Reclaiming Lesbian Pride

[Jess]

Originally Posted by citybutch

The origin of woman is wif-man in Old English as it states in the Oxford English Dictionary. Wif in Old English meant woman. It also indicated how a female made a living. A fish-wif was a female who sold fish. Wif-man evolved into wife-man and then into woman.

I take language very seriously. I identify strongly as female and not as woman. Now, given, this is directly from the OED and you may find other explanations elsewhere. But I take the OED at it's word and it describes itself as the "definitive record of the English language"

Ever listen to that show A Way With Words? Love it!

Without having a subscription to the OED and not owning a copy, what is the current definition of "woman". I am aware that the OED gives probably the most accurate origins of words and you have given a good historical definition/ origin. I am curious and perhaps you could help me, with what they use as the current definition.

Thanks.

[ScandalAndy]

I am a woman who loves with transmen, genderqueers and butch lesbians and still identifies as a lesbian. Do I belong here? I don't know, and there seems to be a lot of emotion and opinion surrounding it. I thought I did, but from this thread and other conversations I've had, I'm starting to get the impression that I do not. Am I welcome here?

I want to be a proud lesbian, so who do I ask for permission?

[Slater]

I may try to circle back later to talk more about language because I find it interesting. But for the moment I want to say that ScandalAndy's question is one that has been bouncing around boards like these, either spoken or unspoken, for many years.

I understand the desire for clear-cut, absolute, entirely predictable definitions but I think we you are talking about things as decidedly non clear-cut, absolute and predictable as identity and sexuality you have to allow for some wiggle room. I have seen femmes who choose to identify as queer rather than lesbian because they date transmen and I've seen femmes who continue to identify as lesbian because it is part of them. I think both make sense and it comes down to a matter of how the individual femme relates to her own identity.

I don't see that it hurts our community identity or our struggle for equal rights to allow for this wiggle room.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I am a woman who loves with transmen, genderqueers and butch lesbians and still identifies as a lesbian. Do I belong here? I don't know, and there seems to be a lot of emotion and opinion surrounding it. I thought I did, but from this thread and other conversations I've had, I'm starting to get the impression that I do not. Am I welcome here?

I want to be a proud lesbian, so who do I ask for permission?

You get to ID however you choose and however you define it. We all do. Do you really need me or anyone else to give you permission? I hope you're being sarcastic.

The classic definition of lesbian is a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females. As usual, not everyone agrees, of course. If you need to give yourself permission, ask yourself where you fit into that definition.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

You get to ID however you choose and however you define it. We all do. Do you really need me or anyone else to give you permission? I hope you're being sarcastic.

The classic definition of lesbian is a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females. As usual, not everyone agrees, of course. If you need to give yourself permission, ask yourself where you fit into that definition.

My question wasn't even close to sarcastic and that's the sad part.

I took a whole bunch of crap for how I choose the words I use to define myself. To some people, according to their definitions, I don't have any right to be here. So what do we do? Do we look at each other across the table? Do we pretend the other isn't there? To some people, according to their definitions, I'm just as much a lesbian as anyone else here.

I don't fit the classic definition of a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females 100% of the time. So what does that mean for how welcome I am in the community and how much weight my thoughts and opinions are given?

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

No, I am not a white woman claiming to be a POC, but I am a queer who is claiming to be a lesbian. Now that we've got the example that has been tossed around in conversation standing right in front of us, how are we going to handle it?



These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

Good grief - I didn't say you were doing that, I said it was a valid question that one might ask oneself, meaning over the course of their life journey. Identities aren't fixed, they do evolve. I still don't get why you are personalizing this. Cheryl offered a "classic" or mainstream definition, I didn't see her suggest that you aren't allowed to id as a lesbian.

I also edited my last post for clarity in terms of what I feel is important in this discussion and I mentioned that I know dykes who sleep with men. But how we each arrive at our own personal labels and who agrees with our labels and who doesn't, is actually not what's important to me in this discussion.

But maybe I'm talking to myself. It's been known to happen.

Heart

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Heart

Good grief - I didn't say you were doing that, I said it was a valid question that one might ask oneself, meaning over the course of their life journey. Identities aren't fixed, they do evolve. I still don't get why you are personalizing this. Cheryl offered a "classic" or mainstream definition, I didn't see her suggest that you aren't allowed to id as a lesbian.

I also edited my last post for clarity in terms of what I feel is important in this discussion and I mentioned that I know dykes who sleep with men. But how we each arrive at our own personal labels and who agrees with our labels and who doesn't, is actually not what's important to me in this discussion.

But maybe I'm talking to myself. It's been known to happen.

Heart

My question wasn't "can I ID this way", my question is "if I choose to ID this way, will it be accepted".

I took your suggestion that one could ask oneself that question, and applied it to myself. Am i co-opting or appropriating the identity? I don't believe I am, but how do I know for sure since I don't adhere to the classical definition?


Is my adherence to that definition of lesbian necessary for inclusion in this thread? Now we are stuck with the exact sticky situation of language that we've all been dancing around.

If the answer is yes, then that is perfectly fine with me. I will politely relinquish that right in this thread only, and be a very supportive ally on the sidelines. Just because this isn't my space doesn't mean I won't be supportive.

If the answer is no, then I am happy to know that, as a community, our definition of lesbian is flexible enough for me to participate. I will be a supportive and active participant.


These are open questions, I am not directing them solely at you.

[Heart]

[QUOTE=ScandalAndy;409393]My question wasn't "can I ID this way", my question is "if I choose to ID this way, will it be accepted".

Accepted where? In this thread? By other individuals? By a lesbian separatist community? What's your standard for "acceptance?" I am sure there are those who agree with and accept your definition and those who don't. So what? There are people that don't accept me as a Jew because I'm not observant. There are people that don't accept me as a lesbian because I was married to a man for a decade. There are people that don't accept me because they don't like me. None of that is really my business and I can't possibly establish my sense of self based upon others' decisions to accept me or not. I go where its warm.

I took your suggestion that one could ask oneself that question, and applied it to myself. Am i co-opting or appropriating the identity? I don't believe I am, but how do I know for sure since I don't adhere to the classical definition?

I don't adhere to the classical definition of a lesbian either, or a Jew, for that matter, yet I am both.

Is my adherence to that definition of lesbian necessary for inclusion in this thread? Now we are stuck with the exact sticky situation of language that we've all been dancing around.

Obviously the answer to this question is "no," since you are here in this thread. And so am I. What are we dancing around? -- it does feel like you're trying to set some kind of trap by accusing others in this thread that they are excluding you. Or are you really looking for reassurance that you are accepted?

If the answer is yes, then that is perfectly fine with me. I will politely relinquish that right in this thread only, and be a very supportive ally on the sidelines. Just because this isn't my space doesn't mean I won't be supportive.

That's nice and I completely agree that being an ally is important.

If the answer is no, then I am happy to know that, as a community, our definition of lesbian is flexible enough for me to participate. I will be a supportive and active participant.

That's nice too.

I still am not getting who it is you think should be answering your question about whether you are accepted here or not. Personally, I accept you as a lesbian and welcome your inclusion in this discussion.

I'd rather get back though to talking about the relative benefits, obstacles, and challenges in gender vs feminist theory as it relates to multiple identities in the context of patriarchy. I admit that the topic of lesbian pride per se is sorta narrow for me.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

My question wasn't even close to sarcastic and that's the sad part.

I took a whole bunch of crap for how I choose the words I use to define myself. To some people, according to their definitions, I don't have any right to be here. So what do we do? Do we look at each other across the table? Do we pretend the other isn't there? To some people, according to their definitions, I'm just as much a lesbian as anyone else here.

I don't fit the classic definition of a woman/female who partners romantically and sexually with women/females 100% of the time. So what does that mean for how welcome I am in the community and how much weight my thoughts and opinions are given?

Am I, as Heart has so graciously pointed out, "appropriating or co-opting an identity?"

No, I am not a white woman claiming to be a POC, but I am a queer who is claiming to be a lesbian. Now that we've got the example that has been tossed around in conversation standing right in front of us, how are we going to handle it?



These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about.

OK, you want permission to be here. Who, exactly do you think is going to grant or rescind that permission? Last I checked, we're all humans of equal rank sitting at computers, typing words. Are you taking a poll? If there are 50 participants how many of them have to welcome you here? 30 out of 50? 45? Do you need all 50 to welcome you into the lesbian sisterhood? Is that how you want us to "handle it"? While I sometimes think it might make negotiating this site a bit easier, we haven't elected an Amazon Queen or King who gets to make these decisions in the absence of a democratic vote, so you'll get none of the above.

Am I cranky? Why, yes I am. Why? Because the topic of the thread is Lesbian Pride. The OP stated from the start that she hoped the thread wouldn't get mired in endless discussions about terms and definitions. We've also already spent quite a bit of energy on trans inclusion. Many of us, including you, agree that we would like to refocus on lesbian pride. At which point you wrote yet another post about terms and definitions based on trans inclusion and identity.

"These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about."

If you aren't really looking for an answer, why do you continue to drag the conversation towards definitions and trans issues?

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

OK, you want permission to be here. Who, exactly do you think is going to grant or rescind that permission? Last I checked, we're all humans of equal rank sitting at computers, typing words. Are you taking a poll? If there are 50 participants how many of them have to welcome you here? 30 out of 50? 45? Do you need all 50 to welcome you into the lesbian sisterhood? Is that how you want us to "handle it"? While I sometimes think it might make negotiating this site a bit easier, we haven't elected an Amazon Queen or King who gets to make these decisions in the absence of a democratic vote, so you'll get none of the above.

Am I cranky? Why, yes I am. Why? Because the topic of the thread is Lesbian Pride. The OP stated from the start that she hoped the thread wouldn't get mired in endless discussions about terms and definitions. We've also already spent quite a bit of energy on trans inclusion. Many of us, including you, agree that we would like to refocus on lesbian pride. At which point you wrote yet another post about terms and definitions based on trans inclusion and identity.

"These are really open ended questions and I am not expecting you or anyone to have concrete answers to them, it's just something to think about."

If you aren't really looking for an answer, why do you continue to drag the conversation towards definitions and trans issues?

I wrote a post about terms and definitions in relation to a lesbian: me, not a post about trans inclusion, actually. I wrote a post based on my own life. My own experiences. The reality of what someone who IDs as a lesbian might look like, and the questions that I am asking myself and maybe others are asking themselves, or should be. I didn't come here to be patronized by anyone.

It isn't so very easy to take these things we've been talking about and apply them to a real, flesh and blood human being, and then stand behind our convictions. I put myself on the chopping block to see what we all would do when this becomes reality instead of a discussion about words. I want to be proud to be a lesbian, pure and simple. If i'm going to get judged for that, I'll go elsewhere.

I won't take 100% of the blame for the discussion of terminology here, and I won't accept your insinuation that I am dragging anything anywhere by asking the things that I am in the manner in which I presented them. I'm not asking about trans issues, i'm asking about my own life.

Respectfully, Cheryl, get off my ass. You want me to leave because you don't think I'm a dyke? I will. You want me to leave because you think I'm annoying? Too bad.

I wanted an answer to a question posed, respectfully, to a community because, let's face it: I can identify as a lesbian all I want, but if I'm the only one who accepts it, it's pretty much useless and a community of one is powerless.







Actually, I'm so frustrated with this whole thing that I concede. You're right, I constantly derail the thread with my constant carrying on about terminology, gender, and trans rights. Sorry for ruining your constructive conversation and the headway being made about the patriarchy. It won't happen again.

[Heart]

Okay, maybe this is really between Cheryl and SA and I should butt-out, but... I get suspicious when a conceptual discussion turns towards "this is my life, my truth, my experience" because it's apt to be a red herring.

That's not to dismiss your personal experiences SA, but if we want to go that route, I'm sure each and every one of us here has a story to tell. There are as many stories as there are raindrops and individually they will tell us very little. You gotta look for the patterns, the larger themes.

I'll wager that if we do that, there's a damn good chance that you and I and Cheryl and City and Jess and Chazz and Kobi and Slater and dreadgeek, etc would find enough commonalities that we would be able to stand with each other in solidarity as queers, as women, as lesbians, as gender transgressors, as feminists, as concerned citizens, as warriors. Would we each call ourselves a lesbian? I don't know. Would we each define the other as a lesbian? As long as you're standing with me, I could give a rats ass.

Again, what I'm saying is that the individual identity, including that of "lesbian," does not concern me as much as the broader issues of what happens to those of us that the patriarchal world sees as lesbians or even more broadly, as women. The heart and pride of my activist community comes from those shared concerns, not from our very individual identities, journies, and labels.

Heart

[Heart]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I am a woman who loves with transmen, genderqueers and butch lesbians and still identifies as a lesbian. Do I belong here? I don't know, and there seems to be a lot of emotion and opinion surrounding it. I thought I did, but from this thread and other conversations I've had, I'm starting to get the impression that I do not. Am I welcome here?

I want to be a proud lesbian, so who do I ask for permission?

You know.... maybe it's valid to ask oneself if one is appropriating or co-opting an identity.

But what is it in the discussion that leads you to think you're not "allowed" to identify however you choose? How are you being "unwelcomed" here? You seem miffed. Why? Because the discussion challenges constructs that are important to you? Your post sounds accusatory, like someone here is oppressing you. Is someone actually doing that? How is it about you personally, or about who you love or sleep with?

I know dykes who have sex with men. They're still dykes. I'm so over terminology gymnastics. What I'm interested in is that women, which more than half the world still identify as, (or are identified as), get a fair shake at life and liberty and aren't so easily and routinely subjected to systemic control. I'm talking about all women, regardless of orientation, looks, role, race, class, size, age, status, etc.

As Chazz, Cheryl, Jess, and others have pointed out, one of the consequences of the ascent of gender theory, (which yes, does emerge from women's studies), is a loss of focus on the actual needs of women as an oppressed class of people. In the sphere of gender theory, woman becomes an out-dated identity. That further erodes needed action as feminism, the movement that address these needs, is considered passe.

Brings me back to that old saying: I'll be post-feminist (and post-woman) in the post-patriarchy. This is the crux of the matter to me. I'm less concerned really with pride, labels, dictionary definitions, theories, etc than I am with action. Action does have to grounded in an analysis, but you don't have to be a woman or identify as a woman to identify and stand with women. That's something I think we've lost sight of.

Heart

[Cin]

I don’t know if I ever stopped laying claim to lesbian pride. I don’t think so. Although I did at times feel like lesbian pride needed to reclaim me.

For me, being a lesbian and a feminist are inexorably linked and I am proud to label myself a lesbian feminist. When I examine my ideas about what is a lesbian and what is a feminist I find myself thinking about them in the ideological sense, although, hopefully, I am also a lesbian feminist in the practical sense as well. But I can see a place for ideological lesbian feminists. Although I suppose defining them as allies could work almost as well.

I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives.

Of course there is oppression enough to go around and while an understanding of sexism, misogyny and the patriarchy is extremely useful (I would say necessary), the focus of everyone’s work is not going to be on that particular form of oppression. And just as an understanding of sexism and misogyny is invaluable for all those who battle oppression in any form, it is also useful for lesbian feminists to understand, in depth, other forms of oppression as well.

There is always softness at the borders. Where things intersect slippage often occurs. The edges of things often feel dangerous because of this natural fluidity. Yet, understandably, it is also the place where perception is heightened. I suppose it is only natural that people feel the need to patrol borders. Nobody wants to be taken over or erased. But I think it is much much more difficult than we could even imagine to eliminate or erase things. Change though I suppose is inevitable.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I don’t know if I ever stopped laying claim to lesbian pride. I don’t think so. Although I did at times feel like lesbian pride needed to reclaim me.

For me, being a lesbian and a feminist are inexorably linked and I am proud to label myself a lesbian feminist. When I examine my ideas about what is a lesbian and what is a feminist I find myself thinking about them in the ideological sense, although, hopefully, I am also a lesbian feminist in the practical sense as well. But I can see a place for ideological lesbian feminists. Although I suppose defining them as allies could work almost as well.

I see the oppression of women as the one oppression that intersects all others. No matter your race or class or sexual preference, it is the one constant all females share. I see the patriarchy as the primary form of oppression and I see misogyny as its most effective tool. Misogyny is the place where worlds collide; it is the meeting point of oppression and privilege and transcends all the “isms”. Because of this I see a need for everyone concerned with oppression of any form to understand how insidious sexism is and how it runs mostly unchallenged and unnoticed through our lives.

Of course there is oppression enough to go around and while an understanding of sexism, misogyny and the patriarchy is extremely useful (I would say necessary), the focus of everyone’s work is not going to be on that particular form of oppression. And just as an understanding of sexism and misogyny is invaluable for all those who battle oppression in any form, it is also useful for lesbian feminists to understand, in depth, other forms of oppression as well.

There is always softness at the borders. Where things intersect slippage often occurs. The edges of things often feel dangerous because of this natural fluidity. Yet, understandably, it is also the place where perception is heightened. I suppose it is only natural that people feel the need to patrol borders. Nobody wants to be taken over or erased. But I think it is much much more difficult than we could even imagine to eliminate or erase things. Change though I suppose is inevitable.

This makes sense to me.

I am feeling pretty confident that the patriarchy is the grand pooh-bah of oppression, the prototype which all other forms of oppression emulate.

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Misogyny is a very effective tool. But, I am thinking internalized misogyny is the most effective control mechanism it has. Internalized misogyny cuts across generations, race, class, etc. It just manifests itself a little differently along the way.

And, as it is insidious, we tend to not recognize it, not recognize the effect it has, dismiss it as something else, blame it on something or someone else, and a bunch of other self defeating, self sabatoging, self distorting ways of thinking. The never ending quest to pit women against women is a prime example of this. The more we fight each other, the less time and energy we have to focus on the source of our oppression.

I believe internalized misogyny is certainly an effective method of control and keeps us separate. But I don’t think it is the most effective control mechanism. I think misogyny of any stripe cuts across generations, race, class etc. And it is no more recognizable than the internalized version. Even the blatant, violent, horrific encouraged by society and sanctioned by a government misogyny on display all over the world is not recognized for what for what it is – organized and supported hatred of women. Instead we tend to say, with a measure of sadness and even a little disgust in our voices, that women are still oppressed in some countries. Hell, well, ya, I guess. But divide and conquer is quite a successful ploy and is used to keep all oppressed people separate from each other. We are taught to separate by race, class, sex, gender, sexual preference, religious beliefs, government ideology etc… We are also taught not to show each other mercy but instead to hold each other suspect.

Originally Posted by Kobi

Patroling boundaries is a necessary evil. In a perfect world rhetoric and behavior would be congruent. In an imperfect world of human beings and oppression, words and actions not matching should be a huge red flag.

Change is inevitable. From my standpoint, change should be an internal process. It should not be, and encounters the most resistance, when it is externally imposed or coerced.

I agree that we do not live in a perfect world. And I certainly can attest that words and actions very often do not match. But I think individuals should be held accountable for their actions, not groups of people that these individuals identify with. I certainly wouldn’t want any incongruency on my part attributed to butches who identify as women and are lesbian feminists. But perhaps you mean there is an actual organized attempt at infiltration by groups of people with a particular ideological agenda. I have trouble believing I can be threatened sufficiently to call in the troops by an ideology. I know I’m probably alone in this, but I’ve always been suspicious of simply an ideology as a weapon of mass destruction. In my experience it has often been the desire to destroy an ideology that has caused the mass destruction.

Originally Posted by Heart

What agitates me is the loss of people identifying as women in favor of trans/gender-queer/3rd-4th-5th gender identities. That's what gets to me. Since most of those abandoning the id of woman are in queer communities, it gets discussed in terms of queer identities, but for me, it's not the creation of ever newer and shinier queer identities, it's the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism that makes me feel angry, afraid, and alone.
Heart

I also see the lack of grounding in woman/female/feminism. It makes me sad and angry. I don’t know how to combat it. I just don’t see any change coming. All I can do is to continue to speak out. To explain how I see misogyny and the patriarchy as the real root of all evil whenever the opportunity presents itself and sometimes even when the opportunity doesn’t present itself but instead hides in some deep dark hole.

But I don't really get how people identifying as trans/gender-queer or whatever translates as a loss for the identity of women. I don't think it's an either/or kind of thing. I doubt anyone is thinking, Oh I was going to identify as a butch woman but now I'm going in this direction. I think it just fits for them. And I don't think anyone is going to be choosing one identity over another for any other reason than that is how they feel, that is who they believe they are. And it's not like we win something if we have more people on our side. I do however think we win if we have more people with an understanding of sexism, misogyny, male privilege and the patriarchy.

One thing I believe very strongly is that no one can take my identity away. Or make me identify differently from how I feel. And I don’t believe I have the power to do that to anyone else. Even if I wanted to. Which I surely don’t. So I don’t see any reason to worry about losing anything or having my identity erased or its border destroyed. How could that happen? Would I be assimilated into another identity? Without my believing I am that how could it happen? I guess I get confused by ideas of vigorous border patrolling. How can one identity be in danger from another? I mean you can’t take anyone’s identity away can you? I get that you can dismiss people, set up hierarchies, undervalue female identities, but how is that different from what has always been true? No one can make me believe that I am less than. But it is frustrating to know so many turn a blind eye and really and truly have no idea whatsoever the depth and breadth of pain and hurt that misogyny causes us all. But I don’t really understand how that translates to danger to my identity. I don’t see any threat to how I identify in any real, this is war the enemy is at the gate, kind of way.

[Heart]

Miss Tick - I basically agree that misogyny is a scourge that is under-estimated and under-examined, and I agree that it is the root of homophobia, however I am not prepared to say that it is the root of racism or classim, nor am I prepared to create any kind of ranking about which of those are worse or greater or lesser. Suffice to say they are all linked.

I also agree that identity is personal, but I see a definite relationship between misogyny and the undervaluing of woman in terms of social, systemic, and academic trends related to identity. Plus I have a personal reaction to what I have seen in my own communities about people's decisions to jettison their identities as women, and I shared that.

No one makes choices about their identity as a woman/not-a-women free of the impact of misogyny because we are all swimming in it everyday. It's inescapable, as you yourself point out, so I don't really understand how you can say that they have zero relationship.

But whatever. I'm sick of this thread now, frankly.

I experienced something here that was pretty eye-opening: Treated as suspect, termed a flip-flopper, a political liability even, because I don't conform to someone's very rigid and policed notions of lesbian identity. In my years as an active member of political lesbian communities, that hasn't happened before. And then guess what? A transman stood up for me and a non-lesbian identified femme repped me. Huh.

I'm not granting it more power than it deserves, (though I'll admit my feelings were hurt), but it certainly gives me pause in terms of what some queers/lesbians/femmes/etc are talking about when they rant about the closed ranks of old-school lesbian-feminists.

I'll reiterate something I said in a prior post -- that I get it, that it's actually patriarchy that creates this suspicion and policing. But while I get it, I don't like it, and I will also say that it's a decidedly un-feminist way of engaging, as it divides women from each other in ways that reduce our collective power. If women don't organize across race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, etc - we have no hope of fighting patriarchy.

Heart

[Random]

I have a question?

What does being a feminist have anything to do with being a lesbian?

I've stayed out of this thread because I'm not a lesbian... Nothing about that word resounds with me... When I was a baby dyke/bi-girl/fag hag trying to figure out who I was, the lesbian community had no use for me, didn't take me seriously, dismissed me as a curious straight girl. I had NO clue about butches and why I was only attracted to such a small percent of women. If I had found acceptance within the lesbian community, If I had known about butchs then maybe I wouldn't have spent all those years thinking I was 90% straight and 10 percent gay....Maybe I wouldn't have married my ex husband and then put us both through hell trying to figure out why I couldn't emotionally connect with him...

I found acceptance and my *place*in the gay community with feminine gay men... These men were my *sisters* when women who should have been wanted nothing to do with me because I wore full face make up, curled my hair and wouldn't think to go out for the night unless I dress to the 9's..

I'm also not a feminist... I'm an egalitarian... I believe that if we stopped having so many different factions and all worked for a comon cause of equal rights for everyone, we might be further along...

People are the same... There is good and bad in every faction...(yes. I'm aware of the contradiction with my reasons why the word lesbian doesn't resound with me... My reasoning is.. I don't believe all lesbians communities were like the one in Colo Springs when I was a youngster...Let's just say I emprinted on Gay...) Women, Men, Black, White, POC, Gay/Trans/Straight... the list goes on... We are all the same, no one faction is better or worse...

I don't believe that all men are evil because one raped me..
I don't believe that all women are evil because one emotionally abused me..

Everyone is an individual, and while labels are useful to narrow down what you might have in common, they are not the be all and end all... When it boils down, every person is a individual with their own belief system.. ie.. June the lesbian and Kobi the lesbian...


Damn it.. I got preachy again didn't I?

[Jane Bond]

[QUOTE=Heart;409361]You know.... maybe it's valid to ask oneself if one is appropriating or co-opting an identity.




Wow. I didn't understand what you were talking about at first but in the second reading it became much clearer. I hope the following is along the same thought lines as your post, but I doubt I can recreate your "ripples in a pond" writing style. It was very unique.
My ex was a concrete, dispassionate thinker, especially when it came to her fixed version of butch and femme roles. They were set in concrete that she mixed before we met, and she would never discuss the topic if it meant straying off of her masterly definition.
For a femme, she was very competitive with me and she had to be the top dog of our relationship. I didn't get it, but I loved her and went along with it.
Our B/F definitions never matched, but with her I had to choose my battles.
Now that I'm free, I realize that I am a lot more fluid about who I want to be from one day to the next.
Though I have always been sexually attracted to "pretty girls" who were usually femme, I think I would love to meet a pretty girl who was butch.
Just the sound of it makes me smile. Even a handsome one might do. Who can say?
Thanks for the thought provoking post.

[citybutch]

Hey Jess,

The dictionary goes through a lengthy entry on the etymology of the word. The definition itself is more than 4 pages of the OED... so really extensive. I am not an online subscriber but own a hard copy of it... so I cannot cut and paste.

THAT being said, I can say that one of the definitions IS " an adult female human being". However, it goes on to say that it is always JUXTAPOSED against a male or man... OR "to make like a woman in weakness or subservience".

Female on the other hand is defined as "belonging to the sex which bears offspring". It seems to come from popular Latin, femella, which includes all "lower animals"... masculus being the male version of this.

*sigh*... maybe it is just me

Originally Posted by Jess

Without having a subscription to the OED and not owning a copy, what is the current definition of "woman". I am aware that the OED gives probably the most accurate origins of words and you have given a good historical definition/ origin. I am curious and perhaps you could help me, with what they use as the current definition.

Thanks.