Melbourne ~ Australia
|
|
"If the critics are not harking on the joys a woman misses for not being married they will often voice the suspicion that she must be a lesbian. This prognosis is offered in whispers which manage to combine both prurience and horror with the implied view that she is a deviant and thus deserves to be either persecuted or pitied (depending on how liberal the critic is) or that, as an assumed man hater, she is incapable of finding true feminine fulfilment anyway and so barely deserves inclusion in the female sex." (Summers, 1994, p.493) No form of discrimination is acceptable - this includes discrimination against womyn who, for their own reasons, prefer the company and intimacy of their own sex rather than with a man. We all have the right to live our lives in a way which is satisfying and fulfilling to ourselves and the issue of sexual orientation should not be an area for public invasion.
We live in a society where 'political correctness' is the flavour of the times and to publicly express lesbianism in derogatory terms is considered sexist. This does not necessarily mean that society's opinions have changed, simply that overt judgments have been replaced by covert misconceptions which continue to be perpetuated in hushed tones or joking remarks. A nation-wide survey conducted in 1989 indicated that Australians did not believe that lesbians and gay men had a right to equality with other members of our society; neither should they receive the same level of social rights and benefits as heterosexual couples; that it should not be illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their [homo]sexual orientation; and that homosexual acts performed in private should be illegal. (Roy Morgan Research, 1989) Even now, in the 1990's, there continues to be a pervading atmosphere of social hostility towards gays and lesbians in our society. A recent Australian paper, discussing violence against lesbians and gay men, stated that, "A powerful message of hatred and intolerance is sent to all lesbians and gay men whenever someone is attacked because of their sexual preference... [In Australia,] homosexuality is ridiculed, despised and surrounded by myth." (Mason, 1993, p.2)According to an account related to The Lesbian and Gay Anti-Violence Project (1992), three men who lived next door to a lesbian couple subjected the women to a four month period of verbal and physical harassment. The harassment included threatening phone calls and graffiti attacks. The womyn felt nothing could be done to stop the harassment and did not seek assistance. Given the intensely negative attitudes toward homosexuality (homophobia) in general, and lesbianism (lesophobia) in particular, it is not surprising that many womyn have difficulty accepting their own sexual orientation. It is also quite rightly understandable that in such a climate, many womyn try to deny the fact that they are lesbian and sometimes go to extreme lengths in order to hide it from others.Garber's (1989) article gives credence to womyn's denial of their lesbian sexuality in, of all things, a women's studies course. Apparently, "...students approached me [Garber] individually to ask fearfully if the word 'lesbian' would appear on their transcripts. The first time this happened, it sparked an argument between me and the woman with whom I co-taught the course. She argued on behalf of eighteen-to-twenty year old students who hadn't come out to their parents, who feared for their future careers, who were playing it (understandably) safe." (p.17) Garber reacted as I would most likely also have done. She, "...slammed a political fist on the table..." and said she, "...would not teach a Lesbian Studies course without the word 'lesbian' in the title..." because, "The movement has come too far at too great a risk to too many people for us to go back in the closet now." (p.17)As a compromise, Garber re-titled the classes, including the word 'lesbian' as a sub-section The most interesting aspect of this arrangement was the way in which Garber dealt with the situation. I found the following both amusing and saddening. She says, "...as I wrote on a flier for the feminist studies office, that 'the risks and responsibilities of disclosing one's sexual identity and/or affiliation with lesbians/gays/bisexuals lie with the individual.' I enjoyed the pun on the verb, wondered whether anyone would get the point, resolved to turn it all into a 'teaching moment' and worried (still do) whether I'm playing into the hands of those who want us to fear the word 'lesbian'." (p.17)We all have a certain degree of fear about that which we either do not know or do not understand. Fear of female homosexuality, in this case, stems from a societal reluctance, or general apathy, towards a sense of self-development for further understanding. It is only through wide-spread education and dissemination of accurate information that lesbianism can be demystified and, therefore, liberated from demeaning, contorted stereotypical gossip. In this regard, it is not enough to simply look at feminist works on the issue. I believe that a great deal more significant and valuable information can be learned from lesbian feminist theory itself. In many instances, lesbian feminism has not only dispelled the myths and unjustified assumptions made by various researchers - who have attempted to name, codify, classify and group together aspects of lesbianism under a set of rules, conducts or procedures - it has also provided a broader and more meaningful discourse which brings lesbianism into the light of the present and out of the darkness of the past...
During the 1960's, feminists within the Women's Liberation Movement created an awareness of female sexuality as a logical extension arising from the 'personal is political' catch-cry and which required representation within the sphere of feminist theory and practice. Preceding generations of the women's movement had included references to sexuality (Jeffreys, 1985) but only within strict confines which, unfortunately, did very little except to reinforce an unequivocal maintenance of heterosexuality itself. Lesbian feminists eventually came to the realisation that they were confronting a dualistic conflict; that of external patriarchal definitions of women as heterosexual, including societal structures which characterise heterosexuality as 'compulsory' (Rich, 1980), but also facing the internal antagonism of feminists within the women's movement and their apprehension towards lesophobia. Considering the twofold adversarial atmosphere of their predicament, lesbian anxiety was well grounded - the uniqueness of lesbianism and lesbian identity had been placed under threat from the concept of sisterhood.During the 1970's and 1980's, lesbians within the Women's Liberation Movement considered it necessary to conceal their sexuality and indignation in an endeavour not to antagonise the heterosexual womyn who still constituted the bulk of the Movement. Little attention was given to lesbianism, or any other issues connected with it. It became obvious that lesbianism was to be incorporated as a subordinate presence which threatens the 'good feelings of hand-holding sisterhood'. When one considers the fact that lesbianism has for so long been subsumed in this manner, even by feminists themselves, it is lamentable that a sphere in which specific discourse acknowledging lesbian oppression cannot be heard. It is essential that an opportunity to validate the history and culture of lesbianism are provided because these elements are imperative if pride, survival and empowerment are to be positively encouraged.The struggle for respect, recognition and affirmation has contributed to the evolution of lesbian feminist theory by bringing to light the narrative chronology of historical lesbian feminism and a re-appraisal of women's sexual intimacy and non-sexual loving friendships. Lesbian feminist theory imparted four influential political analyses to feminism; a comprehensively liberal concept of female (lesbian) sexuality; the genesis of womyn-identified-womyn; a critique of hetero-reality; and a sense of reverence for women's domain, self-fulfilment, and celebration through separatism.
In her book, "Surpassing the Love of Men", Lillian Faderman (1985) explained that loving companionships between women were a fundamental constituent in the experience of middle-class women in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. She believed that the memoirs and transcripts of these women would ultimately convey a same-sex friendship which was conceivable to have encompassed ardent hugs and kisses, expressions of love, sharing a bed for twilight embraces and intimacies, and which would often endure throughout the childhood years and into senior citizenry. These relationships were consequently so culturally adopted that a woman could correspond with the fiance of the woman whom she adored. She could impart to him that she felt similarly like a husband to his betrothed and loved her to distraction, unable to relieve her sense of envy at his good fortune. Men were inclined to behold these feminine attachments as an admirable, earnest and commendable training experience for their prospective wives in order that they accustom themselves to the 'practice of loving'.Mainstream society considers the passionate declarations of everlasting commitment and anecdotes of extraordinarily sensual connections as paradoxical; especially considering that the general community have been unalterably indoctrinated into misinterpreting such actions as 'proof' of lesbianism and not a basic element in the customary lifestyle of the greater proportion of married middle-class women. Faderman reveals how sexologists in the late nineteenth century initiated the creation of a stereotypical lesbian where expressive emotional interactions were mentioned, and how the 'acceptable' structure of friendships between women became increasingly circumscribe. Historians who prescribed to the sexological model of definition determined that lesbians were a small, insignificant group of sexual deviants with defective biology. Furthermore, they believed that lesbianism was caused as a result of congenital defects and that a (small) proportion of females were born with this "abnormal" predilection. This generated a prevailing, but inaccurate, conclusion that only the most extroverted women would conform to this narrow classification. Strong emotional and physical intimacy was allowed only to those who were classified as lesbian. As well as having an "inverted" sexual nature, such women also possessed masculine characteristics. This led Edward Carpenter (1906) to call lesbians an 'intermediate sex'.Arguably, circumstances for lesbian women have not altered significantly over time. The most commonly encountered definition of lesbianism today, the deviant sexuality model, is, to a large degree, still based on the archaic sexological model. Lesbians are perceived as women who have an "abnormal" sexual orientation toward their own sex in preference to the "normal", socially acceptable, arrangement with a male. Betsy Ettorre (1985) states that, "...psychiatrists see lesbianism as a 'disease entity'. They view lesbians as 'over sexed', or 'wanting to be men', 'penis envious', 'unfeminine'" (Ettorre, 1985, pp.421-422) However, lesbian women are far from being an 'intermediate sex' as Ettorre (1985) explains in her critique on compulsory heterosexuality, psych/atrophy and lesbian feminist theory.Faderman (1985) ascribes this shift to the principal imperative of males gaining domination over womyn - the evolution of an exceptionally powerful women's movement and the social and economic transformations which threatened men's power played crucial roles. Loving relationships between women were innocuous but only exclusively under circumstances where women's prospects of independence from men were futile. Lesbianism became menacing when the potential for women to escape the shackles of heterosexuality became a tangible reality. Charlotte Bunch (1978) succinctly summarises the situation by stating that, "...institutional and ideological domination of heterosexuality is a fundamental part of male supremacy." (Bunch, 1978, p.180).Faderman's work acquired many devotees, however she also outraged some critics into a rage of objections. It is therefore important for an understanding of lesbianism that attentive consideration be given to the issues which arose from the ensuing debate.Nonetheless, the dilemma for lesbian womyn which emerges from Faderman's work is that she incorporates women's passionate companionships expressly within the historical emergence of the category. She infers that these women were uninclined to have participated in genital sexual contact since nineteenth-century notions of women's 'disinterest' in an active sexuality prevailed, ie: 'lie back and think of England'. Hence, Faderman confines her definition of lesbianism to circumstances which do not necessarily incorporate intimate sexual activity; "'Lesbian' describes a relationship in which two women's strongest emotions and affections are directed toward each other. Sexual contact may be a part of the relationship to a greater or lesser degree, or it may be entirely absent. By preference the two women spend most of their time together and share most aspects of their lives with each other. 'Romantic friendship' described a similar relationship." (Faderman, 1985, p.18) However, Faderman is conscious of the controversial and questionable proposal that lesbian identity does not necessitate genital sexual contact. To this extent, she acknowledges that, "It is no doubt unlikely that many women born into a sex-conscious era can conduct a lesbian relationship today without some sexual exchange. The pressure is on in our culture if we want to be physically and mentally healthy..." (Faderman, 1985, p.329) Faderman then proceeds to cite a series of lesbian authors who repudiate what they distinguish as the male interpretation of lesbianism as determined by, and centralised upon, explicit genital sexual contact.Lesbians, understandably, have voiced an antagonistic and assaultative backlash to Faderman's arrogance. There are two principal foundations to account for this conflict. The first criticism is that Faderman has contrived a crude account of history and has therefore manifested a disloyalty to the memories of the women with whom she acquaints as having passionate friendships. Faderman unjustifiably declared them to be lesbian when, in all probability, they would not have conceived of themselves as such. The second criticism is associated with a sense of impassioned outrage at being betrayed. Faderman's interpretation is perceived as suppressing the wholistic integrity of lesbian relationships by devaluing the sexual essence. Acrimonious discourse on Faderman's conjectures are numerous and diverse, however, one particular article by Sonja Ruehl, "Sexual Theory and Practice: Another Double Standard" (1983), rejects Faderman's work because she 'desexualises' lesbianism. (Ruehl, 1983)Ruehl (1983), and similar commentators, consider a conscientious modern interpretation of lesbianism - one which, ironically, is situated faithfully in the theoretical premises of male sexologists. Proponents of lesbianism reject that women's passionate friendships have any relevance to lesbianism since they do not conform to this category, particularly in the area of sexual intimacy. Lesbian feminists aspire to support an intrinsic lesbian unity and subculture which, quite accurately, could be jeopardised by accepting those women who have not experienced the initial ceremony of genital sex. The participation in intense sensual activity, kissing and fondling etc. which the nineteenth-century women-friends of Faderman's work engaged in, has therefore been dismissed as moot and certainly not an authentic or genuine definition of lesbianism.
It is on this basis that Adrienne Rich's (1980) concept of a lesbian continuum also comes into question. She claims that all womyn's friendships with other womyn embody a unique stage, variation or depth of lesbianism within the continuum. (Rich, 1980) Ultimately, this only serves to further confound efforts into investigations and analyses of lesbian oppression. As Ferguson (1981) points out, "Rich's paper is an insightful and significant contribution to the development of a radical feminist approach to patriarchy, human nature, and sexual identity. Her synthetic and creative approach is a necessary first step to further work on the concept of compulsory heterosexuality. Nonetheless, her position contains serious flaws from a socialist-feminist perspective." (Ferguson, 1981) Womyn who merely enjoy a non-sexual rapport in the company of "best [female] friends", do not share lesbian oppression or lesbian experience. If definitions of lesbianism incorporate heterosexual womyn who love their womyn friends, it will be an extremely formidable task to, firstly, articulate the inherently specific oppressive experiences of lesbians; secondly, to accomplish the dynamism to confront compulsory heterosexuality and, therefore; thirdly, the invisibility of lesbians themselves.Yet if we concede that confirmation of genital union is obligatory in circumstances prior to non-sexual intimacy between womyn in the chronicles of lesbianism, then it could culminate in the horrendous outcome of no lesbian history whatsoever. Heterosexuality, which establishes the only history of sexuality presented to date, is not bound to the strict adherence of conduct relating to evidence of genital contact. Males and females are traditionally granted heterosexual status provided that there is no 'genital proof' to the contrary. Womyn who have co-habited in the same house, shared the same bed, and have committed themselves to a long-term loving relationship with another woman have had their lesbianism vehemently repudiated by historians. Conversely, men and womyn who merely take walks together are presumed to be involved in a heterosexual relationship.If we value the significance of nurturing a lesbian history/identity, then we must be capable of endorsing the possibility that some womyn were involved in relationships which have an affinity to lesbianism. In any historical generation prior to the 1920's, we are liable to encounter adversity in ascertaining womyn who might potentially belong to a recognisable element of the sub-culture of lesbian identity and who would also conform to contemporary meaning. It is precarious to debate that it is offensive and unjustifiable to discern as lesbian those womyn who did not perceive themselves as lesbian. This for two reasons; firstly, if they existed in the age before sexological theories became topical, their environment (in addition to their personal views respecting love among womyn) must certainly have contrasted from current views. Secondly, an issue which infers that lesbian identity is, in itself, obscene, is a judgment not sustained by lesbians now and should not, therefore, be ascribed to womyn from an antiquated era.Would it be similarly dubious to assume that womyn in the past, who were disinterested in sexual intercourse with men and may have submitted to it despite a sense of total revulsion, were heterosexual? Numerous nineteenth century womyn, could have endured this situation - after all, for a married middle-class woman of that period, heterosexual congruence was predicated on the explicit concept of desire for sexual activity with men. Any other 'choice', had it existed, would have seemed irrational. Can we include these womyn in the history of heterosexuality?
Heterosexuality should not be dismissed in simplistic terms as 'just a sexual practice'. (Rich, 1980) Heterosexuality is a formally established institution documented and controlled by political statutes, a cultural universe retained by, and manifested in exalted rituals, histories, art, literature, religion preachings and social ideology. By attempting to maintain the illusion that heterosexuality or homosexuality are entirely sexual practices, is to disregard politics completely. There is an emerging trend towards a tremendous and escalating collection of information, data, facts and figures written by feminist scholars, historians, reflective thinkers, sociologists, literary critics and others, which elucidate and interpret the way/s in which society is ordered to comply with heterosexual stereotypes. These writings provide unequivocal arguments which support the conviction of heterosexuality as one of the primary organising principles of male supremacy.Since heterosexuality is a predominantly male enforced domain, womyn who refuse to acquiesce to this 'norm' are faced with one of two options: either drift within a void of dispirited obscurity and meaninglessness because they are unable to accept themselves as lesbian, or, participate in the creation of a unified identity for themselves enabling not only survival in a hostile environment but which also reinforces a sense of self, a sense of belonging to a culture of their own and a social spirit. Lesbianism can never be simplistically reduced to the mere act of sexual practice. Genital sexual practices, generally perceived as characterising lesbianism, have transpired throughout the centuries - for example between sex workers. However, within that context, the purpose has been (and still is) to arouse and stimulate men. Lesbian sexual practice has also been curiously experimented by womyn whose commitment to heterosexuality was never in question. By comparison, lesbianism is a passionate pledge to womyn, a culture, a political alternative to the oppressive institution of male supremacy - a means through which womyn will always gain a sense of self-respect and self-acceptance as well as a sacred space in which to pursue their own goals and achievements with the support of other womyn. Lesbian love is more likely to include a sensual component which may not necessarily adopt a genital form. As Janice Raymond (1989) points out in her article, "Putting the Politics back into Lesbianism", "...although lesbian lifestylers talk about sex constantly, they are speechless about its connection to a whole human life... The presence of a whole human life in the act of sexuality negates any reductionist view of sex as good or bad, sheer pleasure or sheer perversion. Sex is a whole human life rooted in passion, in flesh. This whole human life is at stake always." (Raymond, 1989, p.156)Whose advantage does it promote to surmise lesbianism entirely on the basis of sexual practice? If lesbianism is degraded and debased to the extent where it is included in a sexological text book list, together with bestiality and paedophilia, the emotional, cultural and political significance evaporates. This undeniably promotes the status quo. Lesbianism as a sexual practice is not a threat. If it were, then it would not be the stock in trade of brothels and men's pornography. (Dworkin, 1987)Lesbianism as an ardent and passionate political movement which accommodates an alternative lifestyle choice for womyn who do not want their true sexuality smothered by a heterosexual framework. In this regard, lesbianism is a threat to the maintenance of the status quo, therefore it becomes anarchic and could jeopardise the organising principle of male supremacy.
In conclusion, while I have endeavoured to include as much material as possible in this brief discussion, it is but a mere abstract which I hope has outlined some of the fundamentalities on the issue of lesbianism. I have based my background arguments on the social hostility towards homosexuality, and lesbianism in particular. I have also attempted to provide a brief insight into some of the internal dilemmas which lesbian feminist theory struggles to explain and conclude that the fear of lesbianism is based in the structural subordination of women through the exercise of patriarchal male supremacy in the form of heterosexuality. This should not be considered a comprehensive discussion of all aspects within the realm of lesbian feminist ethics - there are many more areas yet to be explored. I do, however, hope that this article assists in some ways to educating society, and therefore opening their minds to the fact that lesbianism is not a lifestyle which should be feared or ridiculed. As I stated at the beginning of this paper, We all have the right to live our lives in a way which is satisfying and fulfilling to ourselves and the issue of sexual orientation should not be an area for public invasion. Finally, I cannot summarise my views more succinctly than Ettorre (1985) who says, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" (Ettorre, 1985, p.421) The struggle for lesbian recognition and acceptance continues...