Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Heart]

[QUOTE=apocalipstic;397051]The children used to always go to the mother, but now, in the name of Women's Lib...somehow the trend seems to be to give the kids to the fathers, especially if they have more money...which considering the still wide split in wages...they are likely to have.
QUOTE]

Actually, it's a fallacy that kids always went to the mother. The truth is that historically fathers rarely sought custody of their children, so mom was the default. And when fathers did contest custody, they usually won - sometimes because they had more means, and sometimes simply because they were fathers making a demand and the courts complied, even if the mother was fit.

One of the things the so-called "Father's Rights" groups have done is to stand the concept of more involved and responsible fathering on its head by taking it into the courts. They claim they want to be more involved fathers, but the truth is they are using courts as a way to exert control over their ex-wives, with their children as pawns. They have conflated "involvement" with their agenda for ownership, hijacked the Responsible Father's Movement, and shifted it to one of father's RIGHTS (the change in terminology being telling).

There are involved and loving fathers who are divorcing and want to maintain strong connections to their children via shared custody.
Usually in these situations, the divorcing parents are able to come to a mediated agreement. Some men are faced with a vindictive ex-wife who is using the courts, but that is the statistical exception. It is more common for men to manipulate custody cases, most unfounded child welfare reports are made by men, and men routinely do better in family court forensics because they control more of the resources in the family.

In short, women don't do well in family court when it comes to contested custody and visitation cases, though the myth is that family courts always favor mothers. That's what Father's Rights groups want you to believe. They were the ones behind the spurious diagnosis of "parental alienation syndrome" used against abused mothers to wrest their children away, and they were also proponants of charging mothers who had been battered in front of their kids with "failing to protect" their children from domestic violence.

There are links, articles, research, etc. There's also the fact that after speaking as an advocate on behalf of battered mothers at a state hearing in Albany a number of years ago, a father's rights nut-job tried to run the car I was in off the road.

The harsh reality is, once you enter a court, it's about power, possession, property, legitimacy, and ownership, not about relationships, and that's where men have it all over women.

And if you're a lesbian parent without a biological or legal connection to the child, facing homophobia and misogyny, (both rooted in patriarchy), your chances are bleak. It remains to be seen what kind of impact legal marriage in some states will have on parenting in gay/lesbian families.

Heart

[Apocalipstic]

[quote=Heart;397071]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

The children used to always go to the mother, but now, in the name of Women's Lib...somehow the trend seems to be to give the kids to the fathers, especially if they have more money...which considering the still wide split in wages...they are likely to have.
QUOTE]

Actually, it's a fallacy that kids always went to the mother. The truth is that historically fathers rarely sought custody of their children, so mom was the default. And when fathers did contest custody, they usually won - sometimes because they had more means, and sometimes simply because they were fathers making a demand and the courts complied, even if the mother was fit.

One of the things the so-called "Father's Rights" groups have done is to stand the concept of more involved and responsible fathering on its head by taking it into the courts. They claim they want to be more involved fathers, but the truth is they are using courts as a way to exert control over their ex-wives, with their children as pawns. They have conflated "involvement" with their agenda for ownership, hijacked the Responsible Father's Movement, and shifted it to one of father's RIGHTS (the change in terminology being telling).

There are involved and loving fathers who are divorcing and want to maintain strong connections to their children via shared custody.
Usually in these situations, the divorcing parents are able to come to a mediated agreement. Some men are faced with a vindictive ex-wife who is using the courts, but that is the statistical exception. It is more common for men to manipulate custody cases, most unfounded child welfare reports are made by men, and men routinely do better in family court forensics because they control more of the resources in the family.

In short, women don't do well in family court when it comes to contested custody and visitation cases, though the myth is that family courts always favor mothers. That's what Father's Rights groups want you to believe. They were the ones behind the spurious diagnosis of "parental alienation syndrome" used against abused mothers to wrest their children away, and they were also proponants of charging mothers who had been battered in front of their kids with "failing to protect" their children from domestic violence.

There are links, articles, research, etc. There's also the fact that after speaking as an advocate on behalf of battered mothers at a state hearing in Albany a number of years ago, a father's rights nut-job tried to run the car I was in off the road.

The harsh reality is, once you enter a court, it's about power, possession, property, legitimacy, and ownership, not about relationships, and that's where men have it all over women.

And if you're a lesbian parent without a biological or legal connection to the child, facing homophobia and misogyny, (both rooted in patriarchy), your chances are bleak. It remains to be seen what kind of impact legal marriage in some states will have on parenting in gay/lesbian families.

Heart

Thank you for clarifying this. In the cases I know of personally, it have been about control and money and men have more of both, so they win.

Honestly the reason I never had children of my own is that I knew here in TN that my own father would have stepped in and gotten custody. That is what happens inn places like this. I could have moved, but staying here was more important to me at the time. Having a child somewhere with no support network where I did not know any one seemed too overwhelming.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

....Chazz, good for you for being a stand up Mom. It is heartbreaking that anyone would use a child as a pawn in a break up or just refuse to achnowledge that someone who was in a child's life for years should have the right to at least see the child.

I did the best I could, apocalipstic. Thank you for the recognition.

To this day, patriarchy (and it's enforcers) still see children as possessions, chattel. Many men still "their women" this way, too. No amount of neo-age, PC rhetoric has altered that an iota.

Even when a father is little more than a sperm donor, he has total ownership of a child. It doesn't matter that said child was parented, nurtured or financially supported by someone else for years. Biology IS destiny in the concrete world whether post-modernists recognize it or not through the haze of their immanent acts of mind.

Originally Posted by Heart

One of the things the so-called "Father's Rights" groups have done is to stand the concept of more involved and responsible fathering on its head by taking it into the courts. They claim they want to be more involved fathers, but the truth is they are using courts as a way to exert control over their ex-wives [and punish them], with their children as pawns. They have conflated "involvement" with their agenda for ownership, hijacked the Responsible Father's Movement, and shifted it to one of father's RIGHTS (the change in terminology being telling). [Changes in terminology are always telling.]

There are involved and loving fathers who are divorcing and want to maintain strong connections to their children via shared custody.
Usually in these situations, the divorcing parents are able to come to a mediated agreement. Some men are faced with a vindictive ex-wife who is using the courts, but that is the statistical exception. It is more common for men to manipulate custody cases, most unfounded child welfare reports are made by men, and men routinely do better in family court forensics because they control more of the resources in the family.

In short, women don't do well in family court when it comes to contested custody and visitation cases, though the myth is that family courts always favor mothers. That's what Father's Rights groups want you to believe. [Claiming to be the greater victim/the aggrieved party are men's tools of choice these days as they expand their dominion over women.] They were the ones behind the spurious diagnosis of "parental alienation syndrome" used against abused mothers to wrest their children away, and they were also proponents of charging mothers who had been battered in front of their kids with "failing to protect" their children from domestic violence.

There are links, articles, research, etc. There's also the fact that after speaking as an advocate on behalf of battered mothers at a state hearing in Albany a number of years ago, a father's rights nut-job tried to run the car I was in off the road.

The harsh reality is, once you enter a court, it's about power, possession, property, legitimacy, and ownership, not about relationships, and that's where men have it all over women.

And if you're a lesbian parent without a biological or legal connection to the child, facing homophobia and misogyny, (both rooted in patriarchy), your chances are bleak. It remains to be seen what kind of impact legal marriage in some states will have on parenting in gay/lesbian families.

Heart

And gender theory is addressing these issues how?

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Chazz

And gender theory is addressing these issues how?

I'm not an academic and not an expert in gender theory or feminist theory, by any means. But Rosi Braidotti, an Italian feminist, has criticized gender studies as: "the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity.... promoting gender as a way of de-radicalizing the feminist agenda, and re-marketing masculinity (including gay male identity), instead."

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

I'm not an academic and not an expert in gender theory or feminist theory, by any means. But Rosi Braidotti, an Italian feminist, has criticized gender studies as: "the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity.... promoting gender as a way of de-radicalizing the feminist agenda, and re-marketing masculinity (including gay male identity), instead."

In practice, gender theory is exactly that: "the take-over of the feminist agenda by studies on masculinity.... promoting gender as a way of de-radicalizing the feminist agenda, and re-marketing masculinity, instead...."

To that, I would add: Gender theory is also the rebranding of "womanhood", "female", "femininity" by men who cherish the binary and gender constructs because both serve their immanent acts of mind.

The bitter irony of lesbians being in the service of that agenda has turned "Sisterhood is powerful" into "Sisterhood as farce".

[Heart]

The popularization of gender theory (which is common in B-F-T communities), continues the worship and over-valuing of masculine/man/male, while expressing ambivalence and undervaluing of feminine/woman/female.
I don't find current expressions of "girl power," with its ongoing sexualization of children and commodification of women's bodies and sexuality, to be liberatory. And the reality is that binaries have been reinforced, rather than blurred, crossed, or jettisoned because gender theory, at least as enacted in queer communities, seems to lack any political analysis of institutionalized power.

Again, not an expert in gender theory in any way, just my observations.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

The popularization of gender theory (which is common in B-F-T communities), continues the worship and over-valuing of masculine/man/male, while expressing ambivalence and undervaluing of feminine/woman/female.
I don't find current expressions of "girl power," with its ongoing sexualization of children and commodification of women's bodies and sexuality, to be liberatory. And the reality is that binaries have been reinforced, rather than blurred, crossed, or jettisoned because gender theory, at least as enacted in queer communities, seems to lack any political analysis of institutionalized power.

Again, not an expert in gender theory in any way, just my observations.

Heart, you're a woman, a lesbian, with many years of experience within the "B-F-T communities" - YOU ARE AN EXPERT ! ! ! !

Another vastly different, and I think essential, aspect of Feminist/Womanist theory is that it's genesis was largely an evolve-up, grass roots form of heuristic that addresses multiple oppression (race, class, economic and ageism).... Gender theory is largely a creation of academicians and jocositists that speaks to a largely white, privileged and male identified constituency solely about gender.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

The popularization of gender theory (which is common in B-F-T communities), continues the worship and over-valuing of masculine/man/male, while expressing ambivalence and undervaluing of feminine/woman/female.
I don't find current expressions of "girl power," with its ongoing sexualization of children and commodification of women's bodies and sexuality, to be liberatory. And the reality is that binaries have been reinforced, rather than blurred, crossed, or jettisoned because gender theory, at least as enacted in queer communities, seems to lack any political analysis of institutionalized power. Again, not an expert in gender theory in any way, just my observations.

Mine as well. And this lack of analysis of institutionalized power is at the "heart" of racism as well. Just more reinforcement of an unequal foundation. What is so terribly sad to me is that gender theory could be such a positive force in de-constructing this power structure.

Don't get me started on "girl power"....

[Apocalipstic]

How does BF play into these gender roles?

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

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

[Martina]

One of the reasons gender studies started investigating masculinity -- and this was at least twenty years ago -- was that the masculine and the male were considered the baseline, the ur gender, the the model of humanness. There needed to be an historical and cross-cultural understanding of how masculinity and maleness were constructed IN ORDER to destabilize the binary, in order to understand that the idea of male identity, especially in psychoanalysis and medicine, was not a stable social fact.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Martina

One of the reasons gender studies started investigating masculinity -- and this was at least twenty years ago -- was that the masculine and the male were considered the baseline, the ur gender, the the model of humanness. There needed to be an historical and cross-cultural understanding of how masculinity and maleness were constructed IN ORDER to destabilize the binary, in order to understand that the idea of male identity, especially in psychoanalysis and medicine, was not a stable social fact.

To the untrained eye it looks like it stuck there.

[Martina]

What's missing is a social movement. That's what we're longing for. And it's not coming out of women's studies or gender studies departments. Nor should it.

Women's Studies departments were built out of a social movement, but they are now parts of academic institutions. Students may start social movements, but their professors never will.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Martina

One of the reasons gender studies started investigating masculinity -- and this was at least twenty years ago -- was that the masculine and the male were considered the baseline, the ur gender, the the model of humanness. There needed to be an historical and cross-cultural understanding of how masculinity and maleness were constructed IN ORDER to destabilize the binary, in order to understand that the idea of male identity, especially in psychoanalysis and medicine, was not a stable social fact.

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've been a gender transgressor for my entire lifetime. When I was six years old I boycotted the Flintstones, refusing to watch them because of the ridged gender stereotypes the show promoted. I started riding motorcycles in 1981. I instruct riders at the racetrack. I've made a living at various times as a carpenter and general contractor. Without any friends or family in the business, I earned a union card in the Stagehands Union in the mid 1980s. It's an infamously sexist and bigoted union, and 1986 was an inauspicious time for that sort of pioneering.

I've fought that war with my own body, too. I've been the object of unwanted sexual attention from men from my earliest memory. When a strong beard sprouted on my chin in my mid twenties, the attention magically disappeared. What a relief! I suddenly was free from daily verbal rape. I unselfconsciously wore my beard, along with my hairy legs, with my vintage dresses and high heeled shoes. I reasoned that anyone I wanted to know wouldn't care about my beard, or they might even admire my courage. I didn't shave it off until I was in my early 30s.

I did all of the above AS A WOMAN. I did the above declaring loudly all the while, "THIS IS WHAT A WOMAN LOOKS LIKE".

That's what it looks like to dismantle the gender binary in my world.

[Martina]

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 do not know what has been happening in gender studies in recent years. For all i know you are right. i am not your foil in this argument. i was making a point about how the departments arose, why masculinity studies emerged and were seen as important.

[Kobi]

I am very grateful for this dialogue. It is giving words to what I have been feeling internally. It has felt very important to me to reclaim female, woman, feminism, and lesbianism in their purest forms. Now I am beginning to grasp why it is so important to me.

Has feminism as a social movement died? Turned into a debate with competing theories? There must be some group, somewhere that is action oriented.

[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 Kobi

I am very grateful for this dialogue. It is giving words to what I have been feeling internally. It has felt very important to me to reclaim female, woman, feminism, and lesbianism in their purest forms. Now I am beginning to grasp why it is so important to me.

Has feminism as a social movement died? Turned into a debate with competing theories? There must be some group, somewhere that is action oriented.

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.

[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.

[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

[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?