A Discussion Of Feminism And Lesbianism Essay

, Research Paper

During the 1970s and 1980s, much sapphic theory turned towards the questione most influential, and besides controversial authors was Adrienne Rich, whose work of a sapphic history, and why it has been covered up for all this clip. They began to see that adult females & # 8217 ; s subordination under work forces, and the necessity for work forces to continue the establishment of heterosexualism by whatever agencies available ( this ranges from matrimony and romantic literature to domestic force and colza ) , was where the reply to this inquiry lay. One of Thursday on & # 8220 ; Compulsory Heterosexuality & # 8221 ; ( 1980 ) , became the foundation for the subsequent sapphic separationist motion. This motion was based on the premiss that if heterosexualism was an establishment that exists to perpetuate the subordination of adult females, so it must be avoided at all costs. It of course followed that heterosexual adult females were & # 8216 ; join forcesing with the enemy & # 8217 ; and hence could non be called women’s rightists, as they themselves were assisting to safeguard work forces & # 8217 ; s place as oppressor. Oppression of adult females is the chief distinguishing characteristic of heterosexualism in the sentiments of such women’s rightists. Many see heterosexual intercourse as nil more than the & # 8220 ; eroticisation of adult females & # 8217 ; s subordination & # 8221 ; , with others connoting, as bell hooks notes, that & # 8220 ; all venereal contact between adult females and work forces is colza & # 8221 ; . Such theoreticians would propose that this force is perpetuated through methods such as erotica, which pushes adult females into a function of masochism and, & # 8230 ; widens the scope of behavior considered acceptable from work forces in heterosexual intercourse. Adrienne Rich is really critical of Susan Brownmiller, who in her work & # 8220 ; Against Our Own Will: Work force, Women and Rape & # 8221 ; efforts to take the construct of colza from its sexual domain, proposing that & # 8220 ; colza is force, intercourse isof gender & # 8221 ; . Rich, along with MacKinnon, suggests that instead than seeing colza as a signifier of force, one should alternatively look at it as a natural portion heterosexualism, as something that is made normal by work forces & # 8217 ; s subjugation of adult females. As such theoreticians believe that adult females are being oppressed by work forces in a heterosexual relationship, and that the heterosexual relationship legitimates and perpetuates this subjugation, many of them suggest, hence, that ideally heterosexualism should discontinue to be. After research on gender found that merely an approximative 30 % of adult females reach climax during acute sex, feminist literature on the topic began to connote that the adult females who is in control of her gender would avoid acute sex. This moved on to the point, nevertheless, where certain sapphic women’s rightist authors began to, & # 8230 ; challenge and oppose any women’s rightists who seek to legalize those sexual patterns and penchants which are damaging to all adult females. Jane Egerton informs the heterosexual women’s rightist that they do non ever cognize what is best for them, and that heterosexualism and feminism do non travel manus in manus, we have simply, & # 8230 ; internalised male sexual values to the extent where we & # 8216 ; enjoy & # 8217 ; and derive pleasance from being humiliated. Indeed, this thought is picked up on by Bell Hooks, who is critical of the manner that many sapphic women’s rightists believe that, & # 8230 ; the adult female who is emotionally and sexually committed to an single adult male is needfully incapable of loyal woman-identified political committedness. It can be seen, so that to many women’s rightists, in peculiar Kitzinger and Wilkinson, the heterosexual adult female is non suited to be called a women’s rightist, The qualifier & # 8216 ; heterosexual & # 8217 ; is, at best, an abashing adjunct to & # 8216 ; feminist & # 8217 ; ; at worst, it seems a contradiction in footings. It has been suggested that these women’s rightists show more marks of man-hating than of rational theoretical belief, and so, most of such theoreticians are really belittling about work forces. Sheila Jeffreys suggests that the bulk of work forces are incapable of & # 8220 ; political unity and working against their ain involvements & # 8221 ; , and as such the lone reasonable hope for adult females is to encompass & # 8216 ; feminism as the theory and sapphism as the pattern & # 8217 ; . Rich examines how the mystique of the phallus has led to enforced heterosexualism, by propaganda and force. For some authors, sapphism is more than an issue of gender, it is & # 8220 ; a beginning of cognition and power available to adult females & # 8221 ; and besides refer to, & # 8230 ; the sapphic experience as being, like maternity, a deeply female experience, with peculiar looks, significances, and potencies we can non grok every bit long as we merely bracket it with other sexually stigmatised beings & # 8230 ; by this, Rich is mentioning to the differences between cheery work forces and tribades, where she suggests that homosexual work forces are different in that their relationships are more about gender than the & # 8216 ; profound & # 8217 ; sapphic experience, mentioning their penchant for younger work forces and promiscuous wonts as the footing for this statement. Rich considers that throughout civilization, adult females have been forced to get married against their true wants, for economic grounds, to stay respectable, to be able to hold kids that would non be ostracised by society. This, she believes, was non what they truly wanted, and if it was, theoreticians such as Jane Egerton would claim that it was merely because they had & # 8220 ; internalised male sexual values & # 8221 ; and did non cognize their ain heads. Therefore, the end for these women’s rightists is to carry heterosexual adult females to throw off their heterosexual desires and do the pick between & # 8220 ; sexual & # 8216 ; release & # 8217 ; and adult females & # 8217 ; s release & # 8221 ; , taking & # 8220 ; sapphism as a political scheme & # 8221 ; . After all, in the words of Adrienne Rich, & # 8230 ; the issue we have to turn to as women’s rightists is, non simple & # 8220 ; gender inequality & # 8221 ; , nor the domination of civilization by males, nor mere & # 8220 ; taboos against homosexualism & # 8221 ; , but the enforcement of heterosexualism for adult females as a agency of guaranting male right of physical, economical, and emotional entree. It is hard to believe, and besides rather upseting, that in this twenty-four hours and age, theoreticians can be so willing to laud their ain life style as being the merely true manner, and actively seek to do all heterosexual adult females experience guilty about their ain sexual penchants. It is besides, as suggested by Deirdre English, & # 8230 ; about funny that so many heterosexual women’s rightists & # 8230 ; seemed to accept the thought that heterosexualism meant collaborating in their ain subjugation and there was something incorrect with being sexually turned on by work forces. There are several issues on which to knock these thoughts that merely lesbians can be women’s rightists. First, one must gain that pick is a really of import dad

rt of sexuality, and women must be able to choose whether they feel their sexuality to be leading them towards sexual relationships with men or women, without being made to feel that either is wrong. Secondly, one must acknowledge that lesbianism as a practice is a very different area altogether from feminism as a political philosophy. With regards to areas such as pornography and sadomasochism there are various conflicting opinions as to whether these are inherently harmful, or whether they are only harmful in certain forms. Only when one discusses the above points can one begin to realise where the future lies for both lesbian and heterosexual sexuality. Bell Hooks expresses her feelings that, …just as the struggle to end sexual oppression aims to eliminate heterosexism, it should not endorse any one sexual choice… Neither lesbianism or heterosexuality needs any explanation, it is a matter of emotion and choice. Just as it is wrong to see homosexuality as in any way abnormal, it is also very wrong to suggest that women are wrong if they prefer men. Although it is correct to say that women in this society are oppressed by men, surely it is unproductive to suggest that it is all the fault of mankind, and therefore women should turn their backs on heterosexuality. If a woman’s choice lies with relationships with men, then it is up to women to turn those relationships into a relationship of equals, rather than deny oneself the freedom of sexuality. If it is oppressive to be in a heterosexual relationship, it is just as oppressive, if not more, to be informed that that type of sexuality is wrong, and those people who feel emotion towards men are not capable of knowing what is best for themselves. It is also important to examine the relationship itself between feminist philosophy and lesbianism as a form of sexuality. In Gayle Rubin’s words, it is wrong to equate, …lesbianism (…a sexual and erotic experience) with feminism – a political philosophy… The two matters are entirely different, and feminism, that is, the fight against oppression and patriarchy, should be embraced by all heterosexual women, not only as a struggle for rights politically, economically and socially, but also as a struggle for equality of sexuality with men, rather than turning their backs on men altogether. Wendy Clark suggests that lesbian feminists have played down the sexual side of lesbianism in favour of what they see as the political nature of the issue in order to deflect from the “moral” issue which many conservative or religious leaders have place on it. While this is perhaps an understandable route, surely lesbian feminists would do better to emphasise the importance of everyone having freedom of choice of sexuality as a right, as opposed to telling all heterosexual women that they are wrong in their choices of men. Clark says that the future of self-determined and autonomous lesbian relationships depends on keeping the two issues of lesbianism and feminism apart, and not letting either rule the other, The geography of both countries is complicated and unique, and the boundaries only overlap in places. Indeed, lesbianism should be celebrated for what it is – a sexual statement. Lesbian feminists should fight male oppression politically, but not to confuse the two issues of politics and sexuality to exclude heterosexual women from feminism. Adrienne Rich is scathing in her criticism of Paula Webster’s work on “Pornography and Pleasure”, and Pat Califia’s “Feminism and Sadomasochism-masochism”, suggesting that, It is simply perpetuating male sexuality amongst ourselves and can only serve to indirectly reinforce our oppression. However, I would tend to agree with their suggestions that it is not the idea of pornography and sadomasochism-masochism that is wrong, but the manner in which it usually occurs. For example, no-one could disagree that the sadistic pleasures of the Marquis de Sade, both in his private life and his pornographic works, (described in some detail by Andrea Dworkin in “Pornography: Men possessing Women”) were wrong in that they were oppressive for the women (and also the men) that he practised his desires on. However, it does seem possible that between consenting partners, the power games, and role-reversal games that this area suggests, are unlikely to be oppressive, even if they do involve men. It is ridiculous to describe all heterosexual acts as oppression, even when partners consent and gain pleasure from such relationships. In conclusion, it would seem that Bell Hooks is correct in suggesting that, The suggestion that the truly feminist woman is lesbian…sets up another sexual standard by which women are to be judged and found wanting. All women can be feminists, as the struggle for equality with men does not mean having to give up on all men, but instead to challenge male power. Angela Hamblin, asking the question “Is a Feminist Heterosexuality Possible?” suggests the following points as crucial guidelines in challenging male power in individual sexual relationships: Men have no ‘right’ to our bodies Being sexual/sensual/affectionate with a man does not mean we have agreed to have sexual intercourse with him It is a violation of our ‘right’ to bodily integrity for a man to pressure us (by any means) into sex If a man has sexual intercourse with us against our will he has committed rape If a man subjects us to any kind of unwanted sexual attention he is guilty of sexual abuse We have no obligation whatsoever to meet men’s sexual demands/needs In long-term relationships (including marriage) we have no duty whatsoever to satisfy the man’s sexual needs by providing him with regular sex It is not ‘natural’ for the man to initiate, control and determine everything that happens sexually between us We will only engage in forms of sexuality/sensuality which enhance our pleasure and do not oppress us Only when these feelings become the norm will heterosexual relationships be as such that women are not oppressed. Many women today already think in this way, and there are men out there who are capable of “political integrity and working against their own interests”. Those who are not will soon see that women are demanding relationships as equals, and will not tolerate anything else. The ‘truly feminist’ woman is one that demands equality with men in all areas of her life, regardless of who she chooses as a sexual partner.SORRY, NO BIBLIOGRAPHY WAS SUPPLIED WITH THIS ESSAY