View Single Post
Old 07-30-2011, 03:53 AM   #17
Kobi
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status:
Happy
 
39 Highscores

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,234
Thanks: 9,840
Thanked 34,630 Times in 7,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474861
Kobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST ReputationKobi Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heart View Post
I'm not talking about guarding women's space, I'm referring to lesbian-feminists who conflated masculinity with male and proceeded to push out women who were "too masculine." They also alienated women who were too feminine (femmes), seeing them as tools of the patriarchy, rather than as empowered queers.

As for the other statement, I meant that male-identified queer organizers may be replacing "butch" with "MoC" because they feel that butch is "too female" of an identity to be inclusive. That is not how I feel.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Heart
Heart,

Bear with me while I try and ferret something out in my head here.

From what I am understanding, you are saying the exclusion of what was perceived as extremes in the lesbian/feminist movement (i.e. conflating masculinity with male and pushing out women who were too masculine, and alienating women who were too feminine, seeing them as tools of the patriarchy rather than empowered queers) was a failure/fault of the lesbian/feminist movement.

Is it possible, that the leadership back in the 70's knew in order to successfully rebel against the patriarchy and to establish women and lesbian on women and lesbian terms, they had to remove elements that represented and reinforced the very thing they were fighting against?

Is it possible, that the leadership saw or intuited something they didnt have words for i.e. the gender/identity issues we struggle with now?

Is it possible, they saw or intuited these gender/identity issues and the ways in which they could manifest themselves, as something detrimental to what they were trying to set a platform for i.e. to allow women and lesbians to develop what they felt was best for them?

Is it possible, that they knew a strong matriarchial foundation was needed to withstand future attempts to infiltrate/dismantle/alter it by an insidious, pervasive, and dominant patriarchial, heteronormal ideology?

Is it possible, they knew, without a strong matriarchial foundation, the greatest threat to existence and success could and would come from within?

Given the things we now face, which have been amply described throughout this discussion, it is possible in retrospect, that what is seen as a failure/fault of the lesbian/feminist movement was, in actuality, very prophetic and visionary?

This just keeps floating around in my head and I'm trying to get a handle on it. Thoughts? Ideas? Commentary?
Kobi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Kobi For This Useful Post: