Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi
Jess,
This speaks to me on so many different levels. Of particular interest today is how you pointed out that some of us use the word lesbian in a narrowly focused way. Yet, in doing so, the intent is not to take away from others or to be in opposition to others. I would add in to not be in competition with others as well.
I have asked repeatedly in this thread what is so threatening about lesbians, who define very narrowly asking for their own space to talk....
....And, a couple of days ago, here comes this narrow definition lesbian, asking for narrow definition lesbian space to discuss narrow definition lesbian stuff.
Deja vu? Wounds run deep. You, inadvertantly pick at the scars, the rawness of the wounds find the light of day.
Did I connect the dots in the right order?
|
I'm still thinking about this "defining oneself in opposition" business....
Let's pluck out the term
opposition from that statement and drop in the word,
contrast.... As in, F/W IDed butches stand in
contrast to male IDed butches - not in how we look, necessarily, but in how we identify. (I look mega butch - whatever that means - and, so what?)
Is there something about
contrasting identities that some find unsettling, even as they are questioning our willingness to embrace diversity?
Why proffer veiled accusations about "opposition" and "oppression" in this thread?
Why would "we" experience a need for a thread about
reclaiming lesbian pride if "we" weren't
already painfully aware of "opposition", "oppression"?
For me, the answer to these questions lies in Feminism and in the Civil Rights Movement.... Here's an article by Marilyn Frye that offers insight.
OPPRESSION and the use of definition
by Marilyn Frye
"It is a fundamental claim of feminism that women are oppressed. The word "oppression" is a strong word. It repels and attracts. It is dangerous and dangerously fashionable and endangered. It is much misused, and sometimes not innocently.
The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the claim that men are oppressed too. We hear that oppressing is oppressive to those who oppress as well as those they oppress. Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised inability to cry. It is tough, we are told, to be masculine. When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word "oppression" is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, [Chazz says: Or fail, to explicitly say as much, every time we open our mouths] we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. We are accused of insensitivity; even of bigotry. For women, such accusation is particularly intimidating, since sensitivity is one of the few virtues that has been assigned to us. If we are found insensitive, we may fear we have no redeeming traits at all and perhaps are not real women. Thus are we silenced before we begin: the name of our situation drained of meaning and our guilt mechanisms tripped.
....The boundary that sets apart women’s sphere is maintained and promoted by men generally for the benefit of men generally, and men generally do benefit from its existence, even the man who bumps into it and complains of the inconvenience...."
READ THE ARTICLE IN ITS ENTIRETY AT:
http://zinelibrary.info/files/Frye.pdf
