graylove

graylove @ 2008-07-16T19:59:00

2008-07-17T01:07:07Z

Scale back your long hopes

to a short period. While we
speak, time is envious and

is running away from us.
Seize the day, trusting
little in the future.

Horace, 65 B.C.E.

Paper: Lesbians and Feminism

2008-05-08T00:26:20Z

This is a paper I wrote discussing whether lesbian politics and feminist politics are always congruent. It's something that's interesting to think about for anyone who is (or isn't!) connected to the queer community.

Lesbian politics are commonly thought of as a sub-group of feminist politics. After all, in a woman-woman relationship, both partners have female interest in mind. But while straight women face oppression because of their sex, lesbians face oppression because of both their sex and their sexuality. The feminist movement does not currently address heterosexism – the idea that everyone must be either a female attracted to males or a male attracted to females. The gay rights movement, too, is not enough for lesbians, because it fails to address the obstacles lesbians face as women and the patriarchal attitudes that exist in some gay men.

In this paper, I will explain that though feminists should fight for all women, regardless of sexual orientation, the current movement of feminism is not enough for lesbians to achieve sexual equality. I will show that lesbians and their allies must create a new branch of feminism, devoted both to ending heterosexism and to ending sexism. I will also examine the argument from some feminists that lesbian partnerships with male-female roles subvert feminist goals, and prove that criticizing said partnerships is the real subversion to feminism. Lesbians must expand the feminist movement to include all sexually oppressed women, and create a new movement that works toward equality between women and men as well as between straight and non-straight individuals.

Lesbians and feminists have much in common. All lesbians and most feminists are women. Both groups face oppression. Most lesbians, as women, care about the feminist movement, and most feminists, in their fight against sexual oppression, care about the treatment of lesbian women. Yet lesbian politics and feminist politics differ. For a lesbian, the desire to gain the 1,500 rights that marriage would provide, including the ability to visit a partner or children in the hospital after an accident, may be more important to them than the feminist desire to receive the same wages as men do. Feminists may not want to spend as much time on gay rights issues as on issues that appeal to all women, gay or straight. Feminism currently doesn’t entirely encompass the needs of a lesbian in her fight for equality – though it addresses her desire to end patriarchy, it currently fails to address the oppression she faces for not being straight.

Lesbians face a conflict in who to identify with: the feminists who understand their obstacles as women, but not as gay women, or the gay rights activists who understand their obstacles as homosexuals, but not always as women. The gay community, though tolerant of a variety of sexualities and gender identities, is not always feminist-friendly, as patriarchal attitudes exist among many (but not all) gay men. Though they are no strangers to oppression, they may fail to realize that sexism is a real phenomenon that has real, damaging effects for women. They also may be worried that taking on a feminist identity as well as being a gay activist would somehow detract from their goals for the gay community.

Feminism, too, does not fully support lesbian needs. Feminism, as it exists today, is designed to resist the oppression women face for being women. Different people interpret this differently. Some see feminism as a movement born out of anger, in which every woman is a man-hating bra-burner. This, however, is not true feminism, because it asks not for equality with men, but suggest that men are bad and women are good. Other feminists, as I will discuss later, use feminism as a way to criticize and repress other women, setting standards like “a real feminist doesn’t shave her legs” or “a real feminist would never be a housewife.” This, too, is not true feminism, as it imposes more social rules on women rather than lifting them. Feminism is a movement meant to include all women, of all races, sexualities, and social standing. Unfortunately, today feminism has not entirely achieved this, as there are feminists who display the attitudes I explained above. Feminism could address lesbian needs if women united to expand its definition – but right now, it does not.

Lesbians, therefore, must create a lesbian-specific feminist movement that attends to their needs as gay women. This lesbian-feminism would have the goal of ending sexist and heterosexist attitudes, achieved through consciousness-raising and political initiatives. Lesbian-feminists would fight the social battles women face to be treated equally (the quest for traditionally female jobs, such as caretaking, to receive the same respect as traditionally male jobs; making child care more affordable and available; ending the glass ceiling and the mommy wage gap) and the political battles that gay people face to be treated equally (the civil right to marry; classifying crimes based on sexuality or gender-identity as hate crimes; making discrimination based on sexuality or gender-identity illegal; gaining adoption rights).

They would also strive to educate men and straight women about the obstacles they face, how that oppression affects gay women, and why we all have a moral obligation to demand equal rights for all people. Feminism would be expanded to include all forms of sexual oppression that women face, whether it’s based on gender or sexuality. Women of all identities would be included, regardless of their sexual choices or gender identity.

Some feminists would argue against this expansion of feminism to include lesbian politics. One argument is that lesbian partnerships in which one woman takes on a traditionally male appearance (a “butch”) and one is more traditionally feminine (a “femme”) are a subversion to feminism. They argue that women who take part in such relationships are giving into the traditional role of male dominance and are therefore going against the aims of feminism. When we deconstruct this argument, it becomes apparent that this is an example of “exclusive feminism” that excludes and criticizes fellow women for being who they are. This type of attitude has no place in the feminist arena.

The first flaw in this argument is that it imposes unrealistic and repressive standards on lesbian women. It says, in effect, that a lesbian woman’s value as a feminist rests on whether or not her sexual desires and personal identity fit into the exclusive feminist’s vision of what they should and shouldn’t be. It sends the message that being attracted to a dominant, masculine personality is an innate betrayal of fellow women and feminist goals, when in reality it is simply an uncontrollable sexual attraction. Criticizing women for their sexual instincts, a basic and unchangeable element of who they are, sabotages the unity that is required for the feminist movement to be effective.

In addition to chastising women for their natural desires, this line of thinking seems to leave them with few options: be masculine with a masculine partner, or be feminine with a feminine partner. This is strikingly similar to the very patriarchal attitude feminism is fighting against: telling women what they can and can’t be in order to be “good” women. Just as a sexist man may tell a woman to dress or act in a manner that is acceptable to him, women are telling lesbians to behave in a way that is acceptable to them.
This argument also suggests that these lesbian relationships are somehow harmful to feminism, yet these claims go unqualified. If anything, relationships between two women with one in a more powerful role prove that women have the same ability to be dominant in a relationship that men do – further establishing that men and women are equal and should be treated equally.

The final flaw in this argument is that it assumes that in a lesbian relationship the “butch” or masculine woman is dominant and the “femme” or more traditionally feminine woman is submissive. In reality, butch women face more social obstacles because of their very visually apparent deviance from the norm – they do not physically fit the mold of a straight, feminine woman, and will therefore be more likely to face oppression in their social and economic pursuits. Femme women are less noticeably deviant and have a socially acceptable appearance, making them less likely to be a target of oppression. Because of this, in butch-femme partnerships the femme often has more power resources, both socially and economically, and is therefore more likely to be dominant in the relationship.

In conclusion, lesbian politics can be included in feminism if we expand the definition of feminism to include all sexual oppression, not just that based on gender. There is room for every woman in the feminist forum, regardless of their sexual identity. To achieve this, lesbians must work both to educate non-lesbians about their oppression and to eliminate critical attitudes in other feminists. By fighting in the social and political realm, lesbian-feminists can represent their needs as women and as members of the gay community.

Women and Christianity; Native American feminism

2008-05-08T00:13:45Z

Excerpts from my literary analysis of Thomas King's "Green Grass, Running Water." Some thoughts on what it means to be a Native American feminist and what the bible has to say about women. It's disjointed because I cut out the parts related to King's story, so it doesn't read smoothly - I'm posting it because I think we could all benefit from conversation about both Native American culture and, on an entirely different note, what the Bible has to say about women.

First, a look at sexism within Native American cultures. Prior to colonization, sexism did not exist among Native Americans. Native communities had separate roles for men and women and divided labor based on gender, but gender distinction should not be confused with gender inequality. The work of women and men was considered equal in value, and women played important roles in leading their tribes spiritually and politically. Discrimination and violence against women was either rare or nonexistent within tribes. (Smith 126) Gender violence was first introduced to Native communities through boarding schools, where Native American children were “educated” in theory and subjected to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse in reality. Theorists argue that “much if not most of the current dysfunctionality in Native communities can be traced to the boarding school era.” (Smith 127)
Feminism within Native American communities is a complex issue. Some Native American women choose not to identify themselves as feminists because they consider it to be a “white” word that plays into a wider world view that American Indian nations are colonies of the United States. Some activists choose to separate themselves from feminism because they believe by doing so they support sovereignty and an individual native female identity. (Smith 117) One native woman states, “We are American Indian women, in that order. We are oppressed, first and foremost, as American Indians, as people colonized by the United States of America, not as women...Decolonization is the agenda, the whole agenda, and until it is accomplished, it is the only agenda that counts for American Indians.” (Smith 117) Yet other women disagree: “[The idea that feminism is a white term] presumes that Native women weren’t active in shaping our identity before white women came along. And that abusive male behavior is somehow tradition, and it’s absolutely not. So I reject that. That’s a claim against sovereignty. I think that’s a claim against Native peoples. I think it’s an utter act of racism and white supremacy. And I do think it’s important that we say we’re feminists without an apology.” (Smith 120) Some native women argue that feminism has origins in native culture more than white culture, as white men have always exercised domination over white women whereas patriarchy is a recent phenomenon in Native culture.

.....

Eve, the original woman, is described as literally responsible for all evil in the world, as well as the downfall of man. In Genesis 3 (which is entitled “The Fall of Man”), she is persuaded by a serpent to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and convinces Adam to eat the fruit as well. When God finds and questions them, Adam says, “The woman whom you put here with me – she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.” (Bible, Genesis 3:12) Later, God begins his punishment for Adam with the phrase “because you listened to your wife” (Bible, Genesis 3:17), emphasizing that the woman was wrong for what she did and the man was wrong because he listened to her. The author’s intention is to make it abundantly clear that woman was the evil-doer and man was merely a good-hearted bystander whose sole mistake was believing his wife. This story paints a familiar portrait: nice, good men and the manipulative women who destroy them. Note the use of the word “man” in the book’s title rather than “mankind,” confirming that this is, indeed, meant to be a gender issue. Woman was responsible not only for her own pains but also for the destruction of the innocent Adam and all men after him. This plays into the common stereotype of women as shrewdly persuasive and conniving. God then says to Eve, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” Womanhood itself becomes a punishment, a disability, and a burden, and women are enslaved to their husbands by God’s law.

.....

King then moves onto the story of Noah, with a twist on the familiar tale of the heroic man who built an ark so two of every species could survive a devastating flood. In the biblical version, God looks at the earth and sees only evil, so he decides to destroy mankind with a flood. Noah, a 600 year old man, was spared by God and given instructions to build an ark. Noah’s family is described as Noah, his wife, his three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japeth), and his sons’ wives. Everyone loads the ark with two of every animal and waits while the flood rages. After many months, Noah uses a raven and a dove to find land, and then slaughters them at an alter for God. (Bible, Genesis 6:7-7:20).
King’s depiction of Noah is a reflection of the sexist ideals so often expressed in the Bible. King gives Noah a fixation on breasts, the most objectified part of the female body. King's character Noah's requirement for a wife has nothing to do with personality, mutual affection, or common interests; he wants large breasts, looking at women not as people but as tools for his sexual pleasure. These views are endorsed elsewhere in the Bible: “Genesis 2:18-24 describes how Eve was created as a helper and sex partner to Adam, and 1 Corinthians 7:4 states, ‘For the wife does not rule over her body, but the husband does.’ Therefore it can be reasoned that it is a woman’s duty to be physically attracted to her man. If her man likes large breasts, it is her Christian duty to have them.” (Bailey 47) King discusses Noah in a humorous light, joking at his crass requests and exposing the outlandishness of oppressive patriarchy. Yet the sad truth remains that centuries of men have done (and some continue to do) exactly what Noah did: justify radical sexism against women by referencing biblical verses (that were written, not surprisingly, by men who thought they were superior to women). The very language used to identify the characters within the story of Noah in the Bible is oppressive: the men are given names and formal identification; the women are identified only as a wife. The women in this story are only as important as the men they serve. Their role and only name is “wife,” so their identity is not their own but rather an extension of their husband.
Noah’s treatment of women is closely related to his treatment of animals. His actions reflect the Christian hierarchy of authority: God, men to serve Him, women to serve men, and animals to serve everyone. In the Bible, Noah utilizes a raven and a dove in his search for land, and they successfully direct him and his family to shore. But Noah then sacrifices the animals to please God. He sees animals, much like women, not as living beings like him but as lesser (even soulless) creatures enslaved to him.

.....

Though much of the Bible contains sexist content, there are no accounts of Jesus discriminating against women. In fact, Jesus was described as very progressive when it came to issues of gender equality: “Jesus' treatment of and association with women…stands in sharp contrast to the religious messages about women promulgated both before and after his life…His reaction to women was strikingly revolutionary and even heretical. He ministered to women, included them in his public ministry, associated openly with them, spoke of their spiritual equality, and rejected the subservient and subordinate position that his culture had assigned to them.” (Padilla 67)