From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Why are there only men on
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 22:34:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.083009.14120@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.031938.583@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>	I think "sexual" puts the emphasis in the wrong place, but there
>may be competition for women's hearts and minds. I have a friend who,
>though considering herself a feminist by her own definition, feels very
>alienated by the present-day attitudes she sees dominating the feminist
>movement. I had mentioned to her recently my feeling that a gap was
>growing between the feminist leadership and the grassroots feminism of
>women in general, and she was the one who brought up the lesbian
>influence, stating that she felt very politically incorrect for liking
>men, for wanting to settle down as a housewife and raise children with a
>man. She felt put down.

So, that's the way she thinks.  Where's the proof?  Out of the
feminist leadership, who are the lesbians?  Steinem?  Friedan?  Greer?
Yard?  Wolf?  Faludi?  MacKinnon?  Dworkin identified herself as
lesbian in one of her books published in the late 70s.  Paglia is
either bi or lesbian and a self-proclaimed feminist, but hardly seems
to be politically correct.

What bothers me about this "blame it on the lesbians" thread is that
the undercurrent seems to be that feminism isn't for most women, just
the fringe of lesbians (in fact, isn't that what starbuck repeatedly
asserts?).  And since feminism isn't for most women (particularly
hetero women), these horrible lesbians must be brainwashing nice,
decent hetero women into hating men and hating their traditional place
in our culture.  And yet, most of the female feminist leadership
appears to be hetero, as do most of the female feminists in real life
and on the net.

>	I've also seen complaints from bisexual women who feel
>pressured to choose sides, to make a political declaration out of their
>sexuality. Why should they have to? What's wrong with keeping who they
>sleep with their own business, dictated by their own passions?

You obviously see this differently from some of us.  Some people see
lesbigay people who don't come out as analogous to Jews saying nothing
during the Third Reich or blacks passing as white during the pre-civil
rights days.  That to remain silent when the likes of Lou Sheldon are
on the march, when Colorado can pass a law that in effect allows
discrimination against lesbigays is cowardly.  That's why there must
be a political declaration of their sexuality.

 The
>friend I mentioned above has done some same-sex experimentation in the
>past; women, I sometimes suspect, are more inclined to bisexuality than
>men, the flip side of their being less homophobic. She's nonetheless a
>wife, homemaker and mother by choice and preference.

So, that's her choice.  It's certainly not one that many of the women
I know would want, but it's her choice and I respect that choice.

>	I've known women who seemed to adopt (or abandon) lesbianism for
>political reasons. Again, my impression is that women have an easier
>time with bisexuality than men do. Men tend to declare.

So, these women are bi, not hetero. 

>	So starbuck has a point. At least one subcategory of feminists,
>lesbian separatists, has a clear interest in encouraging other women to
>leave men out of their lives, and I do think that gender orientation is
>mutable for at least some people, the bisexuals. And if you throw in the
>fact that there's probably a touch of the bisexual in everyone, and that
>women are less frightened by that fact than men are, on average, then
>sexuality and gender preference can be a political issue.

Why do lesbian separatists have a clear interest in encouraging other
women to leave men out of their lives?  That's certainly clear to you,
but not to me.  In fact, I'd think the lesbian separatists would go
off happily on their own, wanting to be left alone by all heterosexuals.

>	Nor would this only apply to lesbian separatists. Any woman who
>felt that the power imbalance is tilted toward men, and that sexual
>relations are an aspect of that imbalance, might see a sexual tilt away
>from men as possible and desirable.

And what is wrong with that?  If many women are bi (something I tend
to doubt in our culture) and many women feel a power imbalance not in
their favor and choose to invest their time and energy in
relationships with women (a fact that most hetero women do anyway--ask
a few hetero women who they go to for comforting and talk about their
problems, and I bet most of them won't say their male s.o.s), what's
the problem with that?  

I don't see the lesbian separatists telling women something that most
of them don't already know because of their own experiences with men.
If you're female and you're the one always doing the housework (with
which your male s.o. "helps") while you both work, does Dworkin need
to tell you that you're not having fun?  If your male lover insists
that you should have orgasms by intercourse alone, does a lesbian
separatist need to tell you that something is wrong?

I know hetero women who say that they would love to be bi or lesbian,
so that they wouldn't have to deal with men.  They still stick with
men because they're hetero.  And it wasn't the lesbian separatists who
somehow brainwashed them into not wanting to deal with men, it was the
men they've been involved with.  (I guess I should add that some of
these women have made such obviously bad choices of partners that I've
wanted to shake some sense into them.)

>	I am not trying to trash feminism or lesbianism, only to
>suggest that there could be something worth discussing, here.

Perhaps.  Of course, you should realize that to some of us, this focus
on the effects of lesbians on feminism smacks of the old "homosexuals
recruiting" theme, just with a spin to feminism.  In a less homophobic
culture and atmosphere, it would be easier to discuss these things.

A discussion on what appears to me to be a resentment and
fear on the part of some hetero men that, given a choice, women would
choose each other for intimacy would be an interesting part of the
discussion. 

 My own
>feeling is that a bias toward the career woman, and away from the
>homemaker, is a much bigger source of tension between organized
>feminism and some of the women it claims to serve, than lesbianism. But
>I was nevertheless impressed by my friend's comments, since she had
>been an active feminist, attending meetings and such, and has observed
>feminism more closely than I.

Yep.  As I often say in email, "this is my take, your mileage may
vary."  When I'm not telling people to fuck off, that is.  :)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism