Interpreting lesbian historiae
Jan. 8th, 2011 10:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marjaerwinAt some point, I'm not sure exactly when or from where, I picked up the dominant interpretation of recent lesbian historia.
Among other problems, this view misrepresents separatist feminism. Of course, separatism can have serious flaws, but its actual character don't always correspond with its supposed character.
In the dominant interpretation, separatism was uniquely lesbian, separatists retreated from engagement with the world and with mainstream feminism, separatists encouraged ideas of gender essentialism and/or female superiority, separatists attempted to police lesbian identities and sexualities, and separatists campaigned against trans people and trans inclusion in womyn's spaces.
Early separatist feminism was quite different. Many separatist projects were created by and for straight womyn; Cell 16, who created *No More Fun and Games,* are probably the most famous of these. Some others were created by and for lesbian womyn; the RadicaLesbians and the Furies probably contributed to the profile of separatism in their work against Freiden's attempt to purge lesbian womyn from the National Organization for Women. They did not retreat and abandon activism. They were not essentialists and, if anything, were far too subversivist. *The Woman-Identified Woman* pushes pansexualism as much as lesbianism, and androgyny as much as gynocentrism. Separatists helped organize trans-inclusive projects such as Olivia Records, and anti-separatists started the boycott against them.
Later separatist feminism seems to have gone in the opposite direction. The focus changed from creating womyn's spaces within mixed communities to creating womyn's communities far from men. Straights tried, and usually failed, to become political lesbians; lesbianism, in turn, was desexualized and lesbians were pressed to conform to straight rejections of butch/femme and so on.
That said, a clean division between early separatism and late separatism is probably impossible. We rarely consider small feminist spaces, such as bookstores or shelters, to be separatist projects, but they often are, and they are often closing due to invisibility and lack of support/money. We seem to be fighting the same battles over and over again, and queer theory, as an ideology, is just as misguided as androgyny was.
Among other problems, this view misrepresents separatist feminism. Of course, separatism can have serious flaws, but its actual character don't always correspond with its supposed character.
In the dominant interpretation, separatism was uniquely lesbian, separatists retreated from engagement with the world and with mainstream feminism, separatists encouraged ideas of gender essentialism and/or female superiority, separatists attempted to police lesbian identities and sexualities, and separatists campaigned against trans people and trans inclusion in womyn's spaces.
Early separatist feminism was quite different. Many separatist projects were created by and for straight womyn; Cell 16, who created *No More Fun and Games,* are probably the most famous of these. Some others were created by and for lesbian womyn; the RadicaLesbians and the Furies probably contributed to the profile of separatism in their work against Freiden's attempt to purge lesbian womyn from the National Organization for Women. They did not retreat and abandon activism. They were not essentialists and, if anything, were far too subversivist. *The Woman-Identified Woman* pushes pansexualism as much as lesbianism, and androgyny as much as gynocentrism. Separatists helped organize trans-inclusive projects such as Olivia Records, and anti-separatists started the boycott against them.
Later separatist feminism seems to have gone in the opposite direction. The focus changed from creating womyn's spaces within mixed communities to creating womyn's communities far from men. Straights tried, and usually failed, to become political lesbians; lesbianism, in turn, was desexualized and lesbians were pressed to conform to straight rejections of butch/femme and so on.
That said, a clean division between early separatism and late separatism is probably impossible. We rarely consider small feminist spaces, such as bookstores or shelters, to be separatist projects, but they often are, and they are often closing due to invisibility and lack of support/money. We seem to be fighting the same battles over and over again, and queer theory, as an ideology, is just as misguided as androgyny was.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Rescuing Good Feminism from Bad Feminists
Date: 2011-01-11 11:56 pm (UTC)As we're in the interest of representing ideologies as they could *best* be understood, what is wrong with queer theory ("as an ideology")?
Re: Rescuing Good Feminism from Bad Feminists
Date: 2011-01-12 06:31 pm (UTC)I think queer theory builds its whole structure on the uncertain sands of its understanding of sex and gender. And that its understanding is a misunderstanding. I know that "all gender is drag" is a bastardization, but the idea that "gender is a performative" completely ignores the ways people group disparate things into gender, and these things aren't all the same, and these things aren't all performatives.
I am transsexual, and I felt that my body didn't quite fit right from my earliest memories. I learned not to say or ask anything about that. I struggled with ever-present feelings and never performed them. They never became drag. They rarely became a performative - when people mocked me and called me a girl, I dismissed that from my mind the same as when they mocked me and called me a fag. I am actually a dyke.
I think most other forms of feminism leave room to revise their theories about sex and gender, while queer theory crashes down if we try to change its theories to acknowledge internal aspects.
Re: Rescuing Good Feminism from Bad Feminists
Date: 2011-01-12 06:39 pm (UTC)That's more of an issue with trans politics than queer theory. That's something many people have struggled with, but the language won't cooperate. And the majority, who don't face any trouble for the confusion, are perfectly happy to use the same word for both things, instead of helping change the language to something with the space to express the concepts.