According to GLBTQ, an online encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer culture: 'The Radicalesbians was a short-lived but important group in the history of the lesbian and feminist movements. Its collectively-written "The Woman-Identified Woman" is a provocative manifesto that challenged all feminists to reconsider their conception of lesbians and lesbianism.
'The group, which formed in New York in 1970, at first used the name Lavender Menace in reaction to a remark by Betty Friedan, then president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), that lesbians constituted a "lavender menace" to the progress of the women's rights movement.
'A number of the original members of the Lavender Menace--Rita Mae Brown, Lois Hart, Barbara Love, and Ellen Shumsky among them--had previously belonged to the Gay Liberation Front, but had left because they felt that the organization placed a much higher priority on advancing the rights of gay men than those of lesbians.
'Although feminist groups had a less than stellar record on lesbian issues at that point, the members of the Lavender Menace believed that they might make better progress by working from within the women's movement rather than through the male-dominated gay rights movement. Several of the Lavender Menace women, including Brown, Cynthia Funk, and March Hoffman (later known as Artemis March), began traveling to feminist conferences, where they urged support for lesbian rights.
'The Lavender Menace chose the opening session of the Second Congress to Unite Women, held on the evening of May 1, 1970 in New York, to bring the issue to the fore.
'At the suggestion of Lavender Menace member Martha Shelley, the women had written a paper explaining the importance of lesbians to the women's liberation movement. Karla Jay, who also belonged to the Lavender Menace, identifies Hoffman as the "chief author," but the document was very much a group project, with a number of others helping to craft the statement.
'The Lavender Menace members placed copies of their manifesto on all the seats in the school auditorium where the women's congress was meeting, and then they staged a dramatic event. As the session was about to begin, they doused the lights. In the darkness seventeen women wearing lavender T-shirts with "LAVENDER MENACE" stenciled on them rushed in and formed a line in front of the stage.
'When the lights came back on, the Lavender Menace women announced their intention to discuss lesbian issues, and they invited others to join them. The Lavender Menace had planted some of its members in the audience to respond to this call in an apparently spontaneous display of support. The precaution proved unnecessary, however, because, as Lavender Menace member Jennifer Woodul recalled, "as soon as the floor was taken, women by droves began to come up on stage."
'Kate Millett, a chairwoman of the New York NOW chapter who was to preside at the opening meeting, had been informed by the Lavender Menace of the plan, and she encouraged the women of the Congress to listen to them.
(Rita Mae Brown in her Lavender Menace T-shirt)
'In the initial two-hour session the Lavender Menace members spoke of lesbianism and heterosexism. Over the next two days of the conference there were debates and workshops on lesbian issues. An all-women dance was also held.
'At the final assembly the Lavender Menace proposed a series of pro-lesbian resolutions that were adopted by the Congress. The Lavender Menace also called upon conference participants to join consciousness-raising groups, and some fifty women did so.
'The Lavender Menace subsequently changed its name to Lesbian Liberation and finally to Radicalesbians. Throughout its existence the group was committed to being non-hierarchical in structure and to making decisions by consensus. Inevitably, however, certain people took on de facto if unacknowledged leadership roles, causing resentments that prompted others to leave. In addition, the requirement of consensus on Radicalesbians decisions proved an impediment, as achieving unanimous opinions was often difficult.
'The Radicalesbians believed in absolute female separatism and refused to associate with men or with women who did not cut their ties to mainstream heterosexual society. They even denounced their recent ally Millett as a "collaborator."
'The Radicalesbians intolerance for gay and heterosexual men, bisexuals, and heterosexual women came to disturb certain members. Some, like Love, drifted back to the Gay Liberation Front or on to other organizations.
'Brown and Funk, two of the Radicalesbians' key members, moved from New York to Washington, D. C., where Brown would be among the founders of The Furies collective.
'By the end of 1971 attrition had taken a heavy toll, and the Radicalesbians soon disbanded.
'Despite the Radicalesbians' short existence as an organization, they have, in Jay's words, a "mythical stature" because of their bold action at the Second Congress to Unite Women, which was instrumental in bringing greater visibility to lesbians in the feminist movement. In addition, their "Woman-Identified Woman" is a classic document in lesbian-feminist history.' -- entry written by Linda Rapp
I have a copy of one of the original reproductions of this manifesto, printed on both sides of a parchment-colored sheet. I also have a beloved button, a limited run, which reads "A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explostion." It was almost indescribably liberating to see a meaning for woman that was outside the dominant group's view of us (whatever its mouthpiece). See what it means for us to define ourselves?
(This poster hung over my bed for years.)
THE WOMAN IDENTIFIED WOMAN
by RADICALESBIANS
What is a lesbian? A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion. She is 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. 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 state of continual war with everything around her, and usually with her self. She may not be fully conscious of the political implications of what for her began as personal necessity, but on some level she has not been able to accept the limitations and oppression laid on her by the most basic role of her society--the female role. The turmoil she experiences tends to induce guilt proportional to the degree to which she feels she is not meeting social expectations, and/or eventually drives her to question and analyze what the rest of her society more or less accepts. She is forced to evolve her own life pattern, often living much of her life alone, learning usually much earlier than her "straight" (heterosexual) sisters about the essential aloneness of life (which the myth of marriage obscures) and about the reality of illusions. To the extent that she cannot expel the heavy socialization that goes with being female, she can never truly find peace with herself. For she is caught somewhere between accepting society's view of her - in which case she cannot accept herself - and coming to understand what this sexist society has done to her and why it is functional and necessary for it to do so. Those of us who work that through find ourselves on the other side of a tortuous journey through a night that may have been decades long. The perspective gained from that journey, the liberation of self, the inner peace, the real love of self and of all women, is something to be shared with all women - because we are all women.
It should first be understood that lesbianism, like male homosexuality, is a category of behavior possible only in a sexist society characterized by rigid sex roles and dominated by male supremacy. Those sex roles dehumanize women by defining us as a supportive/serving caste in relation to the master caste of men, and emotionally cripple men by demanding that they be alienated from their own bodies and emotions in order to perform their economic/political/military functions effectively. Homosexuality is a by-product of a particular way of setting up roles ( or approved patterns of behavior) on the basis of sex; as such it is an inauthentic ( not consonant with "reality") category. In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.
But lesbianism is also different from male homosexuality, and serves a different function in the society. "Dyke" is a different kind of put-down from "faggot", although both imply you are not playing your socially assigned sex role. . . are not therefore a "real woman" or a "real man. " The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy, and the queasiness felt around a sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women-or those who play a female role-are held. And the investment in keeping women in that contemptuous role is very great. Lesbian is a word, the label, the condition that holds women in line. When a woman hears this word tossed her way, she knows she is stepping out of line. She knows that she has crossed the terrible boundary of her sex role. She recoils, she protests, she reshapes her actions to gain approval. Lesbian is a label invented by the Man 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. To have the label applied to people active in women's liberation is just the most recent instance of a long history; older women will recall that not so long ago, any woman who was successful, independent, not orienting her whole life about a man, would hear this word. For in this sexist society, for a woman to be independent means she can't be a woman -- she must be a dyke. That in itself should tell us where women are at. It says as clearly as can be said: women and person are contradictory terms. For a lesbian is not considered a "real woman. " And yet, in popular thinking, there is really only one essential difference between a lesbian and other women: that of sexual orientation -- which is to say, when you strip off all the packaging, you must finally realize that the essence of being a "woman" is to get fucked by men.
"Lesbian" is one of the sexual categories by which men have divided up humanity. While all women are dehumanized as sex objects, as the objects of men they are given certain compensations: identification with his power, his ego, his status, his protection (from other males), feeling like a "real woman, " finding social acceptance by adhering to her role, etc. Should a woman confront herself by confronting another woman, there are fewer rationalizations, fewer buffers by which to avoid the stark horror of her dehumanized condition. Herein we find the overriding fear of many women toward being used as a sexual object by a woman, which not only will bring her no male-connected compensations, but also will reveal the void which is woman's real situation. This dehumanization is expressed when a straight woman learns that a sister is a lesbian; she begins to relate to her lesbian sister as her potential sex object, laying a surrogate male role on the lesbian. This reveals her heterosexual conditioning to make herself into an object when sex is potentially involved in a relationship, and it denies the lesbian her full humanity. For women, especially those in the movement, to perceive their lesbian sisters through this male grid of role definitions is to accept this male cultural conditioning and to oppress their sisters much as they themselves have been oppressed by men. Are we going to continue the male classification system of defining all females in sexual relation to some other category of people? Affixing the label lesbian not only to a woman who aspires to be a person, but also to any situation of real love, real solidarity, real primacy among women, is a primary form of divisiveness among women: it is the condition which keeps women within the confines of the feminine role, and it is the debunking/scare term that keeps women from forming any primary attachments, groups, or associations among ourselves.
Women in the movement have in most cases gone to great lengths to avoid discussion and confrontation with the issue of lesbianism. It puts people up-tight. They are hostile, evasive, or try to incorporate it into some ''broader issue. " They would rather not talk about it. If they have to, they try to dismiss it as a 'lavender herring. " But it is no side issue. It is absolutely essential to the success and fulfillment of the women's liberation movement that this issue be dealt with. As long as the label "dyke" can be used to frighten 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. Until women see in each other the possibility of a primal commitment which includes sexual love, they will be denying themselves the love and value they readily accord to men, thus affirming their second-class status. As long as male acceptability is primary-both to individual women and to the movement as a whole-the term lesbian will be used effectively against women. Insofar as women want only more privileges within the system, they do not want to antagonize male power. They instead seek acceptability for women's liberation, and the most crucial aspect of the acceptability is to deny lesbianism - i. e., to deny any fundamental challenge to the basis of the female. It should also be said that some younger, more radical women have honestly begun to discuss lesbianism, but so far it has been primarily as a sexual "alternative" to men. This, however, is still giving primacy to men, both because the idea of relating more completely to women occurs as a negative reaction to men, and because the lesbian relationship is being characterized simply by sex, which is divisive and sexist. On one level, which is both personal and political, women may withdraw emotional and sexual energies from men, and work out various alternatives for those energies in their own lives. On a different political/psychological level, it must be understood that what is crucial is that women begin disengaging from male=defined response patterns. In the privacy of our own psyches, we must cut those cords to the core. For irrespective of where our love and sexual energies flow, if we are male-identified in our heads, we cannot realize our autonomy as human beings.
But why is it that women have related to and through men? By virtue of having been brought up in a male society, we have internalized the male culture's definition of ourselves. That definition consigns us to sexual and family functions, and excludes us from defining and shaping the terms of our lives. In exchange for our psychic servicing and for performing society's non-profit-making functions, 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" in our cultural lingo. We are authentic, legitimate, real to the extent that we are the property of some man whose name we bear. To be a woman who belongs to no man is to be invisible, pathetic, inauthentic, unreal. He confirms his image of us - of what we have to be in order to be acceptable by him - but not our real selves; he confirms our womanhood-as he defines it, in relation to him- but cannot confirm our personhood, our own selves as absolutes. As long as we are dependent on the male culture for this definition. for this approval, we cannot be free.
The consequence of internalizing this role is an enormous reservoir of self-hate. This is not to say the self-hate is recognized or accepted as such; indeed most women would deny it. It may be experienced as discomfort with her role, as feeling empty, as numbness, as restlessness, as a paralyzing anxiety at the center. Alternatively, it may be expressed in shrill defensiveness of the glory and destiny of her role. But it does exist, often beneath the edge of her consciousness, poisoning her existence, keeping her alienated from herself, her own needs, and rendering her a stranger to other women. They try to escape by identifying with the oppressor, living through him, gaining status and identity from his ego, his power, his accomplishments. And by not identifying with other "empty vessels" like themselves. Women resist relating on all levels to other women who will reflect their own oppression, their own secondary status, their own self-hate. For to confront another woman is finally to confront one's self-the self we have gone to such lengths to avoid. And in that mirror we know we cannot really respect and love that which we have been made to be.
As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. As long as we cling to the idea of "being a woman, '' we will sense some conflict with that incipient self, that sense of I, that sense of a whole person. It is very difficult to realize and accept that being "feminine" and being a whole person are irreconcilable. Only women can give to each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men. This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution. For this we must be available and supportive to one another, give our commitment and our love, give the emotional support necessary to sustain this movement. Our energies must flow toward our sisters, not backward toward our oppressors. As long as woman's liberation tries to free women without facing the basic heterosexual structure that binds us in one-to-one relationship with our oppressors, tremendous energies will continue to flow into trying to straighten up each particular relationship with a man, into finding how to get better sex, how to turn his head around-into trying to make the "new man" out of him, in the delusion that this will allow us to be the "new woman. " This obviously splits our energies and commitments, leaving us unable to be committed to the construction of the new patterns which will liberate us.
It is the primacy of women relating 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. Together we must find, reinforce, and validate our authentic selves. As we do this, we confirm in each other that struggling, incipient sense of pride and strength, the divisive barriers begin to melt, we feel this growing solidarity with our sisters. We see ourselves as prime, find our centers inside of ourselves. We find receding the sense of alienation, of being cut off, of being behind a locked window, of being unable to get out what we know is inside. We feel a real-ness, feel at last we are coinciding with ourselves. With that real self, with that consciousness, we begin a revolution to end the imposition of all coercive identifications, and to achieve maximum autonomy in human expression.
copyright (C) 1970 by Radicalesbians. All rights reserved.
(Photo by Ellen Shumsky [a.k.a. Ellen Bedoz], one of the authors of The Woman-Identified Woman. This photo originally appeared in Motive, 1972, the lesbian/feminist issue edited by The Furies.)
Read More...
Summary only...
Posts
