Respect The Lesbians
If the Feminist Revolution were to happen today, would all women be ‘liberated’ come tomorrow? Before attempting to answer this question one might ask, ‘well, what exactly is a woman?’ This is a critical question helpful in guiding the vision of a sucessful Feminist Revolution. Who are Feminists fighting a revolution for? The revolution would fail without taking into account the multiplicity of women’s identities, especially when it comes to sexual expression and relationships. I argue that for the Feminist Revolution to be truly globalized, Feminists must specifically address the problems rooted within heterosexual hegemony, in addition to eradicating the oppressive social constructions stemming from race, class and age discrimination. My focus here is on validating female sexual expression, specifically the lesbian sexual desire as one of the greatest sources of tension and strength within Feminist theory and its Feminist movement.
Defining Woman, the Subject
“I love to you.”[1] This ‘woman’ must fundamentally love herself first before she can fully immerse herself in love with other ‘women.’ I am not essentializing all women by attempting to define woman as only lesbian but, loving our human essence is a little bit lesbian. [2] This rubric of self-love recasts heterosexuality in role of abnormality that is currently reserved for homosexuality and my objective is not to revert the paradigm but, to acknowledge the multiplicity of female sexual desire and open up space for lesbians to become socially, culturally and politically accepted in their identities and expression. A woman is a subject that defines herself primarily and not only as she is defined by the patriarchal category of ‘woman’ used to oppress. Illich states that “gender is vernacular,” as “there are no two socieites where tools or tasks are divided between genders in the same way,” therefore our sexual expresions as women are as shaped and adapted to the pressures of gender constructions (the woman), especially for lesbians in the face of cumpulsory heterosexualtiy.[3] Sarah Hoagland problematices the term ‘woman’ and argues for it’s replacement. While I utilize Hoagland to articulate the lesbian perspective in this paper, I agree that the term is useful only when we define it first.
Is Feminist Theory Possible without Lesbians Sexual Desire? Is Feminist Theory Possible without ‘Straight’ Women with Heterosexual Desire?
The overarching agenda of the phallocracy is to kill women’s love for themselves and other women because it facilitates the continued exploitation of women’s labor, love and bodies. The purpose of Feminist Theory is to imagine a counter-strategy against those patriarchal systems of oppression which dehumanize women. Radical Feminist Theorist, Sarah Hoagland elucidates how the heterosexual arm of the phallocracy is especially punitive against female sexual desire for women. She writes, “while I agree that we are living in a heterosexist society, I think the wider problem is that we live in a hetero-relational society where most of women’s personal, social, professional, and economic relations are defined by the ideology that women is for man.”[4][Emphasis mine] If women were not deskilled, infantilized and treated as second class citizens, then maybe more women would feel comfortable embracing the lesbian love within themselves and other women. Sonia Johnson describes the fear of men’s violence against women who refuse to ignore their sexual demands and focus on their own sexual needs. “Our conviction that if we stop studying and monitoring men and their latest craziness…they will go beserk and kill us…with our eyes fully upon them, they kill us daily; with our eyes riveted upon them they have gone beserk.”[5] The urgency of discussing these questions, these needs to express sexual pleasure in the face of overwhelming pain, cannot be ignored or subsumed by other social concerns. The Feminist Revolution must have considered the question of lesbian’s freedom to be fully ‘liberating.’
Women’s lesbian identity is problematized by society, but also by other ‘straight’ women that define themselves as Feminist yet do not want female sexual desire for other women to be expressed. Shane Phelan’s (Be)Coming Out: Lesbian Identity and Politics, sheds light over the debate on who is truly a better Feminist, lesbian women or straight women and how the peaceful resolutions can be reached by not allowing lesbians to become “assimilated into mainstream,” nor “withdraw in search of an authentic community,” by critiquing heteropatriarchy’s power together.[6] I agree with the first premise that is lesbians should not seek to be assimilated, however I disagree with Phelan’s second conclusion that the withdrawl and regrouping strategy is ineffective and I align with Sarah Hoagland. Finally, Phelan is right to emphasize heteropatriarchy must be critiqued by women that do not find other women sexually attractive as well as women that are lesbians because the denial of female love is over-archingly objectifying of all women.
Hoagland writes, “a woman that belongs to no man either: one, does not exist or two, is trying to be a man.” And, “she is cast as the virgin if she doesn’t have sex with men, or she is a whore because she engages in sexual relationships with men. Regardless of who she is as a person, women’s humanity is defined by their sexual availablility to men.” When lesbians refuse men as sexual partners, they are taking a political stance moreover than identifying their preferances because they are subverting men’s access to all women’s bodies as sexual objects. Lesbians constitute a fundamental threat to the system of heteropatriarchy simply by existing, not to mention having ‘outlaw’ sex and establishing thriving women-only communities. When straight women refuse men for sex, they are immediately relegated into either the virgin/whore dichotomy, also punished for expressing a nuanced agency to choose particular men. Feminist Theory is impossible without both lesbian and heterosexual female sexual expression because the topic of women’s autonomy to express her sexuality is heavily curtailed by patriarchy. Even when women are not lesbian, they should fundamentally be supportive of lesbian’s right to sexually desire other women and themselves.
Conclusion: “Breathing Together”
For a truly genuine Feminist Revolution to come, there must also be a lesbian driving force powering the right to choose women as sexual lovers. Certainly not all women are heterosexual, still all women should at least respect the lesbians, even when they themselves are not self-identifying as such. Hoagland reminds us, “for resistance to effect change; there must be a movement afoot, a conspiracy, a breathing together.” Both lesbian and straight women must learn to breath together.
Excellent video! I really enjoyed watching the actual people and hearing their voices. I think that this is the strength of your project, socialism in action.
ReplyDeleteI love the way you end with the music and also the way you made it inclusive by having it in both languages.
This is a really great essay. I completely agree that all women, regardless of their sexual and/or gender orientation should stand of up for women's rights, and that, if we can come together to fight for the cause of equality, we will certainly be able to make a big impact. I mean, look at what our foremothers have done already!
ReplyDelete