This is a guest post by Polly.
Lesbian hating. There’s a lot of it about these days. Well there always was. But excitingly it’s no longer confined to people who love hooters and hate rug munchers, real or imagined. Now it’s spreading rapidly, like a dose of norovirus, particularly, it seems among um – people of a liberal persuasion. And even more particularly alleged ‘feminists’. In fact so bad has it got that even Diva magazine (not exactly noted for their stance on anything in particular) has noticed.
“And yet, for many feminists today, the issues facing LGBT women seem to be merely an afterthought. Once lynchpins of the feminist movement, lesbians have been written out of the move towards gender equality. Modern feminists can seem so obsessed with proving that, actually, they’re nice girls who do shave their legs and have boyfriends, that the movement seems to have left us behind.”
I think they may – for once – actually be onto something here! Not something that’s exactly new of course, but something that’s increasingly rampant.
Well we all know by now don’t we about the wondrous 4th, 5th, 6th or 7 trillionth wave feminist (whatever iteration we’re up to now, I get so confused) ‘omnisexual’ Ms Nichi Hodgson, who thinks, (but life is too short of fun, so let’s repeat it, because after all SHE did) this:
“As for choice and relativity, there are feminists who rail against male supremacy, who, arguably, oppress themselves in doing so. Political lesbians, for example, who refuse to sleep with men until rape and male violence against women no longer exists. Such an absolutist approach hardly seems like a choice, when there are plenty of men horrified by the thought of violence against women, and when the end result only seems to exacerbate gender conflict, which ultimately benefits neither men nor women.”
Which she said at the F word.
And then AGAIN in t’grauniad. Remarkable
“On men being discriminated against by feminist groups that won’t allow them voting rights, that isn’t the only example of discrimination. Another eg would be political feminists that do not have relationships with men on the basis that they are the historical ‘oppressor’, regardless of their personal position/relation to gender equality.”
So to summarise Ms Hodgson’s view (and maybe if she’s in the habit of googling herself she’ll correct me and tell me I shouldn’t um –assume –stuff) women who refuse to sleep with men for whatever reason should shut up and put out because otherwise they’re not only oppressing themselves and all other women, they’re oppressing men, and what do you mean, you just hate cock, what kind of filthy pervert are you? Look I fancy women, being yanno omnisexual but it’s ok because I shag men as well. Just liking minge – eeeuwww gross!
Moving on though, it’s not only omnisexuals who think like this. Some self identified lesbians do as well. And they get published in the most (faux) liberal of newspapers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/03/gay-lesbian-coming-out
“Over the last few years, lesbianism has become fashionable”
Yes I’d noticed that. It’s all the check shirts you get everywhere I think. That’s what I blame it on. Anyway I notice it all over the place, women just desperate for that lesbian look. Straight women going – do you think I look enough like a lesbian in this? It’s why that chap leaned out of a car and yelled ‘lesbian’ at me the other week. Approbation of my fashion sense, no doubt. ‘Sister you are really working that hot lesbian look’ is what he wished to imply.
“Coming out as a lesbian is not, as many straight people seem to think, akin to entering an exclusive, trendy club, where inhibitions are chucked aside along with bras.”
Oh but it is, it is, bralessness is all the rage these days haven’t you heard? Large breasts, pah! What matters is fashion, no dyke worth her salt bothers with bust support, which is exclusively for straight women. Even if she is 40F
“Is it possible that we’ve become too liberal to admit that being gay is still hard?”
Well anything’s possible, but I haven’t actually noticed anywhere becoming too liberal. Not even HM Govt, which is theoretically partly liberal, even if they do still like Phillipa Stroud.
“As a lesbian, meeting a partner can be fraught. Finding a compatible woman is one thing; discerning whether or not she’s gay is another. Unless, of course, you turn to the gay scene. But I don’t want to define myself by my sexuality. I think my penchants for Curb Your Enthusiasm, Mexican folk art and camembert are more significant markers of my personality than whom I choose to go to bed with.”
Well meeting a partner for anyone can be fraught actually. It’s true that if you’re heterosexual you’ve got a bigger pool of people to go at, but then if you’re female they include Wayne Rooney. And Jim Davidson. And Jeremy Clarkson. Which would you prefer on the whole? Have you thought of joining a Camembert fan group maybe? They do exist. Maybe some sapphists among them.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Camembert/19231178859
But as far as discerning whether or not someone is a dyke, ever thought of asking? Or maybe disclosing your own sexual orientation and checking what reaction this gets? Yeah I know, it’s a crazy idea.
“So, yes, it makes me sad that it is so hard to meet gay women other than via The Scene. Like any group or culture formed as a result of persecution, the gay scene is isolated, and often bitter. Gay and straight can be a real us-and-them situation. This is so frustrating if all you want to be is yourself.”
Yes it was so like that in 1950’s novels wasn’t it, an isolated bitter gay scene, based on persecution, which is the only thing I can think this view of the gay scene is based on. This woman lives in Brighton for dawg’s sake. Yes that’s Brighton, the supposed ‘gay capital of England’. Pebbly beaches though….
“What complicates matters even more is that I fancy women who look like women. I have nothing against tomboyish, or even outright masculine lesbians. They’re being who they want to be. But I don’t want to date them. The downer is that as far as I can tell with my fledgling gaydar, these women make up a considerable proportion of the gay scene, which leaves me as a minority within an already very small minority: a feminine lesbian seeking one of her own kind. It’s like being a death metal fan who is also passionate about beekeeping.”
Well come on now: there’s probably a facebook group for Autopsy Torment enthusiasts/apiarists if you look hard enough, but FFS Grauniad what’s with the rampant butch phobia?
“Women who look like women” Because all dykes who don’t have long girly hair, make up, frocks and heels, look like men do they? I was extremely gratified to see that I wasn’t the only person who was pissed off by this – one tweet read, “Author says ‘I fancy women who look like women’ Correction, you fancy women who look feminine.”
“My confused prepubescent days are behind me, but I find myself in mourning – grieving for the heterosexuality that might have been. I would never have chosen to be a lesbian. I hope that feeling changes.”
So to sum up, the only person in the entire world it seems the Grauniad’s “lifestyle” section could get to write about being a lesbian in 2010 is a self hating, butch/slightly boyish looking dyke hating, scene hating twenty something student fuller of internalised homophobia than if David Laws and Crispin Blunt got married and gave birth to a horrid superinthecloset Tory sprog. Dear sweet dawg and all the imaginary saints. Because that is what it’s really like being a dyke! Of course it is. We go round like characters in the ‘well of loneliness’ bemoaning our fate, dressing like a man (in a tweed skirt, natch) and never ever like – go to bars, clubs, drink (sinful and the cause of all social problems) alcohol or in any way have fun. It’s only the fact that I’m drunk NOW that has blinded me to the emptiness, the futility of my entire existence. No wonder I have to exist in a haze of real ale and 70’s disco.
Anyway, fear not – I have (as always) a solution. Nichi Hodgson and Eleanor Margolis should get together without delay as they’d make an absolutely lovely couple. And leave the rest of humanity alone. Nichi can tell Eleanor where she’s gone wrong and how she is oppressing absolutely everyone by not shagging men, (and probably threatening the future of the planet as well because everyone know sex starved straight dudes don’t recycle) Eleanor can realise this is true and become the heterosexual, whoops omnisexual, she longs to be after a little light deprogramming. Everyone is happy!
The Guardian lifestyle section can drag itself kicking and screaming into the latter half of the twentieth century, and put that DVD of The Killing of Sister George away (or is it on betamax since they seem to have such a retro obsession?). And I can go clubbing, drink and destroy society in my super evil lesbian way. My feet got to move, so get out my way. I say, shame, shame, shame on you if you can’t dance too. Cheers.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
I’m assuming that Nichi Hodgson made a mistake when she wrote in her Guardian comment “Another eg would be political feminists that do not have relationships with men”
Surely she meant political lesbians?
Aren’t all feminists political? It’s a political movement after all: I can’t imagine what non-political feminism would even look like.
Having said that, I’d also like to think she made a mistake when she inferred that women who refuse to date men are oppressing them in some way. But I know she didn’t, ‘cos she wrote it twice!
Maybe not Cath, there do seem to be a startling number of apoliticial feminists around these days.
And before anybody accuses me of being mean to confused twenty somethings, (mean, moi? ) look – these adult women wrote this lesbophobic stuff for money and a national newspaper with an (entirely undeserved the way it’s going) reputation for being liberal published it. That’s my beef here.
Yes of course Eleanor Margolis has every right to agonise over the dearth of camembert loving femmes, (though femmes aren’t exactly in short supply from what I see, they may prefer cheddar of course, I know I do) and whinge in a protracted adolescent way about how everything is just so unfair. . IN HER DIARY. Or maybe a blog. What becomes very problematic is when the Guardian is publishing crap like this. It’s lesbian hating. It’s also separatist/ any woman who doesn’t confirm to heteronormative stereotypes hating. I’ve read more lesbian positive stuff in the Mail.
The real problem about being a lesbian is still rampant discrimination. And this kind of crap helps not one bit. When even the likes of Diva are spotting this, we have a problem. Remember Ellie Levenson as well? Really rather than being a longish pissed rant, the subject of ‘lesbophobia in early 21st century feminism, with specific reference to the Guardian’ could be a bloody doctoral thesis.
And to the dude who complained about the lack of “editing”. It’s a blog, and a rant knocked off in under an hour and under the influence of black sheep ale. I didn’t get paid, Cath didn’t get paid, so hush yer mouth and get yer own blog where you can write concisely edited posts.
only seems to exacerbate gender conflict
I do not see what’s so bad about gender conflict being exacerbated. What are these women afraid of? Bringing out the true faces of the men who claim to love them? Love them so much that they would turn into raving lunatics if they don’t get any pussy? Am I supposed to throw myself at any man that treats me like a human being because even seeing me as a human being is supposed to be so costly to him that I must be eternally grateful for it? We should rock the boat until all the shit is coming out. Then we will be able to see how many men really love us more than their power. That feminists are sooooooo afraid of men being brought to hysterics by women who categoricaly refuse them should tell Hodgon many many things about what these men really value us for.
‘We should rock the boat until all the shit is coming out.’
Yes. a thousand times yes.
i was getting upset about the hate mail/comments i was getting over hooters, and my friend cheered me up by saying that in some ways it’s a good thing because we are getting under their skins and we are exposing the rotten-ness of misogyny. we have to keep poking and shouting and upsetting people otherwise nothing will change!
Not wishing to cause trouble, but how is lesbian separatism any more acceptable or defensible than white separatism?
Not wishing to cause trouble, but how is lesbian separatism any more acceptable or defensible than
whiteblack separatism?Fixed that for you. White separatism rests on the notion that black people are naturally more inferior than whites and must therefore be kept apart from white people. Black/lesbian separatism rests on the notion that living with the oppressor does not give you the full freedom you could have when separating.
Moreover, we already have something that could be called homosocial separatism: the divison of spheres into a male and female one in which all the most important and useful resources are most often allocated to the male sphere.
Dykes -we’re dykes because we love other women to the exclusion of men, unlike our hetero sisters. Dykes, just carry on loving other women and the very fact that we love women should ally each dyke to the feminist movement,by default if you like. As with any other political belief there’ll be feminists who are more active for the cause than others for whatever reason – just remember that our common denominator, whoever we choose to love, is our gender and that alone whould unite us all.
I believe you weren’t wishing to cause trouble lolly. Thousands wouldn’t. Anyway you’ve already had an excellent reply. I concur with m’learned friend, thanks K.
Anyways on the subject of lesbians and the media there’s a really not bad at all piece on the sexualisation of lesbians in the tabloids in Diva, which I was moved to buy today for the first time for ages (though I think they give broadsheets far too much credit for having a ‘socio political drive’). And there was a very odd piece in the Times which kind of echoes the subject of this piece. I can’t link because of the paywall, but here was the piece that set off the diary it referred to.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7135259.ece
Basically it’s a about a woman who decided to come out after years of being in the closet. What interests me is its similarity to the Guardian piece – gay shame in other words. And the reader comments that were published about how ‘brave’ she was.
Really? Really? I know ONE woman who’s in the closet at work, for the bloody good reason she is a teacher in a religious school and she’d be forced out of her job if her sexual orientation was known. Fair enough. I don’t know what this woman does of course, but she doesn’t mention any similar reason for her secrecy.
So it’s the same theme isn’t it. Self hating lesbians. Can anyone imagine a newspaper running a story saying ‘well being a dyke is quite fun actually’? This century?
Course not: it’s dyke misery porn for the straights who feel a lot happier if lesbians know their place (wishing they were straight). Lesbians are only allowed to be tortured miserablists, not just average human beings with an average amount of aggravation in their life, who actually like being lesbians.
The portrayal of lesbians in the media bears no relation at all to actual real life, flesh and blood dykes I know. Now whilst that is to a certain extent true of the portrayal of EVERYONE in the media, I really wish the posh papers at least would get their shit together on this, and stop this sub 1950’s pulp fiction nonsense.
And Lolly, Hodgson wasn’t talking about separatism. (though I was) She was saying that women oppress men by refusing to have sex with them. Surely even you can’t agree with that? (waits to be proved wrong).
Wow, must be hard for Eleanor Margolis being on the lesbian scene. You know, being a white, middle class, university educated, feminine looking lesbian who fancies ‘women who look like women’, whose parents immediately accepted her coming out. Slim pickin’s, eh?
What’s more bizarre is that the Guardian employed this person of all people to ‘report back’ from the lesbian world, when her entire opinion of The Lesbian Scene appears to be based on stereotypes and very little actual experience. I wonder if she’s ever actually met any other lesbians other than herself?
i agree that the portrayal of lesbians in the media is poor. they’re either:
performing for men (lad’s mags)
mad bad and dangerous to know (mel phillips et al)
suffering and brave (“liberal” media)
i’m not gay but my mum is and i have spoken on radio/in the guardian about how positive my upbringing in a gay family was, to try and counter those three dangerous stereotypes, precisely because nothing will ever move forward otherwise.
i know that’s a bit off topic. but am sick of reading downright nasty representations in the right wing media and patronising representations in the left wing media, and no truthful, fair and ‘normal’ portrayals anywhere!
More 70’s disco just for kurukurushoujo (but yet again I concur)
Couldn’t be more on topic Sian. I do say that as an adult I don’t need role models and I don’t, but that’s not the same as actually wanting to be portrayed as a human being and not a freak.
Giannagee – yeah it’s just weird, there are loads of femme women on the scene these days. Particularly in Brighton I would have thought. And has she never heard of Mary Portas or Margot James? Or Portia and Ellen Degeneres, across the pond? High profile conventionally attractive looking lesbians? As I say, she’s obviously confused and unhappy, but why publish that in a national newspaper unless that’s an agenda you wish to push?
And BTW I did e-mail the grauniad asking just that and didn’t get a single word back from them.
Really enjoyed the piece, Polly. I know we’ve had our differences, but I do think you’re a very effective and articulate writer.
I’m – genuinely – not wanting to cause trouble either, but the one thing I don’t get is the reaction to the quote from Hodgson’s article at the F-Word. Obviously, political lesbians aren’t oppressing men by refusing to have sex with them, but isn’t she just saying they’re oppressing themselves rather than men? As in they’re denying their sexual sides for political reasons – in order to conform within a particular sphere – and ultimately that’s no different from religion dictating women’s sexual lives, and with about as much real-world impact?
That may be wrong, but it seems slightly more nuanced and interesting than the ‘what about the men’ way it’s been taken. What am I missing? (He asks, leaving the goal wide open).
Oh damagedoor, you are awful, but I like you. The problem with Hodgson, just to spell it out, and you can’t spell it out often enough, is the criticism of women, who for whatever reason refuse sex with men.
I have myself had quarrels with political lesbians. But I don’t see how you can ‘oppress’ yourself by taking a decision to deny yourself something for a reason, even if it’s something that in other circumstances you’d want. Religion is a (male by and large) constructed entity that has the force of the state and mainstream society behind it. Taking a decision you don’t want to have sex with men is taking a (countercultural) decision for yourself.
She is making an assumption on behalf of other women, which is that she thinks men have progressed far enough in terms of feminism for refusing to sleep with them to be just a perverse gesture. If she, or any other woman thinks that fair enough, but it’s not a judgement she’s entitled to make on behalf of others. Moreover, it’s a damned peculiar judgement to WANT to make on behalf of others – especially since her F word piece was all about respecting women’s differences.
I don’t think that women not having sex with men is ever something that is value neutral in our society. And if you were as obvious looking a dyke as me, you’d know that, since complete strangers feel compelled to express their dissaproval of me not sleeping with men. Hodgson is quite explicit in the second quote that she thinks MEN are oppressed by women not sleeping with them anyway. Which is a bit bloody bizarre – are men really going to be left single by a very few political lesbians? And what if they are anyway?
Women who have refused sex with men, unless it was done under the umbrella of religion, have always had a pretty hard time – think of witch burnings. As kurukurushoujo points out, why does (a very small minority) of women who refuse sex with men, for whatever reason, inspire such fear and loathing. There is obviously something VERY threatening about it.
But moreover you cannot criticise women who refuse sex with men without impliedly criticising lesbians. It can’t be done.
And if you haven’t done so, I’d suggest reading the whole F word piece to place that quote in context.
Polly –
Thanks. That makes it a bit more clear. I don’t really understand this, though:
“I don’t see how you can ‘oppress’ yourself by taking a decision to deny yourself something for a reason, even if it’s something that in other circumstances you’d want.”
Can’t many feminist issues be looked at that way? You can, after all, (as in the example, in fact) deny yourself something positive. You can deny gender-based emancipation.
A heterosexual woman who fancies a pleasant, ‘nice’ guy who fancies her back is denying herself a romantic relationship that might be very rewarding on a personal level. She is doing so for political reasons, to appease and live up to the standards of a wider ideology. We can respect her reasons – her autonomy, her choice – but still examine those reasons, surely, so long as we don’t start enforcing our own opinions on her? I don’t see political lesbianism as all that different from lesbians pretending to be straight to fit into a male hierarchy. The context is slightly different, but surely it’s all just women editing their behaviour in order to be accepted by the dominant people in their surroundings?
(Scratches head)
I LOVE POLLY! Polly, I LOVE YOU. Where have you been all my life?? Thank you for Guest-ing! Cathy, thank you for hosting! I *especially* love it when Polly talks about lesbians and lesbian-hating! Oooooh– it’s everywhere, isn’t it? Had a nasty run-in with it on a radfem blog a few weeks back. Sort of slapped me in the face too– didn’t see that one coming. But anyone who only likes or wants to be with women who “look like women” is expressing both lesbophobia and misogyny. Femininity is NOT a natural state of being (womanhood).
Also, I *am* a political lesbian and under no uncertain terms am I denying myself anything! HA! That makes me laugh. We are soooo not there. NO man is there. Also, here are some problems with the “Nice Guy” theory:
1> misplaced gratitude for “nice”-ness from males
2> constant vigilance against the cold chill of male privilege in your most intimate relationship (even IF it wasn’t internalized and only comes from the outside, it happens!)
3> needing to EDUCATE your male partner about the female experience
4> depending on your partner to VALIDATE your female experience by believing you and cooperating with any requests (mundane and obvious example: I cannot do yard work today b/c my menstrual cramps are debilitating)
No quite simply: because political lesbians are never the dominant people in their surroundings. Their surroundings are the world, in which heteronormativity is enforced.
The pressure to have sex with men is always greater than the pressure not to have sex with men.
Any ‘hierarchy’ even in a lesbian separatist commune (and they really haven’t existed for YONKS now) is always going to be subject to the outside world. The woman is going to get far more in material terms from conforming to the outside world – having sex with men – than from not conforming. The pressure to conform is much greater than the pressure not to conform.
It’s very, very unlikely that women are going to not sleep with men if they really want to because of external pressures – because the external pressures are overwhelmingly in favour of sleeping with men. Women who make that decision have made it for themselves because they think that NOT having sex with men is something they prefer to do. You can’t in any way compare it to the pressure to be straight if you’re a lesbian because it emphatically does NOT have the support of mainstream society behind it.
Nobody has ever yelled ‘straight’ at me as a term of abuse. I get ‘lesbian’ yelled at me as a term of abuse all the time.
Anyway to repeat – in the second quote Nichi Hodgson makes it clear that she thinks it is MEN that are being discriminated against. And in the first one, in the F word, she refers to it benefiting ‘neither men nor women’ (this is after she’s said men are oppressed by women demanding new kitchens).
Women who are separatists (and I don’t want to speak for them all here, but it’s a fair summary) believe that if you have relationships with men under patriarchy, you are colluding with your oppressor, and thus oppressing yourself, because they do not believe non oppressive relationships with men are possible under patriarchy .
Now there may be times when colluding with your oppressor brings a short term gain (think of collaborators with the Nazis in occupied France). But separatists don’t believe that there’s a trade off worth making there.
To make this decision they have to go against a whole heap of social pressure the other way. For a woman who makes this decision it is NOT a matter of ‘appeasing a wider ideology’. It is a matter of not doing something which she believes will oppress her personally.
So it is NOT women editing their behaviour in order to be accepted by the dominant people in their surroundings at all. I do have a friend who lived in lesbian separatist communes in the 70’s because she was a lesbian, but she’s not really that much of a feminist/separatist and all the ‘you can’t have a male pet’ stuff wound her up. It may have been a vaguely valid criticism then, (but note she was still there because she was sexually attracted to women, she wasn’t secretly lusting after men) but the idea that there are masses of heterosexual women rejecting men in 2010 because they’re political lesbians who’ve been brainwashed by feminism is more than faintly ludicrous. Our own dear blog host, (waves to Cath) I believe, is married to a man, though everyone on CiF assumes she’s a dyke.
Anyway Nichi Hodgson was arguing that women’s point of view should always be respected. So she’s a big fat hypocrite as well as her other sins. Here’s what I said in reply.
Political lesbians, for example, who refuse to sleep with men until rape and male violence against women no longer exists. Such an absolutist approach hardly seems like a choice, when there are plenty of men horrified by the thought of violence against women, and when the end result only seems to exacerbate gender conflict, which ultimately benefits neither men nor women.””
So are you saying here, Nichi, that if women decide they don’t want to have sex with men, for whatever reason, that exacerbates gender conflict? That such women should shut up and put out for the good of gender harmony?
If women want to abstain from sex with men surely that’s their business, their choice and their bodies. They don’t have any obligation to do anything they don’t want to.
I’d suggest anyone who says anything different is endorsing rape.
Who’s criticising other women’s choices now?
And whether or not woman are oppressing themselves, it STILL doesn’t mean they’re oppressing men.
And undercover punk beat me to it And said it better. Thanks UP.
♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t see political lesbianism as all that different from lesbians pretending to be straight to fit into a male hierarchy. The context is slightly different,
No you see, the context is VERY different. Couldn’t be differenter if it tried.
Also I’m going to single out this:
Such an absolutist approach hardly seems like a choice
No it IS a choice, it’s just choice Nichi Hodgson doesn’t approve of. Anyway I’m not a political lesbian and neither is one single person I know. UP ids as a political lesbian, but I think she’d be the first to say that she IS sexually attracted to women (and very happily married now I believe). Hodgson is setting up a straw political lesbian there. Just as Margolis sets up straw scene lesbians.
Hodgson would almost certainly protest that she isn’t lesbophobic and point to her ‘omnisexuality’ as proof. But that’s as convincing to me as Nick Griffin’s claim that he isn’t racist, he just thinks England should be for English people. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…..
Also (and not to go on about political lesbianism TOO much because it’s really not the point of the piece) it is Hodgson who is making the judgement that there are lots of nice men out there that separatists are depriving themselves of. By and large the separatists I know DON’T think there are lots of nice men out there. Or they wouldn’t be separatists.
TRUE! Don’t go spreading this around, k? but I weren’t a radfem les sep, the most accurate description of my sexuality would probably be pansexual. Most people think of political lez as het women who force themselves to have sex with women *b/c* they hate men. Which is not true in my case. I absolutely ADORE the womyn. All of them. Butch, femme, andro, geek, and everything in between. CHEERS!
And as I’ve said a zillion times, forcing yourself to have sex with someone you’re not attracted to is bonkers IMNSHO.
The much more interesting thing to me is why Hodgson is so bothered by women who refuse to sleep with men. It’s not a threat to her in any way, shape or form. Or it shouldn’t be.
Polly –
“No quite simply: because political lesbians are never the dominant people in their surroundings. Their surroundings are the world, in which heteronormativity is enforced.”
I guess that’s where I disagree, because I don’t think the context a person exists and makes political and personal statements in needs to be as wide as the whole world. It can vary. Obviously, homocentric contexts are few and far between, but they do exist. I have a lesbian friend, for example, who is (sometimes) castigated within her current friend group for having had relationships with men in the past. It would be far easier for her, in her current day to day relations, to have never slept with a man at all; she would be higher up the hierarchy. A lot of the time, it would no doubt be easier for her just to be straight, but she isn’t. The fact is, the relationships that matter to her day-to-day are ruined by a straight history rather than a queer one.
But I don’t want to hijack the thread, or make it about me and my friends when it’s all a bit complex for that. Like I said, massively enjoyed the post. Please start blogging again. Even though I’m awful, I did like it.
damagedoor –
“As in they’re denying their sexual sides for political reasons – in order to conform within a particular sphere – and ultimately that’s no different from religion dictating women’s sexual lives, and with about as much real-world impact?”
Though I know it’s already been addressed, I also wanted to say – the statement above assumes that straight women’s “sexual sides” = what heterosexual sex and relationships are allowed to be like from the outset. I don’t agree that that’s the case.
I don’t even think the majority of straight women who fuck men are getting to express/satisfy their “sexual sides” in the first place, because of how hetero sex is conditioned into women in its current configuration(s), which is to say, it is penis-centered through and through.
In addition to all the other reasons cited here for why otherwise-potentially-straight women might make a personal political choice to either not-fuck men or only-fuck women, I think the sexual options for straight women alone are reason enough. Women who are enthusiastically pairing up with males are offered penis-centered, pre-fabricated blueprints that have nothing to do with what they might have come up with on their own, unmolested by misogyny and heterosupremacy.
It may not be reason enough for *every* woman, or even lots of women, or really hardly any women (as Polly notes), but it can’t be overstated how little women’s own sexuality ever has a chance to develop as its own thing, which makes current heterosexuality not at all the same thing as the sexuality of women who would be attracted to males anyway.
but damagedoor, a social circle of judgmental jackasses does not a hierarchy make. nor does anyone who subjects themselves to such jackasses, or who even has the benefit of delightful friends who don’t care who she’s fucked, get to simultaneously divorce themselves from the larger context we ALL live in.
which is to say, that lesbian friend of yours who is “sometimes” castigated by her friends for having fucked men in the past? she is already always higher up the *actual* social hierarchy, the heterosupremacist one, than any of them who haven’t fucked men, precisely because she’s ever been with men, regardless of how mean her friends may be to her about it.
Yes but she doesn’t live in her friend group does she? I presume she has a job, possibly, or maybe she’s a student, and a family, and jeighbours, and she goes to the shops, and you get the picture.
When I go down Canal street I’m in a through the looking glass world where yes, straight people are no longer the normal ones. I go to get the bus home and that ceases in a 50 yard walk. I’m back in straight land again.
Also your friend isn’t a political lesbian is she? She is I presume, sexually attracted to women -she’s not a straight woman trying to gain kudos with a group of lesbians. I have problems with this story, which I hear again and again, because it just isn’t my experience AT ALL. I just don’t know anyone who’s castigated for past relationships with men in my group of lesbian friends, since it is actually fairly common, and several of my good friends have been in long term (several years long) relationships with bisexual women even though they themselves are lifelong lesbians who’ve never been with men. And yes we have bi women in there as well, one who is one of my friends exes, and sometimes her boyfriend comes along too on nights out!
But it’s a different situation anyway from the one Nichi Hodgson was talking about, which was about a woman who’s strongly heterosexually orientated – as UP says – forcing herself to be a lesbian against her every instinct for political reasons. Which is bullshit. Just pure unadulterated bullshit. But even if it wasn’t bullshit, Nichi Hodgson is still a hypocrite to go on about respecting women’s choices and then disrespect women’s choices herself. And she DID say that women were discriminating against men by not sleeping with them.
The real thrust of the piece, as we’ve already discussed, is about lesbian hating in the liberal press and supposed feminists. Nichi Hodgson says women who refuse sex with men are ‘discriminating’ against them. That is lesbian hating as much as Nick Griffin is racist. Eleanor Margolis bleats about an imaginary lesbian scene she’s never even experienced and what a horrid thing being gay is. And how the nasty dykes ‘don’t look like women’.
Now imagine you’re 13, you don’t have supportive parents, you don’t have supportive friends, and you’re a lesbian. And you read stuff like that in a national newspaper? What effect is it going to have on you? Is it going to a) support you and make you feel better? or b) make you feel like shit?
Hello? Guardian? What ARE you thinking?
And yet again Joan said it better than me, the approval of your friends does not =actual real world hierarchy.
Example: most teenagers probably think David Cameron’s pretty uncool. He is still prime minister. I thank you.
And no matter how fashionable being a lesbian may be, there are probably not many 13 year olds at the moment desperately wishing they were lesbians if they’re straight. I’d wager. Which is why it’s so important that national newspapers cease with the lesbophobia and try to be positive!
Some people are lesbians Graun. Get over it.
This the real world
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311228/Taxpayer-funds-council-adventures-Sindia-Lesbianandgayland.html
It makes me laugh how much the graun slag the Mail for homophobia though, when they’re just as bad! Only in a more faux right on way of course.
Joankelly6000: ” it can’t be overstated how little women’s own sexuality ever has a chance to develop as its own thing, which makes current heterosexuality not at all the same thing as the sexuality of women who would be attracted to males anyway
THIS x 1000.
Too tired to make coherent comment. Damagedoor, all wot Polly said, but also to say that why can’t a woman’s politics be just as/ more important to her than her sexual relationships? Being in a relationship with a man is problematic, involves compromise, social divides that might never be bridged, or just plain dissatisfaction. Not expressing myself well here, but sometimes heterosexuality just isn’t that compelling, is hard work, often precisely because of relating across the gender hierarchy, is already political. Just fancying some men might not be enough to be arsed about it. The good bits don’t necessarily add up to enough. Whatever, the key thing is to recognise that choosing to step away from heterosexual relationships can be a valid, rational, rewarding choice for a woman to make, as is choosing to put her focus and energy into women.
(fwiw I am heterosexual and partnered, and that’s not likely to materially change anytime soon. He’s a perfectly nice person, but that’s no reason not to think critically and politically about heterosexuality )
Great piece Polly.
Thanks MariaS. I think the women who have had/currently do have relationships with men have expressed what’s so bad about Hodgson’s statement a lot better than I could.
But there is another aspect here which is worth chucking into the mix which is that the idea that somebody can be pressured into being gay/lesbian is deeply homophobic and the one that led the Tories to create section 28. (and if you don’t know what section 28 was – explanation here). Sian has a lesbian mother – she’s not a lesbian. If your environment influenced your sexual orientation that easily, we’d expect that she would be.
Hodgson’s statement is lesbophobic. No way round, over or under it. Yeah she refers to ‘political lesbians’ rather than just ‘lesbians’ but she still says they are creating gender conflict and oppressing not only themselves but everyone else.
Whoops forgot the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28
Oh and many thanks to Cath for formatting/hosting this.
And another question. Eleanor Margolis is only attracted sexually to feminine looking women. Fair enough, no problems with that. But what exactly does she have against butch/boyish looking dykes AS FRIENDS? Why does she not want any lesbian friends? It would seem to me logical (and it’s classic agony aunt advice) that if you want to meet a partner the best way to do it is to expand your social circle so you might meet say, a friend of a friend, who you find attractive. But also, yanno, a girl needs friends anyway for the craic. Why is she so opposed to having platonic lesbian friends and like KNOWING OTHER LESBIANS.
Doesn’t add up.
i wonder what hodgson would have made of asexual women, or women who actively choose to be single because they don’t want to compromise in the way MariaS and Joan described? are they oppressing men too by not sleeping with them? because, and this is pure speculation, i imagine that is the more common scenario these days than straight women being political lesbians. if, when i was single, i went to a bar, and a guy chatted me up and bought me a drink, and then i refused to go home with him (this actually happened! apparently pint = sex) was i oppressing him by maintaining my choice to be single? the whole point completely falls down when you turn it round, which really highlights it’s lesbophobic tones to me.
This is the bit that’s puzzling me too. I mean we’re talking about a tiny tiny minuscule fraction of the population, and yet of all the very real oppressions and discriminations out there, this is the one that Hodgson appears to be most focused on. And as this thread has shown, refusing to sleep with men does not equal discrimination anyway, well, not against men at least. It’s more likely that those who refuse to sleep with men will be the ones facing discrimination, because they’re going against the heteronormative paradigm.
So why on earth has she got such a bug up her arse about it?
And it was a pleasure to host this Polly. Many thanks for provoking a really interesting discussion.
Well I’d have held out for a whisky chaser as well Sian, some people…..
The fascinating thing about both halves of this really (Hodgson + Margolis) is why they both view sexuality, or refusal of it, as such a big deal. Now obviously being a lesbian isn’t going to be just another facet of someone for a fair bit yet, which is why as bloggers the likes of myself and UP and Cath and Joan do write about lesbian representation and identity.
Though it is getting harder to scare up a decent bit of homophobia to feel properly persecuted about (the Times coming out diary was rather comic, since apparently most of the woman’s workmates said on hearing the BIG REVELATION ‘well we knew that anyway – doh’). And that’s progress, because I’m not that old and I know of people who’ve been forced out of their jobs because they’re dykes. And it’s worth repeating we’ve only had employment protection since 2003.
But Margolis seems convinced that if she identifies in any way with the gay scene that will be the only defining thing about her, as though going to a lesbian bar occasionally means you can’t also moan about the bins (a topic that is rarely far from my lips). And Hodgson is convinced that the odd celibate female is a threat to the social fabric.
Why are they viewing females solely in terms of who they do/don’t have sex with? And why is the Guardian printing this stuff more to the point?
And defining yourself by your favourite cheese isn’t really that much more sensible. Unless you’re Wallace (of Wallace and Gromit fame).
Thanks for this post Polly! Absolutely brilliant.
Maria S. :
BEAUTIFUL! Angels singing! I couldn’t have said it better myself (obvi). It’s simply too much goddamn work. Not only is my politics important to me, but my sexuality very much REQUIRES THE USE OF my brain (or whatever you want to call the part of me that ‘thinks’ and feels). Heteronormativity works relentlessly to divorce ‘sexuality’ from rational thought, but it simply doesn’t make any sense for me to choose a partner based on nothing but physical attraction. And “relating across the gender hierarchy” necessitates constantly reminding men how annoying their superiority is and how different my life is from theirs’. It is exhausting, deadly boring, and a waste of my energy. There is NOTHING sexy about that.
@Polly: agreed, I do NOT think there are lots of Nice Guys out there.
@Joan: agreed, female sexuality is NOT allowed to develop under the current PIV-obsessed blueprint of heterosexuality. Again, BORING.
And as for coming out folks, this is how you do it.
‘There were one or two people, if somebody is gay they can maybe sense it and they might have said one or two comments. That can hurt if you’re like 14 or 15 in school.
‘Now I feel I’m a lot stronger, I’m older and nothing can hurt me any more
‘People who are going through this can see I am a young lad and I can say it. It’s not wrong. You shouldn’t be ashamed of it.
‘We don’t live in the Dark Ages any more, we live in the 21st century and everyone should be happy and love themselves.’
Why are gay men allowed to say this stuff in the media, but not lesbians? Answers on a postcard.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1312231/Hollyoaks-star-Kieron-Richardson-admits-hes-gay-This-Morning.html
People *should* be asking themselves WHY female sexuality is soooo strictly defined as whether we do/not have sex with men.
And further, WHY is sexuality such a *crucial* part of our I-denities under patriarchy?? Hmm, I wonder if it has something to do with maintaining male supremacy?!??? As Polly says, using sexual preference as your primary means of self-knowledge makes about as much sense as defining yourself by your favorite cheese. Don’t get me wrong, I love cheddar. But cheddar-love my personality does not make.
Well I was having a pop at Eleanor ‘camembert’ margolis actually, I love cheese but it’s full of saturated fat, so I’m trying not to eat it. But that is the thing – she thinks that if she says I’m a lesbian and goes to lesbian bars that automatically means she can be NOTHING BUT a lesbian, eating lesbian foods, drinking lesbian beer, reading lesbian books, listening to lesbian music . Because if you are actively gay you have to separate yourself from society as a whole? Gay and straight can be a real us-and-them situation. Why?
Lesbians in the media, as so admirably summed up by Sian, have to be filled with shame/guilt/trauma (Times, grauniad) or be evil separatists bent on destroying THE FAMILY, (The mail) or just porny and sexualised (the rest of the tabloids). They can never be – like the gay man quoted above -well I’m gay, so what, it is the twenty first century. I’m gay, get over it. I’m perfectly comfortable with it.
It’s been pointed out that Patricia Highsmith’s ‘Carol’ was an absolute first in lesbian fiction because it had a happy ending in which the two main protagonists ended up together. Previously lesbian novels had to end with suicide/disaster, or the characters turning straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_pulp_fiction
How very, very little we have moved on from them. Basically, one thing and one thing only underlies this, IMNSHO which is the belief that female sexuality is not “valid” without a man being involved. Gay men are fine – they’re two men. But two women? Where’s the man?
There are no accidents. Whether they admit it or not, the Guardian is pushing a very specific agenda here. A conventionally attractive woman (really would Margolis’s piece have even made the paper if she was less photogenic?) saying how horrible masculine women are and how much she hates being a lesbian. It’s a lesbophobes wet dream. Unthreatening, straight identified, self hating, nice young white woman. Bingo!
Your jokes go right over my silly American head, obviously. Thanks for the clue. Not the first or the last one that I’ll need one, I’m sure!
Modeling for the youths is very important, indeed.
Great post, polly, and you’re right, publishing those articles reeks of agenda.
Hope you’re ok Valerie….
I’m okay thanks. I just have drama – life drama!
Polly, good to see you posting again. Hope this doesn’t sound too creepy but I used to lurk on your old blog and enjoy your writing and your fab taste in music!
I would say I was shocked at how your concerns were dismissed at the f-word, but I’m really fed up of that site so I wasn’t.
Cheers – I didn’t even bother to look frankly, I left a comment and suppose it got the usual ‘bloggers views are their own and not the views of the f word shite’? Am I right. Except they can get concerned about some things (like religion being insulted).
Anyway I’m already feeling wound up today by Mr Ratzinger, so won’t bother to spoil my mood further.
But how any site which calls itself “feminist” can endorse someone saying that lesbians are causing gender conflict and should shut up and sleep with men is a good one.
Exactly, and yes, you are right! I left a comment to say how alarming I found that, it doesn’t seem to have been published.
Oh but they don’t *endorse* saying that, they just don’t consider it problematic.. and the title of the post is “some feminists are more equal than others”. FFS.
Yeah it’s completely inconsistent to have a comment policy saying you don’t publish homophobic comments and then publish lesbophobic comments. But then I’d expect nothing less from a blog that links to posts saying butch lesbians aren’t women because they haven’t got long hair and makeup.
Grauniad suffering lesbian update. They’ve managed to find a lesbian (in the USA) who is comfortable with her sexuality. But needless to say she has still lost her job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/17/fired-for-admitting-being-gay
(word to the subs: being openly gay isn’t the same as ‘admitting’ being gay either. Since ‘admit’ implies something you would otherwise wish to conceal).
Well said, Polly. Yeah, the ‘choice’ feminists who seem to have taken over the F-word, and most of Internet feminism, seem to thinkany ‘choice’ a woman makes is OK…unless it’s to be anti-porn/sex industry or a lesbian, I guess.
Oh and the grauniad DID IT AGAIN yesterday. Headlined that ridiculous ONS survey as ‘Fewer people ADMIT to being gay’. Yes they have now changed the website, but it’s true.
http://www.twingly.com/uknews/stories/c19a7ab6a00049d0bf53fa3c885b926b
Self-perceived sexual identity! LOL! No one EVER lies to themselves about their own desires, do they?? HA. Shame and secrets.
Yeah I’m not really convinced by the ‘privacy from other household members’ bit either. As in the presence of your spouse may still inhibit your behaviour, if you’re a ‘man who has sex with men’ (ie can’t even admit to yourself that you swing both ways, so furtively have sex with other men). And you know 3% of people wouldn’t say. What are the chances that they are straight and won’t admit to it? Interesting that the number of gay people was higher in lower age groups and more affluent groups as well. As in these are the groups that are more likely to have absorbed the message that being gay is ok maybe, and therefore more likely to out themselves to a researcher?
I think if you had an anonymised tick box survey you’d get a different result.
Hmm,m, yeah, this is some seriously bad research methodoology. The responses weren’t anonymous, and the researcher knew the response the person had given.
Also, flashcards? Really? Sounds as if anyone else in the household wasn’t told to you know, go out for a bit (which would have been the sensible thing). If some of them were close enough to overhear the responses, couldn’t they also read them, if they wanted? Or even guess from the order?
Hmmm, wonder why the proportion saying they are gay went down?
It could also be some kind of sampling bias (there were a fairly large proportion of teenagers for example, who could obviously still be unsure of their sexuality).
Meh, not sure I’m bothered about the use of the word ‘admit’. I have used it myself – I’m not gay, but I have depression, and I’ve definitely used the word. Not because *I’m* ashamed or think there’s anything wrong with it, but because the other person might, as there is still societal stigma about these things. I certainly wouldn’t be admitting it in some ONS survey using those methods.
I can just imagine the scene on the doorstep:
Householder: “Stop there, that’s the one.”
ONS Researcher: “This one? Are you sure?”
Householder: “Definitely, that’s the one.”
ONS: “So you want me to put down on the form that you’re gay…”
Hmm, I’m not convinced their research methods would have got them accurate results either.
And in other news: Polly, have you seen today’s Guardian/Observer piece on why more and more het women are apparently fantasising about lesbians:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/26/up-front-eva-wiseman-lesbian-karl-lagerfeld
Well that isn’t as bad as some stuff TBH Cath, (I made reference on the Graun CiF piece to the ‘snog a lezzer’ contests now being held by hen parties in Canal Street), but much as I dislike the word ‘othering’ I do so wish the posh papers (or even the common ones) could manage to write about ho-mo-sexuals as though they’re not a)from Mars and b)never read newspapers. Congrats to the writer for actually realising it was ‘patronising’ though. Oh and the ‘gritty scottish lesbian’ thing has already been trailed and looks like utter gobshite. So no change there then.
I am also longing for being a lesbian to cease being “fashionable” so we can get rid of this claptrap. And maybe the human race can start behaving sensibly about sexual orientation one day, though I’m not holding my breath.
Ed Milliband looks miserable doesn’t he? (nowt to do with lesbians, just an observation).
Privacy from other household members was preserved by asking them to say “stop” when their option was reached. The ONS said a valid response was provided by 96% of those surveyed, with fewer than 4% refusing to respond to the question. The statisticians said this group could not be assumed to be secretly gay.
Pffftt!
Anyway, the only way to get a real idea of how many people are gay is to stop there being a reason to hide it. We’re not quite there yet.
I’m also wondering what the Observer woman’s basis was for asserting that heterosexual women are now fantasising about lesbians, other than that there’s a film out. Was it an extra question the ONS threw in, or is she just talking bullshit again as the media tend to when they assert things like everyone is obsessed with Mad Men, or Pixie Lott is popular among young people. Anyway it must be really hard being a columnist having to make shit up all the time.
Search term of the day (so far – it’s early yet) that landed someone on this blog:
“straight women becoming the minority”
OMG is it true?
“straight women becoming the minority”
OMG is it true?
That would be awesome! 🙂
Oh dear I HAD to put that into google. And all I can say is LOL. And ROFLMAO. At this….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14045538/
Oh noes! The poor oppressed straight people!
Now you know what it’s like fuckers!
Polly, shut up, you’re OPWESSING meee, how dare you! Us pooooor straight women! 😦 😉
And OMFG I HOPE the ONS did not ask that (about fantasies). Just for the record, I hate the ‘being a lesbian is cool’ thing. I have less than zero interest in getting it on with a girl, because I am y’know, a straight woman.
Ha ha! ‘They call us breeders!’ sniffle
LOL!
I liked this:
Dahl said he is offended that some proponents of same-sex marriage have equated the opposing view with bigotry. “I’ll take ownership of being a Catholic and being a signer of the petition, but I won’t take ownership of being a bigot,” he said.
Now I have never signed a petition against anyone being a Catholic in my life. I have opposed the Pope having my money to visit Britain and being feted by the Queen and the Prime Minister while all that child abuse stuff was conveniently swept under the carpet. But you want to be a Catholic? Be my guest.
The point is no one is making gay marriage compulsory, and no one is suggesting it take place in Catholic churches. So how does it affect HIS practice of HIS religion at all? Answer: It doesn’t.
‘Bigot’ is the word I’d use as well, about this particular bigot.
Agreed; bigot sums it up nicely.