Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Thank you for your insightful response, Kobi.

I have some thoughts about this which I want to stew on a bit more before I let out, but one in particular is overwhelming me.


Pride. I've noticed in my own circles that it has become particularly passe to stand up to people. If someone says something you don't agree with you just respond with "ok whatever" and go on your merry way. I have rarely seen someone stand up and say "no, I am proud to be who i am, and this is why". There is quite a bit of fear surrounding acceptance and I think individuals are less likely to express pride in something if they feel it will alienate them from their chosen support group or social circle. This may be yet another folly of youth, which I am unfortunately subject to all too frequently, but the revelation is stunning to me this morning. This is something I will keep in the back of my mind and tumble around until it is a smooth, shiny concept. I do not want to be a "go with the flow" girl at the expense of my beliefs, no matter how many "friends" I lose.

Do you think it's an affliction of the younger generations to detest conflict so much that they avoid defending their beliefs? To me this seems VERY different from the approach taken by community members who are older than myself. Am I mistaken in this?

Scandal Andy,

I probably have more questions here than anything concrete to offer.

What do you mean by standing up to people is passe? Bring them here, we'll whip them into shape in no time

What does "ok whatever" signify to you? Is it an ok I hear you, or ok I respect your right to think that way, or more of an ok whatever dismissal kind of thing?

Are you asking if peer pressure affects only the young? In case you are, reread this thread with a different set of eyes .

I am not a parent, nor do I have the opportunity to be involved in young peoples lives on a daily basis. It is hard for me to equate what seemed normal to me as a kid and what is the norm today.

I grew up in an era of being surrounded by protests and movements - gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, gray panthers, Black Panthers, the Vietnam War, abortion rights and probably a bunch I forgot. There were profound changes going on that impacted, in one way or another on everyday life in big ways. (And I wonder why I am tired?)

This stuff spoken to me. It reasonated somewhere deep inside of me. Did my peers have the same kind of cathartic experience with it? No. Did they have the need to address things as I did? No. Did they stand up for themselves or others on a regular basis? No.

I was more social cause oriented. My peers, for the most part, were more social life oriented.

Is it different today?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

I've been thinking about this passivity too. I think its larger than just young people.

I wonder if social media gives us more connectivity to people we might not otherwise hang with is making us less confrontational? More like we need to not upset anyone.

I think that is some of it. Some of it, though, is a couple of memes that work to stifle the habit of discussion. One is the idea that if you disagree with me you are being *intolerant*. Since very few people want to be intolerant or thought of as being intolerant, they simply avoid disagreeing with others since to disagree with someone is thought to be prima facie evidence of not having an open mind. Another is the idea that we all have our own 'truth' or 'reality'. While this is ostensibly supposed to be the gateway to tolerance it is more appropriately the entrance to apathy. Why should I care if you espouse something anti-feminist if that is your 'truth' and my truth is something else? Just as well for me to ignore what you say and blithely go along pretending as if ideas don't have consequences.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Thank you for your insightful response, Kobi.

I have some thoughts about this which I want to stew on a bit more before I let out, but one in particular is overwhelming me.


Pride. I've noticed in my own circles that it has become particularly passe to stand up to people. If someone says something you don't agree with you just respond with "ok whatever" and go on your merry way. I have rarely seen someone stand up and say "no, I am proud to be who i am, and this is why". There is quite a bit of fear surrounding acceptance and I think individuals are less likely to express pride in something if they feel it will alienate them from their chosen support group or social circle. This may be yet another folly of youth, which I am unfortunately subject to all too frequently, but the revelation is stunning to me this morning. This is something I will keep in the back of my mind and tumble around until it is a smooth, shiny concept. I do not want to be a "go with the flow" girl at the expense of my beliefs, no matter how many "friends" I lose.

Do you think it's an affliction of the younger generations to detest conflict so much that they avoid defending their beliefs? To me this seems VERY different from the approach taken by community members who are older than myself. Am I mistaken in this?

I think this is a widespread syndrome much broader than just the youth of our community. That said, I think that it is more pronounced because while most of us over 40 were raised with *some* variation on the theme of 'there are good ideas and bad ideas, there are right ideas and wrong ideas...' it seems that the meme that there are only ideas and no idea is generically preferable to another idea has become pervasive. I notice it in the difference between the how my parent's generation spoke of civil rights and how we speak of our own civil rights struggle. Only now, in the last four or five years, has the queer movement even begun toying with the idea that we are, in fact, engaged in a moral battle and that our opponents are on the wrong side of it. If one actually reads the writings of the civil rights legends, however, one does not see the kind of equivocation one sees today. MLK Jr. never, as far as I am aware, gave even the smallest quarter to the idea that segregationists might have a point nor did he dismiss them as mere assholes. Instead, they were wrong, blacks and our allies were right, and it was just a matter of getting the majority to realize that segregation was a moral evil--not a merely undesirable condition but an actual moral evil.

Originally Posted by Heart

I'm older and other than a few dopes, I have never felt unaccepted by the lesbian community at large. Granted, I was not out as a femme until 2000, and I'm in NY, a pretty diverse queer community.

I don't experience some big monolithic lesbian community from which I am excluded, nor do I have expectations about how I should be embraced. Apoc - you asked how those who do not "fit the stereotype" can be accepted... but perhaps your belief in a lesbian stereotype is part of the problem... are you excluding yourself? Are you allowing the dictates of a few to determine your space? Or your pride?

This is a great point, Heart. When I came out as queer, other blacks used my queerness as evidence that my black identity (and therefore any claim I might have to blackness or black pride) was irrefutably broken. Now, it was already tenuous because I was never particularly 'street' and I certainly don't sound like I'm from the 'hood but coming out as queer was the final straw. Black people are not 'supposed' to be queer so if you are queer you have abandoned blackness. That was (and still is) the argument. For a while, I let that get in my head but then I came to my senses and realized that my blackness is not subject to other's dictates and that before I am either black or queer I am a *person*. We cannot afford to let others get in our heads and tell us that because we do not fit this or that stereotype that some person has determined is the signature trait of some group that we cannot claim membership of that group. That way madness truly lies.

We've come quite a distance from some of these limitations, but it's like a rubber-band -- it stretches, then snaps back, then stretches again. The thing that concerns me is when we fight each other at the expense of fighting patriarchy, sexism, misogyny, racism, classism, etc. This brings us full circle to the issue of diversity, solidarity, allyship, building bridges, and inclusivity. My biggest concern about what happened in the BV organization is that they deleted "feminism" from their mission statement. In no way can any queer organization speak for lesbians, butch women, women of color, transwomen or any women if they are not clear about their feminist principles.

I'm rambling... and I realize I'm off the topic of lesbian pride...

Heart

I don't know that you're too far off the topic, Heart. I think that feminism is non-optional for any queer movement worthy of supporting. Any queer movement, meme or ideology that turns its back on feminist principles should be suspect. By feminist principle, I mean something very simple--to me, feminism at base has one stance "women are people, for better or worse, they are first and foremost human beings" and one basic question "does this help women". If the meme does not treat women as people, then it is not feminist. If it does not have as one of its goals uplifting and empowering women or, at the very worst not doing any harm, then it does not deserve to be called feminist. The erasure of women is one of the reasons I had to pull back from BV. I wonder if some of why lesbian has become so problematic is that lesbian is definitively pro-woman. To me, lesbian and feminist go together in much the same way that life and water go together.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Scandal Andy,

I probably have more questions here than anything concrete to offer.

What do you mean by standing up to people is passe? Bring them here, we'll whip them into shape in no time

What I meant by that is that standing up to someone or choosing to staunchly disagree is often viewed as "being dramatic" or stirring up drama. If you are disagreeable, you're a drama queen and nobody wants to deal with that. I enjoy these forums because I feel that healthy debate is encouraged.

What does "ok whatever" signify to you? Is it an ok I hear you, or ok I respect your right to think that way, or more of an ok whatever dismissal kind of thing?

To me, it's a dismissal, as in "I don't want to get into it with you, so i am going to leave before things get ugly".

Are you asking if peer pressure affects only the young? In case you are, reread this thread with a different set of eyes .

No, I believe peer pressure is a constant, whether we choose to go along with it or not. What I was asking is whether my observation was on point when I said that older community members are less apt to give a damn what others think of them, and more likely to be confident in their beliefs without requiring the validation of others.

I am not a parent, nor do I have the opportunity to be involved in young peoples lives on a daily basis. It is hard for me to equate what seemed normal to me as a kid and what is the norm today. i cannot speak to this particular experience either

I grew up in an era of being surrounded by protests and movements - gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, gray panthers, Black Panthers, the Vietnam War, abortion rights and probably a bunch I forgot. There were profound changes going on that impacted, in one way or another on everyday life in big ways. (And I wonder why I am tired?) I did not grow up in a political household. I think it would be interesting to try and figure out where my activist drive comes from, in another thread of course.

This stuff spoken to me. It reasonated somewhere deep inside of me. Did my peers have the same kind of cathartic experience with it? No. Did they have the need to address things as I did? No. Did they stand up for themselves or others on a regular basis? No.

I was more social cause oriented. My peers, for the most part, were more social life oriented.

Is it different today?

Maybe it's this current culture of social media and the speed at which we are exposed to, process, then disregard various stimuli throughout our day, but I see fewer and fewer individuals stopping to think and truly ask themselves "is what is going on here okay? Is this hurtful to anyone?". There's a lot self-centered behavior reinforcing the "if it isn't happening to me, then I don't care" mentality. Maybe it's a side effect of geographic location or age demographic, it could be anything at all, I'm just not sure.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I think that is some of it. Some of it, though, is a couple of memes that work to stifle the habit of discussion. One is the idea that if you disagree with me you are being *intolerant*. Since very few people want to be intolerant or thought of as being intolerant, they simply avoid disagreeing with others since to disagree with someone is thought to be prima facie evidence of not having an open mind. Another is the idea that we all have our own 'truth' or 'reality'. While this is ostensibly supposed to be the gateway to tolerance it is more appropriately the entrance to apathy. Why should I care if you espouse something anti-feminist if that is your 'truth' and my truth is something else? Just as well for me to ignore what you say and blithely go along pretending as if ideas don't have consequences.




I think this is a widespread syndrome much broader than just the youth of our community. That said, I think that it is more pronounced because while most of us over 40 were raised with *some* variation on the theme of 'there are good ideas and bad ideas, there are right ideas and wrong ideas...' it seems that the meme that there are only ideas and no idea is generically preferable to another idea has become pervasive. I notice it in the difference between the how my parent's generation spoke of civil rights and how we speak of our own civil rights struggle. Only now, in the last four or five years, has the queer movement even begun toying with the idea that we are, in fact, engaged in a moral battle and that our opponents are on the wrong side of it. If one actually reads the writings of the civil rights legends, however, one does not see the kind of equivocation one sees today. MLK Jr. never, as far as I am aware, gave even the smallest quarter to the idea that segregationists might have a point nor did he dismiss them as mere assholes. Instead, they were wrong, blacks and our allies were right, and it was just a matter of getting the majority to realize that segregation was a moral evil--not a merely undesirable condition but an actual moral evil.




This is a great point, Heart. When I came out as queer, other blacks used my queerness as evidence that my black identity (and therefore any claim I might have to blackness or black pride) was irrefutably broken. Now, it was already tenuous because I was never particularly 'street' and I certainly don't sound like I'm from the 'hood but coming out as queer was the final straw. Black people are not 'supposed' to be queer so if you are queer you have abandoned blackness. That was (and still is) the argument. For a while, I let that get in my head but then I came to my senses and realized that my blackness is not subject to other's dictates and that before I am either black or queer I am a *person*. We cannot afford to let others get in our heads and tell us that because we do not fit this or that stereotype that some person has determined is the signature trait of some group that we cannot claim membership of that group. That way madness truly lies.



I don't know that you're too far off the topic, Heart. I think that feminism is non-optional for any queer movement worthy of supporting. Any queer movement, meme or ideology that turns its back on feminist principles should be suspect. By feminist principle, I mean something very simple--to me, feminism at base has one stance "women are people, for better or worse, they are first and foremost human beings" and one basic question "does this help women". If the meme does not treat women as people, then it is not feminist. If it does not have as one of its goals uplifting and empowering women or, at the very worst not doing any harm, then it does not deserve to be called feminist. The erasure of women is one of the reasons I had to pull back from BV. I wonder if some of why lesbian has become so problematic is that lesbian is definitively pro-woman. To me, lesbian and feminist go together in much the same way that life and water go together.

Cheers
Aj

Aj, as usual, I'm intimidated and overjoyed when we get to put our brains together.

As I stated previously, I feel there is almost a revulsion attached to disagreement. The oft-repeated "no drama" statement makes me feel that any time someone disagrees, they are seen as being dramatic and are immediately ostracized or dismissed, invalidating their ability to be a contributor. I think there's a huge push to either convert said dissenter to one's own personal beliefs or, barring that, ignore them altogether. I'm not sure where this push toward homogeneity came from, but I think it is fueling the apathy we are seeing. Part of me wants to find out why this is happening, and another part of me desperately wants to figure out how to stop it.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I don't know that you're too far off the topic, Heart. I think that feminism is non-optional for any queer movement worthy of supporting. Any queer movement, meme or ideology that turns its back on feminist principles should be suspect. By feminist principle, I mean something very simple--to me, feminism at base has one stance "women are people, for better or worse, they are first and foremost human beings" and one basic question "does this help women". If the meme does not treat women as people, then it is not feminist. If it does not have as one of its goals uplifting and empowering women or, at the very worst not doing any harm, then it does not deserve to be called feminist. The erasure of women is one of the reasons I had to pull back from BV. I wonder if some of why lesbian has become so problematic is that lesbian is definitively pro-woman. To me, lesbian and feminist go together in much the same way that life and water go together.

Cheers
Aj

Right on AJ. But I will go further than doing no harm and further than empowerment. Articulating feminist principles today should have at least these specific grounding and intersecting principles: linking oppressions, dismantling patriarchy, and women in leadership positions.

[Apocalipstic]

This is such a great discussion.

I was younger I was way more actively pro-woman than I am not....to the point of being anti-man.

There has to be a balance. Things seem so extreme.

If Lesbian is not the term for women loving women, then is there a term? Does it make us less for wanting a term to describe ourselves?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Jess

In my early to mid twenties, I too, considered separatism as a lifestyle. I too, have gone through years of trying to figure out all of the nuances and politics involved in being a woman who loves women. I too, struggled with the arguments/dissonance of inclusivity and exclusivity surrounding and muddying our communities, as well as forcing us to grow. Guess in this way, butch and femme lesbians are not so different.

I am one who does still use the definition of "lesbian" as a woman who loves/ has sex with women". I truly do feel that anything else is an ally. While I consider that yes, as Lesbians we created a sub-culture within the larger culture of homosexuals, that "culture" is truly "ours". Those folks who find kinship with us are our allies. Because they may be totally in-tune with lesbian music/ art/ literature, does not make them lesbians. These cultural products came out of OUR struggles and OUR celebrations. Feel free to honor them, but do not feel free to appropriate them.

I totally agree with previous posters who have stated the fact that because I choose to define myself this way (in its limited definition) does not mean that I have to oppose other identities. I can be and am supportive of the struggles legal and emotional of other identities. It also does not mean I have to limit my view of what lesbian looks like.

I am a woman ( who happens to have many masculine traits). Even my way of fucking is masculine ( I am told). Does that make me not a lesbian? Does that make me less of a female/ woman? No, it doesn't. I am still a woman in all of my pain and glory and I do still claim lesbian and do still carry that badge with pride. I have never claimed queer ( other than an umbrella term) as for ME, to be queer would be me fucking other butches. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me. Now, this is not me knocking butch-butch or (any other sexual proclivity). What it means is for ME, as a lesbian, it would be queer( weird/odd) for me to have that attraction. If I did, I would proudly don the queer mantle! If I fucked men, I would proudly claim heterosexual. If I fucked men and women, I would proudly claim bi-sexual. This is just how I see it.

As a woman, I will NOT be told how to dress, how to behave, how to fuck. EVER. As a lesbian, I will wear a huge cock ( or not), I will fuck with passion, I will wear a hat and boots and drive a big ugly truck, I will write poetry and watch the sun fill our skies with soft pastels. I will build a shed, renovate my home, tend our garden, wash our laundry, fuss over wonderful fabrics and spoil our fur babies. I will help raise our son to hopefully be aware of feminism and help our neighbors.

I am happy to see this topic coming up and happier still to see us beginning to own our pride, in whatever identity we fall into. To say "lesbian" is passe is like saying watermelon is passe. It is still here, alive and well even though some folks prefer cantaloupe or honeydew or mangoes.

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. I didnt think I was getting an answer. But, I was. I got so caught up in the forest, I couldnt see the trees.

For others, like me, who are connect-the-dots challenged, it occurred to me this morning, that it was people who narrowly define like me who excluded many women and lesbians back in the day.

One group we excluded was the butch-femme community. Thankfully they went ahead and made their own community. Here, those people we excluded found a home, a place to be all that they were.

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?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Martina

....Defending or reclaiming one might be taking a position against another. It often is the case. i have given examples....

There's a ton of research on identity formation, much of which talks about how it is created by defining oneself in opposition to the other, by disavowing another group. i think that's a normal way of thinking....

If it's a "normal way of thinking", and research verifies it, what's the problem?

What you're sayng, here, is simply not logical or accurate. It's a false conflation. Defining oneself differently is not oppositional. It does not equate to a disavowal.

If I say: I am me, you are you, that's not disavowing you (or anyone else). It's simply saying You're not me. When did it become NOT okay to say You're not me?

ANSWER: When objectivity (demonstrable fact) caved to subjectivity (feelings), that's when. Yes, some "facts" are proven wrong over time, but proving them wrong never makes feelings facts.

(BTW, there hasn't been even a whiff of anybody disavowing anyone/or group in this thread. It's simply been lesbians saying: As a lesbian I feel marginalized in the community . Yes, that means someone or some group has been doing the marginalizing. That isn't a disavowal - it's a call for reflection.)

Originally Posted by Martina

But ID formation on a greater than individual level is sticky stuff. i used to be offended (as a woman) by definitions of femme that implied that a reconsidered and reconstructed femme femininity was somehow superior to that of straight women. Anyway, femme cultural products are full of such statements. Less so anymore.

My point is that ID formation can come out of disavowals of the other. It can disparage the other. Definitions that imply that straight women are less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity are examples.

EXCEPT when straight women ARE, demonstrably, "less reflective of or transgressive in their femininity" as they strive to fit a patriarchal paradigm.

Originally Posted by Martina

But when you take it up a level to DEFENDING a supposedly beleaguered identity, you enter into a discourse that does more than potentially demean the other. The poor me stuff can lead to justifications for exclusion or worse. It's the rhetoric of oppression. The speakers may SOUND like victims, but they are justifying something else.

So i am not calling anyone here an oppressor. But this kind of discourse is dangerous. In any context.

What, then, are you calling the lesbians in this thread who do feel marginalized? "Dangerous" discoursers???? If so, I'm down with it.

Originally Posted by Kobi

"The rheotoric of oppression. Poor me stuff. SOUND like victims."

Wow powerful stuff. Sends a big message. In the midst of what is going on here, it is plain and simple deflection. And, it is further evidence of misogyny, sexism, and homophobia being alive and well in our own community.

Maybe about the "misogyny, sexism, and homophobia" stuff, maybe.... Then again, maybe it's just post-modern/gender theory hermeneutics. You know, the discourse of it's okay when I do it, you, not so much because everything is relative and subjective until I say it's not.

Really Kobi , ya gotta get down with the post-modern semiotics or you're not going to see the big picture, or be welcome in the big tent.

Originally Posted by Kobi

.....Funny things those semantics huh?

I'll say.

[I'mOneToo]

Hi Kobi,

I'm one too! A proud Lesbian, that is. Wish I could find my old button that says that, which was purchased probably sometime back in the early 80's at a women's bookstore (dyke heaven, back in the day). It's around here somewhere. I'm a reclaimer too. Never lost my self, just needs to be occasionally tuned in. Like when you are in the car, and the radio starts to receive static... just turn the button back to where the reception is clear and strong. Lesbian Feminism has informed my consciousness from an early age, and can't imagine tuning it out, or needing to. The fine tuning of my Butch self, is not my main focus in life. It's just what it is, not an affectation but my unadorned unassailable presence. I could lose my boots, or pants, or boxer briefs, and still be Butch.

But like a three-legged stool -- Lesbian/Feminist/Woman -- if any of those were removed I would fall down. There have been many splinters carved out of it and supports added underneath it, especially in recent years, but as long the three original legs remain in place I will always have a place to sit.

Originally Posted by Kobi

When I started this thread, I hoped it would not turn into a debate of terminology, or who owns what words, or who has the current rights to whatever.

I am a freakin lesbian - one of those relic women who wants to be with women who want to be with other women.

I am tired of feeling invisible in my own community. I am tired of feeling like a guest in my own community.

I just wanted a place to be where others like me can get together and say "hey yea we are still here and we are still ok and we still have a voice and we're not going away."

Is that too much to ask?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

Right on AJ. But I will go further than doing no harm and further than empowerment. Articulating feminist principles today should have at least these specific grounding and intersecting principles: linking oppressions, dismantling patriarchy, and women in leadership positions.

Respectfully, I'd like to offer a fourth "grounding". It could be optional for those to whom it may apply.

It is as follows: That masculine butches (me), be allowed (perchance, encouraged) to reconcile with our woman/female selves after years (in some cases, a lifetime) of self-estrangement. And that, that self-reconciliation be celebrated, discussed and parsed, and NOT SEEN AS DISAVOWING, NEGATING, OR OPPRESSING ANYONE ELSE.

This is something I have been struggling with on my own; it would be nice to find some lesbian/butch kindred spirits.

[Kobi]

Per wikipedia:


Semiotics, also called semiotic studies or (in the Saussurean tradition) semiology, is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which, for its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. Semiotics is often divided into three branches:

Semantics: Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata, or meaning
Syntactics: Relations among signs in formal structures
Pragmatics: Relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication.[citation needed] However, some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science. They examine areas belonging also to the natural sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics or zoosemiosis.

Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[1] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences."[2] Charles Morris adds that semantics deals with the relation of signs to their designata and the objects which they may or do denote; and, pragmatics deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, that is, with all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning of signs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

My "wtf does this mean/now I have to figure it out dont I?" chore of the day. Thanks Chazz LOL.

[Chazz]

Sorry, Kobi.

It's just that a misspoken word, a poor turn of phrase, can result in page after page of gender warfare.

My use of the term "Semiotics" was me balancing on one toe as I walked on eggshells. Successful or not, I strive for clarity. I also try and show that words have meaning and that some words are more meaningful than others.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Respectfully, I'd like to offer a fourth "grounding". It could be optional for those to whom it may apply.

It is as follows: That masculine butches (me), be allowed (perchance, encouraged) to reconcile with our woman/female selves after years (in some cases, a lifetime) of self-estrangement. And that, that self-reconciliation be celebrated, discussed and parsed, and NOT SEEN AS DISAVOWING, NEGATING, OR OPPRESSING ANYONE ELSE.

This is something I have been struggling with on my own; it would be nice to find some lesbian/butch kindred spirits.

Whoa, sometimes truths just blow me away in a good way. This is something, I too, am finding to be necessary at this stage of my life.
Maybe its part of why I have this need to reclaim my lesbianism in a very vocal, public way.

[Heart]

See, the thing is, I still want to separate identity and issues, (politics. movements, policies, oppressions, etc). There are lesbians who do not share my feminism. And there are feminists who are not lesbians, or even women. If I have to choose, I'll choose the feminists. Not because I'm not proud to be a lesbian, but because being a feminist is where I can effect action and change. (Fortunately, I don't have to choose.)

What I got from Martina's posts, the way I understood them, is that as long as we focus on uniting around identities, even when we try to be inclusive, we are bound to fail, and we are at risk of in-fighting, erasure, and unexamined bias.

Which is why I keep trying to re-focus on issues. And why ultimately what's most concerning for me in the BV conflict was the excising of feminism from the mission statement, as well as un-addressed misogyny and agism within the organization. It's not that I don't care about butch women/lesbians being marginalized, I do - deeply. They are the ones that brought these issues to the fore and I applaud them and support them for that.

But as long as we focus on who is in/out of the "community" based upon identity, we will just keep policing each other, parsing identities endlessly, get all huffy and offended, and redefining ourselves and each other ad nauseum.

I'm off topic for a lesbian pride thread, but what I'm saying is in the end it's about bringing our lesbian pride to bear upon issues that impact us --misogyny, sexism, homophobia, agism. racism, etc....

Heart

[I'mOneToo]

My personal reconciliation of self has been perceived by some outside of myself as an abandonment of myself, or an abandonment of who they are in relation to me. My changing, dropping or adding a descriptor for myself doesn't change anyone else. Others change too, and I'm as accepting of that in others as myself.

Originally Posted by Chazz

Respectfully, I'd like to offer a fourth "grounding". It could be optional for those to whom it may apply.

It is as follows: That masculine butches (me), be allowed (perchance, encouraged) to reconcile with our woman/female selves after years (in some cases, a lifetime) of self-estrangement. And that, that self-reconciliation be celebrated, discussed and parsed, and NOT SEEN AS DISAVOWING, NEGATING, OR OPPRESSING ANYONE ELSE.

This is something I have been struggling with on my own; it would be nice to find some lesbian/butch kindred spirits.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Respectfully, I'd like to offer a fourth "grounding". It could be optional for those to whom it may apply.

It is as follows: That masculine butches (me), be allowed (perchance, encouraged) to reconcile with our woman/female selves after years (in some cases, a lifetime) of self-estrangement. And that, that self-reconciliation be celebrated, discussed and parsed, and NOT SEEN AS DISAVOWING, NEGATING, OR OPPRESSING ANYONE ELSE.

This is something I have been struggling with on my own; it would be nice to find some lesbian/butch kindred spirits.

Chazz -- yes. This is so clear and important. I appreciate and support your butch voice on this and realize that I may be wandering from a central and crucial point in the discussion.

Exposing the marginalization of butch women is very much a feminist issue and part of resisting sexism and misogyny.

Apologies if what I said felt at all dismissive.

Heart

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Whoa, sometimes truths just blow me away in a good way. This is something, I too, am finding to be necessary at this stage of my life.
Maybe its part of why I have this need to reclaim my lesbianism in a very vocal, public way.

Well, here I am, Kobi. Sounds like we're on the same path.

It's been real tough trying to find butch kindred spirits to this end. There's been a headlong rush towards masculinizing "butch", draining it of femaleness, and affirming male IDed people. I got swept up in this, myself, with some help from partners. Hell, I had three consecutive partners insist I was a "Stone". (Been in EMDR therapy and guess what, I'm not.)

Whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, femaleness/womanhood has been situated on a lower rung on the neo-butch hierarchy. Except, when femaleness/womanhood applies to MtoFs.

I SEE THIS EVERYWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY ! ! ! !

I do see reclaiming lesbianism (sexual orientation) as somewhat different than (though, related) with reclaiming my womanhood/femaleness (biology - not gender). I have to find the words to express this. (Chazz, keep it simple, stupid ).

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

Chazz -- yes. This is so clear and important. I appreciate and support your butch voice on this and realize that I may be wandering from a central and crucial point in the discussion.

Exposing the marginalization of butch women is very much a feminist issue and part of resisting sexism and misogyny.

Apologies if what I said felt at all dismissive.

Heart

Oh Heart, I don't feel you're being dismissive in the slightest - never, ever.

The above post makes me feel hugged by you. Thanks, Heart. It's nice to feel that it's okay to be honest and vulnerable, and to have someone reach out and hug you.

I, too, see Feminism as the only effective discourse for addressing "misogyny, sexism, homophobia, ageism. racism, etc....".

I've spent ten years searching gender theory for a way to address these issues. It's just not there. Even if everyone REALLY understood the semantical jiujitsu's of gender theory, it's not there.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Well, here I am, Kobi. Sounds like we're on the same path.

It's been real tough trying to find butch kindred spirits to this end. There's been a headlong rush towards masculinizing "butch", draining it of femaleness, and affirming male IDed people. I got swept up in this, myself, with some help from partners. Hell, I had three consecutive partners insist I was a "Stone". (Been in EMDR therapy and guess what, I'm not.)

Whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, femaleness/womanhood has been situated on a lower rung on the neo-butch hierarchy. Except, when femaleness/womanhood applies to MtoFs.

I SEE THIS EVERYWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY ! ! ! !

I do see reclaiming lesbianism (sexual orientation) as somewhat different than (though, interrelated) with reclaiming my womanhood/femaleness (biology - not gender). I have to find the words to express this. (Chazz, keep it simple, stupid ).

I guess I see them very much hand in hand , at least for myself. I too allowed myself to be swept up in the Hy/He pronoun juggling. It was at once a joyous celebration of finding safe space for my "butchness" , finding clarity with my body dysphoria, and creating a space for myself that felt authentic on my butch level , even if not so much on my female/woman level.

I am stone. Of this I have no doubt. I still have issues with my female form ( and probably always will to some degree). I am a woman and without that and some sense of pride in that, I cannot experience and LIVE my lesbian pride. Without that, I can also not live my butch pride. So, while these re-claimings may be different, they do operate simultaneously for me.

I also see feminist theory as the only way we ( the whole enchilada) can make strides against and hopefully see an end to the marginalization of ANY group of persons with common traits. I am sometimes short sighted and very much appreciate reminders. Thank you Heart for the tireless efforts in keeping us aware.

[BullDog]

I am a proud lesbian and proud butch woman. I always have been. Other people's personal definitions of themselves do not threaten me. There are all different types of lesbians, women and butches. I celebrate that.

As far as reconciling butch, woman, female and lesbian, for a short time I felt some distance from woman. I thought that I was always politically aligned with woman but that perhaps it wasn't so much my gender. That my gender was simply butch. However, quite frankly that was just me over thinking gender and straying from woman- however temporarily and partial that may have been- robbed me of some of my strength and connection with other women. I came back to fully embracing woman and for me it is quite empowering. It is my connection to all women- past, present and future. It is my birthright and central to my day to day lived reality. It is also my fervent hope as a non-conforming and butch woman to help expand the possibilities of what woman is and can be, just as I have been enriched and inspired by all the brave women who have come before me. Certainly being a lesbian is completely tied into all this as well. It is at the core of me being butch.

[Jess]

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. I didnt think I was getting an answer. But, I was. I got so caught up in the forest, I couldnt see the trees.

For others, like me, who are connect-the-dots challenged, it occurred to me this morning, that it was people who narrowly define like me who excluded many women and lesbians back in the day.

One group we excluded was the butch-femme community. Thankfully they went ahead and made their own community. Here, those people we excluded found a home, a place to be all that they were.

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?

Kobi,
Thank you for the response.

I can understand how you might feel some guilt ( this is how I read your post) around a narrow definition that not everyone fits into. I however, do not feel this way with the word lesbian or dyke for that matter.

For me, it IS a narrow definition that encompasses a wide variety of its collective. By and large and for no reason other than to fight oppression, Gay men came together and said "no more!" ( well, first they came together to meet other kindreds, then later organized to fight oppression) Lesbians did the same thing. We were ( and still are mind you) oppressed for nothing more than loving same sex partners. From THIS, came our culture. Not the other way around. ( ok, granted some lesbian/ gay writers wrote books without a defined community already in place, it wasn't until the gatherings/ movements started that these obscure artists gained recognition)

I will never say that I feel all lesbians or even a fraction of them should dress such and such a way, or listen to only female voices or eat whole grains or live up to their armpits in dirt. We are as different and unique as women are from one another. I will however always believe that the common denominator/ definition of lesbian/ dyke is that we are women who love other women.

I never wish to make someone else feel marginalized or less than. I also have no desire to claim something I clearly do not live.

Thank you, again.