain and hurt in these discussions. Also anxiety, sadness, frustration....

To share a bit further about my experience:

Just as I recognize the privilege that transmen garner, (even when they refuse to), I also recognize the misogyny and sexism that transwomen deal with. Hate crimes and violence towards transwomen is off the charts high.

I work in a field (anti-domestic violence) founded by 2nd wave feminists in the 1970s, many of whom were lesbians. The inability of many of the providers in this field to provide safety or services for transwomen who have been raped or were in abusive relationships (most often with a straight man), is deeply disturbing and divisive.

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.

It's clear to me that we do not have to change our feminist, anti-patriarchal frmework one jot in order to bring transwomen into safe spaces, because transwomen are very vulnerable to patriarchal oppression and danger. But that's been a hard message to get across. The feelings of suspicion, threat, and betrayal within the feminist advocacy community remains intense. I think we have to shift away from gender-speak and go back to language and tools rooted in feminism in order to continue the discussion.

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

Heart