F2M

After reading Halberstam's writing on transgender butch I was made aware of the rapidly growing cases of transgendered people. I also did not realize how our society is so obsessed with the need to catalogue people. As of now there are apparently several different "classifications" and more that are even unknown so the standard never completely represents everyone which is problematic; therefore, we should be less concerned with categories and more concerned with an all inclusive society. As we have discussed earlier there is confusion with gender and a person’s biological sex making this article that much more confusing. I honestly don’t understand how people that are trying to deconstruct the socialization of sexuality can classify themselves as trans”gendered” because the word gender is already implying that they are accepting society’s notions of what femininity/masculinity are. I do agree with the author when she said, "masculinity of course is what we make it." If a little boy tells his mother that he feels trapped in the wrong body, he has already been socialized. I feel like it is the responsibility of the parent to tell their child to embrace their innermost desires and thoughts as their own and not contradictory of their physical bodies. Why don’t the parents inform their child that it is ok to feel that way without having to change their actual sex as if they have to validate their true identity? Once again gender roles are affecting families in that, for example, little boys feel trapped in the wrong body simple because they feel more comfortable in a dress and playing with dolls. Instead of advocating these gender roles being lined up with the “appropriate” sex, the parents should accept the behaviors in its current state (a little boy in a dress playing with dolls while keeping his penis) instead of perpetuating the confusion or need to be accepted.

Labels Hurt

I am in agreement with RADICALLESBIANS on labeling. Labeling of any kind is detrimental to the health and survival of the human race. Labels like lesbian, faggot, and gay, are no different than labels like African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American. They are all used to indorse everything that is considered unacceptable to the established norms. The standards for these established norms are set by a European patriarchal thought process.

The authors of the article believe that labeling women who do not fit the male identified description of what a "real woman" is or how a "real woman" acts drives a wedge between women as a whole. It is sad to say but most "heterosexual" labelled women take the side of the male who have placed their "male identifiers" on women as a whole. Heterosexual labelled women feel that they cannot have a true woman relationship with another woman who is labelled a "Lesbian." If you ask the "heterosexual" labelled woman why she has a problem being friends with the "lesbian" labelled woman, her answer will involve reasons derived from a male identifed thought process. (ie: I just have nothing in common with a woman that doesn't want a man in her life.)

The above statement is far from the truth. The "heterosexual" labelled woman has created division based on a sexual categorycreate by men. If her blindfold was removed she would discover that she and the "lesbian" labelled woman share economic, health and environmental disparities which she does not share with her male counterpart. At the end of the day, women, regardless of the labels placed on us, share a common bond. That bond will allow us to destroy the dehumanization we all share.

Enemy of the State

The article, The Woman-Identified Woman, by RADICALESBIANS was a very great piece that I believe could be correlated across academic disciplines. The article addressed the societal stigma on lesbians. Lesbians are basically enemies of the state or society because lesbians defy the normal role that society perpetuates through media, books, and various vehicles of communication. Lesbianism exists in a patriarchal society where there are clear sexual divisions and sex roles. As a result, lesbians are alienated and are lonely. A lesbian has no peace and cannot accept herself because society doesn’t accept her.A lesbian’s love and acceptance by other women is her liberation. RADICALESBIANS write this article in order to expose the fallacies in the NOW movement. The NOW movement divides women according to their sexual orientation and in return RADICALESBIANS assert that women are perpetuating male stereotypes and ideas.

 

Sex roles dehumanize women by requiring that women become the supportive caste that support the master sex, men. In a society where men do not oppress women and where humans operated on their emotions there would be no heterosexuality or homosexuality. I thought that the point that raises the idea that women are afraid of being called lesbian was clever. The authors proceed to say that

 

I also agree with the author when she said that women who are independent from men are viewed as  “invisible, pathetic, inauthentic, and unreal” (pg. 241). I thought about the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”, where George Stewart wishes he had never existed. When he and the angel visited his wife she was a librarian and single. The angel called her an “old maid”. I was so upset after watching that because it subliminally suggested that her life was horrible without George and as a single woman. This movie definitely has undertones of how patriarchy permeates in society.

 

I disagree with the RADICALESBIANS on the point toward the end of the article that states that women who have husbands will never achieve liberation. I believe that marriage and heterosexual relationships give women the opportunity to influence men. I agree with the RADICALESBIANS’ argument that state that women should not be preoccupied with pleasing their husbands. I believe that it should be 50/50 exchange where women express their concerns as well and help change the men’s psyche. If women are isolated from men like the RADICALESBIANS’ argument suggests then there will be no opportunity for change. Towards the end of the article, I believe the RADICALESBIANS were saying that women should deny their heterosexuality in order to achieve self-love and acceptance as women. I think that this argument is contradictory because RADICALESBIANS said toward the beginning of the article that human should not deny their sexual feelings and orientation. Overall, I believe the basic principle of women thinking with their own minds and ideas will help them achieve liberation. It is important even dealing with race that the oppressed avoid perpetuating the thoughts of the oppressors.

lesbians in socity

“Women Identified Women” , was very interesting. The author gave me new a new viewpoint on the visualization of lesbians. A lesbian is the range of all women condensed to the point of explosion. She is a women who, often beginning at an extremely early age, acts in accordance with her inner compulsion to be a more complete and freer human being that her society-perhaps then, but certainly later-cares to allow her. After reading this selection I viewed homosexual women as women who happen to be lesbians. I was very unaware of the emotional side (so to speak) of being a lesbian in society. It is very true that (generally speaking) society places several stereotypes on lesbians. I believe the author was trying to get across to her readers that the term lesbians just describes the sexuality a women prefers and does not identify how they are.
This reading also gave a standpoint that lesbians challenge heterosexual men. I don’t believe this is done on purpose however I believe this was the author’s view of how men see homosexual women. Instead of the term lesbian being used to describe a women’s sexual preference, the term lesbian is used to create a negative depiction of a homosexual women.

The Woman-Identified Woman

I was taken aback while reading The Woman-Identified Woman and coming to the realization just how encompassing and suppressing the role of gender can be. I’ve witnessed on several occasions just how the accusation of being a “dyke” has the power to stifle many women’s actions. It’s disheartening to read how we as women are not only willingly conforming to the acceptable role of women in society but also disengaging and abandoning our sisters who can’t or won’t fall in line and follow as well.

The subjugation of women is unfortunately worldwide but I wonder if women would be more proactive about the gender situation if there were some example to follow or precedent already set. Women being disconnected from being able to wholly identify with oneself isn’t some the can be swiftly remedied, being that the foundation our alienation is deeply apart of all of us. Are we just so complacent and unwilling to try? Combating this oppression appears so daunting, hopeless to even attempt. But even something as little as acknowledging that we’re all “real” women, authentic despite how society would want us to label one another is a good first step on our way to achieve “maximum autonomy in human expression.”

Reconsidering and redefining our ideas about gender

After I finished the last reading of the three required articles for class, I realized the common link between them was their investment in recreating or destroying the socially and culturally created ideas around gender. In the articled titled “The Woman-Identified Woman”, the Radicalesbians discuss the obstacles lesbians face while trying to carve their own space in a society that only values women who do not deviate from socially and culturally imposed standards of womanhood. In fact, the article also suggests that the term “lesbian” was the creation of men “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” (240). In addition, the article also places the use of the word within the context of a heterosexual society. The word “lesbian” or “homosexual” for that matter, would probably not be necessary in a society with “rigid sex roles.”

The rigid sex and gender roles that have dominated many cultures are now insufficient. The world is no longer entirely heterosexual, in fact it never was. Homosexual, transgender, and transsexual communities are becoming more visible and proper terminology and explanations are inadequate to completely describe and distinguish them. In Judith Halberstam’s article titled, “Transgender Butch: Butch/FTM Border Wars and the Masculine Continuum” and a piece from Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , both scholars discuss the discrepancies surrounding gender identities. In Halberstam’s piece, she focused more on the transsexual and transgender communities. However I could not really relate. The terms flew over my head and I was having difficulty figuring out the differences between the respective groups myself. But after reading Butler’s piece I felt that I found the common thread amongst all the articles. In her piece she gives numerous definitions of gender including the following: “Gender is… a construction that regularly conceals its genesis… an action of gender re quires performance that is repeated … is also a norm that can never be full internalized (502-503). Many people look at transsexuals, homosexuals, and transgender people as “Other” and we compare them against the heterosexual standard, assuming that it is the original and that transsexuals/transgendered persons are really homosexuals imitating heterosexual relations. But using the example about people who dress in drag really clarifies that idea that our ideas of sex and gender are not as clear and distinct as we like them to be. In the article she introduces a three important terms: anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender performance. Society expects women to have the anatomical sex of female, gender identity of women, and gender performance of women also. But the example surround drag destabilizes the idea that these terms are coherent and absolute. A male dressed in drag may have the anatomical sex of males, gender identity of men, and the gender performance of females. The confusion this example will present in the mind of many people only further emphasizes the point I am trying to make: gender is not clearly defined, even in our American society that thinks it has clearly defined it.

"Is she a butch or lipstick lesbian?"

Halberstam writes, “I was trying to talk about the ways in which desire and gender and sexuality tend be remarkably rigid.” We often associate butch lesbians with sagging pants or lipstick lesbians with lace and frills, just as gay men are often divided into those with muscles and those with purses. Butler points out that “such acts, gestures, enactment generally construed are performative in the sense that the essence or identity that they otherwise purport to express are fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means.” Therefore, an individual’s desire to act in a certain way does little, or nothing, to dictate their self-identification as a homosexual. Whether one takes hormones or not does not determine her level of being a woman or being a man. It seems that heterosexuals have consumed themselves with trying to expose “are you gay” and homosexuals have consumed themselves with trying to figure out “How homosexual are you?” or even “what are you?” I was shocked to read that some lesbians view female-to-male transgendered women as traitors or that FTM consider butches (who prefer to dress like boys but not take hormones) as punks, who are scared to really make the change. Halberstam identifies this behavior as “border wars” between butches and transsexuals. It seems it would be better to let individuals come up with titles for themselves, because few individuals are totally stone butch, transgendered, lipstick lesbians, soft book or androgens. It is astounding how much energy our society puts into labels.

Butler and Halberstan’s readings have really changed the way that I have considered sexuality. Questions such as, “Are you gay or straight?” have always crossed my mind when meeting someone new. If they were gay they could be followed by thoughts of “Is she butch or femme?” or in the instance of a homosexual man “Is he a top or a bottom”. These readings have broadened my conception of sexuality to extend beyond the boxes that society has created to identify levels of homosexuality and now such questions, as those listed above, seem trivial and superficial.

Am I the only one?!?

I strongly get the feeling like I'm the only one that has a hard time understand the readings in the book for class. Again I started this reading with the same puzzled President Bush expression.

Ok well now to my blog. Hopefully it has to do with what I think I read... I think it does...

From the beginning of From Gender Trouble: Frminism and the Subversion of Identity I read the first two 3 pages four times over and over trying to make sense of what it was talking about. Still not necessarily knowing if I have a clear understanding of the article I stumbled upon when the author Judith Butler refers to Freud's "civilization" as the "destruction of the body" She then goes on to say that "forces and impulses with multiple directionalities are precisely that which hisotry both destroys and preserves through the entsehung (historical event) of inscription." From this Ms. Butler says "as 'a volume in perpetual disintegration.' the body is always under siege, suggering destruction by the very terms of history. And hisotry is the creation of values and meanings by a signifying practice that requires the subjection of the body." While reading this I instantly thought of how either my sophomore or junior year when FMLA took quotes from songs demaning women and posted them all over campus raising the awareness. When Ms. Butler said that the body is always under siege I referred to the black female body interpreted in rap and hip hop songs and how the songs are demaning, degrading, and almost in a sense putting the black female body in danger.

I strongly appreciated the part on "inner" and "outer" worlds pertaining to other forms of identity-differentiation. Ms. Butler stated that "for inner and outer worlds to remain utterly distinct, the entire surface of the body would have to achieve an impossible impermeability." Therefore, almost having the body explode from the inside due to the filth "it' fears.

Through out this reading I almost kept fading in and out it almost seems based upon the fact that there were part I understood and parts that I didn't that. I thought if I kept reading then it would all tie itself together in the end. For the most part it did and many issues were not. From this one question I had was on the first page Ms. Butler says "This 'body' often appears to be a passive medium that is signified by an inscription from a cultural source figured as 'external' to that body".... didn't quite understand that... anyone know what it means?!?

What is a Woman?

Historically haven't men always set their own definitions and explanations for our lives as women? Just the word woman is proof enough... woMAN? After all weren't we created because Adam was lonely, he wanted someone to play with so God made u. Haven't we always been seen as an afterthought? Just like in the ads we watched the second week of class, women are seen as objects of sexual desire for MEN and when we can't provide that then we are told to feel less than a woman. What does it mean to be a woman? Is it what the Radicallesbians define as simply being fucked by a man? So therefore if women chose other women as their sexual partners what does that make them? Is there another sex for homosexuals and lesbians? Why should sexual orientation have anything to do with the sex of a person, isn't gender just a socially defined category in the 1st place? And if we truly consider ourselves feminists how can we turn away from our sisters just because they have a different sexual orientation. If we do this, than we're giving men the power over our lives that we've been trying to take back from them since this movement started. The only way that we can truly consider ourselves free women is by making our own rules and definitions and to stop defining ourselves and what it means to be a woman based on a man's ideals. Regardless of sexual orientation, of being a lesbian, butch or transgendered, I feel if we all chose to personally define ourselves as women, then we should all be apart of this movement together as opposed to chastising each other and claiming that one is more of a woman than the other. After all the personal is political right?

Last Name Lesbian...

When referring to the word "lesbian" one would define a lesbian as a woman who is sexually attracted only to women.  This socially constructed word was formed on the basis of male oppression.  Titling someone as a lesbian continues to promote male superiority in order to diminish women being equal to men.  This view of lesbianism is from my feminist perspective which aims to promote equality of choice for all women, without being dictated by men.  On the other hand, when referring to someone as a lesbian from my personal perspective which is influenced by my upbringing, a light bulb instantly  pops up, as if I must hesitate to speak on it. 

 My understanding of lesbianism and its place in society has been looked down upon.  With my Christian upbringing being a lesbian is considered wrong based on the bible promoting only man and woman relationships.  This is still my belief for the sexual relationships for human beings, but I vow to never discriminate people whose sexual orientations differ from mine.   

After reading "The Woman-Identified Woman" by Radicalesbians I found the generally accepted definition of lesbian to be inadequate.  I do believe that a lesbian is attracted to only women, but I also believe we can expand the definition of lesbianism farther than only that.  I believe lesbians are risk takers who are free to follow their hearts in the face of social oppression.  Being in a battle of being accepted by society versus going against the grain and having an "unacceptable" sexual orientation is the daily challenge for lesbians.  This challenge doesn't only occur in the life of lesbians.  It is also the challenge of women as a whole.  Women are constantly aiming to be accepted in today's society.  The socially acceptable view of a woman is to be a nurturer, specifically to a man and her family.  This does have its place, but a woman who chooses to be her self without being linked to a man she is looked down upon.  So the woman who is a lesbian and the independent woman are both on the opposite ends of the "norm."  In order to be accepted it seems like a man has to be in the equation in some fashion.  

With these thoughts I somehow drifted to the concept of the inheritance of the male last name.  In my opinion accepting the male last name is an official union between a man and woman, which is desirable.  What about the woman who is married with the hyphenated name for example Jones-Martin?  Typically society looks at this formation as if the woman runs the relationship because she chose her maiden name in addition to her husbands.  When I think about it, I could see why a woman wants her last name attached to her husbands.  There is a feeling of pride that comes with the name that you were inherited.  Who is to say if only having the male name is correct or a hyphenated name being looked down upon?  Overall we are oppressed by a male dominated society.  Until we try to escape from identifying with the oppressor, classifications will continue to arise.  

Does it matter ? and if so to who?

As a Black woman growing up in Northern California (Berkeley, San Fransisco,ie) I found it to be a culture of being free and being who you were as a person. Although most of my life until I reached of age, I was not aware of the difference of homosexuality and heterosexuality. All I was taught was that you could never be a lesbian because I was a Christian and thats all that had matter I needed to not know anything else.
When reading the essay " The woman - Indentifed woman" it brought me back to that place in which I spent my first day in Berkeley High School and was taught by a lesbian teacher who I adore to this day that it was ok as women to be who you are if you like the same sex, YES!! ITS OK !!! I was then confused dating the same sex was ok? since when? was what I was thinking. As I began to connect with this essay and really understand what message it was trying to deliver it change my mind more then just what my freshman high school teacher did.
Radicallesbians explain that as women we often times have been realted to and through men. As a society I realize that it is that we only caterogorize behavior of sex roles that as people we find to be abnormal. It was interesting to read that within the sexist society in order for a woman to be independent she was consider to be a "dyke". Why is that as women we are always placed into this masculine category in which men think as women we must live through? A "lesbian " according to men is not really a woman, so because a lesbian chooses to like another sexual orientation she is not a woman? How is it then that men can call women not real women for liking another sexual orientation but yet still find that gay men are still "men"? I'm confused. We can not straddle the fence, in the words of my grandmother ,as a sexist society we must decide if a lesbian is not a real woman then neither is a gay man a real man. Who are we to say what is real and not real?
I believe that in order for a sexist society to understand and not judge, we as people must be willing to be on one accord and understand " It is the primacy of women realting 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" (p.242) It is only with time that change will come, it took me a while to understand and fully realize that lesbians, gays, transgender, etc are all still people and whether or not I personally agree with there sexual orientation is not up to me, however I will not treat them any different then my own mother and father for it is that everyone must be shown respect and love.

All in it together...

On several occasions while I was reading "The Woman-Indentified-Woman", I found myself saying "hmm...that's deep" or "hmm...that's true" because something was stated that I could relate to. Although this article centered around the experiences of some lesbians, it actually called out to all women, which is why I appreciated the ending "It is the primacy of women relating to women, of women creating an new consciousness of and with each other, which is at the heart of women's liberation, and the basis for the cultural revolution"(242). Being a "real-woman" as was stated in this article means that you have to fit within a strict set of boundaries, and any deviation from that result in dehumanization. Patriarchy which runs rampant in our society strongly believes that "he confirms our womanhood"(241). So if our womanhood is based upon his standards then lesbians are not the only non-real women. According to his standards outspoken women, strong women, women with jobs, activist women, and educated women are not real women (at the least we all fit into that category.

A very powerful statement was made on page 241. "As long as the label 'dyke' can be used to frighten a 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". Throughout history words like "dyke" and "bitch" were used against women that threatened men because they refused to conform to their male ideals. In today's society it is not just men using those same terms, but women use them on each other. Call that a patriarchal strategy, but the creation of those terms is only dividing women and turning them against each other--leading us further away from the path of women's liberation.

Lesbians are targeted because they don't "meet social expectations" but honestly who does? So doesn't that mean that we are all in this fight together?

Gender and Existentialism

Reading the ideas Judith Butler's "From Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity" in my mind, paralleled ideas associated with existentialism. A fundamental principle of existentialism as phrased by David Banach states that "nothing outside of us can determine what we are and what we are good for, we must do it ourselves." Butlers article asserts "this 'body' often appears to be a passive medium that is signified by an inscription from a cultural source figured as 'external' to that body" (496). Analyzing both ideas represents the struggle women face in society. Although ideally we would like to be able to define ourselves for ourselves as Banach suggests, the society we live in and the cultures we are a part of have already done so for us. For example, as black women, we are generally thought of as loud and dominating. However, attending Spelman may place us in a category of a more demure, polished young lady. Existentialism realizes that one may not be able to change society's view of one's self however, the true goal is to not let society's view of one's self become one's own view of self. According to Foucault and Nietzsche, "cultural values emerge as the result of an inscription on the body, understood as a medium, indeed, a blank page" (497). Likewise, existentialism suggests that one is a blank canvas later defined by whatever picture one chooses to paint with the materials given to him. In other words, one's cultural values and ideas are represented by the inscription (picture) one creates on one's blank canvas (body).

In addition, "The Woman-Identified Woman" by RADICALESBIANS is very relevant to an issue currently being addressed on the L word. One of the characters, a black woman named Tasha has been given leave from the military because she is being investigated for homosexual conduct. As a result, she is fighting for "her life" which has been predominantly military-based. In contrast, her girlfriend Alice doesn't understand why she wants to stay in the military so badly since she is forced to be someone she's not. Their back-forth argument is reflected in the article: "These needs and actions, over a period of years, bring her into painful conflict with people, situations, the accepted ways of thinking, feeling and behaving, until she is in a continual state of war with everything around her, and usually with herself" (237). Although Tasha (as a member of the military) is in a literal war, she is also battling Alice's ideas but ultimately her fight is with herself because she has to decide if the military is worth denying who she is.

Why Must Male Egos Control Every Aspect of Women’s Lives?

A lesbian is a woman. A woman is a lesbian. Why are the two constantly defined as being dichotomous? The only distinction is their sexual preference. The RADICALESBIANS point out that both are met with oppression and limitations of their most basic roles in society. Both terms are socially constructed by males to ensure that the sexist undertones of American society persist. These sex roles function to dehumanize women by merely assigning labels to their social existence. Lesbians encounter much of the same problems as heterosexual women, yet, their efforts to combat the oppression that they face is most often done solitarily. Why must their be this divide? The time is now. We, as women, can no longer allow men to structure our livelihood and daily operation in society. It is this notion of patriarchy in society that creates a divide between women. I would actually go so far as to call it a “double consciousness,” in that lesbian women are in the midst of an internal battle between their identity as a woman and a lesbian. This internal battle manifest itself in the form a “scripted reality” that is representational of a male dominated stance. Thus, the internal essence of the woman is lost in translation, and is rather suited to satisfy the egos of patriarchal forces. Scripted reality, in a sense, that it could be looked at as the fantasies or dreams of the dominate. All this is, is a manifestation of the gender border control that formulates an individual’s gender identity. Judith Butler also attests to the fact that gender is used in way to establish and maintain specific codes of cultural coherence for the purposes of social regulation and control. As a result, there is a construction of the gendered body though a series of exclusions and denials based on the dichotomous nature of human existence. It is these prohibitions that produce identity that is based on an idealized an compulsory heterosexuality. If this is the case, where do lesbians fit in the picture? Their identity becomes categorized as “other” or “deviant” and challenges set codes of femininity and/or female existence. The assigning of labels is central to the maintaing of power.

my sisters...

The Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity reading reminded me of several class discussions in one of my courses last semester. In Black Female Body in American Literature, we often discussed, not just the Black female body, but the bodies of women in general. This reading allowed for me to interpret the body differently-- seeing the skin as boundaries and the curves as codes of cultural coherence (497). I appreciate the discussion of AIDS and how its viewed at a pollution that invades the boundaries. I agree with notion that many people in this era still believe AIDS in merely a homosexual disease. Heterosexuals are not exempt! All the stereotypes about the disease and the lifestyles of homosexuals need to be squashed. These stereotypes were also seen in the Transgender Butch reading. Many people are uneducated about what it is truly like to feel like you were born into the wrong body. Halberstam's explanation of the conflicts between the butch community and the FTM community was unique. I didn't know what FTM stood for, so I researched the definition. I, like many others, tend to forget about transgender Females to Males. I normally think of males transforming into women. I learned about the FTMs.
My favorite reading...
The Woman- Identified Woman was an interesting piece. Although some of the creative language caught me for a minute, I was able to comprehend and relate the piece to everyday life. The interpretation of how women are forced to relate to other women and themselves through male societal views made perfect sense to me. The most memorable aspect of the reading was on page 241. “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’… we are authentic, legitimate, real… [once] we are property of some man whose name we bear”. Because I am already a stubborn woman who has decided to reject many feminine roles “expected” of me, I completely agree with the above quote. I am firm in my “anti-marriage” and “anti-child bearing or caring” stance, not because I feel so oppressed by the male society I was raised in, but for personal reasons that many people over time have disagreed with. I agree, also, with the writer’s point that “as long as we are dependent on male culture for [the definition of what it means to be ‘real women’], for this approval, we cannot be free” (241) . I think it is important for us, as woman, to find our independency, and reject all the negative aspects our culture has taught us about ourselves. We should not fear or avoid our sisters or their stories just because we can’t handle the truth. We must face the oppression within ourselves and our sisters. I admire the writer’s emphasis on joining in the fight WITH our sisters.

Real Women!!!!!????!!!!

How does your sexual preferance define your social classification? When reading The Woman-Identified Woman the first thing that came to my mind was how nosey people are. I find it so intresting how on one hand we are told to mind our business, but on the other hand society goes as far as making rules and laws just to regulate someone elses life just because they dont fit into societies little box. When it comes to women in some form of fashion were are never seen as "real women". Personally speaking, i have a very close family member of mine who is a lesbian and when reading this i got an idea of some of the things that she may have gone thru and related this article to how her journey may have been. She grew up as a "tom-boy," thus already classifying her as not being a "real girl," in addition she also was a basket ball player due to that and i can only imagine how the lines of gender construction turned her life upside down. As the autor stated, the issue of homosexuality or being a lesbian is often dimissed as a "lavender herring" or i felt it as the big elephant in the room that noone talks about. As long as women use societies standards for what a "real woman" is they will continue to suffer in a sexist slavery . Men are often thought of to be the norm of society which continuously puts women in a second class status, but when deling with homophobia its seems ironic that there is still a hierarchy among such a controversial sexual category. The constant scrutinizing and bad mouthing of how one chooses to live or love behind closed doors will not change them nor will it diffferentiate them from being "real" or "fake". Before peolple decide to categorize what is right or wrong by their standards they should first reflect on themselves and their own oppression!

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T Do You Know What That Means?

I N D E P E N D E N T Do You Kno Wat That Mean Mane
She Got Her Own House
She Got Her Own Car
Two Jobs Work Hard U A Bad Broad
If U Aint On Sit Down
If U Aint On Sit Down
If U Aint On Sit Down
If U Aint On Sit Down
This reading, "The woman-Identified Woman" really got me thinking, I mean really thinking about my feeling towards marriange, what it means to be a woman, and my relationships with men. In the first paragraph the term lesbian was defined as 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". I know that I have never been the type to just go with the grain, especially at an early age. I was always the child who had straight A's on my report card, but also had teachers write "Idia asks too many questions." I remember in the third grade my teacher tried to force me to write with my right hand because that was considered the "norm". She actually used to take my pencil out of my left hand and put in in my right. Needless to say I am ambidextrous. I say all this because I don't think a woman has to be a lesbian in order to be different, or to be fed up with society. Another point that RADICALESBIANS touch upon is that the word lesbian was invented by "the Men" (wow) to use against any woman who challenges the authority of men, and in essence wants to independent of men. Am I holding back the woman's liberation movement because I want to get married? According to this group of women, the only way for women to achieve something more then "second class status" is to look to other women for the things that we normally look to men for, including sexual desires. To me, that means to become homosexual. In the words of Flavor Flav, that is a bit "dramatical" ( I know that is not a real word, but I love it anyway). I love my brothers, and I think the only way to help them is to embrace them, not exclude them like they have been for so long. Men won't be extinct anytime soon, so I think instead of trying to live without them, we should just figure out how to live with them. If not, we would be no more right then the men who believe and treat women like we are infereior to them; two wrongs don't make a right.
RADICALESBAINS have made a lot of controversial points in my opininon, but I was able to find one point that I agreed with. The fact that many people, especially heterosexual women, don't consider lesbians real women bothers me because it basically says that out of all the characteristics that make up being a woman, the chocie whether or not you enjoy having sex with men determines whether or not you are a woman. I think it's interesting because whether we want to admit it or not, times are indeed changing. This is evident in the fact that rap music, one of the most controversial forms of music today, is beginning to accept this slowly, but surely. Lil Webbie, a rap artist, has a new song out praising women who are independent. This may be a small step, but it is a step. Young boys idolize rap artists, and maybe this is what it takes in order for young boys to grow up appreciating the idea of strong women, instead of seeing them as a threat. If you ain't on, SIT DOWN!!