The Feminist Review

I’ve been hearing about these “two extremes” in the Church of the Brethren (CoB) recently. I have two responses: 1) I reject this assertion, and 2) I celebrate the extreme I am told I inhabit.

First, I contest the assertion that there are two equal or similar extremes within the CoB. Sure, there are people who strongly believe that God is happy that people are lgbtq and straight, while others strongly believe that God is aghast that some people are lgbtq. Strongly believing something does not necessarily make one an extremist. There are people who believe that it is wrong to be lgbtq who are extremists – people who say that a congregation should be punished for asking Annual Conference to discuss a 28-year-old decision. That sounds pretty extreme to me. There are people who say that lgbtq people and allies are being led by the devil or are overtaken by evil. That sounds pretty extreme to me. There are people who stalk and photograph conference attendees who visited the Womaen’s Caucus booth. That sounds pretty extreme to me. There are people who send death threats to lgbtq church leaders and their allies. That sounds pretty extreme to me.

Now I hang out with some rather radical progressives, and I have never – not even in our private, uncensored spaces – heard anyone suggest that someone else be punished for their beliefs, or that the Devil is controlling them. I don’t know of anyone who strongly believes that lgbtq people are fully worthy of God’s love who stalks and catalogues the people who visit the Brethren Revival Fellowship booth – even though, if anyone had reason to fear the opposition it is lgbtq people and their allies, the ones receiving death threats – NEVER sending them. These two “extremes” are not even equal players: decades ago a seat at the table was given to the Brethren Revival Fellowship, but many homophobic (and undecided) Brethren have refused to allow lgbtq folks a place in their churches, a booth in the Annual Conference exhibit hall, or a place in the “body of Christ.” (Thank God, it’s not actually up to them!) Read more »

Filed under: conferences on July 19th, 2011 by Anna Lisa | 2 Comments »

Sarah Hoagland’s article “Why Lesbian Ethics?” is a celebration of the lesbian-only (and therefore women-only) space that exists within the philosophical and cultural realms of ethics. Hoagland argues that this lesbian-only space should be recognized and developed. The thinking and living that happens within this space can only happen in a space without men (gay or straight), and, generally, without straight women either. She explains why this is necessary, writing:

Lesbian separatism certainly informs my work, including the ideas that (1) separatism is a no-saying to male parasitism and a withdrawal from the dominant/subordinate, man/woman relationship;( 2) protectors are not essentially different from predators;(3 ) a feminist agreeing to defend women’s rights is actually coerced into solidifying status quo values that make women’s, but not men’s, rights debatable in a democracy; (4) heterosexuality provides a legitimation of all forms of domination, most especially the exploitative and paternalistic justification of imperialism;( 5) separatism is a focusing on lesbians and a lesbian conceptual framework from which new values can and have emerged. (Hoagland, 196)

Hoagland does not particularly explain these ideas, likely assuming that her audience will already be familiar with these tenets of lesbian separatism. This article appears in Hypatia, a journal of lesbian thought. While I was initially reluctant to fully grant these points (particularly #4), on a second read I realized the deep truth of each. I am not sure how to incorporate point #3 into my own feminist work, but am grateful that I know realize I need to. I appreciate that Hoagland dives right in to her subject, not apologizing or tip-toeing. She is acting on point #5, focusing on a lesbian conceptual framework.

Hoagland offers a helpful example of the fresh conceptual framework possible within a lesbian-only space.

Before the women’s liberation movement began, women’s anger was madness. When a woman got angry, men would discount the anger by saying, “You’re so cute when you get angry” or “The bitch is crazy.”After the women’s liberation movement got under way, women’s anger became a righteous response to male domination. Men went right on saying the same things, but by coming together in a movement and focusing on each other, women as a group created a different context and stopped referring to men’s values and perceptions of women. (A similar phenomenon occurred as Blacks as a group focused on each other, ignoring white definitions/perceptions of blackness.) Tragically, that women’s anger has become once again taboo or psychological (therapized, especially among women), which suggests that the context of the movement has been co-opted and patriarchal disciplinarians and professionals have reasserted their control. (Hoagland, 200) Read more »

Filed under: articles on November 29th, 2010 by Anna Lisa | 2 Comments »

I was surprised to see the cover of the 2nd printing of Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde. Both versions were published by Crossing Press, which has published a long list of books that I want to read – all about natural healing, sexuality, spirituality…good stuff!

The old cover (left) is certainly dated. The picture could be much larger, since images are generally more eye-catching than words. But why switch to the drawn image on the new cover (right)?

The woman on the new cover is not Audre Lorde. Her neck is long and skinny. Her cheekbones are ridiculously sharp, and her eyes are unnaturally large. Her nose is long and thin. These changes make the woman more traditionally “beautiful” than the real Audre Lorde. They also make the woman look like an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic of a person, rather than Lorde, a contemporary Black american. The full lips and twisted hair of the drawn woman still note her “Blackness.” She is looking up and askance, almost batting her eyelashes at the tall man standing in front of her. Did Crossing Press even read Sister Outsider?

Crossing Press published 200 Ways to Love the Body You Have in 1999. What about the body (and face) of Audre Lorde? There are plenty of other pictures of Lorde available, if Crossing Press wanted a fresh cover for the second edition.

Incidentally, Crossing Press was bought by Ten Speed Press in 2002, so I suppose I can’t really write a letter of complaint to anyone.

Filed under: books on November 25th, 2010 by Anna Lisa | No Comments »

What light does “The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought” by Patricia Hill Collins (in The African American Studies Reader, ed. By Nathaniel Norment, Jr., 2001) shine on the questions of women-only spaces?

Patricia Hill Collins argues that both the content and method of meaning-making in the dominant Eurocentric, masculinist world of thought are oppressive to black women, as well as simply inadequate.  Accurate knowledge about black women is unlikely to ever come from “within a white-male-controlled academic community because both the kinds of questions that could be asked and the explanations that would be found satisfying would necessarily reflect a basic lack of familiarity with black women’s reality” (170). Black women scholars can only be welcomed into the dominant world of ideas/academia if they swallow any truths that contradict the findings of the Eurocentric, masculinist body of knowledge, because this inconsistency is a threat to dominant truths (and thereby the knowledge validation process that affirmed these truths). A black women-only scholarly space, therefore, results by necessity as these thinkers are squeezed out of dominant academia, in which credentials are controlled by white male academicians (170). This space is also necessary because an oppressed group’s “lack of control over the apparatuses of society that sustain ideological hegemony makes the articulation of their self-defined standpoint difficult” (168). Read more »

Filed under: articles on November 24th, 2010 by Anna Lisa | No Comments »

I read Audre Lorde’s Sister Outsider to find some wisdom regarding women-only spaces, and of course I found both support and suspicion. Many of the essays and speeches in this collection are focused on the constructive power of difference. Women in a space of their own can explore the differences between them, but also must remain in conversation with men in order to make the most of the differences among all, as well.

Lorde does identify many, many aspects of patriarchy that keep women from their full potential. A women-only space would allow women to be interested in their own fullness and destiny, allowing them to explore what they are capable of. Men’s presence is a necessary limitation on women, given patriarchy’s hold on society, expecting women’s energy to be used in the service of men before themselves.

“As women, we have come to distrust that [erotic] power which rises from our deepest and nonrational knowledge. We have been warned against it all our lives by the male world, which values this depth of feeling enough to keep women around in order to exercise it in the service of men, but which fears this same depth too much to examine the possibilities of it within themselves. So women are maintained at a distant/inferior position to be psychically milked, much the same way ants maintain colonies of aphids to provide a life-giving substance for their masters.” (53-54 – Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power) Read more »

Filed under: books on November 23rd, 2010 by Anna Lisa | 4 Comments »

Continuing an investigation of women-only spaces

Formation

In the book Like Water for Chocolate by Laura Esquivel, the ranch is a women-dominated space, though not a women-only space, as there are male workers on the ranch. While the De La Garza family is comprised only of women at the beginning of the story, Pedro is a family factor from the start – and soon marries into the family, as well. Still the family’s house – and importantly, its kitchen – is primarily occupied by women.

The home and family would not have been women-only without the death of Juan De La Garza. No one chose his death any more than he and Mama Elena chose not to have sons, so this women-only space came to exist through chance – or more likely for this story – fate. Though there is no official rule against men occupying the house or the kitchen (and in fact, Pedro does throughout the story), cultural gender roles, along with Mama Elena’s rules, keep the kitchen primarily women-only. These norms aren’t questioned by any of the women, though Gertrudes would certainly appreciate more interaction with men, and Tita would appreciate more interaction with Pedro. Read more »

Filed under: books on November 1st, 2010 by Anna Lisa | No Comments »

I have watched Fried Green Tomatoes dozens of times, so it’s hard to know how to begin a feminist analysis. I’m going to stick with my consideration of women-only spaces. While friendships between women, especially one-on-one, do not really fit my intended “women-only space” category, they are so foundational to Fried Green Tomatoes that I am going to discuss them in this post anyway.
Friendship of Ninny and Evelyn
Formation
• The women became friends by coincidence (or fate, or whatever) as Evelyn was rejected by her aunt-in-law and Ninny was wondering alone.
• There is no reason that only women can be in this friendship, but no one else is invited or tries (though if Ninny moves in with Evelyn, Ed will be a significant part of their relationship). Of course, Ruth and Idgie are part of this friendship, in absentia.
• Their friendship often focuses on “women’s” issues, including menopause, motherhood, social relationships, body image, etc.
Role in their lives
• They have weekly get-togethers.
• The friendship provides company for two lonely people, as well as a way to see outside themselves in their previously rather “small” lives.

• Ninny is able to share from her age and experience about menopause, and life, giving her purpose as an elder.

• Evelyn’s friendships with all these women give her confidence and a touchstone; she is able to worry about something other than Ed. She develops a life of her own, beginning with this friendship of her own.

• The friendship is acknowledged by both to be very significant. Read more »

Filed under: movies on October 25th, 2010 by Anna Lisa | No Comments »

I believe that the most important and fundamental part of feminism is that women (and all) believe that women are full, whole human beings. I believe that women-only spaces are ideal for demonstrating this to women, by their very nature.

These are the questions I will use to unpack the women-only spaces in many of the movies and literature that I engage for this blog.

Formation

• What led to the existence of this space?
• Why can only women be there?
• Is it the women’s choice that they, and only they, are there?
• Are there things about the space, other than its occupants, that make it “feminine” or women-oriented?

Role in their lives

• How often are the women there?
• What role does it play in their lives?
• How significant is the space to their lives?

Effect

• Does the space affirm and empower women? Do they love one another?
• Does the space contribute to women’s relationships with themselves and one another? With men? With the broader world?
• Does the space teach women that they are full and whole human beings?

Women have come into male spaces in male ways because that is often the only option. Women need to be able to enter all spaces with a full, whole sense of their womanhood—their selfhood.

Freedom should not be fully individual without attention to others – women know this. Christianity speaks to this (though of course it is often problematic). Women can offer the world a lesson on sacrifice – including the nuances of pitfalls and pain.

A marginalized group must be focused on its own wholeness, rather than finding equality with the center group. This is how they can make themselves their own center, rather than always giving the center its normalized, powerful position.

It is essential for men to occupy “women’s” spaces or quality will never  be realized.

While there are many constructive comparisons among various margins and centers, one disanalogy between black/white and women/men relations is that women and men share many more physical spaces and their lives are more constantly intertwined. Segregation between genders happens in psychological, intellectual, etc. spaces as much as physical.

Women are more inclined to defend and perpetuate oppression in order to maintain harmony with men they love. It is much harder for women to find their own spaces for internal consciousness and growth. Lesbianism has its own merits, but one way that it dismantles patriarchy is by offering opportunities for women-only spaces.

Women-only spaces in film and literature:

Real Women Have Curves

Fried Green Tomatoes

Like Water for Chocolate

Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde

The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought by Patricia Hill Collins

Why Lesbian Ethics? by Sarah Hoagland (actually about lesbian-only space)

Do you have suggestions for literature, films, etc. that offer insights on the role and power of women-only spaces? Contact us with your suggestions!

Filed under: uncategorized on October 23rd, 2010 by Anna Lisa | No Comments »

Elizabeth Berg’s The Handmaid and the Carpenter was a shocking disappointment. I have been reading Berg’s novels for 15 years, beginning with the sorrowful, inspiring Talk Before Sleep. I was excited to read this “Christmas book” exploring the human drama of Mary and Joseph. I credit Berg with much of my emotional education, and was sure she would bring nuance and depth to Mary and Joseph’s characters.

In fact the characters weren’t particularly original, but my real concern is the entrenched patriarchy that Berg describes, but does not unpack – let alone criticize. Consistently throughout the story Joseph lusts after Mary’s body, but frustrated by her ferocity and divine vision for her life. Mary is strong and capable, but continually shrinks to let Joseph be the pair’s decision-maker.

I really thought that the big deal Berg makes out of Joseph’s controlling nature (she mentions it frequently) was a build up to some moment of transformation. While he does come to appreciate his daughters’ curiosity and confidence, and therefore stops resenting Mary’s, he never understands her to be his equal. Read more »

Filed under: books on October 19th, 2010 by Anna Lisa | No Comments »

Newsweek’s Julia Baird believes that Sarah Palin should be allowed to call herself a feminist for some truly ridiculous reasons. You can read her full editorial here, and I’ve listed her 6 points below. While I would never say that someone is “not allowed” to use a word, I would certainly say that I do not consider Sarah Palin to be a feminist. Only the first of Baird’s 6 reasons makes any sense to me. 1. Because, let’s be honest, feminism is a broad church.

The following 5 seem to reflect Baird’s self-defeating introduction to her article, which she re-states in point #3: Because isn’t it just a little bit cool that suddenly people want to be feminists again?

I would be thrilled if Sarah Palin inspired and empowered her female followers to believe in their own dignity and full humanity. Perhaps something in her Mama Grizzly rhetoric will strengthen these women’s self-esteem, but it is still in the traditional, narrow context for women – motherhood. Certainly it is positive for women to claim their own power, but Baird’s 2nd point:2. Because it will force us to properly scrutinize the Mama Grizzlies, the term Palin uses for politically active Republican women, which connotes fierceness, strength, danger—and size. Size? Is Baird really saying that Palin could expand women’s comfort with their own bodies? With the fact that they take up space? I simply cannot imagine it, since Palin’s popularity is firmly grounded in her own “traditional” good looks, which are dependent on her thinness. Read more »

Filed under: articles on October 17th, 2010 by Anna Lisa | No Comments »