The Women-Identified Women

What is a lesbian? A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion. She is the woman who, often beginning at an extremely early age, acts in accordance with her inner compulsion to be a more complete and freer human being than her society — perhaps then, but certainly later — cares to allow her. These needs and actions, over a period of years, bring her into painful conflict with people, situations, the accepted ways of war with everything around her, and usually with her self. She may not be fully conscious of the political implications of what for her began as personal necessity, but on some level she has not been able to accept the limitations and oppression laid on her by the most basic role of her society — the female role. The turmoil she experiences tends to induce guilt proportional to the degree to which she feels she is not meeting social expectations, and/or eventually drives her to question and analyse what the rest of her society more or less accepts. She is forced to evolve her own life pattern, often living much of her life alone, learning usually much earlier than her “straight” (heterosexual) sisters about the essential aloneness of life (which the myth of marriage obscures) and about the reality of illusions. To the extent that she cannot expel the heavy socialisation that goes with being female, she can never truly find peace with herself. For she is caught somewhere between accepting society’s view of her — in which case she cannot accept herself, and coming to understand what this sexist society has done to her and why it is functional and necessary for it to do so. Those of us who work that through find ourselves on the other side of a tortuous journey through a night that may have been decades long. The perspective gained from that journey, the liberation of self, the inner peace, the real love of self and of all women, is something to be shared with all women — because we are all women.

It should be first understood that lesbianism, like male homosexuality, is a category of behaviour possible only in a sexist society characterised by rigid sex roles and dominated by male supremacy. Those sex roles dehumanise women by defining us as a supportive/serving caste in relation to the master caste of men, and/emotionally cripple men by demanding that they be alienated from their own bodies and emotions in order to perform their economic/political/military functions effectively. Homosexuality is a byproduct of a particular way of setting up roles (or approved patterns of behaviour) on the basis of sex; as such it is an inauthentic (not consonant with “reality”) category. In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.

But lesbianism is also different from male homosexuality, and serves a different function in the society. “Dyke” is a different kind of put-down from “faggot,” although both imply you are not playing your socially assigned sex role… are therefore not a “real woman” or a “real man”. The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy, and the queasiness felt around a sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women – or those who play a female role -are held. And the investment in keeping women in the contemptuous role is very great. Lesbian is the word, the label, the condition that holds women in line. When a woman hears this word tossed her way, she knows she is stepping out of line. She knows that she has crossed the terrible boundary of her sex role. She recoils, she reshapes her actions to gain approval. Lesbian is a label invested by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives (including that of all women as part of the exchange medium among men), who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. To have the label applied to people active in women’s liberation is just the most recent instance of a long history; older women will recall that not so long ago, any woman who was successful, independent, not orientating her whole life about a man, would hear this word. For in this sexist society, for a woman to be independent means she can’t be a woman – she must be a dyke. That in itself should tell us where women are at. It says as clearly as can be said: women and person are contradictory terms. For a lesbian is not considered a “real woman”. And yet, in popular thinking, there is really only one essential difference between a lesbian and other women; that of sexual orientation – which is to say, when you strip off all the packaging, you must finally realise that the essence of being a “woman” is to get fucked by men.

“Lesbian” is one of the sexual categories by which men have divided up humanity. While all women are dehumanised as sex objects, as the objects of men they are given certain compensations: identification with his power, his ego, his status, his protection (from other males), feeling like a “real woman”, finding social acceptance by adhering to her role, etc. Should a woman confront herself by confronting another woman, there are fewer rationalisations, fewer buffers by which to avoid the stark horror of her dehumanised condition. Herein we find the overriding fear of many women towards exploring intimate relationships with other women; the fear of being used as a sexual object by a woman, which not only will bring her no male-connected compensations, but also will reveal the void which is woman’s real situation. This dehumanisation is expressed when a straight woman learns that a sister is a lesbian; she begins to relate to her lesbian sister as her potential sex object, laying a surrogate male role on the lesbian. This reveals her heterosexual conditioning to make herself into an object when sex is potentially involved in a relationship, and it denies the lesbian her full humanity. For women, especially those in the movement, to perceive their lesbian sisters through this male grid of role definitions is to accept this male cultural conditioning and to oppress their sisters much as they themselves have been oppressed by men. Are we going to continue the male classification system of defining all females in sexual relation to some other category of people? Affixing the label lesbian not only to a woman who aspires to be a person, but also to any situation of real love, real solidarity, real primacy among women is a primary form of divisiveness among women: it is the condition which keeps women within the confines of the feminine role, and it is the debunking/scare term that keeps women from forming any primary attachments, groups, or associations among ourselves.

Women in the movement have in most cases gone to great lengths to avoid discussion and confrontation with the issue of lesbianism. It puts people up-tight. They are hostile, evasive, or try to incorporate it into some “broader issue”. They would rather not talk about it. If they have to, they try to dismiss it as a “lavender herring”. But it is no side issue. It is absolutely essential to the success and fulfilment of the women’s liberation movement that this issue be dealt with. As long as the label “dyke” can be used to frighten women into a less militant stand, keep her separate from her sisters, keep her from giving primacy to anything other than men and family – then to that extent she is controlled by the male culture. Until women see in each other the possibility of a primal commitment which includes sexual love, they will be denying themselves the love and value they readily accord to men, thus affirming their second-class status. As long as male acceptability is primary – both to individual women and to the movement as a whole – the term lesbian will be used effectively against women. Insofar as women want only more privileges within the system, they do not want to antagonise male power. They instead seek acceptability for women’s liberation, and the most crucial aspect of the acceptability is to deny lesbianism – ie deny any fundamental challenge to the basis of the female role.

It should be said that some younger, more radical women have honestly begun to discuss lesbianism, but so far it has been primarily used as a sexual “alternative” to men. This, however, is still giving primacy to men, both because the idea of relating more completely to women occurs as a negative reaction to men, and because the lesbian relationship is being characterised simply by sex which is divisive and sexist. On one level, which is both personal and political, women may withdraw emotional and sexual energies from men, and work out various alternatives for those energies in their own lives. On a different political/psychological level, it must be understood that what is crucial is that women begin disengaging from male-defined response patterns. In the privacy of our own psyches, we must cut those cords to the core. For irrespective of where our Jove and sexual energies flow, if we are male-identified in our heads, we cannot realise our autonomy as human beings.

But why is it that women have related to and through men? By virtue of having been brought up in a male society, we have internalised the male culture’s definition of ourselves. That definition views us as relative beings who exist not for ourselves, but for the servicing, maintenance and comfort of men. That definition consigns us to sexual and family functions, and excludes us from defining and shaping the terms of our lives.

In exchange for our psychic servicing and for performing society’s non-profit-making functions, the man confers on us just one thing: the slave status which makes us legitimate in the eyes of the society in which we live. This is called “femininity” or “being a real woman” in our cultural lingo. We are authentic, legitimate, real to the extent that we are the property of some man whose name we bear. To be a woman who belongs to no man is to be invisible, pathetic, unauthentic, unreal. He confirms his image of us – of what we have to be in order to be acceptable by him – but not our real selves; he confirms our womanhood – as he defines it, in relation to him – but cannot confirm our personhood, our own selves as absolutes. As long as we are dependent on the male culture for this definition, for this approval, we cannot be free.

The consequence of internalising this role is an enormous reservoir of self-hate. This is not to say the self-hate is recognised or accepted as such; indeed most women would deny it. It may be experienced as discomfort with her role, as feeling empty, as numbness, as restlessness, a paralysing anxiety at the centre. Alternatively, it may be expressed in shrill defensiveness of the glory and destiny of her role. But it does exist, often beneath the edge of her consciousness, poisoning her existence, keeping her alienated from herself, her own needs, and rendering her a stranger to other women. Women hate both themselves and other women. They try to escape by identifying with the oppressor, living through him, gaining status and identity from his ego, his accomplishments. And by not identifying with other “empty vessels” like themselves, women resist relating on all levels to other women who will reflect their own oppression, their own secondary status, their own self-hate. For to confront another woman is finally to confront one’s self the self we have gone to such lengths to avoid. And in that mirror we know we cannot really respect and love that which we have been made to be.

As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. As long as we cling to the idea of “being a woman”, we will sense some conflict with that incipient self, that sense of I, that sense of a whole person. It is very difficult to realise and accept that being “feminine” and being a whole person are irreconcilable. Only women can give each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men.

This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution. For this we must be available and supportive to one another, give our commitment and our love, give the emotional support necessary to sustain this movement. Our energies must flow toward our sisters, not backwards towards our oppressors. As long as women’s liberation tries to free women without facing the basic heterosexual structure that binds us in one-to-one relationship with our own oppressors, tremendous energies will continue to flow into trying to straighten up each particular relationship with a man, how to get better sex, how to turn his head around – into trying to make the “new man” out of him, in the delusion that this will allow us to be the “new woman”. This obviously splits our energies and commitments, leaving us unable to be committed to the construction of the new patterns which will liberate us.

It is the primacy of women relating to women, of women creating a new consciousness of and with each other which is at the heart of women’s liberation, and the basis for the cultural revolution. Together we must find, reinforce and validate our authentic selves. As we do this, we confirm in each other that struggling incipient sense of pride and strength, the divisive barriers begin to melt, we feel this growing solidarity with our sisters. We see ourselves as prime, find our centres inside of ourselves. We find receding the sense of alienation, of being cut off, of being behind a locked window, of being unable to get out what we know is inside.

We feel a real-ness, feel at last we are coinciding with ourselves. With that real self, with that consciousness, we begin a revolution to end the imposition of all coercive identifications, and to achieve maximum autonomy in human expression.

Ed: This article was written by a collective of women in New York, and has been reprinted in several journals, including Come Out and The Radical Therapist. Gay News reprints it from Vector, which is the publication of the Society for Individual Rights. They are based in San Fransisco. To them we send love and thanks, and wish them much success in 1973.

Ideas of Gay Liberation

19720901-06This article is written from a GLF point of view, by someone who has been involved in the movement since the start. Although the ideas expressed here have been discussed in a small group, they are printed here as an individual contribution.

The gay liberation movement has risen as a response to complex social changes and is one of a variety of protest movements that have arisen since the early 1960’s – eg the Black Movement, the students movements, the youth movements, the womens movements. Although these movements have separate social and economic causes, what unites them is a cultural protest against the standards of modern society. The gay movement, it could be said, is chiefly a cultural revolt against the standards of male-orientated culture. The economic content of gay oppression is small: gay people are rarely openly discriminated against in jobs and housing: the problem is rather one of internalising a cultural attempt to ignore or place homosexuality as a sickness or sin. Gay Liberation is an attempt to go beyond the liberal ability to tolerate homosexuality, while still regarding it as a rather sad misplacement of energy, and to assert the value of homosexuality as the self-expression of a large number of people.

It goes beyond, therefore, the quietish Campaign for Homosexual Equality whatever its merits, on the whole timidly asking favours of society, and on the contrary asserts that homosexuals must control their own lives. But the way in which the gay movement expresses this new confidence differs, not only from country to country, but even within the movement itself – three distinct approaches can be distinguished even within the London movement – we shall call these:

Gay Activism, Gay Radical Feminism and Gay Radicalism.

Gay Activism: This is the attempt to achieve for gays a full measure of equality with straights, legal equality, equal access to jobs and housing, social recognition within the standards of straight bourgeois society, leading to movements for gay marriages, gay churches, better gay ghettoes. In other words it accepts society as it is, and accepts gay roles as they are. It just wants full equality. It is really no different in ends from something like CHE. Gay activists are not apologetic about their homosexuality, so they can be more militant and defiant. But they refuse to think politically, or to make contact with other radical groups and express solidarity. Gay activism is generally for men, often hostile to women. It wants rights for gay people as they are; it does not challenge butch or femme stereotypes, or examine new ways of relating. In America this tendency has produced a separate organisation, but the tendency is reflected in things like the church group, the Jewish group, working within existing societies and beliefs. It can have valuable results, it can help change the law, it can slow down police harassment. But it cannot get into the heart of our oppression as people – in the family, in capitalism, in nationalism. What’s the use of having equality with straights if we are still imprisoned by class, racial and sex divisions?

Gay Radical Feminism: Many of the most fruitful ideas in the gay movement have come from its recognition of a close relationship to the women’s movement. In the recognition of a common enemy, the sexism of a male-chauvinist culture, reproducing through the family imprisoning gender roles, gay men and women can unite with straight women in attacking oppressive standards.

Some of the women have produced out of this attitude an ideology of radical feminism. In its extreme form this sees women as a separate class upon whose oppression all the forms of a sexist society have been moulded. As a result the women’s movement is seen as primary, and its logic is to reject all contact with male culture whatsoever. It is the equivalent tendency in the gay movement which has become the loudest section in GLF.

There seem to be three basic tenets to this ideology:

  1. That for gay people the struggle against sexism is primary.
  2. Therefore the gay struggle is autonomous in the sense that its enemies are all those who uphold male chauvinist structures, whatever else, then gut radical politics. Strategic links should therefore be based solely on enmity to sexism – eg with women.
  3. The method of challenge to these institutions must therefore be modes of behaviour which challenge gender roles and subvert the family, the chief enemy of gay people. In this case it is closely related to ideas of the counterculture, particularly the idea that the best way of getting rid of institutions is to ignore them, to drop out of them, and to develop ways of life of one’s own. By decaying within the whole weight of sexist culture, and capitalism which is supposed to be based on it, will crumble. Gays and women are then, in the extreme flights of fancy of some, going to lead the revolution. They seem to regard themselves as the new ‘vanguard’ and often act with its accompanying arrogance.

This tendency has however made us think afresh our definitions of sexism; it has made us more closely aware of the links between the women’s movement and Gay Lib (though most gay sisters did not need to learn this lesson from men). And it has been useful in making many of us think again about the links between capitalism and sexism.

But is it a worthwhile ideology for real radicals?

Can freaking out, tripping and political drag really subvert society? It might liberate many individuals from their personal hangups: it might release personal energies hitherto repressed. But its chief result has been to turn many gay people inwards, to make them politically passive. Can a long individual ego trip contribute much to the downfall of sexism and capitalism?

It ignores the really oppressive pervasive effects of bourgeois society. All the evidence suggests that groups of people who drop out of society with no idea of where they are going or what they are doing are either destroyed or absorbed. Moreover, ‘dropping out’ can never be more than a minority activity, the problems of capitalist society is that people are imprisoned in their roles; it is usually the privileged few who ‘drop out’.

A mass movement can never be built on this basis.

GLF can never begin to reach more than a minority of gay people if it’s based just on obscure personal needs instead of trying to reach down into what’s common and relevant in gay experience. Gay people do not form a class, they are not distinct like blacks, they are not confined to one social strata.

We can’t say: “We will liberate if only you do as we say.’ That’s not gay liberation.

Gay Radicals: It is the inadequacy of these two approaches which have brought a group of us together to work out a better approach to gay liberation. Our approach is based on these ideas:

1 That only gay people can achieve their own liberation: Waiting for the revolution, when all will be right on the day, as some revolutionaries seem to think, is not on. We must organise as gay people, with gay anger and gay pride, and fight for our rights now.

But 2 That true liberation cannot be achieved in a capitalist society. Gay civil rights can be; so can some of the things demanded by radical feminists. But ‘liberation‘ cannot be. Male domination pre-dates capitalism, but it has been so fully integrated into capitalism that the fight against one must involve a fight against the other. Gay people cannot fight alone against capitalism, let alone lead it. Those of us who want radical change must fight alongside other radical groups. And that means recognising that the largest constituent group in a fight against capitalism is likely to be the working class. We have to confront and fight their male chauvinism, itself the product of the dominant culture. That means two things:

First: Gay people have to build up their own confidence and solidarity by working together for specifically gay purposes. Only when we are strong in ourselves can w show our solidarity with others. This means we must not put down other gay groups, however much we may disagree with them on tactics. In particular gay liberationists must not reject all that ‘radical feminists’ stand for. On the other hand, they must not put down other sisters and brothers who honestly believe their analysis and methods to be wrong. All of us in GLF who reject the oppressive power relationships of heterosexual bourgeois society must support those which are based on new communal values. This cannot be done by one group or another forcing its views on to the rest in a so-called liberation front.

Second: It means fighting as gay people and gay groups in the common struggle for radical change, getting involved in other causes, coming out wherever we’re active.

It means also recognising GLF for what it is – a movement rather than an organisation, with as many different ideas as there are groups. GLF in other words, should not at this stage attempt to have a single ideology or strategy. All of us in the Gay Movement should, on the contrary, respect each other’s attempts to work out our beliefs or actions in our own way.

This suggests GLF ought to go in for a cellular structure with mass meetings for major actions and for social purposes. Some of us believe that the best way to do this is to organise, within GLF, a specifically socialist group, or groups, where we can work out, in theory and practice, the links.

But we gay radicals should not try to force an ideology on the movement, but provide a rallying point for those who think like us. Only in this way can we get together any valid strategy and really contribute to the revolution.