There are a lot of interesting and wildly surprising things found in Adrienne Rich's "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience," which have lead to what i think are important arguments; everything is reflective of or commentary on literature, published articles, and psychoanalytic studies mentioned in this piece. First, there is very little text on these two subjects, and even more surprisingly it is apparent that these topics are not or hardly ever covered in feminist theory. When they ARE discussed the texts rehash the ideas women's gender roles--what women are "supposed" or "born to do"--and all advice given to women "regarding marital sex, maternity, and child care" were from MALE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. It is discovered that feminists are highly uneducated, lack education, or simply stay silence on important women & women's movements and struggles in history including lesbianism. Overall there is an avoidance of getting into the psychology or sociology--digging deep--of the hetero compulsive and lesbianism.
This reading made me think of the discussions we had in class about the pressures and sometimes subconscious of falling into compulsory actions, no matter what we are trying to convey to others, and further compliments the Butler reading. It was surprising to me though to hear that these topics are poorly or never discussed in feminist theory! Out of all types of groups, feminists should be saying more about women in relation to compulsory heterosexuality, discussing the struggles, exploring lesbianism... just acknowledging it all. And I knew men have a tendency to steer the discussion or thoughts toward women in published works, but it is still crazy to me how bad it was, and sometimes still is. I'm really glad Rich pointed out the flaws of the authors or ideas in all three books, and made it obvious to me why she did so. One spot i got confused on is page 634 when Rich repeats Dorothy Dinnerstein's arguement: "for the sharing of parenting between women and men and for an end to what she perceives as the male/female symbiosis of "gender arrangements," which she feels are leading the species further and further into violence and self-extinction." I just got lost.
My questions are:
1. What other arguments or points that I did not point out did you find interesting or important?
2. Why do you think, according to Rich, these topics are not discussed much in feminist theory? Or why do you think feminists "have so much to learn"?
3. Was anyone personally offended by her statement on feminists?
3. Was anyone personally offended by her statement on feminists?
I found it interesting that Rich points out what it means to come "close" to acknowledging a lesbian existence by quoting Nancy Chodorow: that women, since they have an initial female-female relationship with their mothers, innately consider relationships with men to not be as significant as relationships with women. I read this as suggesting that the lesbian existence is therefore the norm for women, what women would always fall back on or find the most emotionally rewarding. I had never considered this before and struggled with the idea at first, as it seemed a bit of a stretch to me. Given the manifestations of relationships, namely being that, statistically, most females' closest friends are other females, this seems like a plausible explanation for these close female-female bonds. Without the social constraints mentioned by Chodorow that enforced heterosexual relationships in the past (such as economic dependence on men and a patriarchal institution), it made me wonder whether the initial mother-daughter bond would flourish into lesbianism truly being the norm for women today.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I didn't really like this reading. I know in academic contexts one is supposed to respond to things in an 'objective' manner that doesn't take into account one's own emotional responses, but I'm more able to articulate myself when I do. I am allowed to feel anger or disappointment.
ReplyDeleteBefore I go into it, let me first say that I did appreciate her writing that lesbian existence and historically recognizing the importance of people and events on the lesbian continuum is vital to providing a foothold for the enfranchisement of women worldwide. I also liked how she described Rape Culture before it was given that name. I did get that from the reading, and I do think it is very important. Through and through though, this is a feminist text. It brings forth lesbian existence only in that it advances womankind as a whole. It isn't actually about lesbians.
Adrienne Rich has no respect or acknowledgement of the feelings of males or other people & groups outside of a gender/sex binary. This is an essentialist piece of writing. That's obvious.
First of all, she complains of the fact that feminist histories often don't include any mention on the importance or even existence of the lesbian existence, but then she constructs a reading that doesn't acknowledge people who are trans* or gender non-conforming. Men are only mentioned as people who deny, force, exploit, control, confine, use, rape, or cramp women and lesbians. (Oh yeah also if they're gay then they still do that but besides nobody cares because they're not lesbians) So yeah, that's all cool; that's cool if you believe that. But I don't, and I'm allowed to say it.
She also propagates a view shared by many lesbian writers that male homosexuals are simultaneously more privileged than female homosexuals, which is a simplistic view that doesn't take into account the different ways that homosexuality intersects and clashes with each side of the binary gender-role system, and that male homosexuality is less important and/or less wonderful because they assume that one who is born under the male sex will automatically be able to enjoy the privileges they assign to "male."
She also actual says this:
"the prevalence of anonymous sex and the justification of pederasty among male homosexuals, the pronounced ageism in male homosexual standards of sexual attractiveness, etc. In defining and describing lesbian existence I would hope to move toward a dissociation of lesbian from male homosexual values and allegiances."
Because gay guy = pedophile and shallow.
I thought queer usually meant fighting *against* bigotry?
Also, Amanda, when I'm using the term "you" I actually meant it generally. I just reread this and realized that it sounded like I was actually talking *to* you! I'm sorry.
DeleteSince you mentioned a couple things I agreed with, I'll start with that. I absolutely agree that the reading read as very cis-normative and had some explicitly trans-misogynistic parts ("all-conquering male sex drive, the penis-with-a-life-of-its-own" here equating men and penises).
DeleteThat being said, I seriously disagree with your statement that "they assume that one who is born under the male sex will automatically be able to enjoy the privileges they assign to "male." (side note: only some assigned male at birth, AMAB, people don't have male privilege aka they are trans women). All people who identify as men regardless of sexuality or race or class, including trans men, benefit from their male privilege. I absolutely agree with her idea that male homosexuals are more privileged than female homosexuals, because they are male. Being gay (or having any other marginalized identity) does not "cancel out" your privilege as being male. For example, I am a white woman. I still benefit fully from white privilege and am fully screwed by the patriarchy. They do work together and intersect, but it very different ways. What you're saying seems very reminiscent of the #NotAllMen movement and as someone who has identities that are privileged (i.e. I'm white) I understand not wanting to be lumped in with oppressive power structures that perpetuate violence and exploitation. But the reality is that all men benefit from the patriarchy, even if they are gay, even if they have "never" (I don't think this is true of anyone) said or done anything sexist.
I'd also like to add that the ways in which gay men are discriminated against are often rooted in patriarchy and sexism. Using gay as a synonym for feminine and as an insult, for example. And the ever pervasive "which one of you is the man in the relationship?" insult/"joke" is unequivocally rooted in heronormativity and sexism.
Lastly, her article was never supposed to be for men or praising men. Women and radical feminist scholars are her target audience.
You seem to know a lot of what it's like to be a male even though you are not one?
DeleteInteresting stuff Eliza and Christopher! Christopher - I really appreciate your opinion of this piece. Though it's hard for me (as a woman) to agree fully and I find myself nodding along to some of the things Eliza brought up, I also agree with you that we can't understand your perspective fully because 1) We're not male and 2) We're not you, specifically. I do think it's important to note Rich's audience, as Eliza mentioned. She's writing for women, and even further, and specific group of women who probably don't get to read much about these topics (lesbianism in particular). It's hard to read something like this piece and NOT take some of it personally, but I think that's part of the problem Rich brings up. This piece is not for trans* or gay men, and I think if we critique it through that lens, we lose the main topic of the piece: lesbians (and more generally, women). I don't think your opinions and critiques are wrong by any means, I just think they aren't necessarily needed here.
DeleteHey Chris, sorry I am just responding to your sidenote to me just now. I've pretty much ignored this blog post since i wrote it haha. ANYHOO I appreciate you correcting yourself, i wasn't sure whom it was to. It is totally fine, don't worry about it. And to respond, no I do NOT believe in that about men. I know that SOME men are that [negative, disgusting] way, but not all men as a whole. I don't stereotype. So I am on board with that aspect of your comment.
DeleteI'm also really glad you brought up concerns about the piece, regarding men, trans* and non-conforming people. These ideas didn't cross my mind (probably BECAUSE it was geared more toward women--hence what Eliza said: "Women and radical feminist scholars are her target audience.") Evy I really appreciate you recognizing things both Chris and Eliza said and acknowledging the fact that no matter WHO is reading the piece it is possible to take some of it personally--definitely part of Rich's point. Overall, whether it is geared toward women or not, or you are a man, trans* or non-conforming person reading this or not, i believe everyone has a right to their own reaction and/or opinion regarding this piece. I like seeing everyone's point-of-view.
While I found this article an incredibly interesting way of looking at the label "lesbian" and how it relates to relationships between females, I must agree with Christopher that I found the lack of inclusion of trans* or gender non-conforming individuals troubling. I felt like in an attempt to bring light to an important dearth of discussion in feminist discourse (about lesbians), Rich further alienated another group of individuals (trans* and gender non-conforming people) who also deserve to have a place in feminist discourse and discussion.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I found Rich's extended definition, shall we say, of a lesbian existence to include all types of female-female relationships incredibly interesting. I don't think I necessarily agree with it, but it certainly made me think deeper about the basis of all types of relationships between females, and how those relationships operate in an overwhelmingly heterosexist society. But again, taking the label "lesbian" and applying it to a whole range of "women's" (presumably cis women's) experiences not only pushes out trans* and gender non-conforming individuals, I feel like it also creates a troubling scenario where the privilege of heterosexual women versus queer women could be glossed over or ignored.
I would be interested to see what other people think about this reading, as I sometimes found it a little hard to follow, and perhaps I have just misinterpreted what point Rich was trying to make when speaking about a "lesbian experience".
I also found some of it hard to follow so don't worry, you're not the only one!! That is why i extended the discussion/questions to find out other ideas and concerns people were having when reading this piece.
DeleteI have to say this comment is not gonna be very weighty intellectually, but here it goes:
ReplyDeleteI came to this having read a lot of Adrienne Rich's poetry and I think the presence of either being confronted with disorder/distress as if lost in some maze of uncanniness but a journey of quiet reason outward seems to reach into here essay stye.
I also agree with Micaela on the topic of considering all female-female relationships to be on a lesbian continuum as extremely interesting and one that I’m still not sure if I agree with. First, what I disagree with about this whole idea is the use of the term lesbian and lesbianism to define strong female relationships, because it excludes non-gender conforming people does indeed have the potential to create a sense of privilege loss between queer and heterosexual woman, as Micaela said. I’d like to think that maybe another term could have been used to could encompass individuals who do not identify as male who have received prejudice due to the misogynistic existence of Rich refers to as (male) compulsory heterosexuality.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think the selection of using the term “lesbian” to express female relationship makes it a sort of punch to the face for those who enforce the compulsory existence of heterosexuality. The way Rich is redefining this term makes it powerful. Lesbianism, a term for which has so long been used to define an “alternative life style” (632) or a “female version of male homosexuality” (649) is now being used to suggest a separation of “female experience” from the omnipresent existence of male heterosexuality (650). Having a “lesbian” relationship means being able to form a connection with other woman that goes beyond what is limited by enforced heterosexuality; in the midst of the erasure (more so specifically in the case of queer women), oppression, and marginalization of women due to the compulsive, powerful existence of male heterosexuality, females are still able to connect with one another and provide strong relationships (spiritual, emotional, etc.) that stand strong against the inequalities they are facing. These lesbian relationships are not the portrayal of sexual acts meant for the male gaze. In fact, these strong female relationships are able to break free from the institutionalized, man-made society we live in. Women do not “need” men to be complete or to succeed socially or economically (657). This lesbian relationship is only something only females can establish with one another. The “Loss to the power of all women to change the social relations of the sexes, to liberate ourselves and each other” due to “the institution of heterosexuality” can be regenerate from the existence and formation of powerful female relationships (657). Female relationships are nothing but powerful. I think that this whole idea of bringing meaning and strength back to relationships which have been deemed unimportant by our society is really important. I really liked the radical feminism ideas in this article, though I do wish it was trans inclusive.
After reading this article, the following part stood out to me the most below:
ReplyDelete"The effect of male-identification means internalizing the values of the colonizer and actively participating in carrying out the colonization of one's self and one's sex. . . . Male identification is the act whereby women place men above women, including themselves, in credibility, status, and importance in most situations, regardless of the comparative quality the women may bring to the situation." (Rich, 646)
I find this sentiment similar in many other forms of oppression (e.g. racial dynamics, sexual orientation dynamics). For instance, as a black male, I am aware of instances where fellow black people internalize (and openly express) the belief that white people are superior to us in all facets of life. Although Rich's piece was obviously not about race or racial issues, I find it interesting how well those two forms are similar.
On a separate note, I am glad that the author supports the notion of not jumping too quickly to linking being a lesbian to being a homosexual male. Lesbians have "two strikes" against them, so to speak, from identifying as females and for identifying as homosexual. Thus, they suffer from two prevalent forms of privilege in our society: male privilege and heterosexual privilege. Lesbian existence is also a part of the larger movement for female liberation from the exploitation (which takes place in a variety of forms) of males. This is where the idea of a lesbian continuum comes into play. Lesbianism is about much more than the physical and sexual attraction and intimacy between two female identifying individuals. Lesbianism is about a genuine and whole female experience, whether it be with regard to friendship, kinship, or romantic involvement.
I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M SO THRILLED AND IMPRESSED WITH ALL THE IDEAS AND SUCH PEOPLE HAD TO SAY!! :) So much discussion!! Hooray. Ok that is all, carry on. And I invite others who haven't said anything to add to these discussions!
ReplyDelete