Political Lesbian

Heterosexuality was a strong message growing up, my mother often said that her greatest joy in life was her children, and that all she had ever wanted growing up was to be a wife and mother. When I was told at 16 that I would never have children, my mother mourned, but recovered enough to learn and tell me about the fertility drugs I could one day take.  I was told that my virginity was the greatest gift I could give my husband. Those messages did not stop my father from sexually abusing me.

After his arrest and I cut contact with them I dated a few men. It wasn't fun, they were okay but after a month I was too annoyed with them to keep dating and I broke up with them. I did this about 3 times, the guys were so unmemorable, I can hardly remember their names.

 The only "guy" I could bring myself to date was an ftm, and even that had problems. I enjoyed the sex, but the posturing and the strive for masculinity was too much for me, and muscle memory and flashbacks began. Because of this I slowly began to realize that if I was having this many problems with someone that pretending to be a man, that I could never actually be with a man, and really enjoyed women. This wasn't a surprising revolution, I told my partner, that I was a lesbian, and that we needed to break up. She told me that she was having her own problems with her transition and was going to stop and detransition. We decided to stay together. 

I could have been simply a "born this way" lesbian, but to say that feels disingenuous. With my past, I have no interest in men, all I have known is violence and pain, and as a class analysis of males, that is still all I see. I can't possibly think of a reason why I would want to be with men. But as someone born in 1990, all I have ever heard is that there was a gay gene, and the digit ratio theory (which doesn't work for lesbians) and that homosexuality was not a choice but something internal. 

What that internal feeling was, I still don't know. I am very attracted to other women, but as a kid I was told that women were peers not partners. I didn't see them in any other light so I don't have any stories of "when I was younger, I just knew I was a lesbian because I had a crush on some girl". Really, I was too emotional traumatized from my home life to have a crush on anyone, that trend continued to high school. I also didn't play sports, have short hair, or wear flannel like the born this way narrative says I should have as a baby dyke. The more I hear about the born-that-way theory the more it seems to be based in the brain sex realm of science. 

If I am going to stand here and say that brain sex is a sham, saying that same-sex attraction is internal sounds strange. 

I was hesitant when I heard of the term "political lesbian", it took lots of reading and conversation. The idea of putting women first, emotionally, physically, and sexually was part of what I was doing already as a radical feminist. It seems counter-intuitive to go out and be a radical feminist activist and still go home to a man. I understand being in a situation where financially you are stuck in a relationship with a man, and I am sure there are a few good men out there. But it seems strange to me that so many of the younger radical activists are straight, and in relationships with dudes, but seem if given the chance would drop their dude and be with a woman. They all were brought up with the born-this-way argument, and like me were never told that there is an option outside of being with men unless you fit the specifications of being born a lesbian.

There is nothing to be gained politically from the born-that-way narrative except acceptance into a rotten system. That is of course what gay men want, rights like all the other men have. But for women it dead ends. If heterosexuality is just a preference like any other, then it's not the structure of women's oppression and there's nothing we can do about it. So, dead end.

Queer theorist like to talk about "heteronormativity"  but that is not the issue or the problem. The problem is that heterosexuality is a political institution that organizes male access to women. Acting as if lesbianism is an exclusive club, accessible by birth only leaves all other women slaves to men by birth. Again, dead end. As if women are biologically compelled to be subordinate? What kind of a movement can be built from there? It's ideologically closed to change.

I have heard many people say the reason they don't like the idea of homosexuality as a choice because those who oppose and discriminate based on "morals" say it is a choice. Well, they are also those that are looking for a gay gene to spare children from being born-that-way. People who oppose homosexuality as a moral objection will always counter it with something. I think it speaks more to say, "I made this choice. I like women, and I want all my energies to go to women. Why the fuck would I want to be with men?" 

That idea is political lesbianism. There are women I know who date women, but still put their energy towards men, and keeping men happy. They aren't political lesbians. These are often the same women who say, "If I could choose to be straight I would!" well, there is nothing that is stopping you from being with men if you feel that way. Again, I couldn't see any reason why I would want to be with a man, women are amazing.

What is a radical feminist analysis?

So far my favorite definition is found on the about page for the magazine, Rain and Thunder, and follows:

 A radical feminist perspective is one that is aware that:

• men, as a class, are waging a war against women

• rape, battering, incest, prostitution, pornography, poverty, heterosexuality, and gynocide are some of the main instruments of male supremacy

• all forms of hierarchy and domination, including misogyny, racism, classism, ableism, ageism, and every other interconnected oppression, must be opposed

• we must strive to eradicate domination and subordination from our personal lives and sexual practices

• organized, political resistance is necessary to make change in our local communities and the world

 I have posted this and sent this out to countless people on tumblr. The feedback was mostly, "Okay, but wtf does this mean?"

This means that radical feminism is based in class analysis. Classes are social categories that generalize experiences which, in turn, shape the identities that are used by or placed upon people in order to categorize a common narrative, including the expectations placed upon that class in society. This does not mean that every narrative in the class is the same nor that the individual will even be aware of their placement in said class. Example: A person with a late-in-life disability that is invisible to an outsider may not face the same economic disparages and street harassment that a person with a born advisability may face, despite being in the same class. There still may be cases that the person with the born disability be in a higher economic class than the person with the late in life disability, but it would seem ridiculous to say that because of that example all services and aid should be shut off to people with born disabilities. A class analysis mediates the group and gives a social scientist a base number to work from. 

Radical feminism also revolves around the idea that "woman" is a class label applied to those who are female, or have an inter-sex condition and assigned to be female, from birth. From this idea stems the roles and expectations that to women and were created to keep women as a "second-class" to men. 

Women as a class are oppressed by men, the system that has set this up is called Patriarchy. The system of patriarchy operates through the disproportionate leadership status on men, characterized by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, because of their birth-given role of femininity. Not all men benefit from patriarchy,  however those men are still ranked above women, this does not mean that some women (by virtue of lineage/wealth) do not have concrete advantages and social privileges compared to some men but they still face the effects of patriarchy. 

From birth women are taught the female role for whatever culture they belong in and that they are still below men. They are trained into beauty practices that harm them, told that they are expected to be impregnated one day, and taught that other women are not to be sexually desired by other women, that it is not so much if, but a when you will be sexually abused by a male. We receive all these messages and are told that the natural consequences are rape, (because you drank too much or dressed the wrong way, and deserve to be punished), battering (because you just didn't do what your man expected from you), poverty (because men deserve jobs and your role is to be a mother) ect. These messages are what create the condition of "womanhood" under patriarchy. 

The object of radical feminism is to address the root of all social disparity, which radical feminism addresses as patriarchy. This means that  misogyny, racism, classism, ableism, ageism, are all parts that uphold patriarchy. This is where inter-sectionalism is important, and has long been a criticism of radical feminism. This understandable that women, for example dealing with racism, that problem becomes so big, that all of their focus goes towards resolving that, while patriarchy is maintained. Women have to work together to break apart all forms of oppression, especially those of whom do not have added class oppression, to help those who do. 

Within our personal lives we need to live within a framework of radical feminism, and with the expectation that our personal actions are inter-connected with "woman-hood" as a whole. Critics of sexual practices and behaviors are not individualized, nor are those actions. When practices like, pornography are defended because "I like it for personal use", you are saying that you do not care that women in porn are raped, that pornography results in women being objectified, that women's sexuality should be marketed for the male gaze, and that you do not care about the rampant abuse and torture that is often showcased in pornography. A radical feminist analysis requires that an individual look into their actions without a cognitive dissonance to their beliefs. 

Lastly, as radical feminists we are required to take action to change the systems that we recognize. that we dismantle structures that are harmful to females, and that we break free of roles that are place upon us by our society. 

Who am I?

I am a 20 something lesbian, who a little over a year ago, could not be paid to say I was a feminist. I wanted to be "progressive and liberal", which as a Southern Californian raised, Northern Californian transplant felt natural. I wanted equality and happiness and all those fun things that come along with liberalism. 

I wasn't as feminist because why would I? Women were liberated in the 70's, and that was long before my time, and now the focus was the LGBTQIA Queer fight. That was to be my activism. I needed to end discrimination against gay men donating blood, and get marriage equality, and equal housing protections for trans women. I needed to be an ally to all my queer friends because, at the time, I was 'straight' and had 'cis' privilege. It was up to me to educate myself, and not questions the practices of a community I was only an ally to. 

I was dating men, (I thought I just couldn't find the right one) and active with the local queer community. I met a FtM and we were good friends. For a year we danced around the idea of dating, before eventually hooking up right before she moved back to Southern California. We decided to have a long distance relationship (open of course, because monogamy was too constructing for our liberalism), and that continued for about 10 months until she moved back and into the house with me. Our relation was fairly superficial and based in who we thought the other person had been online. Despite this we quickly got engaged, and played the part of the FtM and 'his' supportive girlfriend. We were both on the board of our local pride organization, and as active as we could be with 'the community'. 
However, we were both having doubts; I was quickly realizing my sexuality was not towards men and the absolute idea of preformed masculinity triggered me back to my childhood abuse, while my partner was realizing the devastating effects her 'medicine' was having on her health and questioning her identity and why she transitioned in the first place. This was in part due to an altercation with Cathy Brennan on Tumblr. My partner thought she was being snarky, which is not something I recommend doing to Cathy, and Cathy told her that it was nice that she was taking T but all that means she is a female acting stereo-typically male. The realization that she was and would never not be female, despite these layers she added to herself.
We had a sit down and chatted, realized our relationship needed to be restructured and we needed to do some self work. She began looking into radical feminist theory to explain why she transitioned and eventually did this video which Gallus Mag kindly wrote about. 

I was hesitant at first but I found Beauty and Misogyny and started reading it. Suddenly things started to make sense, and I quickly radicalized. Things just clicked. The theory felt solid. 

I found a group of young women on tumblr and started networking, I wasn't alone in radicalizing and it felt great. Until now, very little of what I have posted there is original content. I am hoping to now start forming more solid opinions, and am moving to this platform as it seems to be a bit more controlled than the ciaos that is tumblr. I have been villianised on that site for things that I did not even write, and opinions I am still mulling through. I do get messages from mostly young girls, trying to figure out themselves and their place in the world and are being introduced to radical feminist theory.  I am hoping that I can continue to help those women, while writing about topics that I often get asked about.