Subject: "Heterophobia" Thread, Women's Studies List (5/15-5/20, 1996)
Below is a discussion thread from the Women's Studies List (WMST-L) that began with a posting by Daphne Patai, author of the book _Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the World of Women's Studies_. Patai is currently soliciting participants in a study she is conducting for an upcoming book, _Heterophobia_. The responses to her initial posting continued for the next five days and provided some provocative reading.
Scott Kerlin
================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:43:35 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: DAPHNE PATAI
Subject: heterophobia
Comments: cc: DAPHNE PATAI
I am working on a book about the feminist turn against men. It
seems to me that somewhere along the line the criticism of
patriarchal institutions derailed into a real, visceral, and in
my view counterproductive antagonism toward men and a consequent
intolerance toward women who insist on associating with them. I
call this phenomenon "Heterophobia"--the fear of difference, of
the "other"--and I have regretfully concluded that this is no
media invention inspired by "backlash," but a persistent strain
within North American feminism (and women's studies programs).
Homophobia may be the problem in the world at large; but
within feminism the problem is heterophobia. I am interested in
exploring why hetero feminists seem to have acquiesced in this
stigmatizing of their sexual desires and intimate relationships --
-- and I would like to contact heterosexual women
to discuss the tensions they may have experienced between being
heterosexual and being feminists. I'd also like to contact
lesbian feminists who see men as significant figures in their
lives (whether as friends, relatives, or sometime lovers), to
talk about their views of the heterophobia that has developed
within feminism over the past few decades. If you're interested
in discussing this subject (by correspondence or eventually by
phone), please contact me by e-mail, below, or snail mail (Dept.
of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Massachusetts, Herter
Hall 416, Amherst, MA. 01003). Any time over the summer is fine.
Thanks. Daphne Patai
--
======================
Daphne.Patai@spanport.umass.edu
================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 15:53:41 -0600
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Chris Jazwinski
Subject: Re: heterophobia
On 5/15/96 Daphne Patai writes:
>I am working on a book about the feminist turn against men. It
>seems to me that somewhere along the line the criticism of
>patriarchal institutions derailed into a real, visceral, and in
>my view counterproductive antagonism toward men and a consequent
>intolerance toward women who insist on associating with them. I
>call this phenomenon "Heterophobia"--the fear of difference, of
>the "other"--and I have regretfully concluded that this is no
>media invention inspired by "backlash," but a persistent strain
>within North American feminism (and women's studies programs).
It is really unfortunate in my opinion when labels are used to create false
realities and pseudo phenomena. In particular, the use of a word like
"phobia" creates the illusion of some sort of medical diagnostic category.
Because it has that medical ring to it, many people, particularly the
reader of popular or pop psychology literature assumes that it is true. Of
course, one can sell a lot of books this way, but is it valid or scholarly,
hell no.
There are women who are angry at men and sometimes they have a good reason
to feel that way. (Look at the rape statistics, for goodness sake). Anger
can be productive, because it is i signal to the individual that something
is wrong and that some action ought to be taken for purposes of
self-preservation. It is important for women to feel that anger is
healthy. What is not healthy is aggressing due to anger, or not going
beyond anger to more productive solutions. But anger is necessary. What
is happening here is that there is an attempt to take anger away from
women. As it is, women have been socialized to not get angry (unladylike
and bitchy). Anger is certainly a most threatening emotion in any
oppressed group, whether the "uppity" Black person or the "bitchy" woman.
As my 5 year old son recently said when comparing red ants to black ants:
"Red ants bite, but black ants don't. Black ants are so friendly that they
let you kill them."
It's a good thing that there are some feminists around who can get wise to
the continued efforts to take anger away from women!
Chris Jazwinski, Ph.D Department of Psychology St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498 http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~jaz
================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:32:20 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Gail Dines
Subject: Re: heterophobia
I travel around the country doing lectures at different universities. I
also go to many conferences and hang out with long-term feminists who
continue, against all odds, to do great activist work. To paint feminists
as a bunch of man-hating women is to give plenty of fuel to the mainstream
press who love nothing more than a caricatured vision (especially
when providied by other women) of what we as feminists are about.
Have you ever wondered why women like Sommers and Paglia
end up with media time while the rest of us are denied
access to "the free market place of ideas". The press
are going to love this book. Gail Dines
================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 16:45:11 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Carolyn Feser
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To:
The problem of the us-them dicotomy or heterophobia began with the
patriarchy. This fear of others is a backlash. The poor unfortunate
alpha male! He's being picked on! We do need to overcome the
dualisms. but, it is hard to feel sorry for the creator of the monster.
Peace, CArolyn Feser
On
Wed, 15 May 1996, Chris Jazwinski wrote:
> On 5/15/96 Daphne Patai writes:
>
> >I am working on a book about the feminist turn against men. It
> >seems to me that somewhere along the line the criticism of
> >patriarchal institutions derailed into a real, visceral, and in
> >my view counterproductive antagonism toward men and a consequent
> >intolerance toward women who insist on associating with them. I
> >call this phenomenon "Heterophobia"--the fear of difference, of
> >the "other"--and I have regretfully concluded that this is no
> >media invention inspired by "backlash," but a persistent strain
> >within North American feminism (and women's studies programs).
>
>
> It is really unfortunate in my opinion when labels are used to create false
> realities and pseudo phenomena. In particular, the use of a word like
> "phobia" creates the illusion of some sort of medical diagnostic category.
> Because it has that medical ring to it, many people, particularly the
> reader of popular or pop psychology literature assumes that it is true. Of
> course, one can sell a lot of books this way, but is it valid or scholarly,
> hell no.
>
> There are women who are angry at men and sometimes they have a good
> reasonto feel that way. (Look at the rape statistics, for goodness sake).
> Anger can be productive, because it is i signal to the individual that
> something is wrong and that some action ought to be taken for purposes
> of self-preservation. It is important for women to feel that anger is
> healthy. What is not healthy is aggressing due to anger, or not going
> beyond anger to more productive solutions. But anger is necessary. What
> is happening here is that there is an attempt to take anger away from
> women. As it is, women have been socialized to not get angry (unladylike
> and bitchy). Anger is certainly a most threatening emotion in any
> oppressed group, whether the "uppity" Black person or the "bitchy" woman.
>
> As my 5 year old son recently said when comparing red ants to black ants:
> "Red ants bite, but black ants don't. Black ants are so friendly that they
> let you kill them."
>
> It's a good thing that there are some feminists around who can get wise to
> the continued efforts to take anger away from women!
>
> Chris Jazwinski, Ph.D
> Department of Psychology
> St. Cloud State University
> St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498
> http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~jaz
================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 21:55:02 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Arnie Kahn
Subject: Re: heterophobia
From: DAPHNE PATAI wrote:
>I am working on a book about the feminist turn against men. It
>seems to me that somewhere along the line the criticism of
>patriarchal institutions derailed into a real, visceral, and in
>my view counterproductive antagonism toward men and a consequent
>intolerance toward women who insist on associating with them. I
>call this phenomenon "Heterophobia"--the fear of difference, of
>the "other"--and I have regretfully concluded that this is no
>media invention inspired by "backlash," but a persistent strain
>within North American feminism (and women's studies programs).
I'm writing this to the list rather than to Daphne personally because
I think this is an issue that needs to be discussed. As a white,
heterosexual, male who has been involved in women's studies since the
mid-1970s I just have not found this true. I have served as an
officer in feminist organizations and taught and continue to teach in
women's studies and have not found "real, visceral...antagonism toward
men and a consequent intolerance toward women who insist on
associating with them." I have attended NWSA meetings and have not
found hostility toward my participation.
Perhaps I have lived a charmed life. I have found antagonism and
hatred toward men who rape, harass, and belittle women. I have found
antagonism toward men who don't listen to women but rather tell them
what they should do. I have found antagonism by women toward men who
insist that "we are all equal now, and feminist are a bunch of
men-hating lesbians." But I have not found such hatred toward men as
a group.
I'm sorry, but in my experience the attempt to label feminists and
women's studies programs as anti men is to feed into the backlash.
Arnie Kahn
kahnas@jmu.edu
================================================================
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 21:16:54 CDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Bob Bender
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <01I4QZX7OPNS8YBZQW@VAX1.JMU.EDU>
On Wed, 15 May 1996 21:55:02 -0500 Arnie Kahn said:
>I'm sorry, but in my experience the attempt to label feminists and
>women's studies programs as anti men is to feed into the backlash.
I want to support Arnie Kahn in his comments. My experience very much
corresponds to his and that of a great many of my female colleagues. I
have always found myself welcome in "feminist circles," have not felt
in any way discriminated against at NWSA. Terms like "heterophobia" seem
to me to be manufactured to play into the backlash. Why is it that
we have to engage in the same argument over and over again? To stand up
for the rights of women (or of Blacks, or of Jews, or of... you name the
group) is not necessarily to deny the rights of others. A young woman from
the former Yugoslavia came to see me the other day and wondered why she
found so many people so eager to support the Serbian position and deny
what Bosnians report. Must we forever Balkanize our experience?
Bob
*********************************************************************
* Robert M. Bender email: engbob@mizzou1.missouri.edu *
* Director of Special Degree Programs Phone: 314-882-6060 *
* Professor of English and Women Studies FAX: 314-882=5785 *
* 19 Parker Hall
* University of Missouri-Columbia *
* Columbia, Missouri 65211 url: www.missouri.edu/~engbob/ *
*********************************************************************
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 00:46:36 -0400
Reply-To: Nancy Goldstein
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Nancy Goldstein
Subject: "Heterophobia" [sic]
In addition to the (very valid) objections already raised in posts by
Chris Jazwinski and Gail Dines, I'd like to add mine: the very word
"heterophobia" suggests, as its opposite, "homophobia," when in fact
"heterophobia" is to "homophobia" as "white-male bashing" is to
"gay/lesbian-bashing"--a manupulative and reactionary appropriation of
terms and experiences that only belong, properly speaking, to the
minorities whose experiences of prejudice and brutality they were originally
coined to describe.
The day that straight white men are routinely physically terrorized, openly
discriminated against in areas from housing and employment to equal
protection under the Constitution, and become wary of walking down the
street with their arm around their "cross-sex" partner due to the
repeated (and often unacknowledged and unpunished) assaults against their
persons, I'll cede both "white male bashing" and "heterophobia" to
those who currently use them to create false binaries, false panic, and false
sympathy.
Until then, I consider both terms to be as spurious as they are hateful.
Nancy Goldstein
ngoldst@fas.harvard.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:01:00 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Barbara Barnett
Subject: Re: heterophobia
A while back, I saw a commercial for Revlon cosmetics on TV in
which a woman said something to the effect that "I think we should
declare the war with men over." I had no idea there was any need
for armistice since I didn't know there was a war going on in the
first place!
Who are the heterophobic women? Maybe I, too, live a charmed life
because I certainly don't know them.
While I greatly respect Daphne Patai's work, particularly her work
on women's voice and oral history, I am disturbed that a book will
be written to examine feminism from the perspective of
"heterophobia." Adrienne Rich once wrote: "It is ironic, to say the
least, that the first verbal attack slung at the woman who
demonstrates a primary loyalty to herself and other women is [that
of] a man-hater. The fear of appearing or being named as a man-
hater still causes many women to deny the reality of gynephobia,
the concrete evidences of woman-hating embedded in our culture, in
language, image and act."
I'm dismayed to see another book that supports the man-hating
stereotype.
Barbara Barnett
Duke University
bbarnett@fhi.org
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:25:00 EST
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Aurore Bleck
Subject: Re: heterophobia
While I agree that the term may be too strong to describe what is
happening, I HAVE been snubbed by some feminist women because I am
sexually and socially interested in men. I have no idea how those same
women might interact with men, although I am quite sure they seek to
avoid interactions with men as much as possible.
I believe there is certainly an issue worthy of discussion, but it seems
that the situation needs careful definition and delineation because of
problems brought up in several of the posts, i.e., the eagerness of
defenders of patriarchy to use the actions and beliefs of a few to paint
other feminists with the same brush, the very large difference between the
effect that the prejudiced actions of the "heterophobic" has on
heterosexual women and all men as contrasted with homophobics' potentially
deadly actions toward gay and lesbian people.
Perhaps we should start by finding another term, perhaps something that
emphasizes the isolationist aspect of these women who prefer only the
society of women-centered women.
Aurore Bleck
ableck@nas.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:55:05 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: liora moriel
Subject: Retrophobia
In-Reply-To: <9604168322.AA832264263@nas.edu>
On Thu, 16 May 1996, Aurore Bleck wrote:
> While I agree that the term may be too strong to describe what is
> happening, I HAVE been snubbed by some feminist women because I am
sexually
> and socially interested in men. I have no idea how those same women might
> interact with men, although I am quite sure they seek to avoid interactions
> with men as much as possible.
>
At last! We are beginning to see where it's all coming from, that
viperous postfeminist backlash in which some women lash out at what they
claim are most women. And, let's not forget, very profitably so!
I have been snubbed by some antifeminist women. I have been reviled by
some heterosexist women. I always assumed that was the nature of the
bigotry beast, not something personal (qua woman) or collective (qua
women).
So I'm extremely disturbed by a purportedly academic discussion of this
newly-minted heterophobia sound-bite phenomenon (soon on Ricki Lake!) I
admit that if my first-year composition students handed me such a
"What's-at_Issue" paper I'd send them back to the research board/library.
Where's the evidence? Where's the exigence? It seems to me that these are
retrowomen doing the work of woman-panicked men. Is "equity feminism"
over? Are we in the Newer Wave of women-bashing by "real" women?
I think there's absolutely no evidence that men-hating women are the
trendy ones to document in the 1990s. In fact, I would be eager to see a
study detailing why, after 30 years of feminisms, women-bashing is the
trendy new instant-celebrity track for men-loving women!
Give us a break, Daphne and Aurore, Christine and Lynne, Camille and
sorry-I've-forgotten-your-name. There may well be documented cases of
"men-hating women" -- in fact, Valerie Solanes, who brilliantly led the
way, has been resurrected in the current film _I Shot Andy Warhol_. But
excuse me for being obtuse: wasn't the 1970s call for isolationism in the
women's liberation movement brought on by a growing realization that
women AS A GROUP were isolated from power and indeed a voice in their own
life by men AS A GROUP? As one strategy for an exit from institutionalized
women-hating, separatism made a lot of sense. It was motivated, however,
not by a hatred of men but by a love of women, by a genuine desire to
give women the chance to fully realize their potential in a setting that
would nurture rather than squash their skills.
Personally, by the way, as a woman, a feminist, a lesbian and a social
researcher/journalist, I have yet to meet that category of women that
Patai et al. wish to market at Crown Books for Father's Day. Luckily, I
also don't know personally any man who would seriously buy such a book.
Sadly, it seems that the audience for this pseudo-academic tome is other
women who feel that men might love them less if they proved capable of
screwing in their own lightbulb.
Liora Moriel
University of Maryland
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:02:00 -0800
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Nikki Senecal
Subject: Separatism was Re: heterophobia
>Perhaps we should start by finding another term, perhaps something that
>emphasizes the isolationist aspect of these women who prefer only the
>society of women-centered women.
There is one: separatist.
Nikki Senecal
University of Southern California
Department of English, MC 0354
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0354
Phone: (213) 740-2954
Fax: (213) 740-4839
Internet: senecal@chaph.usc.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:34:08 EST
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Gary Daily
Subject: Re: heterophobia
As a man who has taught a course in women's history every year since
1972 (primarily, but not exclusively, to women students); as a man
who helped to create, nurture, and grow our Women's Studies Program
at my institution (We just celebrated with pride our twenty years of
struggle, teaching, and scholarship!); as a man who was just honored
with the responsibility of serving as acting director of this very
successful, very active Women's Studies Program, all I can say (to
join the chorus) is: Where was/is the heterophobia?
In my opinion, Daphne Patai is too good a scholar, too responsible
a scholar, too much a feminist to write another "select and skewer"
impressionistic account on this subject. I'm sure she will include
in her work evidence from the Arnie Kahns and Bob Benders of the
continuing revolution. These are men who are able to
recognize righteous and constructive anger based on verifiable
evidence. As many have mentioned, another book based wholly on the
fears of those losing their grip on power and a sliver fringe trying
on garments of separatism for a season or a lifetime is really
redundant. Open any history of women to almost any page and you
will find these misleading themes being used against the women's
movement.
gary daily
History and Women's Studies
Indiana State University
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:30:41 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: DAPHNE PATAI
Subject: Retrophobia
Comments: cc: DAPHNE PATAI
Liora Moriel's nasty personal attack on all those who disagree with
her view is a perfect instance of the phenomenon she insists does
not exist within feminism. How sad.
--
======================
Daphne.Patai@spanport.umass.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:00:00 CDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Virginia Sapiro
Subject: Re: Retrophobia
I was just wondering.
When someone presents an idea and asks a question, is it really feminist for
lots of people to proceed to attack her, her motives and character, and
especially to claim knowledge of what is going on in her mind and what
intentions she has? Seems a pretty effective way of making sure the voices of
those touching controversial or unpopular topics are silenced.
I know there's plenty of anti-feminist backlash out there, and I know the terms
in which it speaks. But feminists should also be able to ask difficult questions
among feminists without getting bashed themselves. There's been quite a cheery
lot of that going on in the last couple of days.
Virginia Sapiro
University of Wisconsin - Madison
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:02:02 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "L. Higgins"
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <9604168322.AA832264263@nas.edu>
On Thu, 16 May 1996, Aurore Bleck wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should start by finding another term, perhaps something that
> emphasizes the isolationist aspect of these women who prefer only the
> society of women-centered women.
How about "separatists"?
There's something about this thread that seems very retro to me.
***************************************************************************
*
Lisa L. Higgins
c547634@showme.missouri.edu
University of Missouri-Columbia
"I believe that unnamed truths and unconditional love will have the final
word." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
***************************************************************************
**
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:39:48 -0600
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Chris Jazwinski
Subject: Re: Retrophobia
>I was just wondering.
>
>When someone presents an idea and asks a question, is it really feminist for
>lots of people to proceed to attack her, her motives and character, and
>especially to claim knowledge of what is going on in her mind and what
>intentions she has? Seems a pretty effective way of making sure the voices of
>those touching controversial or unpopular topics are silenced.
>
>I know there's plenty of anti-feminist backlash out there, and I know the terms
>in which it speaks. But feminists should also be able to ask difficult
>questions
>among feminists without getting bashed themselves. There's been quite a
cheery
>lot of that going on in the last couple of days.
>
>Virginia Sapiro
>University of Wisconsin - Madison
I have to disagree. Daphne Patai's original post was not just "feminists
asking difficult questions". If it were than Patai would not be using
value-laden labels and over-generalizations.
In her original post Patai says:
"I am working on a book about the feminist turn against men. It
seems to me that somewhere along the line the criticism of
patriarchal institutions derailed into a real, visceral, and in
my view counterproductive antagonism toward men and a consequent
intolerance toward women who insist on associating with them.
I call this phenomenon "Heterophobia"--the fear of difference, of
the "other"--and I have regretfully concluded that this is no
media invention inspired by "backlash," but a persistent strain
within North American feminism (and women's studies programs)."
Patai is not asking the question of why SOME women or SOME feminists might
be hostile towards men. Rather she is using emotional or value-laden terms
such as:
"visceral, counterproductive antagonism"
"intolerance towards women"
"fear of difference"
"heterophobia" (use of pseudo medical terminology)
"persistent strain" (again the "disease" metaphor).
I'm sorry but I just can't agree that an innocent question was posed and
that there was critical reaction for no good reason. The kind of language
used by Patai is an example of flame bait.
Actually, I would guess that Daphne wants to gather some material for her
book, and that she is saving all of this to her hard drive as we speak.
Cheerio,
Chris
Chris Jazwinski, Ph.D Department of Psychology St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498 http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~jaz
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:16:26 MST
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Beverly Miller
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 15 May 1996 14:43:35 -0400 from
My objection to this is not to the topic but to the methodology. It seems to
me any research on "heterophobia" in women's studies ought to first be directed
toward determining whether or not the phenomenon exists, and if so, to what
degree, how it manifests itself, etc. There are a number of ways this might
be pursued and it could make an interesting research project. But Patai's
post suggests that she has already decided her thesis is true, and is looking
for anecdotal evidence in support of it. Any evidence to the contrary appears
to not be welcomed. Unfortunately, you can "prove" any thesis this way. I for
one am tired of reading books replete with anecdotes from anonymous sources
about what's wrong with women's studies programs. Their descriptons may be
accurate for some ws programs somewhere sometime (specificities are usually
conveniently lacking) but I'd sure like to see the experience of some of the
rest of us (perhaps the majority) reflected occasionally. Beverly Miller, Boise
State University
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:04:56 -0800
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Nikki Senecal
Subject: Re: Retrophobia
>I know there's plenty of anti-feminist backlash out there, and I know the terms
>in which it speaks. But feminists should also be able to ask difficult
>questions
>among feminists without getting bashed themselves. There's been quite a
cheery
>lot of that going on in the last couple of days.
Having recently undergone qualifying exams and having a friend who
underwent the same grueling torture I have this to say: Depends on your
definition of feminist. She feels that the 4 women/2 men on her committee
were unnecessarily harsh and *as feminists* these women should have been
more receptive to her (feminist) project. I, on the other hand, felt the 4
women/1 man on my committee were equally harsh, equally feminist to my
equally feminist project. But I wouldn't want it any other way. If you
cannotconvince a supposedly friendly audience, how will your work fly when
it is reviewed by not-so-friendly critics? Let Daphne know what her
audience--and aren't women's studies scholars partly her audience (she
asked us)--thinks so that her scholarship will be stronger. Do we all have
to be nice and cuddly all of the time?
Nikki
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:04:51 -0800
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Nikki Senecal
Subject: Re: Retrophobia
>Liora Moriel's nasty personal attack on all those who disagree with
>her view is a perfect instance of the phenomenon she insists does
>not exist within feminism. How sad.
>--
Feminism is in part a theory. Most of us discussing these theories are
academics and as academics we are involved in debating and creating
scholarship. In order for feminism to grow, as a theory and as a practice,
we feminists have to be allowed to disagree. I did not think Liora's
response was a "nasty personal attack." In fact, I thought she made some
very good points. Feminism should not be monolithic--that's how
separatists and "heterosexual feminists" can exist within the same
movement/theory. It seems to me, Daphne, that you are finding what you
seem to be looking for based on a shifting definition of what that "thing"
is. I hope you understand this as a need to strengthen your definition
rather than as a personal attack.
Nikki Senecal
University of Southern California
Department of English, MC 0354
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0354
Phone: (213) 740-2954
Fax: (213) 740-4839
Internet: senecal@chaph.usc.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:29:09 EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "Suzanne F. Franks"
Subject: Re: heterophobia
Regarding the thread on heterophobia:
My own experience with "heterophobia" within feminism
is a bit different from how Daphne Patai seems to be
defining it. What I find of interest are the
experiences and feelings of women (and men?) during
the process of coming to a feminist understanding
of society. I speak from my own experience (as a heterosexual
woman) and from
observations of women in my family and at work (I work
in a research lab) who would not self-identify as
feminists. Early in my transformation to feminist
womanhood, I felt very threatened by lesbian feminists
(despite my very best lifelong friend being a lesbian)
and by the mere theoretical concept of a separatist
community. I felt sure, in the beginning, that such
women were criticizing my choice to be in a relationship
with a man, were saying that I couldn't be a "real"
feminist, and that they were, as Patai characterizes it,
"intolerant" of me. Later I began to realize that
these fears arose in me because the mere existence of
women who proudly and openly chose to be lesbian forced
me to reconsider everything about my self and my relationships
that I had taken for granted as "natural" and "just the
way things are." I did not like the feeling of undergoing
such self-questioning, it was disturbing and made me angry,
and I turned these feelings back on the people whose life
experiences invoked those feelings in me. I projected my
fear and anxiety onto them as _their_ intolerance and
taking a stand against me and my life choices.
When I became more comfortable with myself and my choices,
and more aware of the constraints that had forced me
into some choices and made them seem "natural", then I
became more comfortable with being around lesbian feminists
and more able to listen to what they had to say.
I have learned a great deal about being a heterosexual
woman from listening to lesbians. It is when I feel
uncomfortable with myself that I perceive the voices
of lesbian feminists as threatening and intolerant.
I suspect much the same might be true for men struggling
towards feminism listening to the voices of feminist women
of any type.
(When I have been able to really listen, I have heard
lesbian feminists saying "here are some ways that
being connected to men in a relationship can interfere
with your ability to perceive the critiques we have
to offer of heterosexual relationships and the patriarchy
in general." This is very different from saying "because you
are a heterosexual woman you can't really be a true feminist
and see the real light as we do." The first is what I hear
when I am comfortable, the second is what I hear when I
am not comfortable with myself in a group that differs in
some significant way from me.)
I have observed the same kind of reaction in women in
my family and at work when I say or do something that
challenges their carefully constructed world view.
For example, my sister once accused me of wanting and
expecting her to leave her husband and become a lesbian,
because I had left my husband and spoken openly about
the dissatisfactions of my marriage and relationships
with men in general. I see this as her projecting onto
me her anxieties about thinking critically about her life,
much as I did with lesbian feminists early in my feminist
education.
This seems to me to be the really interesting and productive
approaching to studying "heterophobia" : heterophobia as
something constructed by those who are experiencing a
dislocation between what they are learning and what they
have always believed to be true and given, constructed
and projected onto whoever or whatever it is that has
prodded them towards insight. I think this occurs when
people are making realizations or seeing things in a new
way faster than they are really ready to deal with.
I'm sorry for the length of this post, but I think this
subject might be worth exploring, if not on the list,
then perhaps Daphne Patai might be interested in looking
into this perspective as she works on her book.
I would be interested to hear the reactions of other list
members to this idea, if it seems appropriate for the list.
Suzanne Franks
sfranks@galois.fccc.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:33:23 EST
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "Gina Oboler, Anthropology & Sociology,
Ursinus College"
Subject: Re: heterophobia
Daphne --
I'm a heterosexual woman (married to the same man for 28 years). Some of
my best friends are lesbians, and I've been around feminism and lesbian
circles most of the past several decades, and oddly I feel that I have yet
to experience this heterophobia. Perhaps it's not so much prejudice against
some particular sexual preference that's the problem, but the way some
heterosexual women virtually kow-tow to the men in their lives -- even many
who think of themselves as feminists! *That* phenomenon I have witnessed
repeatedly -- often in subtle, but still identifiable, forms. I'm not
maintaining that lesbians are less capable of being prejudiced than anyone
else, but really, I have not felt it.
I hope that you'll include the experiences of people like me in your book,
and I'd be glad to be interviewed.
Do we really need all this divisiveness?
-- Gina (roboler@acad.ursinus.edu)
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:57:00 PDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "Roth, Benita (G) SOCIO"
Subject: heterophobia
I wish to address the methodological issues at stake in a book that would
wish to look at the second wave women's movement. I have researching a
dissertation on the emergence of African American, Chicana and White
feminism
in the 1960s and 1970s, and have spent a considerable amount of time with
archival material, movement ephemera -- position papers, flyers, pamphlets
etc.
I think it is crucial to state that there was a strand of "heterophobia" --
altho i'm uncomfortable with the term, since it seems to be taken to mean
"fear of men" -- in the WHITE women's movement; it is noticeably absent from
the feminism of women of color. That strand was a small, limited one, both
in scope and in time and in place. I would suggest that heterophobia was, to
the extent it existed, limited to certain small circles of feminists; it may
have made a limited appearance in later "cultural" feminism -- See Echols
work _Daring to Be Bad_.
I do not know whether or not this strand is worthy of a book. I do know that
from a methodological standpoint, I would remain thoroughly unconvinced by
any such book that was not researched in a comprehensive fashion (i.e use of
both archival and interview material, taking into account ethnic and regional
variation) and careful to contextualize the strand within the broader canvas
of feminist practice/theory/ideology. benita roth broth@soc.sscnet.ucla.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:59:52 -0700
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: brenda beagan
Subject: Re: "heterophobia"
In-Reply-To: <26051612000248@ps.polisci.wisc.edu>
like a few others, i too detect a strand of defensiveness
in this discussion.
also like others, i too think the term "heterophobia" is
not appropriate. It draws a parallel to homophobia that
is invalid, since the latter is structural and institutionalized
on a much wider scale.
yet, i also think there is some validity to this question.
and i don't think it hurts for feminists to be self reflexive,
to interrogate our own movement and the power dynamics that can occur
within the movement. To think we can never slide off into ways of
thinking/being/acting that are derived from the hierarchical world
around us is foolish.
and i do believe there is some of the intolerance toward
heterosexual feminists that Daphne Patai refers to. In fact i
know there is. I have been one of the intolerant, as have
many of my lesbian feminist friends. And amber Ault
has done an intersting examination of lesbian feminist
intolerance for bisexual women in Critical Sociology 1994.(Some
intolerance [that's not quite the right word] i happen to think is
understandable, since sometimes it can be a way of holding
each other accountable for our actions toward other women/feminists.)
I don't know how widespread a phenomenon this "heterophobia" is,
but i do think it is worth interrogating.
at the same time, i also fear the use of this information against
feminism/the women's movement. In the same way that i fear the
investigation of violence within lesbian and gay relationships
even though i also know it is necessary. Because it can be used
as a weapon against us. I have had friends study lesbian battering,
and have known them and trusted in their commitment to feminism,
which lessened my fears. I don't know Daphne Patai's work, so i
don't know where she is coming from. I hope it is a place of
commitment to the women's movement, that includes a willingness
to interrogate her own movement. i guess i am willing to wait
and see.
brenda
beagan@unixg.ubc.ca
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:30:01 -0700
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Schweitzer
Subject: Re: book on "heterophobia" in feminism
#
I found this posting a bit troubling. If it were phrased as "tension
between lesbian and heterosexual women within feminism", or "tension
between men in academe and lesbian scholars", perhaps I might not be so
worried. But the clever term "heterophobia" looks destined to live on
as a media favorite, just one more stereotype to add to the public
image of bitter manhaters.
I think I would like to see it as a scholarly article, printed in a
journal such as "Signs" where it could be open to scholarly criticism,
before I would want to see it a full-size book available for talk show
hosts and book signings at Borders.
If you do NOT want your work to be used against feminists and women
studies departments, Daphne, you need to seriously consider the way you
go about researching and presenting this topic.
My sense (from experience, not study) is that it is not so much a
problem of systemic "manhating" within women's studies departments, but
a larger problem of careless expressions of intolerance for other
people's experiences -- which is a problem not confined to women's
studies departments! It springs from the (American?) habit of wanting
to make MY experience the only IMPORTANT experience, and as such, I
think, the more serious effect is the distance between many women's
studies departments and female scholars of color, and the naivete among
some women's studies people about issues of class.
Also in my experience, callow young men (or women) often do not wish to
THINK about the issues raised in courses about feminist philosophy or
sexuality and society, and the culture of the radio talkshow host has
taught them to quickly scream "manhater!" Worse in schools with
diversity requirements I fear. I have had to deal with more than one
young man (and woman) who walked into my classroom convinced that I
must "hate" men and housewives. Except for the ones who left after the
introductory lecture, believe me, they did not LEAVE my classroom at
the end of the semester with the same impression. But that experience
does lead me to believe that a lot of the "manhater" stuff stems from
deliberately taking things out of context, or adding a context that
comes from outside the classroom. Focusing on "heterophobia" would
play right into these prejudices.
I will grant that I have seen what I consider errors of judgment (such
as the infamous posting of random names of young men on campus as
"potential rapists") -- but the media already blows these things up out
of proportion, neglecting to write about the many successful strategies
that have been used by women's organizations on campuses to deal with
this issue.
I see a book on "heterophibia" in women's studies as a perfect setup
for the game of "equal time" to "different opinions". I can just see
the op-ed page. On one side, a Lesbian scholar writing about a serious
issue such as same-sex marriage or adoption or child custody, where
discrimination against Lesbians and homosexuals is long-standing and
cruel. Next to it, of equal length, would be "heterophobia" argument
to "balance" the "pro-Lesbian" argument. Same thing with the morning
talk show appearance.
If indeed there WAS a pattern of prejudice against heterosexuality
within the literature/education on gender and sexuality, it in no way
implies that heterosexuals have been "discriminated against" by society
as Lesbians and gay men have. The term "heterophobia" is a set-up for
just such an argument to be made -- trivializing the very real effects
of prejudices against sexuality, at the same time providing a
ready-made argument for "what THEY do when you give THEM the chance."
An educated person should not walk into such a trap.
So I guess I would ONLY be comfortable with the issue you are raising
if it were discussed in the context of an overall problem within
academe (and U.S.culture) of coming to terms with experiences different
from one's own. It would be merely one subset of a much larger
problem. And I would be very alarmed by any theme that sounded like it
was "balancing" the one prejudice against the other.
The way you are presenting it now, whatever tension exists (and in my
experience, the tension that perhaps existed a decade ago has declined
considerably) is too easily turned into a straw man argument with which
to beat up on ALL women's studies scholarship and courses, and ALL
material connected with issues of sexuality and feminism, or sexuality
alone. And that would be a grievously inaccurate portrait of women's
studies -- or gender/sexuality studies -- today.
Mary Schweitzer, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of History (and women's studies),
Villanova University (on leave)
From: DAPHNE PATAI
Subject: heterophobia
I am working on a book about the feminist turn against men. It
seems to me that somewhere along the line the criticism of
patriarchal institutions derailed into a real, visceral, and in
my view counterproductive antagonism toward men and a consequent
intolerance toward women who insist on associating with them. I
call this phenomenon "Heterophobia"--the fear of difference, of
the "other"--and I have regretfully concluded that this is no
media invention inspired by "backlash," but a persistent strain
within North American feminism (and women's studies programs).
Homophobia may be the problem in the world at large; but
within feminism the problem is heterophobia. I am interested in
exploring why hetero feminists seem to have acquiesced in this
stigmatizing of their sexual desires and intimate relationships --
-- and I would like to contact heterosexual women
to discuss the tensions they may have experienced between being
heterosexual and being feminists. I'd also like to contact
lesbian feminists who see men as significant figures in their
lives (whether as friends, relatives, or sometime lovers), to
talk about their views of the heterophobia that has developed
within feminism over the past few decades. If you're interested
in discussing this subject (by correspondence or eventually by
phone), please contact me by e-mail, below, or snail mail (Dept.
of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Massachusetts, Herter
Hall 416, Amherst, MA. 01003). Any time over the summer is fine.
Thanks. Daphne Patai
--
======================
Daphne.Patai@spanport.umass.edu
From: DAPHNE PATAI
Subject: heterophobia
I am working on a book about the feminist turn against men. It
seems to me that somewhere along the line the criticism of
patriarchal institutions derailed into a real, visceral, and in
my view counterproductive antagonism toward men and a consequent
intolerance toward women who insist on associating with them. I
call this phenomenon "Heterophobia"--the fear of difference, of
the "other"--and I have regretfully concluded that this is no
media invention inspired by "backlash," but a persistent strain
within North American feminism (and women's studies programs).
Homophobia may be the problem in the world at large; but
within feminism the problem is heterophobia. I am interested in
exploring why hetero feminists seem to have acquiesced in this
stigmatizing of their sexual desires and intimate relationships --
-- and I would like to contact heterosexual women
to discuss the tensions they may have experienced between being
heterosexual and being feminists. I'd also like to contact
lesbian feminists who see men as significant figures in their
lives (whether as friends, relatives, or sometime lovers), to
talk about their views of the heterophobia that has developed
within feminism over the past few decades. If you're interested
in discussing this subject (by correspondence or eventually by
phone), please contact me by e-mail, below, or snail mail (Dept.
of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Massachusetts, Herter
Hall 416, Amherst, MA. 01003). Any time over the summer is fine.
Thanks. Daphne Patai
--
======================
Daphne.Patai@spanport.umass.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:56:54 EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Jo Ellen Green Kaiser
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <9605161829.AA29837@galois.fccc.edu>
WARNING: LONG POST (sorry!)
I wanted to agree in large part with Suzanne Franks, who suggested that
heterophobia might come from a sense of dislocation in young women who
are trying to understand feminism for the first time. I have already
replied at length to Daphne Patai; briefly, when I was a student in the
early eighties I did, personally, feel that the women who were involved
in women's studies at the university I attended were separatist and looked
down upon women who had much to do with men. This experience continued
to some extent for me in graduate school. Notably, both these institutions
were elite insititutions, where significant gender equality had been achieved.
I thus was under no personal pressure to seek out redress for gender inequality
I myself had experienced, and could not understand the motives of what
seemed my equally fortunate peers.
As I left the position of student and became empowered within the institution
to choose my own intellectual positions, I realized that I had only been
seeing one aspect of feminism and feminist theory. In my current institution,
which is not particularly elite, and has far to go in terms of institutional
gender equity, I have not found my colleagues to be "heterophobic" in the
least; we are too concerned with the basics-- with attaining gender equity
across the disciplines, with installing a good sexual harrassment policy
for our students, etc-- to fight among ourselves.
In fact, I agree with other posters that "heterophobia" is a misleading term.
As a student suspicious of feminism, I did not think the women's studies
folk were afraid of difference or the "other." On the contrary, I felt that
women's studies was too quick to embrace the position of "other," to
essentialize difference as good in and of itself. I worried that as each
group (women, gay, black, etc) claimed its own territory, we would continue
to marginalize ourselves. In short, I was a good habermasian liberal, without
even knowing it. Today, I understand 1) that feminism can take that liberal
position [vis, Benhabib] and 2) that there are radical or at least post-
structuralist positions which are not separatist [vis Butler's]. I now see
how and when we might want to claim a place at the table precisely by
demonstrating how often we--as women, as lesbians, as others-- are already
constitued as outsiders, how we can acknowledge what we have acheived and
where we are and yet the gap between this and what we still need to gain. This
nuanced sense of difference was unavailable to me, however, as a student, or,
to be more accurate, I did not know enough to look for it.
I think the phenomenon Patai terms "heterophobia," and that I think more
accurately could be termed separatism, as earlier posters have suggested,
is important for us to study insofar as it is the perception others have of
women's studies and of feminism. I would like to know why my students' first
definition of "feminism" is "man-hating," and I would like to read accounts
that ring true to my own experiences as a student. However, my experience
suggests that this phenomenon does not accurately portray what is going on
in the ws programs to which most of us probably belong today, nor in the
feminist theory to which many of us may subscribe.
Jo Ellen Green Kaiser jgkais00@ukcc.uky.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:25:44 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: the Cheshire Cat
Subject: Re: heterophobia (Another long post)
In-Reply-To: <960516.153438.EDT.JGKAIS00@ukcc.uky.edu>
I, too, have already posted a lengthy reply back to Ms. Patai on this
subject, but I agree that this "phenomena" is actually not one which is
special to feminism. I think it is prevalent in academic women's studies
departments, but only in sofar (as others have pointed out) as it is
part of a larger phenomenon in academia, and not specifically women's
studies. However, I think that it is actually part of what I find to be a
troubling trend in the humanities and social sciences which stems from a
postmodernist/relativist emphasis. What I see happening is a strong turn
against 1. Traditional liberal values (liberal feminism in WMST depts
-i.e somewhat of a sense of oh, universal equality, been there done
that, let's do difference now, but many things go in fads) in white middle
class departments. I notice that I hear much less about the value of
postmodernism in classes where at least half the students aren't white,
and there is much more emphasis in those groups on legal reform and equal
access, and much less on "difference." (Although I grant that this could
be coincidence, since I certainly have a rather small sampling to
generalize from).
2.truth: I find it ironic that in classes I have taken, any mention of
the word truth is treated with revulsion, and the immediate response is
one about how I have to be open to multiple realities and alternative
methodologies (meaning ones that do not use strigent evidence-gathering
techniques). The interesting thing about this seems to be that all these
multiple realities, rather than strengthening feminism, undermine it. If
everyone is right, and any evidence will do, then what do we have against
the patriarchy saying that they, too are right, that they're just
indulging themselves in their own reality?
This move seems to come from white middle class students (and faculty!
) not wanting to have to give up cherished beliefs when faced with women
of color or ethnicity or working class, etc, saying that the theories
(e.g. in feminism)
that these white women are coming up with don't describe their lives.
Instaed of feeling that it is perhaps necessary to examine why there is
such a disparity between their experiences, and perhaps admitting a role
in the oppression of these women, they can take refuge in "Well, that's
YOUR reality. Mine is different."
But this is certainly not a problem specific to women's studies: indeed
this really rather deeply inflexible relativism is one that I have
encountered all over the place: it simply takes a specific form in
women's studies (and not one that is "man-hating" either, that is one
thing I've *never* encountered in any department or organization I've
ever belonged to: yes, sure I've heard the occasional "men are
responsible for x evil in the world" but hey, just because you're
paranoid doesn't mean that everyone ISN'T out to get you, if you take my
meaning). Moreover it isn't by any means something encountered in
feminism in general (outside academia).
I also take issue with the idea that Liora Moriel's post was somehow "an
example" of the "phenomena" which Ms. Patai is describing. Even if there
were such a problem, and it was somehow specific to feminism, that
ceertainly wouldn't be an example of it. I didn't find her post
particularly ad hominem (or, as it were, ad feminem) and even if it were,
it certainly showed no evidence of "man-hating." I can any in case vouch for
her personally : SHe's never said boo to my partner: He likes
her. Perhaps it would be useful to listen to what she has to say: It
certainly is a dangerous move to discount criticism simply because you
don't like the presentation. In fact, presentation can often be wrapped up
with cultural cues.
I know that when I argue (and as a philosopher, I do a lot of that) I can
come on very strong: I'm Jewish and the child of an immigrant family (not
my parents, but theirs) and loud and yelling and fierce is the way
everything gets presented at home. I would think it would be odd to hear
one feminist criticise another for being a strong woman with firm views,
confidence in her point of view, and determination to put it across.
Alana Suskin
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:04:50 GMT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: helen raisz
Subject: Re: heterophobia
Will the queer theorists among us please "chime in"? I think that this
thread is missing an important distinction between "heterosexual" women who
prefer only the society of women-identified women,probably for cultural or
political reasons,
and Lesbian women who prefer the company of other women because of their
sexual orientation.
Also, are we missing the distinction between patriarchy as an institution
and the category of "men"?
>While I agree that the term may be too strong to describe what is
>happening, I HAVE been snubbed by some feminist women because I am
sexually
>and socially interested in men. I have no idea how those same women might
>interact with men, although I am quite sure they seek to avoid interactions
>with men as much as possible.
>
>I believe there is certainly an issue worthy of discussion, but it seems
>that the situation needs careful definition and delineation because of
>problems brought up in several of the posts, i.e., the eagerness of
>defenders of patriarchy to use the actions and beliefs of a few to paint
>other feminists with the same brush, the very large difference between the
>effect that the prejudiced actions of the "heterophobic" has on
>heterosexual women and all men as contrasted with homophobics' potentially
>deadly actions toward gay and lesbian people.
>
>Perhaps we should start by finding another term, perhaps something that
>emphasizes the isolationist aspect of these women who prefer only the
>society of women-centered women.
>
>Aurore Bleck
>ableck@nas.edu
>
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:30:39 GMT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: helen raisz
Subject: Re: heterophobia
Gina,
Must differences of opinion necessarily be divisive?
I hope that Daphne will take advantage of the fact that there are 4127 women
from 42 countries on this list and that our diversity should be celebrated
rather than denigrated. Where would she place the experience of nuns? They
prefer the company of women, or are forced by the patriarchy to be
separatist, but in many ways they glorify heterosexual relations intended to
procreate.
>
>I'm a heterosexual woman (married to the same man for 28 years). Some of
>my best friends are lesbians, and I've been around feminism and lesbian
>circles most of the past several decades, and oddly I feel that I have yet
>to experience this heterophobia. Perhaps it's not so much prejudice against
>some particular sexual preference that's the problem, but the way some
>heterosexual women virtually kow-tow to the men in their lives -- even many
>who think of themselves as feminists! *That* phenomenon I have witnessed
>repeatedly -- often in subtle, but still identifiable, forms. I'm not
>maintaining that lesbians are less capable of being prejudiced than anyone
>else, but really, I have not felt it.
>
>I hope that you'll include the experiences of people like me in your book,
>and I'd be glad to be interviewed.
>
>Do we really need all this divisiveness?
>
> -- Gina (roboler@acad.ursinus.edu)
>
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:54:59 -0700
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Kathy Miriam
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <199605162130.VAA09087@sjc.edu>
I don't know where to begin in my response to this discussion. ALthough
I agree heartily with some of the main responses to Daphne's
request--viz. the new-speakish, trendy and clinical term "heterophobia,"
the obfuscation of social reality (endemic misogyny as substantiated in
endless feminist research on violence and so forth) and the reversal of
the case that it is often straight women (men) who fear lesbian feminists
(feminists of all stripes) out of the fear of questioning their own
experience, there is one major piece of discussion left out, namely the
issue of opposition to men as a class (not "hating" but political
opposition, which entails naming men as agents of patriarchal
institutions, as central to feminist analysis. I am concerned with the
lack of hesitancy with which feminists on the list have protested that
they have male friends and that they know of few feminists who have no
male friends. Whether this is the case or not, i think we need to look
at our motives for making this claim, for making this a focus of our
response to Daphne (Sommmers, Roiphe, Paglia etc). ONe of the first
posters was on target when she addressed teh issue of feminist anger, how
expression of this anger remains crucial, and how, I would add, feminist
anger remains a quasi-taboo even in feminist contexts, especially in
academic feminist contexts perhaps. And it is taboo, or almost taboo,
because this anger clarifies that a dimension (not totality) of feminism
defined as a historical struggle for women's freedom viz a viz male
domination, is about a conflict of interests (sometimes virulent)
between women and men. Now, the question of how heterosexuality,
considered as an institution comes into this...but enough for now: Kathy
Miriam kmiriam@cats.ucsc.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:49:08 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Kenia M Fernandez
Subject: Feminism and queer/bisexual politics
Comments: cc: DAPHNE PATAI
In-Reply-To: <199605151843.OAA19713@titan.oit.umass.edu>
Daphne,
I think your project requires a very problematic methodology. As a social
scientist, I think the task of defining the operant terms ("feminist,"
"heterosexual," "heterophobia") and assessing the target population in a
scientific manner will not have good results. But seeing that you work in
a department of humanities, and so perhaps you are interested in a less
rigorous, more impressionistic analysis, I will add my two bits.
My own impression of the phenomenon you describe is that, to the extent it
ever existed, its prime has passed. There were _some_ lesbian separatists
at my seven sisters college when I first attended, in the late 70s. They
were vocal and visible, but I would not describe their position as rampant
among campus feminists or even campus lesbians. I also agree,
impressionistically, with the poster who mentioned that this might be a
white middle class phenomenon. Even in those radical days, feminists of
color have tended to reject those separatist strains (there is a sizable
literature on this).
What I find on campus now, and in progressive activists in general, is a
more prominent presence of people who self-define as queer or bisexual. I
find their anti-separatist reasoning very compelling, and much more in
line with the realities of many women's lives (this can only complicate a
methodological analysis even further, Daphne; many people are just not
ones or sixes on the Kinsey scale). Even in the movements against rape
and violence against women, where it seems reasonable to expect men to be
the object of anger, I find a more inclusive attitude towards the good
ones of their gender.
In an informal survey of my own social circle, there are plenty of sexist
men, and even misogynist gay men, but not one of the lesbians would
describe herself as a separatist, or categorically reject men or
heterosexual women. I think you have confused women's anger and
frustration against patriarchy for something else. I remain unconvinced
of your hypothesis, and suggest that you re-evaluate your position.
No doubt it would get a lot of media attention, though.
Kenia Fernandez
kmf14@columbia.edu
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:57:39 EST
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "Gina Oboler, Anthropology & Sociology,
Ursinus College"
Subject: Re: heterophobia
Helen --
I don't think differences of opinion are divisive. I think somebody
categorizing feminists, feminism, and women's studies a priori in ways
that imply they are intolerant and insistent on a narrow-minded party
line -- when such a view is inaccurate on the basis of my experience (and
apparently that of many others, from what we've seen) -- and when that view
is very likely to be lapped up by the press and create a book that gets
a lot of air time precisely *because* it will be seen as denigrating
feminism -- yes, I think all that is divisive.
Note that Daphne didn't ask, open-endedly, whether we had experienced
prejudice on account of our sexual orientation within the women's
studies community. She announced that this pernicious heterophobia
is abroad, and, in effect, asked for corroborating anecdotes. It
didn't sound like she wanted to hear from people whose experience runs
counter to her hypothesis, but I could be wrong.
We'll maybe just have to wait until the book is published to see how much
experiences like mine are reflected in it.
-- Gina
================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 22:56:25 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Dalya Faith Massachi
Subject: Re: Retrophobia
Comments: To: Virginia Sapiro
In-Reply-To: <26051612000248@ps.polisci.wisc.edu>
Thanks, Viriginia, for your post. I agree: healthy discussion is great --
attacks and claims that the concept is a "non-issue" are counterproductive.
--Dalya
-------------------------------------------
Dalya Massachi
Communication & Development Studies
Ohio University
postal address:
225 N. Lancaster St.
Athens, OH 45701
"When I dare to be powerful -- to use my strength in the service of my
vision -- then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid."
-- Audre Lorde
On Thu, 16 May 1996, Virginia Sapiro wrote:
> I was just wondering.
>
> When someone presents an idea and asks a question, is it really feminist for
> lots of people to proceed to attack her, her motives and character, and
> especially to claim knowledge of what is going on in her mind and what
> intentions she has? Seems a pretty effective way of making sure the voices of
> those touching controversial or unpopular topics are silenced.
>
> I know there's plenty of anti-feminist backlash out there, and I know the
terms
> in which it speaks. But feminists should also be able to ask difficult
questions
> among feminists without getting bashed themselves. There's been quite a
cheery
> lot of that going on in the last couple of days.
>
> Virginia Sapiro
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:46:07 +0100
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Judith Ezekiel
Subject: "heterophobia"
(With the digest + time difference, this comes a little late)
In my research on contemporary feminism in the US and France, I have been
struck by how _little_ direct hatred for men I've encountered. While
feminist consciousness generally entailed awareness of sexism, of
identifying women as a group oppressed by men as a group, this is often
abstract or about systemic oppression. Individual feminists in my studies
are very slow to actually see the manifesta tions of sexism in their own
lives and men in their own lives as agents of this system. So accusations
that we've all faced of paranoia, seeing sexism everywhere around us, seems
unfounded in this particular case.
On the other hand, there has at times been abivalence toward heterosexual
women in the movement. One tension I observed was over women in
consciousness-raising groups getting tired of supporting women who "took"
from the group for years and invested all their energy in reforming their
couple or marriage. Expecting women to break with their previous lives
required sustenance that was difficult to provide, particularly given the
energy needed to maintaining the movement.
Judith Ezekiel
ezekiel@univ-paris12.fr
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 07:19:27 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Linda Tessier
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <009A26FB.2A398320.34@acad.ursinus.edu>
I've been a lesbian feminist for 25 years. No, this is not new. I wish
that constructive feminist ideas for changing the world generated this
kind of energy. The odd thing about it is that lesbian feminists used to
be so much MORE angry and man-hating than they are now. Remember that
old thing about how they must be taking us seriously since they are going
after us? It's giving me little comfort today. I know I'm
over-generalizing--don't much care. I do prefer the company of women,
though hating men for all the horrors of the world finally eased up when
I realized that profound woman-hating sexism is not only something men do
to women. We've always been a fringy
most-everybody-thinks-we're-off-the-wall seems-sometimes-that-almost-
nobody-gets-it the-powers-that-be-keep-misrepresenting-us movement.
I've lived with that most of my life. It seems SO odd to me that anyone
would claim that NOW feminism is becoming man-hating. I'm glad we've
grown, but sometimes I miss the old days when women enjoyed the humor of
calling themselves Witch's (WOmen's?-I don't remember) International
Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell. I'm really tired of this conversation.
Anyone want to do something different? Tess (ltessier@cc.ysu.edu)
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:14:42 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Jane Elza
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To:
I think we we should also look at the individual stage of development.
Also, after I read child abuse statistics, I don't like men very much for
awhile. When I teach them, it is hard not to react emotionally. On the
other hand, the inevitable question "are there any men feminists" gives
me an opportunity to be proud of that gender. The demand that we
constantly prove our credentials as feminists may also mean that,
contextually, we speak of what separates, rather than what unites. We've
all been invited to speak and to explain feminist thought where we've been
challenged to explain how women could/should marry men and be feminist.
Our answers are usually along the lines of "individuals make arrangements
comfortable for them" "nobody said you have to give up sex or male
companionship to be a feminist" "opposition to the power structure does
not mean you give up living in the real world" "feminist marriages are
truly subversive" "raising feminist children will change the world" etc.
Among my students, it is common for them to generalize from one
experience. Many oppose womens studies because they got a Binstead of an
A or the professor "irrationally" insisted on the "she" pronoun and they
forgot. Let us not make the same mistake.
Dr. Jane Elza jelza@grits.valdosta.peachnet.edu
Political Science Dept., Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Ga. 31698
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:13:45 +0100
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "Amy L. Wink"
Subject: Perceived heterophobia
Does anyone out there have any experiences of being "perceived" as
heterophobic simply because you don't center your attention around men? How
do you change this misperception (once you discover it) or do you change
it?
Just asking.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amy L. Wink
alw7315@acs.tamu.edu
Department of English
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4227
"A Letter always feels to me like immortality because it is the mind alone
without corporeal friend. Indebted in our talk to attitude and accent,
there seems a spectral power in thought that walks alone."
Emily Dickinson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 09:43:11 -0400
Reply-To: "Deborah A. Elliston"
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "Deborah A. Elliston"
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <199605151843.OAA19713@titan.oit.umass.edu>
There's been an unsettling elision of the substantial differences between
separatism and the (appallingly inappropriate term) "heterophobia" Patai
originally asked about. Patai's original posting was, I think, about two
different things, and in order to help her understand the many objections,
concerns and outrage articulated on this list to her book-in-process,
they should be distinguished: one was man-hating (her "visceral"
antagonism towards "men"); the other was antagonism towards heterosexual
women. These are not the same thing.
It's striking to me that the responses to Patai have veered into naming
her "heterophobia" "separatism." I'm concerned that the focus on
separatism sets up a group of people (lesbian separatists) who can be
blamed for any man-hating tendencies in feminist movements. I don't think
one needs to do this in order to challenge Patai's argument; in fact, I'd
argue that blaming lesbian separatists only fuels Patai's charges, by
giving stereotyped faces to the would-be man-haters among us.
Separatism is not about hating men: it has been, and continues to be
(e.g., in lesbian separatist communities extant today) fundamentally and
primarily pro-woman; it is about forging primary homosocial ties betwen
women and revaluing women (often drawing on a cultural feminist set of
ideas). The mindset that can only see a pro-woman practice/ideology as
anti-man is an incredibly narrow and flawed one, arguably one that is
steeped in the very ideologies from which lesbian separatists are trying
to extricate themselves.
In addition to its pro-woman stance, however, separatism frequently
involves a political critique of "patriarchy," that is, a set of arguments
about women's inability to live healthy lives in a patriarchal cultural
system -- and it is this critique which has been ill-used in some of the
discussion and by Patai, the ill use being the slippage between critiques
of "patriarchy" and critiques of "men." Other subscribers have eloquently
addressed the crucial difference between the two, so I won't rehash it
here.
Lastly, I want to add my voice to the chorus of subscribers objecting to
the term "heterophobia": coining a term like that, which works by a kind
of appropriation-on-analogy with homophobia, is nothing short of
dangerous. The embedded assumption that hatred of lesbians and gays
(homophobia) is equivalent to hatred of straight people ("heterophobia")
is politically offensive AND patently false. It makes invisible all of
the structures and institutions which not only privilege heterosexuals but
which punish queers -- like the House and Senate both introducing (this
week) bills that would make lesbian and gay marriages illegal, the
on-going street violence against lesbians and gay men, discrimination in
multiple spheres, including academia (are heterosexual women denied tenure
becuase of their sexuality?)
I find the prospect of Patai's book frightening. It will be popular
precisely becuase it tells bigots what they want to hear.
Deborah Elliston
elliston@acf2.nyu.edu
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 09:59:52 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Linda Bergmann
Subject: Re: heterophobia
Comments: To: "Deborah A. Elliston"
In-Reply-To:
Throughout this discussion, "heterophobia" has been read as "anger
toward" men or heterosexuals. Doesn't "phobia" mean "fear of"? This
seems to put a new cast on the discussion. I can for example form
alliances with men without discarding my fear of the cultural and
institutional power they--and heterosexuality--can draw on. The
difficulty heterosexual feminists face--maybe--is having both love and
fear at the same time (a big issue for those of us raising sons!)
On a different, but related tack: I suppose men *can* be feminists, and
we perhaps all know some. But I've been burned too many times by men who
are feminist in theory and not in practice to discard that aforementioned
fear, a healthy fear, I think, in an inhospitable social order.
Linda S. Bergmann, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Department of Humanities
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago, Illinois 60616
(312) 567-3462
bergmann@charlie.acc.iit.edu
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:30:33 +0000
Reply-To: lxh16@po.cwru.edu
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Lila Hanft
Subject: Re: "heterophobia"
Wow, the discussion has very quickly become quite
impassioned -- although perhaps from the very beginning, in
Diane's first posting, I felt a live nerve -- as if she was
beginning a scholarly project fueled by some still very
unprocessed personal experiences (nothing wrong with that --
the personal IS political, as we all well know).
As a bisexual who moved from an accepting women's community
in a small college town to a rather "biphobic" women's
community in Cleveland, I have experienced some quite
painful rejections by lesbian women who do not feel I should
have access to the lesbian community because I "give my
sexual energy to men." So I identify with the pain in
Diane's posting. But in order to theorize this experience,
to find an "ism" or "phobia" in it, I would feel morally and
intellectually obligated to place this experience in a
larger political context, to understand the history of the
lesbian community I'm attempting to join, and understand
where its resistance to me is coming from.
Like Mary Schweitzer (who posted on this topic a couple days
ago, I think), I think that as intellectuals and professors
and scholars -- empowered by the institutions to which we
belong -- we need to be smart enough to anticipate the
negative political effects our publications can have,
especially given the political tenor of the country today. I
am all in favor of feminism's self-critical tendencies --
it's one of my favorite aspects of feminism as a theory --
but at the same time we don't want to become complicit in
the misogyny and homophobia which is more commonplace -- or
at least more virulently life-threatening -- outside of
academe.
As a white woman who has done some work helping other white
women think about deeply internalized racism and what it
means to be actively anti-racist (that is, the constant
self-examination, the willingness to be vulnerable, be
rebuffed, be told what is and isn't appropriate -- in short,
to grow), I frequently ask white middle-class women to think
carefully about (1) their high level of empowerment and
privilege relative to working-class women and/or women of
color, (2) the importance of understanding the history and
political struggles of the non-white group with whom they
most have contact and (3) the importance of recognizing the
range of attitudes and opportunities for empowerment that
exists WITHIN that non-white group.
I would recommend the same to Diane in thinking, as a
heterosexual feminist scholar with a job (this is becoming a
rarer and rarer commodity!) and a flourishing and impressive
career, about lesbian feminist both inside and outside
academia. First, it's crucial that we recognize that as
heterosexual women, our professional lives -- from job
interviews to department cocktail parties to our
presentation of sexuality topics in women's studies
classes,to our tenure reviews -- are made easier by the fact
that we don't risk being stigmatized for our choice of
lover. In fact our sexuality never even comes up in these
situations: no one is wondering if we said what we said
because we're a dyke, or if we have trouble working with
male students, etc. We have the privilege of having our
sexuality not be an issue unless we choose to make it one.
Second, before heterosexual feminists heap scorn or abuse or
clinical diagnoses upon the group of lesbian feminist
scholars, they/we (my bisexuality is making it tough for me
to choose a pronoun here: in this paragraph I'll identify as
queer) need to think through our history, and our reasons
for rebuffing or rejecting heterosexual women. I have no
doubt that some of us ARE dismissive of heterosexuals as
being less serious about their feminism, but as someone else
pointed out in a recent posting, we also see them
"kow-towing" to men, whether husbands or senior faculty, and
find ourselves left high and dry on important issues. And of
course, it would be big mistake to generalize about all
academic lesbians, since many of us like men (some of us are
secretly bisexual!), or we respect, like, and advocate for
women regardless of whom those women sleep with.
In conclusion (sorry to go on so long), I think this is
definitely a topic that needs discussion, workshops,
unifying strategies, etc. But does the topic need to be
codified as a diagnosible, static "phobia"? Do we need a
book that William Bennett can wave around as an example of
why American youth are corrupted by nontraditional college
curriculums ("At so-called 'progressive colleges' like
Amherst, your daughter's 'heterophobic' women's studies
professor can fail her unless she beomes gay!") or
conservative university trustees can use to justify not
hiring or tenuring lesbians? I think that would be highly
counterproductive, both for Diane's personal work on this
issue and for feminism at large.
Lila
------------------------------------------------------------
Lila Hanft, Ph.D.
1129 East Blvd. phone: 216.231.2728
Cleveland, OH 44108 email: lxh16@po.cwru.edu
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:14:07 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Donna Henderson-King
Subject: heterophobia
I'd like to inject a little empirical evidence into
the discussion of feminists and men. If the sort of phenomenon that Daphne
Patai refers to is, in fact, persistent in Women's Studies
programs, there is some evidence that, at least in one
large midwestern school's Women's Studies program, any supposed
antagonism towards men is not being passed on to undergraduate students.
In research I conducted with female students who were taking an
introductory WS course taught by a team of instructors, the data
showed that while these students clearly became more feminist
across the semester they did *not* become more negative towards
men. So, although these students became more feminist-identified,
more positive towards feminists, and more senstive to sexism,
they did not appear to engage in man-hating or to turn against
men as a group. This runs counter to stereotypes of feminists
as man-hating and WS courses as male-bashing sessions. Interestingly,
students who were not taking a WS course actually became less positive
towards men by the end of the semester.
Donna Henderson-King
Women's Studies Program
University of Michigan
donnahk@umich.edu
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:23:25 EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Kathy Feltey
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 17 May 1996 10:14:07 -0400 from
I hesitate adding to this discussion at this point, but feel moved to say
something about the original poster's methodological approach. I'm a social
scientist, so I may not understand the "looseness" of the humanities, but it
seems like bad form to start a project with your findings already in place.
I would certainly reject any student research that was stated in such a way.
The "best" approach (or cleanest might be a better term) would ask the question
"how pervasive is anti-heterosexuality in women's studies programs, and what
kinds of differences exist based on type of institution, type of program
(degree granting versus certificate versus some women's programming), student
composition, lesbian-bi-gay presence on campus, history of the women studies
program, racial/ethnic diversity, social class of both students and faculty,
and so forth." Of course we all have ideas about what we think we'll find
when we start a project. I ASSUME that discrimination against lesbians
happens in academia, and I even have some observations and experiences that
support that. But, without further investigating the problem that I assume
exists, and most importantly, being open to the possibility that others
experiences and observations may contradict my own, I am not conducting
research, and should not present it as such.
Kathy Feltey
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:56:37 -0700
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Schweitzer
Subject: Separatism within feminism
What a marvelous discussion!
I agree with those who would use the term "separatist" to refer to
women within the movement (past and present) who seek to create a
separatist women's culture.
I think it is not only ideologically accurate, but also historically
so. In my own experience (at the time), the separatist movement within
what was then called the women's liberation movement echoed that within
the old civil rights movement. In the mid to late '60s,
African-Americans in the civil rights movement turned to separatist
ideology both as a reaction to the betrayal of the movement by
politicians supposed to be friends -- notably, the refusal to seat the
Mississippi Summer Freedom party delegates at the Democratic National
Convention of 1964 (which meant that the National Democratic Party
openly leant support to the continuation of racist practices on the
part of the Southern Democrats with white-only local organizations) --
and also as a part of an almost therapeutic movement to enjoy,
luxuriate, in what was African-American. To be "black" rather than
"non-white".
Many of the leaders of the ideology-based, counter-culture,
"revolutionary" women's liberation movement (as opposed to the more
mainstream NOW) (as we saw it then) had earlier experience in the civil
rights movement. They saw the separatist impulse among activist
African-Americans in their age group as a useful strategy to solve
their own problems with boneheaded (can't think of a better word right
now, sorry) white male Movement leadership.
As others mentioned, a great deal of the early separatism within the
Movement in the early seventies had little to do with MEN, and
everything to do with US. That is, it was all part of a process of
learning to have respect for ourselves as women, and respect for each
other.
The separatist impulse was also a response to the subtle ubiquity of
patriarchal beliefs. Women, as defined by men, were not-men. To
define ourselves AS OURSELVES, we had to get away from those who saw us
only as who we were not.
As the language of gender in the larger society always defined women as
the subordinate "other" to the dominant male, so too the language of
scholarship was a mindfield of references to conquest. One idea
"wins", another "loses". To accept another's logic was to give up
one's own.
So for feminists, it is something of a double whammy. When you
encounter people who are skeptical of feminism, they are often ALSO
believers in power-driven models of knowledge and ideas. They may well
walk into the encounter deeply believing that if the feminist "wins"
this one, that means they have lost something. And whatever they ahve
lost MUST have to do with men, because men are the opposite of women.
The term "heterophobia" is bothersome, I think, because it exists
within this pre-set dichotomy. I would want a feminist study to use
feminist ways of knowing, ways of analysis. There is too much of the
"you win so I lose" model when feminism is defined as
something-not-friendly-to-males.
The term separatist is better because it references what it IS, rather
than what it is NOT. Hence one can talk about the origins of American
separatist ideologies, one can talk about separatism within and without
feminism, one can talk about strengths -- and weaknesses. As a
historian, most important to me is that the concept of separatism can
be placed in historical time, analyzed as it shifts, grows, changes
with shifting historical contexts. (Also the crisis it presented for
women of color -- if separatist, then with which group? -- that
ultimate led to a thicker analysis of who we all are.)
So I guess that's why many of us flinched -- felt a strong sense of
deja vu. I would argue the strength of feminism today is in the
positive, productive theories emerging from years of focussed study. I
see it as extraordinarily counter-productive to let feminism again be
defined by what it is NOT, as perceived by those who wish to make it
clear that it is not THEM.
Mary Schweitzer, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of History, Villanova University
(on leave 1995-?)
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:50:08 EST5EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Lauraine Leblanc
Organization: Emory University
Subject: Re: Perceived heterophobia
Regarding perceived heterophobia:
Once, in a class I was leading on girl culture, we were discussinf
Riot Grrrl. After reading the Riot Grrrl manifesto (or at least one
version of it), one male student asked, "Are these girls all, like,
lesbians? Do they all hate men?" Besides dealing with his lesbian-
manhating connection, I told him, "It's not that they hate men; they
just don't have any use for them." That pretty much ended discussion.
Lauraine Leblanc [llebla@soc.emory.edu]
Institute for Women's Studies, Emory University
Be strong and resist always!
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 16:09:36 EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: LAURA KRAMER
Subject: disciplines and "ways ofknowing"
I appreciated Kathy Feltey's comments on methodological approaches to the
study that Daphne Patai posted about. As a sociologist who has good :)
collegial relationships with people in the humanities (particularly in women's
studies and in science studies), I am often struck by the differences among us
in what we take as authorizing our conclusions. Kathy and other posters have
well summarized the problems I have with Patai's proposed methodology;
Iwonder
if any people in the humaniti{s would address this particular issue.
(I once asked a colleague if people in the humanities, of whom he is one, worry
about OVER interpreting. He replied with a smile (facetiously?) that that was
the goal!)
If this has been addressed already, I apologize; I've missed some of the
thread. {
Laura Kramer
kramerl@alpha.montclair.edu
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:38:28 EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Rosa Maria Pegueros
Subject: Heterophobia
I have been weighing whether to add to this discussion or not but since I have
not seen similar comments (though they may have been there and in my haste, I
may have missed them).
W.H. Auden said that we need orthodoxy to keep us honest. Having worked in
many activist movements during my life, I have seen--not only among lesbians
and/or feminists, but in every movement, folks on the polar ends of
movements
who will brook no compromise, for whom every communication with other
side is
collaboration with the enemy.
These extremists seldom represent a serious constituency within a movement,
but
they are, to some extent necessary, so that those in the middle don't go
too far to the other side. To take an example from within feminism:
Valerie Solanis was an extremist; she was the ONLY member of her "group"
--SMUT, was it?--I forget. She garnered far more publicity than she
would have if she had been against a non-political target, bald eagles for
example. But because gender relations in our culture are so contentious, she
got a lot of publicity for forming a "group" with an eye-catching name
and attacking an avant garde celebrity. Do we, as feminists "own" her?
Generally, no; but we recognize that she represents an extreme position & an
unbalanced hatred of men that is within the realm of _possibility_ in feminism.
Her craziness is a reaction to the pathology of patriarchy, that, at its most
extreme point (and actually a lot closer in as well) hates women.
Another example: Buchanan and the Republican Right Wing.
Did he ever expect to win? I doubt it. But he is tolerated in his
extremism because those on the right and even in the middle don't want
the compromising (ie., on abortion, minimum wage) to go over to a Democratic
position.
I believe that extremists (though not of the outpost position of Valerie Sola-
nis) are located in the feminist movement; a more refined group of them is
found in some women's studies programs, and probably, in some cases, control
the agenda BUT they are not the norm. The problem with Daphne's conception
of this book is that it assumes that they are and those burned by them will
come forward to add anecdotal evidence.
No doubt they will but without some kind of quantified evidence ( based on
a formal survey sent randomly to a sampling of programs of all sizes
throughout the country, for example--and not being a sociologist, I have no
clue how one would carry out such a project), it will only represent the
self-selected disgruntled. If we could "keep" that book within women's studies
programs or in the hands of people who are feminists, it could act as
a useful accounting of some of the problems within the movement and within
women's studies programs and departments.
If people on the list are overreacting, it is because the media and the public
are incapable of distinguishing between something that is essentially an inter-
nal critique and a expose that they think will lead to the eradication of
some evil entity.
I wonder if we shall ever be, as a movement, so robust that we will not be
damaged by hanging out our linen in public. It seems to me that we have not
reached that point; that too many women are raped, molested, incested, abused
and discriminated against, and we have not reached the point where our exis-
tence as movement poses such a serious threat that the men who are doing these
things, stop for fear of our reaction. So long as we don't get to that point,
we are still fragile.
I have great respect for Daphne Patai's work and for her as a person. I have
used her books on oral history. I am worried however about the ramifications
of this newest work and how it can be used. With respect, I add my voice to
those who ask that she reconsider her approach.
......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros 217C Washburn Hall
Department of History e-mail: pegueros@uriacc.uri.edu
80 Upper College Road, Suite 3 telephone: (401) 874-4092
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817
"When a great adventure is offered, you don't refuse it."
--Amelia Earhart
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:38:41 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Diane Crowder
Subject: Re: heterophobia
I was extremely saddened to read Daphne Patai's plans for her new
book, in large part because I have admired much of her work. I take
the digest version of WMST-L and don't always read posts in the order
they were sent, so I may have missed part of the discussion, but I
want to agree with points made already by many posters on this thread.
I don't think heterosexual women are a dispised minority within
feminism, I don't think most WST programs are man-hating, and I do
believe the anecdotal methodology produces non-scholarship unworthy of
a scholar like Ms. Patai.
My reason for posting here is to refer to
one of Ms. Patai's own articles that I have found crucial to
understanding why people seize upon a few people's behavior and make
it extend to everyone within the category. That article, published in
the point of view section of the Chronicle of Higher Education (Oct.
31, 1991) is entitled "Minority Status and the Stigma of 'Surplus
Visibility.' In it, Patai discusses how when a few "minority" people
(women, racialized minorities) enter a space like the academy, each of
them acquire "surplus visibility," and they are overly scrutinized.
Patai writes, "The phenomenon has two aspects. The first concerns the
shift that occurs in public perceptions as traditionally powerless and
marginalized groups challenge the expectation that they should be
invisible or silent. For those who long have been in positions of
dominance, any space that minorities occupy appears excessive and the
voices they raise sound loud and offensive.
The second aspect of surplus visibility concerns the constant
extrapolation from part to whole that characterizes the majority's
perception of minorities. A black, a woman, a homosexual--any member
of a group seen as 'different' from the norm--is always viewed as a
token of that group, rarely as an individual representative of himself
or herself."
It appears to me from the information given by Daphne Patai in her
initial post that she is falling prey to this very
phenomenon--extrapolating from a few people to the larger group of
"feminists" or "women's studies programs, and magnifying the voices of
the minority until they seem excessive. Ironically, in this same
article, Patai castigates the conservative wielding of "political
correctness" charges against feminists, and notes that conservatives
can always find "examples of courses, journal articles, and
conference sessions whose titles are offered up as self-evident
absurdities." Since from the limited information I have Ms. Patai is
seeking anecdotal evidence, is this any different from the flawed
methodology she so rightly castigated five years ago?
Finally, to end a too-long posting, as a lesbian I am often
automatically assumed to be anti-heterosexual and anti-man even before
I open my mouth. Two years ago in my intro to women's studies course,
in a discussion about the institutionalization of heterosexuality (NOT
about hetersexual individuals, note) I was very careful to state
clearly that one's gender and sexuality had nothing to do with one's
feminist commitment, and to state that one could of course be a strong
feminist and heterosexual and male or female. Two days later, in a
different discussion, one student accused me of saying lesbians were
better feminists that hetersexual women. Everyone else in the class
said I had really said the opposite, and I reiterated my initial
statement. Despite this, the student went to the dean at the end of
the term and filed a complaint that I was "straight-bashing" and
"male-bashing" and that I had told the students they had to be
lesbians to be really good feminists! A perfect example of "surplus
visibility" operating to distort reality!
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:55:06 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Diane Crowder
Subject: Re: my earlier heterophobia post
I realized as soon as I logged off that I forgot to put my name and
address at the end of my posting earlier today (Friday). The posting
cited from Daphne Patai's article "Minority Status and the Stigma of
'Surplus Visibility.'" My apologies!
In the meantime, another poster made a point I really want to applaud:
there is no reason to assume the so-called "heterophobes" Patai refers
to are lesbian separatists, or necessarily even self-identified
lesbians.
Diane Griffin Crowder
crowder@cornell-iowa.edu
Cornell College, Mount Vernon, IA 52314 USA
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:09:48 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: DAPHNE PATAI
Subject: heterophobia discussion
Comments: cc: DAPHNE PATAI
In-Reply-To: <199605171856.LAA14026@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> from
<"Schweitzer"@May>
I would like to thank the many of you who have made valuable comments
(to the list and to me personally) in response to my query regarding
my project on Heterophobia. I agree with those who expressed concern
about research methodologies, the dangers of overgeneralization, and
the appearance of bias in scholarly projects. Let me say that I hope
you have the same concerns in pursuing your feminist objectives,
and not only in responding to critiques such as mine.
As for my apparent original bias, in the many interviews conducted for
"Professing Feminism," the book I wrote with Noretta Koertge, the
theme of heterophobia emerged again and again. We underplayed it in
that book, but it is not a preconceived idea of mine. Rather, it has
grown out of my years of experience in women's studies and with
feminism, and it is (of course) very much present in many of the most
famous feminist texts.
If any of you would like to communicate with me further on
this subject, please do so, at any time. I have learned a great deal
from this discussion.
--
======================
Daphne.Patai@spanport.umass.edu
================================================================
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 20:23:58 -0500
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Cecilia Anne Hartley
Subject: Re: Perceived heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <3A55207102@ssmain.ss.emory.edu>
On Fri, 17 May 1996, Lauraine Leblanc wrote:
> Once, in a class I was leading on girl culture, we were discussinf
> Riot Grrrl. After reading the Riot Grrrl manifesto (or at least one
> version of it), one male student asked, "Are these girls all, like,
> lesbians? Do they all hate men?" Besides dealing with his lesbian-
> manhating connection, I told him, "It's not that they hate men; they
> just don't have any use for them." That pretty much ended discussion.
As an instructor who values the voices in my classroom, dissenting or not,
I find myself somewhat disturbed by the implications of this post.
Lauraine seemes (to my perception) somewhat proud of having "ended
discussion" with her reponse to the male student's question. I don't
believe it is our jobs to have the last word with our students. Our job,
as I see it is to stimulate thought and discussion. Oftimes the knee-jerk,
stock questions our students may raise in class (i.e., aren't all
feminists lesbians?) arise out of confusion over the mixed signals they
receive from their parent, the media, their peers, etc. Turning such a
question into a chance to examine stereotypes (who benefits by
perpetuating them, etc.) seems a much more fruitful endeavor than simply
shutting down a student who becomes engaged enough to question.
Cecilia Hartley
University of Louisville
egcah@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu
================================================================
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 09:53:17 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Marge Piercy
Subject: Re: heterophobia
Re Valerie Solanis. HEr organization and manifesto was not SMUT but SCUM
Society for Cutting Up Men. I also think it is doubtful she was as crazy as
the many men and women who worshipped Andy Warhol and permitted him
to use them.
There have been many excellent posts answering Daphne Patai, particularly
the analysis of the supervisibility of minorities and the analysis of
research methodology. I fervently hope she will reconsider her project or
redefine it.
Marge Piercy hagolem@capecod.net
================================================================
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 10:17:16 -0400
Reply-To: Cynthia Harrison
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Cynthia Harrison
Subject: heterophobia
The mistake in attributing "heterophobia" to feminists it seems to me is
the same mistake as attibuting disdain for housewives to feminists.
Feminism arose *because* of the hostility between men and women -- men
despising women, whatever women did (homemakers were non-entities, career
women were "ball busters"), and women returning the favor, because they
had no choice but to rail at men since they had no power to resist the
limits on their expressions of self-hood. So you had boys night out, away
from the "old ball and chain," and women having hen parties, where they
could complain for an evening about their husbands -- "You know how *men*
are." Ick.
Feminism starts from a different principle (at least according to me):
People have authentic selves that would not derive principally from their
sex if they were permitted to develop without the chains of gender. We
want to get to that place, where both men and women will be freer. In
order to get there, we have to be conscious of the privileges and
constraints that devolve on "men" and "women" in the current situation.
That requires observing that men have access to power that women are
usually denied. Some men revel in that privilege (and make themselves
hard to bear), others resist it (or at least don't flaunt it). But
discussing power is not the same thing as hating or fearing men as
individual people.
I myself have encountered men who don't seem to understand that
feminazi is an insult; they probably would find me "heterophobic," but in
fact I usually react poorly to anyone who insults me, male or female. Once
we stop dividing the world according to sex, perhaps the (pre-feminist)
war between women and men will abate.
Thus, there continues to be hostility between men and women, between
feminists and non-feminists, between non-feminist women and non-feminist
men, etc. etc. etc. It's a problem arising from sexism, not feminism.
-
Cynthia Harrison
Associate Professor
History/Women's Studies
Funger 506G
The George Washington University
2201 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20052
telephone: 202-363-4356
e-mail: harrison@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
fax: 202-994-7249
================================================================
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 08:13:29 -0700
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Kathy Miriam
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In-Reply-To: <199605181353.JAA05625@mailhost.capecod.net>
re: valerie solanas and the issue of extremism. I agree with Marge
Piercy re: Solanas' so-called "craziness". Her SCUM manifesto is a
brilliant parody of what she calls patriarchal PR and articulation of
feminist rage. Feminists have and do "claim" her.
re: extremism. I disagree with the poster who said that the point of
extremism was to keep those in the middle from going to either pole. au
contraire! I believe that every movement *does* need a range of
positions, needs its extremism, needs its center, to stay vital. But the
point of extremism in the case of both radical (feminist) and reactionary
(eg right wing) movements is to *alter* the center, to push it to one
pole. in the case of a radical liberatory movement this means
radicalizing the center. In the case of a situation like Buchanan, a
rightist like Dole becomes seen as center! not a good situation.
Further, on the Buchanan note, I'm not so sure that the extremist never
wins! History says otherwise, unfortunately. kathy Miriam
kmiriam@cats.ucsc.edu
================================================================
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:33:00 EST5EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Lauraine Leblanc
Organization: Emory University
Subject: Re: Perceived heterophobia
In reasponse to Cecilia Anne Hartley's reponse to my post:
> As an instructor who values the voices in my classroom, dissenting or not,
> I find myself somewhat disturbed by the implications of this post.
> Lauraine seemes (to my perception) somewhat proud of having "ended
> discussion" with her reponse to the male student's question. I don't
> believe it is our jobs to have the last word with our students. Our job,
> as I see it is to stimulate thought and discussion. Oftimes the knee-jerk,
> stock questions our students may raise in class (i.e., aren't all
> feminists lesbians?) arise out of confusion over the mixed signals they
> receive from their parent, the media, their peers, etc. Turning such a
> question into a chance to examine stereotypes (who benefits by
> perpetuating them, etc.) seems a much more fruitful endeavor than simply
> shutting down a student who becomes engaged enough to question.
I want to make clear that I do not "pride" myself on shutting down
students in my classroom. What I should have first stated is
that I was *guest-lecturing,* and that this was the one day in which
the topic of gender was made central to the study of youth
subcultures in this course. Rather than dedicate the class period to
eradicating the biases of *some* of the students, I decided to proceed
with informing *all* of the students about an aspect of youth culture
which most of them had yet to encounter. I agree that the
classroom should be a "safe space" for the exchange of thoughts,
analysis, critique, etc., but it is not an arena where any iteration
of opinion should be valued, discussed, and dealt with at the expense
of the presentation of other course material. I wholly endorse the
discussion and critique of stereotypes in the classroom, and have
facilitated such discussions as well - however, I do not believe that
students should be permitted to dominate class time with the
expression of their own prejudices, or with our lengthy responses to
them, when time is short. Both as an undergraduate and a graduate
student, I sat through a number of such ad hoc discussions, even in
more advanced women's studies courses, and often felt that I was
thereby being denied the opportunity to discuss other material at
a higher level.
I believe the original post inquired about strategies to deal
with such instances of "heterophobia." Here, we clearly have
two ways of going about it. I would be very interested in broadening
this discussion to talk about strategies we can use in dealing with
other such politically-sensitive issues (such as racism
and "homophobia") in the women's studies, and other, classrooms.
Lauraine Leblanc [llebla@soc.emory.edu]
Institute for Women's Studies, Emory University
Be strong and resist always!
================================================================
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 16:53:08 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: "Jane R. Kalbfleisch"
Subject: In Praise of Man-Hating
In-Reply-To: <199605181353.JAA05625@mailhost.capecod.net>
Just a couple of other thoughts regarding we man-haters:
1. Privileging feminist hatred toward men too easily denies the
complexity of a feminist's experience with men. I, for one, hated men
just the other day, and I'd be willing to bet that feminism helped me
cultivate and articulate that hate. On the same day, however, that same
feminism prompted me to empathize with men, fantasize about men, liberate
men, ignore men, educate men, love men, understand men. The way I see it,
I can't have one without the other: I didn't have the capacity to love
men in any meaningful sense of the term until I felt empowered not to.
2. While legitimizing women's anger towards men, second-wave feminism
has--in the same breath--alerted us to the ways in which one is not born a
man. We need to question what it means to hate "men" in a cultural
climate so committed to scrutinizing sex and gender. How does what we're
calling "man-hating" compare to our critiques of the Eternal Feminine?
Contempt for the historical forms of masculinity that are currently
inscribed on the bodies of many "men" carries with it a profound optimism
about what men could or would be. It also represents, as Gallop has
argued, a "yearning to get beyond the prohibitiveness [of the Phallus] and
touch some masculine body." Wrenching the Phallus from the penis is, in
part, an act of hope and desire.
3. If, despite the reality of male privilege, you've really never hated
men, I'd suggest you try it. Dad's always a good place to start. Give
some thought to all the things you usually make excuses for (his emotional
absense, perhaps), all those things you need to ignore to believe how
great and unconventional he is. But this time don't make the excuses.
Build up a good rage and carry it around with you for awhile, at least
until it feels natural. While you're at it, note the similar behaviors in
other men (brothers, lovers, colleagues, strangers). Confront them (when
it's worth your time and effort) with the way you feel without regard for
their feelings or your image. Note the way your rage has not erased your
love for men, but has made it less obligatory.
A useful meditation on the man-hating impulse in second-wave feminism
would not simply note it (yeah, so?), nor condemn us for not being sugar
'n spice 'n all things nice (yeah, so?). A useful approach would have to
consider how the construction of emotions like hate and anger have
functioned within a range of emotions to various (and no doubt
contradictory) ends for different bodies in specific contexts.
It seems to me that entitling women to "negative" and "unfeminine"
emotions towards men is the best thing feminists could have done for dad,
men, and any possibility of a non-compulsory heterosexuality. But more
to the point, it's been good for women.
Jane Kalbfleisch
English & Women's Studies
Emory University
================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 09:59:29 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Kay Stoner
Subject: Re: heterophobia
In a message dated 96-05-18 10:19:10 EDT, Cynthia Harrison writes:
>Feminism arose *because* of the hostility between men and women -- men
>despising women, whatever women did (homemakers were non-entities,
career
>women were "ball busters"), and women returning the favor, because they
>had no choice but to rail at men since they had no power to resist the
>limits on their expressions of self-hood.
In further examination of the hostility between men and women, it might be
helpful to look at the archetypal bases for such interaction -- i.e., the
sacrifice of the male in service of the female, and male/female
rejection/embracing of those roles. Inter-gender hostilities, it seems to
me, have much deeper-rooted sources than many of us assume -- they have
ancient roots that stem from ancient meanings and rituals we've long since
lost touch with (the stag king sacrificed in the fields in springtime by the
high priestess, so that the land would be fertile and the crops would grow,
as the most pointed example). It seems to me that our society's tainted
male-female relations stem from more than superficial, recent causes. And
choosing something other than the typical battle of the sexes is actually a
choice to break with millennia-old practices of male-female interaction.
Kay Stoner
KLStoner@aol.com
================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 07:40:33 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Jane Elza
Subject: Re: In Praise of Man-Hating
In-Reply-To:
It occurs to me that the posts on this subject would make a good book or,
at least, an article, especially if joint authored from a social science,
humanities, 'hard' science perspective. Bet there's a publisher out there
for it, but, of course, it wouldn't get the coverage that any accusation
would--unless it was an accusation against the original poster. Then,
there would pages of ink and hours of air time on 'dissention within the
feminist movement/among feminists.'
I'm curious about (sorry forgot the name of the original poster) her
comment that she saw a lot of this in her interviews with women for
another book. How much of that was just "give me strength' bitching? How
much was 'just between us, their (male) opposition is getting to me?'
How much was ego or 'damn it, i've done all I can do, why can't they
(males, heterosexual women) accept me?"
I've been in the movement since the begining and am aware of tensions
between heterosexual and lesbian women, white and black, young and old,
housewives and careerwomen, and middle and working class people. So?
Dr. Jane Elza jelza@grits.valdosta.peachnet.edu
Political Science Dept., Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Ga. 31698
================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 09:34:45 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Nancy Abinojar
Subject: Re: In Praise of Man-Hating
In-Reply-To: Your message of
Mon,
20 May 1996 07:40:33 -0400
thank you, Jane. I don't understand heterophobia or whatever to be
merely the reversal, if you will, of homophobia. It just doesn't happen
like that. To say that a subordinated group can exact the same dynamics
against the dominant group by merely performing similar negative
behavior is just not so, and if that were the case, then all groups
could act and interchange equally. ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL. And if
heterophobia were true, if women snubbed other women that were male
associated, would we really blame them? I mean, think about your female
existence/reality. Think about rape, pornography, spousal/partner
abuse, inequity in the work place, sexual harrassment, female genital
mutilation, purdah, widow burning, female infanticide, footbinding, and
all the other forms of institutionalized violence against women that
has existed through the AGES. Wouldn't that make anybody just a little
wary of patriarchy and its agents.
santana@umich.edu
================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:28:39 -0400
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Bones
Subject: Re: heterophobia discussion
In-Reply-To: <199605172109.RAA11896@titan.oit.umass.edu>
I have been on this list for a few years and have seen the Hoff Summers
book appear at least three times regarding whether feminists should take
the time to respond to her. I have seen WMST participants dismayed at the
fact that she included e-conversations as research materials in order to
level generalized and often sensationalized criticisms against Women's
Studies and feminism/s. I now see the same concerns arising regarding the
"heterophobia" book. However, I believe that this is an opportunity to be
proactive about an issue that many of us have described as "tired,"
"old," and pandering to early 1970's media perceptions of feminism. Save
the e-discussion on this book and when it comes out, recall in book
reviews and academic discussions what professionals on the largest North
American Women's Studies list have said about the project before it even
saw ink. If those who are interested in generalizing and attacking
feminism instead of advancing equitable goals are using e-mail as a tool
then turn that tool around, reclaim it to ground an informed response. As
with Hoff Summers, there are many book reviews and academic discussions
awaiting this new addition to the genre. Let us not be caught wondering
whether we should respond.
Linda Wayne
Syracuse University
================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:17:51 EDT
Reply-To: Women's Studies List
Sender: Women's Studies List
From: Kathy Feltey
Subject: Re: heterophobia discussion
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 20 May 1996 13:28:39 -0400 from
My apologies if my language ("looseness" of the humanities) was offensive
to anyone; it certainly was not intended to be. I use qualitative methods in
my own research, and have women's stories in their own voice/words/language
serve as my "findings" so I am not claiming methodological superiority of one
discipline or orientation over another. And I certainly have been on the
receiving end of that type of criticism (e.g. why do you think the "subjective"
experiences of your "subjects" is "truth" or "reality" or "valid", etc.).
What I was trying to convey is that, despite methodological differences, I
don't understand how we can begin a research project stating what we want to
find and then set out to "prove" our findings. I certainly think a book on
the experiences of heterosexual women in women's studies would be interesting
-- I would be motivated to read how women's sexuality and identity influence
and shape their experiences as feminists doing the work of women's studies.
These experiences should not become the basis for "conclusions" about the
nature of women's studies programs in academia. Again, I didn't mean to set
up one more us versus them dynamic -- the problem with this type of medium
is we can't develop our positions/perspectives fully, yet we are reacting to one
another as if we have full information. Kathy Feltey
================================================================