RADICAL LESBIAN FEMINISM OR POLITICAL LESBIANISM IN 2012
by rubyfruit2
In 1980, Adrienne Rich articulated how compulsory heterosexuality controls and oppresses women. She explains how men systematically force women into heterosexuality. Specifically through:
1. Denying us our own sexuality (punishment including death for female adultery and lesbianism, FGM, contemporary feminist debates about the compulsory nature of PIV and the way it is culturally perceived as the only valid sexual act even if women don’t want it, fits in here)
2. Forcing male sexuality on us (through rape, being beaten, and physically, emotionally and psychologically coerced into sex with men, male sexual harassment and assault, socialisation that tells us male sexual aggression is a “right“ and he “can‘t help it“)
3. Controlling women’s labour (through the institution of marriage/cohabitation and motherhood and the informal (unpaid) domestic role in the home as well as predominantly carrying out low paid caring roles in the workplace)
4. Controlling women’s movements and keeping them imprisoned (through fear of being attacked in the streets, rape as terrorism, “feminine” dress codes which restrict e.g. high heels, enforced economic dependence for women with children)
5. Using women as sexual objects (through selling prostituted women for sex, arranged marriages, “wife-hostess”, using “air-brushed” images of female models to sell products, the sexual objectification of women in the media and the overt coercion for those women to conform to ideas of “femininity”, including through cosmetic surgery, so that all women will aspire to being similarly sexually objectified)
Adrienne Rich says that a range of physical, psychological and cultural methods are used to maintain male power via compulsory heterosexuality.
For her, in 1980, lesbianism was often seen as “deviant” or invisible. Queer theory and “equality” legislation has altered the landscape of sexuality, slightly, in the UK, but none of the changes have eradicated the hold hetero-patriarchy maintains over women. And that means being a radical lesbian feminist or a political lesbian is as important as it ever was when she first articulated the theory.
Nowadays, the idea that we are “born” with an innate sexuality is so entrenched that political lesbianism is even questioned by some radfems as “appropriating” lesbianism. For this criticism to make any kind of sense then the assumption that we are “born” with an inherent “natural” sexual attraction to one gender or another or both must be upheld. It entirely fails to recognise the compulsory nature of heterosexuality which Rich first outlines (followed by Sheila Jeffreys and others) where women are not free to choose their sexuality under patriarchy. We are coerced, controlled and forced into heterosexuality.
Enshrined in UK “equality” legislation is a similar notion about a fixed and “can’t be helped” sexuality. Sexual “orientation” (ie our “natural” inclinations) are protected from discrimination. No one is allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality (note that this also includes heterosexuality because that’s what legislation within a liberal framework does; upholds the status quo while providing limited protection from overt discrimination towards those who are oppressed). Lesbiansandgaymen are to be afforded (almost) the same “rights” as heterosexuals to ape the heterosexual world such as having civil partnerships and being treated like a heterosexual couple. This satisfies conformist rich, white gay men but does nothing to dismantle the institution of hetero-patriarchy which oppresses and controls women, including lesbians.
There is also a contemporary emphasis on “fun feminism” which is a goal in and of itself. “I am a feminist because I indulge my sexual fantasies and desires irrespective of any political analysis about how they uphold, imitate or reflect patriarchal practices and irrespective of how much, ultimately, they perpetuate my own oppression and the oppression of other women – so long as I’m enjoying myself! Or pretending to”.
Choosing an alternative to the hetero-patriarchy is political. Withdrawing from patriarchy and embracing loving women and being woman-identified, if it is part of a wider radical feminist movement to dismantle patriarchy, is activism. It is vital that radical feminism has an attractive alternative to patriarchal organisation for female-born women. It sets us free from the treadmill of competition for men’s attentions and desires; free to explore what we want and free to be an activist within a women-only radical feminist movement. But it’s not just about withdrawal. It’s not negative. Choosing women is a positive choice – one that patriarchy so deeply fears that it operates a whole system of control which stops us from easily finding each other. Being sexual with women, and not men, is a positive choice for political lesbians. It is integrated by radical lesbian feminists with other ways in which patriarchy is undermined by woman-loving acts.
In 2012, political lesbianism has not lost its power. Being in women-only spaces, loving women, uniting in sisterhood, is on a lesbian continuum. Being a lesbian is *not* (only) about being “sexual” with women. We can love women any way we choose. Putting women first is a political act and the more women-only radical feminist opportunities there are to do this in real life, the more women will discover that sisterhood is powerful.
STOP PRESS: This topic was discussed at the London #radfem2012 conference. It is a topic alive and well and relevant to the lives of women of all ages.
Further reading: Compulsory Heterosexuality and lesbian Existence” A Rich (1980) Only Women Press http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm
One method that often goes unnoticed is the grooming from childhood of little girls – they are fed a steady diet of Disney-style propaganda, that their primary mission in life is to ‘find their prince, get married, and live happily ever after’. This has to be the most insidious, because it is largely invisible. This is brainwashing girls into heterosexuality.
It is when the brainwashing fails to ‘take’ or is resisted in any way, that the more overt methods are applied to force females back into heterosexuality – lesbian bashing and femicide of lesbians, particularly visible lesbians.
But here is the rub. Even if you comply with the compulsory heterosexuality, you are still at risk of serious injury or death – half of the female femicides are by a current or former male partner.
Far more females would avoid marriage, heterosexuality and even socialisation with males if all truths were known, and the heterosexual brainwashing techniques were exposed. It is dangerous to be around males, in any capacity.
+1
to what Davina said.
[…] is an adjunct post to RubyFruit’s Radical Lesbian Feminism or Political Lesbian in 2012, in which RubyFruit outlines Adrienne Rich’s key points in compulsory […]
It’s been brought to my attention that there are some discussions about this blog on tumblr and on facebook walls.
Here is a post from a facebook wall which I am reposting with permission of the author:
“For me, lesbianism (as opposed to bisexuality) is a choice, and I do see that choice as a powerful, affirming, political choice. I don’t think that by referring to myself as a lesbian feminist or a political lesbian I am in any way implying that I am somehow “better” than a lesbian who has never made a conscious choice to be one. I certainly don’t feel that I am superior in any such way.
I do understand that the “I was born this way and I cannot help it” argument allowed great strides to be made in terms of “equality” legislation and so on, and can therefore understand why so many lesbians and gay men feel very invested in it as a concept, and I guess this may be where some of the anger comes from when someone else (ala Sheila Jeffreys, or Ruby Fruit) comes along and says “lesbianism is something that any woman can choose (and here are the reasons why it’s a fucking awesome choice to make)”. I also recognise that the other large group of people who tend to say it’s a choice are patriarchal homophobes, religious fundamentalists, corrective rapists, etc, ie. people who think women loving women is wrong. This may also contribute to the instinctive “hackles-raised” reaction.
That said I do have great difficulty with accepting the “born this way” argument as literal reality, for a few different reasons. I won’t bore you going into all of them here, but one that I feel is pertinent is that it is the same argument that is employed (broadly speaking) by advocates of transgenderism. From a psychological point of view, it makes sense when one is labelled by society as deviant or ‘wrong’ (whether because one is a woman who loves and is sexually attracted to women, or a little boy who likes playing with dolls, or a little girl who likes getting muddy and running around in her dungarees being loud, and so on and so on) to want to slap an “I was born this way, I can’t help it” argument on it, but I think that politically (and factually) it is the wrong argument. If a little boy likes playing with dolls, why do we need a ‘justification’ for that? If a woman loves and is sexually attracted to other women, why do we need a ‘justification’ for that? It all comes down to the bullshit that is gender, as far as I see it. After the revolution, when gender (along with all other facets of patriarchy) has been abolished, I would like to think that the “born this way” argument would simply cease to be a psychological necessity to anybody.”
On reading some of the criticisms of this blog, and the concept of political lesbianism, this was my own response on a facebook wall:
Yet again I am left with a feeling that some people aren’t engaging with the actual arguments but, rather, with their projection about what they think the arguments are. Nothing about being superior to lesbians who aren’t political lesbians is there in the blog – the “born-like it” argument is relevant to the political idea that women are compulsorily channelled into heterosexuality through all the mechanisms which Adrienne Rich articulates in order for men to maintain their power over women (all women, including lesbians). That’s an important concept for radfems and is an extension of the way patriarchy structurally oppresses women. Knowing there’s an escape, politically, personally, and collectively is important and, yes, it is liberating for those who choose to see it that way.
I have no idea where the idea that sexuality and sex isn’t in the equation comes from either. I don’t think you have to have sex all the time to be a lesbian but I do think your emotional, romantic and sexual energies have to be for women and not men. Not all lesbians feel the way one of the tumblr women articulates it in relation to other women all or some of the time – but they are still lesbians. No one lesbian gets to define what lesbians do and feel and are. None of us do. Simply because it is an impossibility because we’re on a spectrum of different places, all of them valid.
It’s a shame any lesbian feminist reacts in such a way to what has been a liberating politics for so many women who’ve found the feminist movement. Many women have said that finding feminism and, for many, lesbianism, saved their lives. Why would any (radical) lesbian feminist oppose that as a bad thing?
Over all, the term ‘political lesbian’ brings up a lot of emotional stuff from all corners.
Compulsory heterosexuality (specifically directed at females) is very relevant to this, because it is a form of brainwashing/grooming which I mentioned upthread. Without this compulsory heterosexuality, a lot more females would either become lesbians from the outset, or quickly change over to lesbianism. So there is that element. This sexual attraction is not necessarily tied to any political motivations – but it can be.
There are more politically motivated females (feminists) who are I guess more ‘bisexual’ in nature, and can fairly easily make the switch to lesbianism. Sometimes these later-lesbians for political reasons have been called ‘political lesbians’, which is inaccurate.
Then there are other feminists who, usually because of the strong brainwashing of heterosexuality, are not romatically/sexually attracted to females – this is main group that ‘political lesbianism’ is supposed to apply to. They frequently call themselves ‘asexual’ or ‘celibate’, but could easily also use ‘spinster’ (I invented the term “re-spinsterized” for later ‘spinsterification’). Any of these latter terms are preferable, without stepping on anyone else’s toes.
My personal view is that the term ‘political lesbianism’ should be abandoned because of the confusion around it (primarily to which group it should apply) but secondarily, it does devalue lesbianism as an actual sexual/romantic attraction. Also, the term was really a product of its time. Separatist is also another good term to use in its place.
Hi Davina,
Thanks for engaging with the blog.
I think the problem is that it’s those who disagree with “political lesbianism” who mostly seem to be defining it – even in the face of a “political lesbian” saying they believe their definition is wrong.
I have to say that, never, in all my time of being politically active, have I come across a woman who claims to be a “political lesbian”, but sees herself as primarily “heterosexual” (though she may be “asexual” or “celibate”). I think there may have been someone making a suggestion, many decades ago, that a woman who simply withdraws from men label herself a “political lesbian” but, in my experience, it never really took off and I don’t believe that is how it is primarily used nor has been used for decades – that’s merely one of the myths perpetuated by those who wish to discredit the analysis.
Of course, those who are consciously “asexual” or “celibate” will usually argue that they still have a sexuality, even though they may not want to have sex with anyone and often ID as “heterosexual” “lesbian” etc But all of this is besides the point because such labelling isn’t political. It doesn’t take into account the way in which the hetero-patriarchy manipulates and controls female sexuality so that, in all kinds of ways, it’s difficult to find a “true” sexuality which hasn’t been warped by patriarchal influences.
Perhaps I would have conceded your point about it being a “product of its time” had I not recently been to a women-only radical feminist conference and met a whole load of new women, of all ages, for whom the concept has political and personal (and romantic and sexual!) meaning – just like it did decades ago. The sexual and emotional meaning of being a lesbian is very much incorporated in “political lesbianism”. Far from the theory demeaning what it means to be a lesbian, it enables women who thought it was an option closed to them, to reconsider. Reconsider emotionally, politically and sexually. I’ve watched it happen recently. It’s a real thing and it’s an awesome thing.
And so I still remain of the view that a radfem understanding of the compulsory nature of heterosexuality and how men benefit from that and the OPTION of removing onself and positively embracing woman-love has contemporary meaning. It was because I observed it at that conference that I decided to do this blog.
There is no substitute for feeling the power of sisterhood in real life, and definitely not via the sterile, often hostile, terrain of the internet. I liked your point about women finding erotic/romantic love for other women at different times in their lives, despite patriarchy’s best efforts to stop us, I think that’s a central part of “political lesbianism”.
And, let’s face it, loving women in all ways, including erotically, is awesome and mind-blowing and life-changing.
PS: I intend, at some point, to do another blog addressing some of the critiques of “political lesbianism” so may incorporate some of your points, if that’s ok with you. I know I haven’t addressed all the main ones, as yet
Reblogged this on politicallesbiansinsisterhood.
It used to be known in the Radical Lesbian Feminist movement of the Seventies that all women choose, and I believe all girls and women are naturally Lesbians, in love with other girls, etc. )But the punishments and rewards influence most women to choose their enemy — males — over their own kind.)
Saying we choose is a point of pride, but then the influence of gay men and porn and sado-masochism and the anti-Lesbian “LGBT” movement influenced Lesbians to stop saying what is obvious and true. Gay men basically say that they can’t help being pathetic queers and so ask the het men to give them equal rights, and too many Lesbians have gone along with this.
Being a Lesbian is a choice of pride, that ideally comes from love for our own kind, but some women choose men first and then make an intellectual/political decision to join us.
[…] https://sisterhoodispowerful.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/lesbian-feminism-or-political-lesbianism-in-201… […]