From: h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Out/Look Articles
Date: 5 Apr 92 18:22:58 GMT
Reply-To: h431@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr1.021412.7655@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu 
(Albert Lunde) writes:
>Out/Look (issue 16/spring 1992) is featuring a group of articles about
>bisexuality as its cover story.
>
>The introduction and the cover say "What Do Bisexuals Want?" - subtitled
>"An Out/Look Debate" / "Searching for a bisexual politic"
>
>There is another article raising questions about the bi movement by
>Ara Wilson: "Just Add Water: Searching for the Bisexual politic".
>
>The introduction says they are focusing on women because this is where
>the most pointed debate has taken place.
>
>Reading the Ara Wilson article, I'm tempted to try to write a rebuttal,
>but it is a little hard for me to decide how to approach it or even
>sum up briefly what she's saying.
>
>However, I'm going to give it a shot. I am quoting her at length in a
>effort to represent what she is saying as well as my view point.
>These are some points she makes:
>
>- She says that the bi movement is saying that hiding and repression of 
>people's erotic engagments with both women and men is oppressive even
>if that repression comes from gays and lesbians (I would agree.)
>
>- She goes on to say that the bi movement is responding to what she
>implies is their imagined view of "1970s-vintage" lesbian separatist
>stance on bisexuality. 
>
>- "Bisexual activists seem not only uniterested in the actual lesbian-
>feminist stance, but dismissive of underlying worries that a rush of
>bisexuals will clamor into the queer world, possibly with heterosexual
>lovers, like straight men in tow. The lack of curiosity about lesbian-
>feminist anxitity is in part a result of the dismissal of lesbians as
>sterotypically humorless, PC terrors, with no sense of style. It also
>shows a complete amnesia about feminist critiques of male dominance..."
>
>(This seems on a second reading to be the central theme of the article.)
>
>- "...In the current 'queer' landscape it is lesbians who are hardest
>to see." - and who have the most to lose from bis claiming more space
>and resources.
>
>- She describes some bi guerilla theater - and says: "This image of 
>the ... lesbian feminist soupuss is not new: what is new is the notion
>that these small pockets of women hold real power, power enough to
>oppress, police and censor the behaviors of young people who
>have barely encountered this subculture in person."
>
>- She denies on the basis of power differences the what she sees as the 
>bi movement equating oppression from lesbian-feminists with oppression 
>from society at large.
>
>- She says "the bisexual movement *sounds* like other progressive
>projects." ...but... "Can activists really think that lesbian feminists
>*oppress* them?" (she says maybe in isolated enclaves - but this is an
>illusion.)
>
>- She concludes that the bi movement may be about broadening the scope
>of the gay/lesbian movement rather than a movement in it's own right,
>but questions the costs: "While the movement for bisexual recognition
>undoubtedly offers a liberating framework for some men and women,
>some lesbians and gay men remain unmoved by heterosexual transgressions
>into our entrenced, yet fun, little world".
>

Albert, I've been musing on this over the last several days.  I'd like to
see the OutLook article, but I haven't made it to the lesbigay bookstore
yet.

The author doesn't believe that a marginal group such as lesbian-feminists
is capable of oppressing somebody else, since they ain't got no power.
And it's true that the oppression we bis complain about getting from the
lesbian community is different in kind than the larger social oppression
of "compulsory heterosexuality" and homophobia.

But still, there is a kind of oppression of not being able to tell the
truth about yourself, of having to shut up about the reality of your
relationships for fear of that cold-shoulder you get when transgress PC
boundaries.  Many bi women are feminists, and are active participants
in feminist institutions, political groups, feminist research and criticism,
and women's culture.  Many of us were hoping for a place among those 
institutions that fight against sexism and homophobia in the larger
mainstream society.  To be told, "no you can't play" because our sexuality
is not PC, leaves us where?  Are we then supposed to go back to the sexist
mainstream society and forget about feminism?  I certainly don't want to.

My own response was to help start the U of Chicago Bisexual Union, just
to have breathing space on the bi issue.  But I also still try to 
participate in feminist projects with women of all sexual orientations.  
I brace myself for the bad reactions I might get when I let the PC-types 
know I'm bi, but I'm not going back into that double closet again, thank you.  
This is psychologically hard on me, although I think it's important, so I 
don't know how I'd do it without UCBU.

Also, the author wants to protect lesbian and women's "space" from being
overrun by men, and "queer" space from being overrun by hets.  Ain't it
interesting how this whole "space" issue is so much the point?.  Almost
as if "feminism = women's space", and not thinking about what the reason
was for the creation of this women's space in the first place.  I think
separate spaces are important for healing the wounds we get from sexism,
but I don't think I want a whole world that is nothing but separatist
spaces of different kinds.  We need feminist mixed-space, men and women,
all sexual orientations, too.  

Remember straight people need feminism just as much as queers.  And
men just as much as women. 

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>
>I have mixed reactions to this. I am concerned by bi politics if we
>do not listen to feminism or we have pointless hostility to the gay or
>lesbian communities.
>
I totally agree with you, Albert!

>At the same time, having come out in the late 70's after several years
>of prior involvement with the feminist movement, "70s-vintage"
>lesbian feminism and lesbian-separatism are not just figures of retoric
>for me.  I learned and internalized a lot of this stuff; the fact that
>I've discounted the more extreme parts does not mean I've disavowed
>all connection with lesbian-feminism. I'm annoyed by her characterization
>of bis as new to ideology and politics.

No, not all of us are new.  It does seem insulting.
>
>She refers to the "actual lesbian-feminist stance" - but I'm less sure
>I can decide what she is saying it is. (Maybe that lesbian feminists
>are not uptight PC types and that they don't have enough power to
>oppress bis if they wanted to.) As soc.feminism shows, there is never
>really a monolithic feminist (or bi) position on any thing.

Yeah, I wondered what she meant by that too, but I haven't yet read
the article.
>
>I know lesbian feminists who are bi-supportive, and as a man I tend
>not to have direct contact with extreme seperatists. Women I know
>have gotten trashed fairly recently for being bi by other lesbians.
>
How do you mean 'trashed'?  Expelled from feminist groups?  Socially
shunned?

>I guess what I want to advocate is shifting away from the essentialism
>of extreme seperatism towards a more "polymormously perverse" ;-)
>queer sexual liberation/social deconstruction movement.
>
You should write this up.

>
>I want to respect the subgroups within the lesbigay communities,
>and at the same time I hope we eventially suceed in making all this
>unneccessary.  I hope newer Bis will take this seriously, but
>not so seriously as to burn out on ideology or abandon:
>
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
> alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................


-- 

- Heather Blair       h431@midway.uchicago.edu