Introduction
Over the last several years there
has been a resurgence of separatism in the feminist and lesbian/gay movements.
Although many who identify as feminists or gay/lesbian liberationists claim to
be interested in bettering conditions for all people, not just themselves and
other women or homosexual people, they often organize themselves in exclusive
groups. Within broader groups, such as the north american
continental anarchist gatherings, there are often workshops, subgroups, or
ÔspacesÕ that exclude people on the basis of sex, color, or sexual tastes. And
these discriminatory practices are often supported by some of the people who
are being excluded. While we defend the freedom of people to associate with or
avoid whoever they wish, as long as no coercion is involved, this exclusivist
behavior should be seen for what it is: sexism, racism, and homosexism.
Members of the Drinking Brigade
have attended three of the anarchist gatherings, and each year this separatist
current in the movement is becoming stronger. In San Francisco, there were a
number of exclusivist workshops and a women-only "space," workshop
after workshop degenerated in hostile yelling matches between some of the women
and men, and speakouts by some women and homosexual people were used to attempt
to bully people with whom the speakers disagreed. As anarchists and
individualists who see anarchy as entailing the liberation of all people as
individuals, not as members of narrowly defined groups, we oppose this trend
toward separatism and exclusion. We are publishing this collection of writings
in an attempt to stimulate discussion of this issue.
The first article,
"Anarchists and the Left," was written in 1984 for publication in an
anarchist magazine, but was not published as planned. It is included here
because it puts the critique of separatism within the context of a broader
critique of the wider anti-individualist or, as it is called in the article,
leftist outlook of many in the anarchist movement. Support for separatism, like
support for nationalism and reluctance to criticize socialist states despite
their abuse of people, comes out of a group-oriented world view which many
anarchists share with the statist left, but with which we disagree.
"Feminism: Disarmed?
Indulgent? Introverted?" first appeared in Freedom, a british anarchist magazine in 1981. Iris Mills is an
anarchist who spent over a year and a half in jail as one of those accused of
conspiring to cause explosions in the "Persons Unknown" case in england. She was subsequently found not guilty of the
charges. This article is a transcript of MillsÕ presentation at a debate at
LondonÕs Autonomy Centre on September 25, 1981. In it she argues against
feminism and separatism, for, as she stated in the debate, "Surely our
concern is to bring people together, not to erect still more barriersÉ.To me anarchism stands for the individual liberation of
each human being."
"The Politics of Identity and
Difference: Gynocentric vs. Polyandrogynist Visions" is an updated version
of an essay, "On the Current Schism: Gynocentrism vs. Androgyny,"
which was published in the feminist student newspaper Rising Tide in
1986 in Binghamton, new york. Peter Cariani holds that
the basic assumptions of much of the feminist movement are nationalist in their
ideological structure, and that an individualist-androgynist feminist approach
is a more direct route to sex-equality. It is argued that nationalistic,
gynocentric approaches perpetuate and deepen divisions between men and women by
creating strong sex-dependent identities and exclusivistic political
organizations. These divisions result in the restriction of life choices for
both women and men. Rather than organizing along lines of biological sex, an
alternative movement would seek to deconstruct the distinction between man and
woman rather than reconstructing it, freeing both men and women from
stereotypes and socially-enforced norms. The strategy
would involve dismantling all power relations based on biological sex, rather
than gaining power for particular groups of people by using the sex
distinction.
The letter to the Association of
Libertarian Feminists (ALF) published here as "Individualists against
Sexism," was written in August, 1989 in response to an article by Joan
Kennedy Taylor, ALFÕs acting national coordinator, in Association of
Libertarian Feminists News #31 in the Summer of 1989. In this article
Taylor discussed the possibility of changing ALFÕs name because of widespread
misunderstanding of the word libertarian and confusion about ALFÕs relationship
to the Libertarian Party (LP). (ALF is a group of libertarians and anarchists which is independent of the LP, although some members of ALF
are members or supporters of the LP.) In this letter I argue that the word
feminism is more problematic, that feminism has historically been associated
with statism, sexism, and conventional moral values, and that, just as
anti-sexist anarchists and individualists historically avoided the label
feminist, ALF should drop the word from its name.
"Lesbian/Gay Liberation or
Individual freedom?" was published in the Summer
1984 issue of Instead of A Magazine. It argues that separatism and
anti-heterosexual bias on the part of gay/lesbian liberationists leads to new
forms of bigotry and a new hierarchy made up of homosexual people, instead of
in the direction of sexual freedom for all people and tolerance for the sexual
tastes of others.
We found biologist Ruth HubbardÕs
article, "There is No Natural Human Sexuality," in the May, 1987, issue of The Bi Monthly, the newsletter of
the Boston Bisexual MenÕs Network. We included it here because her argument
that sexual tastes are not inborn or unchanging over time is a powerful
argument against homosexual separatism.
We hope these articles encourage
discussion about the issue of separatism in the anarchist and other social
change movements. We welcome feedback and criticism from readers.
Joe Peacott
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarchists and the Left
Joe Peacott
Modern political and social views
are generally broken down into the broad categories of right and left, and most
people who interest themselves in social or political ideas identify themselves
with one of these categories or their various sub-categories. The right
consists of people who view themselves as conservatives, republicans, fascists,
moral majoritarians, puritans, racists, KKKers, etc. The left comprises
communists, social democrats, liberals, socialists, populists, progressives,
feminists, pacifists, gay/lesbian liberationists, etc. Because these
definitions are so widely accepted and so often used in political discussion,
many anarchists have a tendency to adopt one of these labels and identify with
one of these general groups.
Although there are some anarchists
or libertarians who identify with the right, most seem to feel they have much
more in common with the traditional left. I think a lot of this has to do with
the fact that many of us who are now anarchists first became involved in social
or political action and ideas through left-identified movements, i.e.,
anti-war, anti-draft, anti-racist, feminist, gay/lesbian. And despite the fact
that we ex-leftists now reject the state and political action, many still hold
some of the leftist positions and views which led to
their initial radicalization. But in order to build a new society based on
individual freedom and equal freedom for all, the anarchist movement and
anarchist individuals need to break with the left and leave behind this leftist
baggage.
The primary problem with most
leftist positions is that they promote group interests over individual
interests and further isolate people from each other. An example of this is feminism,
with which a number of anarchists are currently infatuated. Feminism
historically has embraced temperance, voting, and conservative sexual
practices, as well as equality for women within the bounds of statist society.
Many modern-day feminists support voting, women government officials,
censorship of sexual literature, and social actions from which men are
excluded, i.e. Greenham Common, Seneca, Take Back the Night marches, as well as
equality for women, again within the bounds of statist society. Yet some
anarchists still describe themselves as feminists.
The problem with feminist
philosophy, as with the philosophies of lesbian/gay liberation, black nationalism, and support for nationalist movements in
other parts of the world, is that they define the issues in the context of
groups and group interests. For instance, rape and murder of women is defined
as a special class of violence, violence against women, not simply violence
against an innocent person. Although this may not seem to be more than a minor
semantics difference, this method of describing the problem leads to specific
social and political actions. It leads to the formation of groups such as Women
Against Violence Against Women, women-only Take Back the Night Marches (men are
specifically not invited), and the current pro-censorship anti-pornography
movement. And all of these efforts lead to a further division between men and
women. This may be a desirable and consistent goal for feminists, but it has
nothing in common with anarchy.
We live in a violent society.
Women and men are both subject to random, unprovoked violence by others and
itÕs also true that more women than men are subject to this violence, and far
more women than men are raped. But what is gained by organizing against violence
against women instead of violence against all innocent people? Nothing but more polarization between the sexes. Most men
oppose violence against both women and men, as do most women. The
anti-violence/anti-rape movement, if framed in terms of the inviolability of
all individuals and their right to defend themselves against any coercion and
violence by any means necessary, could promote individual freedom much more
effectively than women-only anti-violence marches ever will. After all there
are a lot of men who are afraid to walk the streets alone at night, as well.
Reaching out to these people in this way would broaden the anti-violence
movement, and hopefully also build support for other efforts to increase
individual freedom and autonomy.
Besides leading to separatism and
further isolating people from each other, leftist positions supported by some
anarchists promote continuing oppression for many people. This is clearest in
leftist/anarchist support for national liberation movements. Many anarchists are
hesitant to criticize the murderous actions of the PLO, IRA, INLA, Red
Brigades, etc., while they are more than willing to denounce the terror
committed by the zionists, british imperialists, or
german authoritarians. But nationalist movements, once in power, have been
anything but libertarian. The vietnamese statists
drive out the ethnic chinese, the sandinistas censor La Prensa and
institute a military draft, and the Khmer Rouge are butchers. As the saying
goes, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Anarchists should
have learned this lesson from the experience of the Russian revolution, when
anarchists from around the world went to Russia to support the revolution and
were killed or deported for their trouble.
Certainly, foreign imperialism is
often more brutal and murderous than the local statists that replace it, but it
is certainly not anarchistic to support one group over the other. I donÕt think
that the irish nationalists will be any more tolerant
of individual rights, anarchists, abortion rights, or lesbian/gay sex after
they seize power than the bigots who currently rule ulster. And the
nationalistsÕ current practice of bombing pubs where soldiers hang out, even
though this results in the murder of innocents, should not endear them to
anarchists.
Nationalism, like feminism, is
based on the primacy of groups over individuals. Nationalists believe that
"nations" oppress other "nations." Anarchists, on the other
hand, contend that some people oppress other people. That is why we should be
supporting the liberation of people, not the liberation of nations, as national
liberation always means the liberation of local tyrants from the interference
of foreign tyrants, not the liberation of individuals from authority of any
sort.
The world is an oppressive and
brutal place for most people. Some people, however, because of some physical
characteristic or behavior, are oppressed in different or more vicious ways
than others. Black people in the united states are denied access to jobs,
entertainment facilities, housing, etc., because of their skin color much more
often than white people; women are more often subject to violence and rape than
men; gay men and lesbians are more likely to be fired from their jobs because
of their sexual practices than are straight people. Despite this general trend,
however, all of the specific victims of these oppressive practices are
individuals. And we should fight bigotry and rape because it injures individual
people, not because it hurts black people, or female people, or homosexual
people, or any other specific group. To borrow a phrase from the left, an
injury to one is an injury to all. I am a man, IÕm gay, and my skin is white.
But none of these characteristics defines me or my social
views. Only by emphasizing the fact that the differences between any two
individuals are more profound (and interesting) than the differences between
groups, and by remembering that the similarities between individuals are more
important than any of the differences, will we be able to build a world of
equal freedom for all.
Building movements around shared
superficial characteristics such as skin color, sex organs, or sexual tastes
will only lead to more divisions between us, with a subsequent reduction of
freedom for us all. Straight white women and gay black men can both oppose
rape, fight united states intervention around the world, support abortion
rights, and fight censorship. We need to assert our individuality and emphasize
what makes us unique, while at the same time associating with other autonomous
individuals to further our common desires and goals. Movements centered around our shared opposition to the state and authority, and
any intervention in our lives, will bring about more libertarian results than
any exclusive special-interest campaign will ever result in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminism: Disarmed? Indulgent?
Introverted?
Iris Mills
It has become normal for people in
these debates to begin by criticizing the title of the debate–and I wonÕt
be the first to break this tradition.
What I take exception to in the
title is the word ÔdisarmedÕ because I donÕt believe feminism was ever armed in
the first place. It always was, is now, and will remain, Ôunarmed.Õ The demands
of the womenÕs movement have never had revolutionary implications; they have
never posed threats to either the state or capitalist society and therefore it
is a mistake to think of it as a once revolutionary force now diluted by
reformism.
It is precisely because of the womenÕs
movement rationale itself that it could never be revolutionary. Its professed
aim has been to put women on an equal footing with men, to explain oppression
in terms of sex instead of class. This analysis was wrong on both counts. By
presupposing that men, as a sex, call all the shots and are more privileged in
all respects, feminists risk losing sight of the fact that men in this society
are themselves subject to discrimination and oppression based on class. The
desire to be equal to men seems ridiculous to me, for who would want to be
equal to slaves?
Of course many feminists recognize
this and try to get round it by claiming that womenÕs demands, if implemented,
would revolutionize society. They say that once a deep and thorough-going
realignment of the sexes takes place, once the psychological barriers which
divide men from women are removed, society in its present form would be
radically altered. Patriarchy, so the argument runs, is the source of
oppression, preceding the development of classes and capitalism; and the
consequence of its demise would be a free and equal society.
The second mistake is to treat
ÔfreedomÕ as quantitative. Human freedom is not divisible,
degrees of oppression are not real criteria with which to analyze society. It
is immaterial whether patriarchy preceded class development. Oppression is
based on class and I believe that the men and women of one class must unite and
fight the men and women of the ruling class. To say, as Astrid Proll did, that
she knew she could get justice because the judge hearing her case was a woman,
is dangerous. It is dangerous because it promotes a myth–the myth of
sisterhood. As if all women, despite their class, have something fundamentally
in common, because they share the same kind of sex organs.
The myth of sisterhood works
against revolutionaries in two ways. It separates men from women. You all know
of Ôwomen onlyÕ meetings. Surely our concern is to bring people together not to
erect still more barriers. The Ôwoman is superiorÕ syndrome is not something I
am exaggerating for tonight–it is plainly visible in Spare Rib
among the contributors who state that they hate their male children–at
six months old! ItÕs horrendous. The worst aspect of the Ômyth of sisterhoodÕ
is that it leads directly to womenÕs issues alone and undermines the solidarity
so important to a revolutionary movement and neglects a class analysis. Thus
womenÕs demands have been channeled into projects like the First WomenÕs
National Bank of New York, which allows men to have accounts but not to become
shareholders. The logic behind this seems to be that self-managed oppression
and exploitation is better. It also indicates the identification of womenÕs
rights with women careerists and professionals. There is no demand for revolution–just
a demand that within the framework of this economic and social system women get
a fair deal. Big deal!
Of course it is true that within
the womenÕs movement there are those women who call themselves revolutionaries,
whose rationale appears to be that they recognize that women will never achieve
anything other than superficial equality unless society undergoes a
revolutionary change. They say however that they prefer to work with women
only, because they feel dominated among men. I can understand that to a point
but no problem was ever solved by ignoring it. If some men are domineering
toward women they should be confronted by the fact–itÕs no use going away
and hoping that in your absence the man or men in question will come to their
senses. Anyway some women feel dominated by other women–what do they do
then? Form a sub-group of submissive women only?
Some women use the ÔdegreesÕ of
oppression argument as an explanation for their work in the womenÕs movement.
The point of the argument being that you should work with the most oppressed.
For example Kate Millet says that in the United States white women are more
oppressed than black males. IÕm not sure how points are allocated but I suppose
that a black working class unmarried mother whoÕs a lesbian must get the
highest score.
Demands for free abortion, better
day care facilities and so on are important only in so far as they make life
today that much easier–in much the same way as demands for prison reform
in the way of more association, longer visits and the like, makes prison life a
little easier. But these reforms should be left to the liberals; they donÕt
come to grips with the basic problem in society. For women who feel themselves to be revolutionaries it is more important that
they see past these reforms and concern themselves with more fundamental
issues. When someone says ÔIÕm an anarchist-feministÕ to me thatÕs like saying
ÔIÕm a vegetarian who doesnÕt eat meat.Õ To me anarchism stands for the
individual liberation of each human being.
For the reasons IÕve given I donÕt
believe feminism was ever ÔarmedÕ in the sense that it ever provided a
revolutionary challenge to the state. But is it also ÔintrovertedÕ and
ÔindulgentÕ? Briefly then:
A glance at some of the feminist
fiction around is, I think, a fair indication of the concerns of the womenÕs
movement. Pick, say, Marge PiercyÕs books, Woman on the Edge of Time and
Vida. It seems odd that feminists who are allegedly concerned with
destroying the current sexual stereotypes are setting up new ones, and have
books full of ÔbeautifulÕ people. PiercyÕs heroines are all very physically
attractive to men. Moreover the men themselves conform to the same old model:
handsome, strong and athletic. Indeed in Vida it is the slightly
feminine man who betrays the heroine.
Also, for some ridiculous reason,
cats play an important role–they supposedly represent the female image.
Is that supposed to be soft and fluffy? While dogs are despised, the reason for
which I havenÕt yet grasped, but apparently dogs are more masculine.
I think that this type of fiction which reflects feminist issues shows them to be
introverted and indulgent in the same way as conferences on orgasm are. By all
means talk about these things with your friends, male and female–or with
strangers if you will. But donÕt try to give them a political expression or use
them as examples of political oppression of women by men.
Finally, I want to acknowledge
some benefit from the feminist movement–simply that it has done something
to change the nature of relationships between men and women; with developments
in technology that give us effective contraception, for example, relationships
were bound to evolve. But anarchists have to go further–it is not
possible to have ÔfreeÕ relationships in an unfree society. We can work towards
it, true, but we can never obtain it until we have a free society in which to
develop properly. I maintain that human beings and human relationships cannot
be free until the oppression of the state and capital is destroyed and a classless
society is created. Nothing less will do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Politics of Identity and
Difference:
Gynocentrist vs. Polyandrogynist
Visions
Peter Cariani
Within feminism, there has always
been a covert tension between those who advocated more power for women as a
class (gynocentrism) and those who advocated the abolition of social roles
based upon biological sex (polyandrogyny). These two strategies for social
transformation form two poles of a contemporary feminist spectrum. Each defines
sex-based oppression (patriarchy, sexism) in its own way; each articulates a
distinct feminist vision and pathway for liberation.
The gynocentrist approach is
essentially a nationalist strategy. Women and men form distinct and competing
bio-social classes (or "nations"); here, the nature of the oppression
is the domination of one bio-social class (men) over another (women), and the
nature of liberation necessarily involves a struggle for power between gender
classes.
The polyandrogynist approach
rejects the notion of ideal, homogeneous classes, instead focusing on the
actions of heterogeneous, concrete individuals in specific situations. Where
gynocentrists see the struggle between male power and female power,
polyandrogynists see the struggle between those men and women who support
sex-based social norms and those men and women who seek to dissolve them
completely. Instead of acquiring normative powers for a particular bio-social
class, polyandrogynists seek to eliminate such powers in order to allow
individuals of either sex to determine for themselves what kind of life they
want to lead, freed of bio-social role expectations.
Profound differences between the
gynocentrist and the polyandrogynist worldviews underlie many of the debates
over sexuality and sexual freedom, over the proper relation between individual
choices and social norms, over the role of political movements in shaping
individual identities. What should be the relation of individuals to
collectivities? Is the purpose of feminism to liberate women as a bio-social class or is it to free all individuals from the
fetters of imposed sex roles? Should feminism construct alternative
"feminine" and "masculine" identities or should it subvert
all such essentialist constructions? And what should be the role of men in
feminist movements? Should they be excluded, sent off to form their own groups,
should they be allowed in as equals, or should the whole question be put aside
in favor of more pressing issues? Analogous questions can be asked with respect
to other forms of oppression (e.g. racism, nationalism, repression of
unsanctioned sexualities) and their associated strategies for liberation. These
kinds of questions take us to the core of what politics is about.
Deconstruct and reconstruct:
political categories & personal experience
Ultimately the answers depend upon
the basic categories of our political thought, because as moral,
political beings we experience and judge the world through these categories.
The political categories we construct determine what we notice as we move
through the world, which distinctions we make, to what aspects of the world we
attribute good and evil. Each of us constructs our own categories to make
meaning out of an otherwise meaningless confusion; the categories we construct
are partially determined by our own histories, our current experiences and
desires, as well as the categories of those around us as communicated through
language. Individually and as political communities we must choose our
categories very carefully: they form who we are as moral-political beings. If
we strongly believe that men are inherently domineering and women are
inherently nurturing, we will go about the world making these sex-based
assumptions about the people we encounter, to the extent that we may not take
note of the existence of domineering women or non-domineering men. When a man
commits a heinous crime, there is a a strong tendency to attribute it to his
maleness, to put it under the rubric "male violence," but when
members of other groups (women, racial & sexual minorities) commit
similarly violent acts, we, as progressives, are properly careful not to
attribute the crime to the criminalÕs group membership; other, more specific
explanations must be sought for why that individual did what s/he did. When we
fail to note the exceptions and the resulting incongruities between our experiences
and expectations, we stay stuck in our own closed world of self-justifying
beliefs. We cease to learn from our experiences, we stop growing. In radical
political cultures, especially in more militant ones, these basic political
categories can become highly charged with moral contents and strongly
reinforced, making it very difficult to break out of thinking in terms of
politically correct stereotypes. And even when one has succeeded in mentally
deconstructing the received categories, our political cultures, with their
endless moral posturing and instant condemnation, make it difficult to publicly
challenge accepted moral truths. To be sure, some political communities are
worse than others in this respect, but often these social and mental constraints
persist in more subtle forms in less militant circles. Wherever we are, we need
to constantly question those assumptions which no
longer agree with our lived experiences.
Ideal classes and concrete
individuals
As radicals, most of us have
inherited either directly or indirectly most of our ways of thinking and acting
from the marxist tradition. The marxist
tradition has in effect handed us ideal, platonic classes by way of the
hegelian dialectic, with all of their terrible totalitarian, hierarchical, life-negating
ramifications. In effect, the ideal political categories of marxism
prevent us from seeing the concrete individuals in our lives; instead we see
the classes of which each individual is but a representative. As a consequence,
we often treat the people we first encounter in everyday life, not as
themselves–as morally autonomous individuals with their own particular
histories–but as abstract class tokens with one collective history. Politically-correct leftist political culture typically
pigeon-holes people into economic classes, gender classes, racial classes, and
sexuality classes. Within militant gynocentric-feminist circles it matters a
great deal whether the speaker is male or female, and to a lesser extent
whether s/he is gay, straight, or bisexual. The person speaking in a political
meeting is no longer speaking for him/herself, but for all the political
categories s/he represents. Here there is often a hierarchy of speakers
paralleling a hierarchy of oppressions–those who can claim to be most
oppressed by virtue of their class membership have the most moral clout, while
those without such stature can be readily dismissed on the basis of their class
origins: as objective oppressors, tacit sympathizers, or naive onlookers. Every
argument is thereby subtly reduced to an ad hominem one, dependent upon the
class position of the speaker. In many movements for social change, ideologically-based assumptions of ideal classes greatly
reinforce and amplify these destructive interpersonal dynamics. In order to
create liberatory alternatives to what have become traditional assumptions of
radical politics, we must take a good look at the basic structure of our
political thinking. We need to begin to make such a re-evaluation in feminism.
Gynocentric feminism: the
construction of difference
Perhaps the majority of the
feminist movement today sees itself as championing the interests of women in a
world where gender issues are decided in the competition between the interests
of men and those of women. For these feminists, it makes sense to organize the
movement for sex-equality as a movement of women as a group struggling for
their own rights. This woman-centered, or gynocentric feminism embodies a
nationalist, corporativist approach to the problem of sexism in society. In its
most orthodox, extreme versions, men and women constitute different competing
classes engaged in a Manichean war of domination. In its less extreme versions,
gyno-centrism simply construes feminism as concern with "womenÕs issues"
and "womenÕs rights," leaving the boundaries of the political
struggle more open-ended and less rigidly defined.
Essentialism:
biological, spiritual, and psychological. Even in its milder forms the gynocentric worldview
depends upon essential, relatively immutable differences between the sexes.
Typically, women are believed to be more nurturing and emotionally supportive,
while men are thought to be more analytical, domineering, and violent. Some
gynocentrists believe this is a consequence of womenÕs biological reproductive
role and/or the construction of their bodies (biological essentialism). Others
believe that women are spiritually more connected to the earth (spiritual
essentialism) or that womenÕs "ways of knowing" are different from
menÕs (epistemological essentialism). More developmentally oriented
gynocentrists believe that sex-differentiated socialization is so complete and
pervasive throughout society that men and women are inevitably psychologically
constituted differently as "masculine" and "feminine" beings
(psychological essentialism).
Essentialism forms the
metaphysical underpinnings of both gynocentrist feminism and the traditional
sex role hierarchy. If women and men are not individually different in
important ways, and if neither men nor women can change their basic
psychological make-up, then they do form separate classes with separate
interests and these interests may come into conflict. If these differences
between individual men and women were no longer regarded as important or if
more important differences exist within each sex-class than between them (e.g.,
political, cultural, religious, sexual orientation), then the entire rationale
of the gynocentrist movement is undermined.
Whatever their origins, inherently
different (and incompatible) desires and orientations of men and women lead to
the necessity for a separate movement to advance the interests of women (since
the interests of men as a group are already presumably represented in the
current political and economic structures).
Separatism. Essentialism leads to separatism
by providing the basic distinction on which separatism rests, by defining what
counts as "oneÕs own kind." In addition to essentialism, separatism
also involves a strong preference for "oneÕs own kind." Those who see
large relatively immutable differences between the sexes, and who prefer their
own sex are drawn to separatism in various degrees. At its most extreme this
can mean living in a sex-exclusive environment where one need never come in
contact with the other sex. It can mean simply choosing to associate only with
oneÕs own sex in oneÕs personal life (as in social or political groups). It can
mean participating in groups which exclude on the
basis of sex or silently tolerating sexist practices by oneÕs political associates.
Similarly, there are many different motivations for separatism: intense hatred
of the other sex because of past negative experiences or intense love of oneÕs
own sex because of past positive experiences.
Separatists of various stripes
comprise a significant subculture within the feminist movement, with a
considerable array of women-only consciousness-raising and study groups, cafes,
bookstores, schools for self-defense and self-help, art galleries, music
festivals and health collectives. In comparison there exist few if any
contemporary progressive circles which exclude women.
Nationalism. Essentialism and separatism form
the basis for nationalism. Nationalism in its broadest sense is the belief that
those groups of people who have similar innate characteristics (such as
nationality, race, sex, native language, economic class, parent religion)
should band together to form power blocs to advance their group interests.
Essentialism gives nationalism its metaphysics; separatism gives nationalism
its emotional basis for "preferring oneÕs own kind" over others who
are different.
The nationalist approach is
"groupist": one is born either inside or outside the group, one is
given an identity as a member of the group, group oppressions are called forth
to claim moral recognition, the interests of oneÕs own kind always supersede
those of other peoples. Here there are no individuals, only members of groups.
Each person is necessarily allied with and identified as belonging to one group
or another: men are assumed to be male-identified and
therefore allied with patriarchy, women are assumed to be female-identified and
allied through "sisterhood."
Many types of nationalism are
possible; they can be based on any distinction that can be represented as
innate and morally compelling: country of origin (patriotisms of all sorts);
tribal, linguistic, or ethnic group (e.g. zionism, palestinian nationalism,
pan-germanic nationalism); race (white supremacism, pan-africanism); religion
(religious crusades of all sorts); biological sex (male chauvinism/patriarchy,
gynocentric feminism) or economic class (aristocratic chauvinism, proletarian
nationalism).
Nationalisms create other
oppressions by setting up categories for defining people and treating them according
to their national category, rather than what theyÕve said or done or
experienced. If the discrimination is pervasive and has deep social effects,
then these categories come to be internalized by their victims. People develop
primary identities which depend upon the categories of
the oppressing system. The oppressive system of social roles and expectations
never lets its victims forget who they are and how they must act, as women and
men; as blacks and whites; as christians, jews and muslims; as upper, middle,
and working class people.
Organizing along nationalist lines
utilizes these previously internalized identities and strengthens them. The
nationalist strategy thereby capitalizes on oppressive distinctions and norms
that are already in place, creating ready-made categories for resistance and
instant solidarity. Very rapidly nationalist movements can tap into deep wells
of alienation, resentment, and anger. Where people felt powerless and alone,
they suddenly feel empowered and part of a movement. Where oneÕs identity and
self-worth were in question, now there is a movement to forge a common identity
and history.
There is no question that
nationalist-type movements can be extremely uplifting and personally
empowering. However, there are deep problems which surface in the long run,
after initial victories are won, and once the movement gains some power.
Double
standards. By so
sharply separating those of oneÕs own group from everyone else, nationalism
creates double standards of behavior. These double standards arise from
parochial habits of mind which give the benefit of the
doubt to members of oneÕs own group and devalue the intentions of those outside
the group. Those who are officially recognized as oppressed are allowed to do
things that would otherwise be seen as oppressive. We readily see the sexist
implications of conscious policies of sex-based exclusion when traditional
menÕs clubs prohibit women members, but rarely is the reverse situation
criticized. Yet both policies rest upon sexist assumptions, that the worth of a
potential member is to be measured according to his/her sex. While oppressive
behavior by those who have been victims of past oppressions may be
understandable, it should not be condoned. Previous oppression cannot serve as
a justification or rationalization for oppressive acts.
Perpetuation
of oppression. Perhaps the
worst danger of nationalist strategies is that they do not eradicate the
oppressive distinction on which the oppression is built. In the process of
organizing along nationalist lines, it is necessary to create a strong group
identity ("class consciousness"), and a strong sense of the Other. Gynocentrists encourage identification as women,
lesbian separatists encourage identification as lesbians, black nationalists
encourage identification as blacks, and the list goes on. Rather than
dissolving the oppressive habit of sex-based stereotyping, the gynocentric
program deepens sex-based identities and magnifies sex-based distinctions.
Paradoxically, nationalism sets up
an incentive for perpetuating the oppression on which it derives its support,
since its political base lies in oppression-generated national identities. Once
the oppression is sufficiently ameliorated or eliminated entirely, then the
movement becomes passe. Leaders of nationalist movements acquire a built-in
interest in generating confrontations in order to renew group solidarity. Such
inter-group struggle often masks intra-group power differentials. After power
has been attained by the movement many believers are surprised to find that
little actually changes in the basic power relations, except that now their
leaders are members of their group rather than of a different one (e.g. female
bosses instead of male ones).
Androgynist feminism: the
amplification of autonomy
Androgynist feminism is an
alternative to the nationalist, gynocentrist mode of political struggle.
Androgynist feminists want to bring about a situation in which biological sex
becomes increasingly less relevant as a social distinction. Women will gain
equality only when the social categories of man and woman are finally stripped
of their meaning, when it becomes largely irrelevant for the selection of life
choices, when "masculine" and "feminine" traits become
disconnected from biological sex. Both sexes will thereby gain choices that
were not available to them before. Women will be freed to assume social roles
traditionally restricted to men (e.g. having careers, developing their artistic
and intellectual talents, assuming positions of public responsibility,
organizing economic enterprises) as well as their traditional choices. Men will
be freed to assume social roles traditionally restricted to women (e.g. raising
children, coordinating life in the home, working with the poor and
disadvantaged, teaching, nursing, pursuing their own emotional development).
Rather than the gynocentric trajectory of separation and perpetual division,
social roles will be more highly integrated, and less sex-segregated once the
social, economic, and psychological barriers come down.
This vision is no less radical
than its nationalist counterpart; it involves no less struggle around issues of
power and economic gain (freedom has both a political and material basis), but
the terrain on which it is fought is fundamentally different from that of
gynocentrism. Rather than a struggle between innately different biosocial
groups, the struggle is between those who desire the freedom to determine their
own life choices and those who would impose choice-denying social norms in the
name of the collective. Rather than a parochial struggle between various
pressure groups each representing their "own
people," the androgynist approach advocates universal freedoms to be
extended to all people as potentially autonomous individuals.
To androgynist feminists it makes
more sense to organize according to a shared vision of the future (patriarchy
vs. sex-equality) rather than according to the categories of past oppressions
(men vs. women). Reconstructing the categories of the previous oppression and
creating a woman-centered identity moves profoundly in the wrong
direction–destroying choices available to women by advancing new
ideologically determined norms, rather than expanding real life-choices.
In many ways the debate parallels
that between the marxists and the anarchists a century
ago over the role of hierarchy and centralized power within the revolutionary
movement. The marxists said yes, we need centralized
authority structures, but theyÕll disappear after the revolution; the
gynocentrists say we need separation and woman-identified power for a while
until women are equal, then we will dismantle the structure. The matriarchical
order that some gynocentrists fantasize about is the sex-role equivalent to the
dictatorship of the proletariat; were they to attain power, the results would
be similar: more oppressions, more hierarchies of power legitimated by past
oppressions.
Biology
should not be destiny. In contrast
to gynocentric feminism, the basic assumption of androgynist feminism is that the
social role differences between the sexes have little or no basis in biological
differences; they are social constructions which can
be changed by concerted effort. Women and men are now on the whole socialized
differently, but there do exist dominant women and submissive men. The problem
needs to be recast in terms of how do we go about dismantling all
power-based relationships, regardless of the sex of the dominant partner. For
the most part, this strategy will benefit women, because most women in contemporary
society tend to have less power in relationships. It will also benefit those
men who are in similar situations. Dismantling of power structures empowers
relatively powerless women and men, while taking power away from relatively
powerful men and women. On a larger social scale, this strategy involves
dismantling hier-archies of power in the workplace, in the political arena, in
all the larger institutions of social life. Since women currently tend to be
towards the bottom of hierarchies of power, a general democratization of power
will for the most part benefit them.
Means and
ends. As women and
men in feminist organizations, we should seek to construct the social relations which mirror the kind of integrated, sex-equal
society which we want to bring about. This will take honest, concerted efforts
by both men and women to communicate and to change the ways in which we
interact. We will necessarily have to find creative ways to empower and
encourage those who have been put down in the past, and it will be a long, hard
struggle.
If we take Emma GoldmanÕs
insistence on the consistency between means and ends, there should be no double
standards in our organizations: if we do not want ourselves excluded from
organizations on the basis of biology, we should not discriminate on that
basis. This is not to say that groups which happen to be all-female or all-male
are inherently bad, or that mixed groups are always necessarily better (It is
the nationalists who always judge groups by the composition of their membership).
It just says as matters of policy we should include/exclude people by their
actions or chosen beliefs, not by accidents of birth. There may be some
circumstances in which single sex groups may be necessary, but we should not
quickly jump to exclusionary policies for all sex role issues before examining
possible non- or less exclusionary alternatives. Difficulties for some group
members in dealing with those of different sex, race, class, or sexuality
should be seen as attitudes to be overcome by everyone involved, not as
situations to be rationalized away or avoided by the group through blanket
exclusions. If we cannot construct sex-equality in our own mixed sex
organizations, how can we hope to do it on a society-wide scale? Clearly this
is the challenge we must face if we seek to change society at large.
Freedom to define oneself: the
construction of identity
If we are to believe seriously in
the possibility of fundamental change, then we must build into our movements
for social change those social relations which we seek
to implement in the future society. The purpose of remembering the past should
be to anticipate the future rather than to wallow in past oppressions. Gynocentrist
feminism is determinist, its basic categories locked into the injustices of the
past; androgynist feminism is constructivist, mindful of history but always
oriented towards future liberation.
The politics of making biology
irrelevant to destiny is a politics of choice, a struggle for freedom. If we
act always to expand choice for more people, we will foster self-development,
self-direction, and personal autonomy. Far from being a reformist program,
expanding significant life-choices for most of the society will necessarily
entail radical political, economic, and psychological changes. Freedom has a
material basis (if you donÕt have money, you donÕt have economic alternatives),
a political basis (if you donÕt have political power, all of your alternatives
are subject to decisions by others), and a psychological basis (if you donÕt
have a sense of who you are and what you want, you canÕt effectively exercise
decision-making autonomy). Women will only develop the means to exercise their
autonomy fully if they are given real life-choices they themselves make as
individuals, not if they are presented with a prefabricated model of womanhood.
Gynocentric feminism denies this
choice on a very fundamental level, that of personal identity. Gynocentric
feminism asserts that oneÕs identity is fixed by oneÕs biological sex, and that
one has no role in constructing the core of oneÕs identity. In contrast,
androgynous, role-choice feminism asserts that both women and men have some
(albeit limited) choice, that they are in some part responsible for the situation
they find themselves in and that they have some (albeit limited) means of
changing it. Power relationships are relationships between (at least) two
comple-mentary roles: those of domination and those of submission, and the
relationship breaks down once either party ceases to play the appropriate role.
Each of us participates in many different types of relationships involving
power, and consequently most people have mixed roles: dominant in some
relations, neutral in others, submissive in still others. Both have the option
to leave or restructure submissive roles or to reject domination in favor of
equality.
Androgynist, role-choice feminism
undermines mystical, innatist identity formations by asserting that we
construct our selves. Here the important sources of solidarity are the values which we have chosen for ourselves which we share in
common with other people, not those values imposed upon us by traditional
social roles or by "movement identities." We find others like
ourselves, rather than molding ourselves in othersÕ images. This process of
self-construction determines who we are and how we experience the world around
us.
Should political movements
consciously construct personal identities of their members? Should
"movement identities" be reinforced and encouraged? Ultimately the
answer to this question lies in the relative values placed on group formation
and cohesion vs. the autonomy of the freely associating, self-constructing
individual. Nationalist political strategies depend completely upon the construction
of a common, national identity, a collective consciousness. Individualists can
only see such a political construction of individual identity as a loss of
self-determination and a diminution of individual consciousness. We well know
the terrible effectiveness with which totalitarian, identity-manipulating
political strategies mobilize to take power. We have yet to see a radical,
cooperative, individualist alternative which could
self-organize on a similar scale to diffuse power and to amplify freedom, but
such alternatives are surely possible and remain to be fully developed and
articulated.
Postscript: men and feminism
This article has been difficult to
write for many reasons. ItÕs very hard to express criticisms knowing the kind
of vilification which will be provoked. I feel as many
others who have been marginalized by feminist orthodoxy, but without even the
saving grace of being female or lesbian or a member of some other widely
recognized oppressed group. No doubt many gynocentrists will immediately
dismiss the perspective simply because I am male and therefore in their eyes
have no standing to comment on feminist issues, let alone to criticize their
assumptions.
Even those of us who have been
sympathetic to feminist ideals all of our lives and have been active for many
years find it difficult to feel at home in the movement, to be accepted. Most
feminist women have deeply ambivalent attitudes towards participation by men. A
small but significant number of feminist activists hate men in general; some
refuse to talk with men at all, even those who are feminists. Most of the
activist groups which deal with gender issues are
women-only, so many of the discussions around these issues are carried out in
political circles closed to us. Often, we are told to start our own men-only
groups, but to many of us this is as much an anathema as women-only ones. In
addition, some of us do not identify as men, as inconceivable as that might be
to those with strong gender-identifications. The insistence by some women
separatists that men should form their own groups or caucuses is an external
imposition of an unwanted identity.
During the debate around the
Dworkin-McKinnon pornography ordi-nance I did some work with Cambridge Feminist
Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT), which was at the time exclusively women. To
my extreme dismay, several months after the referendum, FACT held a panel
discussion of the lessons learned in the battle, and excluded men, even those
who had worked on the campaign, from attending. Ironically, much of FACTÕs core
membership was composed of S/M lesbians, who have also been marginalized and
excluded from much of feminism. Recently I did phone tree work (in opposition
to the Operation Rescue blockades of abortion clinics) for a pro-choice group,
only later to discover that their meetings are closed to men. In these
situations, one cannot help but feel used. This is exactly the sort of sexist
marginalization that many feminists correctly criticized some New Left
organizations for practicing. Now, tragically, feminist groups engage in the
same patterns, and rationalize it in the same ways: we have other more pressing
issues to deal with.
All the double standards and
standard rationalizations not-withstanding, it is
difficult to see these exclusions as motivated by anything but a deeply sexist
way of seeing the world. Simply put, a man, whatever his persona, his political
beliefs, his intentions, is excluded because of innate characteristics he
cannot change. No person is perfect, but each person has some capacity to learn
from mistakes and to change the way s/he behaves. Yes, all people should have
the absolute and inviolable right to associate with whomever they please, but
the rest of us do not have to morally approve of the basis of the association.
In my mind, exclusions based upon biological sex are as deeply reprehensible as
those based on race, or on any other accident of birth.
In political meetings, especially
those with a high proportion of separatists, I have often heard very negative
generalizations being made about all men, and almost never are these
generalizations challenged. The solution here is not to suppress these
grievances, because in many cases there are genuine, specific problems which need to be addressed. The task here is to get
those who have complaints about the behavior of some individual or group to be
as specific as possible about the behavior which needs
changing, and to educate those whose behavior is offensive. Too often these
issues are discussed in separate sex-segregated groups, making it impossible
for men, who are usually the objects of criticism, to hear, respond and learn
from their critics. How else are behaviors to be changed, if not by honest
communication? I have heard women feminists say that they donÕt want to teach
men how to behave ("women have been taking care of men all their
lives"), and then in the next breath complain about unintended behaviors
which they found offensive. Rather than focusing on the gender of the person,
it is much more important to concentrate on the behavior: what aspects make it
offensive, what assumptions lie underneath it? Standards of mutual respect and
proper conduct within a community are thereby made explicit and applied to all
members, whoever they are, male or female.
We also need to be more careful
with our language. Much of the language used by contemporary feminist activists
betrays some very crude and sexist generalizations (as in the construction
"male violence"). And this comes from within a movement
which championed the critical analysis of language. Imagine for a moment
the reactions to constructions such as "black violence" or
"homosexual violence." Immediately we see the racist and anti-gay
implications of these conflations, and many will be quick to challenge the speaker,
whoever s/he is, but when "male violence" is used in a feminist
context, there is too often only silent acquiescence.
Out of these and other
experiences, I have resolved not to participate in any movement
which does not at least on its face treat me as an equal. I urge others,
male or female, black or white, gay, bi, or straight, differently abled,
whatever your situation, to do likewise; to leave movements which judge on the
basis of innate characteristics and to form organizations which treat all people
with mutual respect, as equal individuals. Only when we ourselves refuse to
make judgements about people based on innate characteristics, will we be able
to move toward the kind of society where we can be ourselves, unchained from
the prejudiced, stereotypical expectations that others have of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminist Politics and Abuse
Lisa Orlando
Laura HathawayÕs excellent letter
on child abuse and lesbian battering exemplifies the direction I think this
discussion needs to take. Unlike Hathaway, I was
physically abused by my mother. And although, like Hathaway, I had many
childhood encounters with the ÔhelpersÕ, I also went through the juvenile court
system, which considered me "incorrigible" because I stood up against
my motherÕs abuse, refused ever to believe that I deserved it, and ran away
every chance I got. My very early awareness that I was unjustly treated merely
because of my status as a child has been the root of my politics and my very
personal hatred of oppression in any form. In fact, my mother is herself
partially responsible for my precocious political analysis of the situation:
she always said "youÕre my slave until you turn 18."
I have also been
attacked–and almost killed–by a woman lover. Whenever I hear
descriptions of women as "essentially nurturant, nonviolent, etc.," I
feel nauseous and infuriated. Early in my involvement with radical feminism I
realized that womenÕs violence was not taken seriously–my anger at my
mother was as delegitimated as it had been by the "child shrinkers."
Women I was told, were only violent because they were oppressed, so you
couldnÕt blame them. Men were violent either by nature or privilege, so they
had no convenient excuses. IÕm sick of all this double-talk. Both men and
women, as adults, are oppressors of children. Any feminism which wants to base
its politics on a romanticization of the mother/daughter bond furthers the
oppression of children and silences those of us–male and female–who
were and are abused by our mothers.
From Gay Community News, March
24, 1984
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonne Bell ShouldnÕt Be Exclusive
Race
Jennifer Jordan
As a woman and a runner, I must
raise objection to the exclusionary rules governing the Bonne Bell road race.
As I ran my daily river run the
day preceding the race, an obviously trained male runner passed me with a
cheerful and open, "Good luck tomorrow!" I felt anger for those that
would exclude him from a fun holiday run by reason only of his sex. The reverse
discrimination shocks me.
Can you imagine a race for
"whites only" "Christians only" "Americans only?"
Ridiculous that women, bound by some convenient
tradition, find themselves in the position of social arbiters and separatists.
"Sorry, but thatÕs just the
way it is." Seems that IÕve heard those words before, in Mobile and South
Boston and Johannesburg.
Funny when the power is in the
other hands, sexism is the rule rather than the exception to be fought and
eradicated. If equality is ever to be realized in this country, hadnÕt we better
define our principles with a bit more clarity?
From The Boston Globe,
October 21, 1983
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individualists Against Sexism
Joe Peacott
I think that changing ALFÕs
{Association of Libertarian Feminists} name, as discussed by Joan Kennedy
Taylor in ALF News #31, is a very good idea. However, the word I find
most problematic in the current name is feminist, not libertarian. Both the
current and historical politics and activity of most people who label
themselves feminists are at odds with the goal of a free, non-statist, and
non-sexist society that I and, I assume, most in ALF pursue.
Feminism has a history of allying
itself with anti-sex and pro-censorship forces, anti-alcohol campaigns, and
statist solutions to the problems created by sexism. On the other hand, there
is a long tradition of people fighting sexism, especially in the united states, who have not adopted the name or ideology of
feminism, and, in fact have stood in opposition to the conservatism of
feminism. People such as the sex radicals, both men and women, of the latter
half of the last century, Emma Goldman, and Voltairine DeCleyre all waged
fights against sexism, censorship, and authority in general, and none
considered themselves feminists (although modern feminist historians falsely
claim them as part of feminist history, equating anti-sexism with feminism).
Anti-sexism is one thing; feminism (but certainly not all self-described
feminists) is something quite different.
Feminism, as an ideology can not be anything but sexist. Even the word itself,
meaning, basically, womanism, is exclusive of men, which certainly is not
anti-sexist. At the recent anarchist con/fest in San Francisco,
anarchist-feminists and their supporters organized exclusivist workshops, and
even two days of women-only and men-only meetings and activities. Such
separatism did nothing but further the distance between many of the women and
men in the anarchist movement and inhibited man-woman dialogue, which is
crucial to fighting sexism. Within the mixed workshops there was continuous
tension between many women and men, with all sorts of disagreements in either
viewpoint or style frequently reduced simply to manifestations of sexism in the
eyes of the feminists. Certainly, there is a problem with sexism in the
anarchist and libertarian movements, as elsewhere in life, but separatism and
feminism do nothing to break down the barriers. Excluding and attacking people
simply on the basis of their sex is sexist, whoever is doing the excluding.
Individualism as a philosophical
system is necessarily anti-sexist, since it views persons as individuals, not
as members of various groups based on sex, color, class, etc. Individualists
fight against legal restrictions on abortion because we feel all people should
be free to control their bodies, just as we fight against the draft for the
same reason. Abortion is no more a feminist issue, than is (all-male) draft
registration. Both are individualist issues: the state trying to run the lives
of people who should be left alone. And just as many women have been involved
in anti-draft work, many men are fighting to preserve the freedom to abort.
Fighting sexism is important, and
I support ALF, even though I am not a feminist, because I feel it makes a
contribution to this fight. But I think ALF should reject the word feminist and
leave it to the statists who so frequently use it to describe themselves.
Something like Individualists Against Sexism would be a more fitting name for a
group of individualist anarchists and libertarians committed to the fight
against sexism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lesbian/Gay Liberation or
Individual Freedom?
Joe Peacott
In June,
1969, for the first time, customers at the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New
York, fought back against the police when they tried to raid the bar. The
modern gay/lesbian liberation movement generally considers this event the birth
of their movement. But, unfortunately, this movement really has little in
common with the spirit of the Stonewall revolt. Instead of self-defense against
the attacks of the state and reliance on their own strength, the strategy of
the lesbian/gay movement now consists of reliance on the stateÕs laws and
money, and support for the electoral and legislative process.
Gay/lesbian civil rights
legislation and funding for AIDS research are the current focus of the
lesbian/gay movement. They lobby for passage of laws to prohibit discrimination
in housing, jobs, etc., based on sexual tastes, and go begging to the feds for
money to help find a cure for AIDS. Lesbian/gay political alliances and
caucuses endorse various politicians running for office and have succeeded in
pressuring a number of big city mayors to appoint gay/lesbian liaisons. They
talk about the gay/lesbian "community" as if we were a neatly
definable political and social group, to be used to reward or punish
politicians and government officials with our vote.
There are several other problems
with this approach, the most important and fundamental of which is the myth of
a lesbian/gay "community." The gay/lesbian liberation movement
promotes the idea that gay men and lesbians have common interests and goals
different from those of straight people, and therefore should work together as
a group. But I have no more in common with most lesbians and gay men than I do
with most straight men and women. Although most gay men and lesbians feel some
effects of anti-homosexual bias, the best way to fight this is not by isolating
ourselves as a "community," but by reaching out to other victims of
conventional society and allying with them in an attempt to change the bigoted
world in which we live. I am not interested in gay/lesbian liberation. I am
interested in individual liberation. Respect for and acceptance of individual
differences, including sexual tastes, lays the basis for a society of equal
freedom for all of us.
The gay/lesbian
"community" can be just as discriminatory as any other community or
group. Lesbians who engage in S/M sex have been denied meeting space at the
Cambridge WomenÕs Center because of their non-traditional sex tastes. Black men
are frequently "carded" and denied admission to gay menÕs bars. And
Harry Britt, the gay San Francisco supervisor, is supporting the recent ban on
sex at the gay menÕs bath houses in San Francisco.
This is a "community" of which I want no part.
I am not interested in having gay
men and lesbians trying to run my life instead of straight people. Neither
community has any interest in individual freedom. This is a problem common to
all movements which are based on the interests of
specific groups, such as lesbian/gay liberation, feminism, or national
movements. The interests of the group inevitably supersede the interests of the
individual, resulting only in new forms of oppression.
Such a movement logically throws
in its lot with the electoral system. Since they really are not interested in
fundamental change, but only in opening up the system to more gay men and
lesbians, civil rights legislation is a consistent route for them to follow.
But reliance on the state will serve only the interests of the leaders of this
movement. Passing laws merely increases the power of the state, including
lesbian and gay politicians, to interfere with the rest of us. Civil rights
laws donÕt make it easier to come out to friends and co-workers. They only make
it easier for aspiring gay and lesbian politicians to find work. Lesbian/gay
marches, for all their problems have certainly helped change other peopleÕs
view of us more than any legislation will.
The most recent and well publicized case of this reliance on government is the
struggle for state funding of AIDS research. Thousands of lesbians and gay men
are clamoring for money from the federal government to help find a cure for
AIDS. This is a turn away from the independent gay-oriented clinics
which have been started during the last ten years, and toward alliance with the
same medical-industrial-government complex that conducted the Tuskegee
syphilis "experiments" on unknowing black men, and encourages the
sterilization of poor women. Although a cure for AIDS will require lots of
money and hard research, seeking help from the state will lead to more
government control of health care and less individual initiative and control.
The most positive aspect of the AIDS crisis, the formation of self-help and
support groups for AIDS patients by the patients themselves, other gay men and
lesbians, and especially by gay and lesbian health care workers, is being
de-emphasized more and more by gay/lesbian leaders in favor of the fight for
governmental funding.
ItÕs a sad comment on the
lesbian/gay liberation movement that the only example of old-fashioned
resistance in recent years has been the "White Night" riot in San Francisco. Although it was inspiring to see burning
police cars and smashed city hall windows, it was disappointing to realize that
the issue that brought people out was the fact that a murderer did not get a
life sentence or the death penalty. Killing or locking up Dan White forever
will not protect or liberate gay men and lesbians. Only self-defense, by any
means necessary, will protect us from those who hate us. Prison and the death
penalty are horrors, whatever crimes their victims have committed or been
convicted of committing. Supporting them for anyone betrays the movementÕs
supposed interest in personal freedom.
Gay men and lesbians interested in
freedom need to avoid the trap of gay/lesbian liberation. While rejecting the
lesbian/gay "community," we need to be open and assertive about our
sexuality and defend our freedom to live as we please. We can do this in the
context of a broader struggle for the freedom of all individuals to live
as they like, free of the constraints of any authority
or "community," as long as they donÕt invade the equal freedom of
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There Is No ÔNaturalÕ Human
Sexuality
Ruth Hubbard
The circumstances that arouse our
sexual feelings and the ways in which we express them are structured by the
society in which we live, and have changed over time. There is no
"natural" human sexuality. Historically in the West, sexuality has
been linked with reproduction. This arises out of the Christian equation of sexuality
with sin that must be redeemed through reproduction. It results in the
invalidation of all forms of sexual expression and enjoyment other than
heterosexuality. To fulfill the Christian mandate, sexuality always should be
intended for reproduction. Actually, in our day, just plain heterosexuality
will do, irrespective of reproductive consequences.
This sets up a major contradiction
in the way we initiate children to sexuality and reproduction. We teach them
that sex and sexuality are about having babies and warn them that they must not
explore sex until they are old enough to be mummies and daddies. Then, when
they reach adolescence and the entire culture pressures them into sexual
activity (whether they want it or not), the more "enlightened" among us
teach them how to be sexually (meaning heterosexually) active without becoming
mummies and daddies. Surprise: it doesnÕt work very well. Teenagers do not act
"responsibly"–teenage pregnancy and abortion are on the rise.
Somewhere, we forget that we have been teaching lies: sexuality and
reproduction are not linked in "advanced," "developed"
societies. Youngsters are expected to be heterosexually active from their teens
on, but to put off having children until they are economically independent and
married, and even then to have only two or, at most, three children.
Other contradictions: this society
accepts, on the whole, FreudÕs assumption that children are sexual from birth
and that in childhood society channels that polymorphously perverse sexuality
into socially acceptable forms. Yet we expect our children to be asexual.
Furthermore, more than most traditional societies, we raise boys and girls
together, while we insist that they must not explore their own sexuality, and
especially not each others.
What if we acknowledged the actual
separation of sexuality from reproduction and encouraged our children to
express themselves sexually, if they were so inclined? This would mean that
they could explore their own bodies as well as those of friends of the same or
the other sex, when they felt like it. It would also mean that they would have
some sense of their own and other peopleÕs sexual needs, and would know how to
talk out these needs with friends and sexual partners before reproduction
became an issue for them. Presumably, without the embarrassment of unexplored
and unacknowledged sexual needs, contraceptive needs would be much easier to
acknowledge and deal with as they arise. So, of course, would same-sex love
relationships.
As Steve Jackson has pointed out
in Childhood and Sexuality this would be especially advantageous for
girls, though it would help children and adolescents of both sexes. Boys, in
the ordinary course of sexual exploration, discover their penis as an organ of
pleasure, and it is also the organ they are taught about when they learn about
reproduction. Reproduction and pleasure therefore are linked. Girls exploring
themselves find their clitoris, but when they learn about reproduction, the
clitoris often goes unacknowledged, and they are taught that their vagina is
the organ important for sex and reproduction. According to the American
Heritage Dictionary, the vagina is "the passage leading from the external
genital orifice [whatÕs an orifice, Mummy?] to the
uterus in mammals [whatÕs a mammal, Mummy?]; from Latin vagina, sheath
[you mean I am a sheath for a penis or a baby, Mummy?]." Therefore, for
boys, there is an obvious link between reproduction and their own pleasurable,
erotic explorations; for most girls, there isnÕt.
It should not surprise us that a
male-dominated society has constructed sexuality in ways that serve menÕs
sexual needs more than womenÕs. The interesting thing is that when Shere Hite
came out with her first Report, which said that sexuality, as we have
constructed it, doesnÕt serve women, many women came forward to acclaim her and
agree. When she later wrote, in her Report on Male Sexuality –that
it didnÕt do so well by men, either, she was dismissed as a charlatan. The
analysis I have just described comes to the same conclusions: our construction
of sexuality doesnÕt do well by women or men. But itÕs harder on women.
Granted that sexuality is socially
constructed, each of us writes her or his own script out of the sum total of
our individual experiences. None of this is inborn or biologically given. It is
constructed out of our diverse life situations, limited by what we are taught
and/or imagine as permissible, correct behavior. There is no "female
sexual experience," no "male sexual experience," no unique
heterosexual, lesbian or gay experience. There are instead the different
experiences of different people, which we lump according to socially
significant categories. Whenever I hear a generalization about the sexual
experience of some particular group, exceptions immediately come to
mind–except that I refuse to call them exceptions; they are part of the
total reality. Of course, some similarities are generated out of the similar
social circumstances in which members of groups find themselves, but we tend to
exaggerate what exists when we go looking for in-group similarities, or for
differences between groups.
This line of thinking is
illustrated by the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy, which originated in
typologies that were in vogue in late nineteenth century biology, especially in
human biology. Behaviors were no longer merely attributes of particular
persons; they defined people. A person who had sexual relations with a
person of the same sex became a certain kind of person, a
"homosexual"; a person who had sexual relations with people of the
other sex, a different kind, a "heterosexual." This way of
classifying people erased the hitherto accepted fact that many people donÕt do
exclusively one or the other. It created the stereotype which
was then popularized by the sex reformers, such as Havelock Ellis, who
biologized the supposed difference. "The homosexual" became a person
who is different by nature and therefore should not be held responsible for her
or his so-called deviance. This served the purposes of the reformers (though
the laws were slow to change), but it turned same-sex love into a medical
problem to be treated by doctors, rather than punished by judges–an
improvement, perhaps, but not acceptance or liberation.
This brings us to Freud, who was
unusual for his time (and still, to some extent, for ours) in insisting that
sexual development is problematic for everyone and that it is scientifically as
valid to ask how a child comes to love people of the other sex as of her or his
own. However, he plotted a course of development that involved his newly
invented Oedipus complex and castration anxiety to explain how men come to form
affective attachments to women and women to men. Loving people of oneÕs own sex
continued to be seen as pathological.
Feminist revisioning of Freud by
Nancy Chodorow and Dorothy Dinnerstein interprets the course of affective
development by putting at the center the childÕs relationship to the mother
rather than to the father. However, since girlsÕ first intense, affective
experience is with a person of the same sex, whereas for boys it is with
a member of the other sex, their description continues to posit a crucial
difference between the ways in which girls and boys develop their identities
and erotic relationships to members of the other sex. Whereas Freud delineated
a course that he believed more clear and direct for boys, but more fuzzy and
problematic for girls, ChodorowÕs formulation suggests that male development is
the more problematic. Girls grow up identifying with their primary care-giver, a woman, and they assume that they will become
like her. Boys, on the other hand, become men by insisting on
being unlike the person who cares for them, whom they know best, who is
their first love. And since boys (like girls) usually are not nearly so
familiar with a man as they are with the mother (or other primary caretaker,
who also usually is a woman), this necessity to differentiate themselves in kind from the primary caretaker
engenders a fragility into the male ego that women need not deal with.
Surprisingly, neither Chodorow nor Dinnerstein addresses the question of why,
in that case, women later form affective ties with men rather than transferring
their primary bond from the mother (or other female caretaker) to other women.
Their model readily lends itself to the idea that to women and men, love
for women comes easily, while love for men is problematic. But they do not
explore these implications.
In my own theorizing I donÕt
either, because I am no more comfortable with models that posit a psychological
determinism than I am with biodeterminist ones. I find ChodorowÕs
and DinnersteinÕs analyses more interesting than FreudÕs, but no more
convincing. Much more realistic to me are the diversity, change, and
flexibility in sexuality reported by Kinsey, who emphasized that most people
can love people of either sex and that the choices change over time and social
circumstances. I do not give much credence to retrospective accounts by some lesbians
and gay men who believe that they were born "different," homosexual.
In my teaching, I have sometimes asked students to reflect–out loud, if
they wish–about the development of their own early loves and attachments.
And, usually, women who think of themselves as heterosexual in that their
sexual relationships, as adults, are with men recall strong erotic ties to one
or more women or girls during their childhood and adolescence. My point is that
if these women were involved in loving relationships with women, they might
look to these early loves as "proof" that they had always been
lesbians, while if they relate sexually to men, they may be tempted to devalue
them and call them childhood crushes.
I believe that people fall in love
with individuals, not with a sex. Even within one sex, most of us prefer
certain "types"; usually not any man or woman will do. It is an
interesting question what shapes those preferences. But no one has suggested
that something innate makes us light up in the presence of certain men or
women. We would think it absurd to look at hormone levels or any other
biological phenomenon as the cause for "type" preference
within a sex. In fact, scientists rarely bother to ask what in our psychosocial
experience shapes such tastes and preferences. We assume it must have something
to do with parents or other early experiences, but donÕt probe deeply unless
our preferences involve the "wrong" sex. Then, suddenly, we try to
pinpoint specific causes from out of the maze of biological, psychological, and
social experiences that make us the people we are at a given time in our lives.
Because of our recent history and political experiences, feminists have an
easier time accepting this line of reasoning than many other people do. Many
women who have thought of themselves as "heterosexual," and who may
have married and had children, when we have had the opportunity to rethink,
refeel, and restructure our lives have fallen in love with women, sometimes
much to our own surprise.
The society in which we live
channels, guides, and limits our imagination in sexual as well as other
matters. Why some of us give ourselves permission to love people of our sex
whereas others donÕt is an interesting question, but I donÕt think it will be answered by checking our hormone levels or trying to
unearth our earliest affectional ties. As more women begin to speak more
freely about our sexual experiences, we are learning more about how women come
to re-examine, re-evaluate, change. Lately, increasing
numbers of women have begun to allow ourselves to acknowledge
"bisexuality"–loving women and men, in succession or
simultaneously. I believe that most of us will end up acknowledging that we
love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need
not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real mistake here, Polly, is
imagining that there is a stark division in the human species between gay and
not gay. ItÕs nonsense; there is the world of sexual behaviors, and individuals
decide, moment-to-moment, what they are going to do and with whomÉ."Gay"
is a psychological and sociological abstraction, a useful notion for certain
kinds of discussions, but a fiction when you come right down to the level of
people and what they choose to do. The idea has caused immense harm; how many
people have wasted time agonizing over "what" they areÉam I gay if I
feel this way sometimes?Éam I really bi, since I was
just attracted to a woman?Éif IÕm gay does that mean that I have to act a
certain way now? These questions are an absurd and tragic waste of time.
Excerpted from "Polly
Sexual," in Possessed, Autumn 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Anarchafeminism #1. (1989?). Journal published in
California by Black Banner Publications.
Brown, L. Susan. "Why
Anarcho-feminism?" Kick It Over, Spring
1987. Argues anarchism is inherently feminist.
Claudia. I, Claudia: Feminism
Unveiled. London: Class Whore Publications, 1988? Antisexist
critique of British feminists.
Croft, Tom. "Superiority Not
Equality." The Spark, November/December, 1983.
Article, from an anarchist magazine, arguing that black
people are superior to white people and endorsing separatism based on skin
color.
Curley, Charles R. The Curse of Racism. Warminster, PA: Society for
Individual Liberty, undated. Individualist, anti-nationalist
discussion of racism and strategies to fight it.
Dye, Bru. "A Call for All Radical,
Outsider and Counterculture Lesbian and Gay People..." AQUA
#3, 1989. Invitation to Stonewall celebration in New York published in
the magazine of Anarcho-Queers Undermining Authority. Claims homosexual people
are a "people" and a "nation."
Eagan, Margery. "NOW Misses
Chance to Make a Change." Boston Herald, July 25, 1989. Critique of NOWÕs proposal to form a womenÕs political party,
arguing in favor of joint action between women and men.
Ernsberger, Donald C. with Jarret
Wollstein. Sexism and Individualism.
Warminster, PA: Society for Individual Liberty, undated. Non-feminist,
individualist discussion of sexism and suggestions for fighting it.
Fifth Estate Staff. "Anti-rape March Sparks
Debate on Feminism." Fifth Estate, June 1, 1980. Critique of
activities and ideology of feminists and separatists involved in exclusivist
Take Back The Night march in Detroit.
"Gay and Straight Grief: the
Differences." Kick It Over, November,
1988. Reprint, in an anarchist newspaper, of article
contending that homosexual people and heterosexual people grieve differently.
Kroll, Judy. "Aid Deadlier
Than AIDS." The Spark, November/December, 1983.
Argues that the formation of a homosexual "community" is a positive
development.
McElroy, Wendy, ed. Freedom,
Feminism and the State: An Overview of Individualist Feminism. Washington:
Cato Institute, 1982. Collection of writings of U.S.
antisexist individualist and anarchist writers, women and men, from the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Peacott, Joe. Letter
to The Spark, March/April, 1984. Individualist critique of the
articles by Croft and Kroll cited above.
Quiet Rumors:
An Anarcha-feminist Anthology. London: Dark Star, undated. Collection
of basic anarchist feminist writings.
Raimondo, Justin. In Praise of
Outlaws: Rebuilding Gay Liberation. San Francisco: Students for a
Libertarian Society, 1979. Libertarian pamphlet endorsing idea of homosexual
"Stonewall Nation."
Saunders, Carol. "The
Reply." Freedom, October 10, 1981. Anarchist
feminist response to Iris MillsÕ critique of feminism.
Sears, Hal D. The Sex Radicals:
Free Love in High Victorian America. Lawrence: The Regents Press of Kansas,
1977. Discussion of the non-feminist, antisexist men and
women who made up the sex radical movement of the nineteenth century.
Segaloff, Jean. "The Myth of
the ÔFeminist Male.Õ" Gay Community News, August 1, 1981. Argues,
from a sexist standpoint, that men cannot be feminist.
Society For
Cutting Up Men (SCUM). "A Scum-filled Hex on Bay Windows." Bay Windows, January
5-11, 1989. Letter to the editor endorsing aborting male fetuses, arguing men
are biologically inferior to women.
Taylor, Joan Kennedy. "Acting
National CoordinatorÕs Notes." Association of Libertarian Feminist News,
Summer 1989. Argues for dropping libertarian from the
groupÕs name, but retaining feminist.
Taylor, Tobe. "What If ItÕs a
Boy?" Sojourner, December, 1988. Argues in
favor of aborting male fetuses because of their sex, contending men are, by
nature, not "all right."
Tobin, Ronald C.
"Anarcho-feminism: Necessary or Divisionistic?" The Thought, July, 1989. Individualist anarchist
critique of anarchist feminism, arguing that feminism and separatism are
sexist.
Weaver, Read. "What Business
Is It of Bay Windows?" Bay Windows, January 5-11, 1989.
Letter to the editor defending Tobe TaylorÕs abortion of a male fetus because
of its sex, and questioning the decision of the male editor of Bay Windows
to even discuss the issue.
Zabarsky, Marsha. "Separatism is Still an Indispensable Tool." Gay Community News, January 25-31, 1987.