here are many associations people harbor when the term “feminist” comes to mind. Unforuntately, the man-hating, exclusionary, reactive feminazi archetype permeates the social realm, causing many women to abstain from using the term to describe themselves. Most of this comes from the fear of being castigated-—many an objection has been softened with the disclaimer “I’m no feminist but….” Even when speaking with some of my closest friends, young women who are politically minded, intelligent, and progressive, I often detect an aversion to the moniker, especially in their refusal to identify themselves as feminists. One of the most common protestations I hear is, “But I don’t hate men!” I usually respond to such demurs with the point that many modern third-wave feminists do not hate men; on the contrary, they seek, above all, equality among the sexes. However, I have often encountered the rebuttal: “Yeah, but you must admit, many do hate men.” Another troubling aspect of this is the fear in many heterosexual women that their sexuality will be questioned if they openly identify as feminists. Although many of my friends would never verbalize such anxiety, I can sense the stereotypical “feminist” label is in the back of their minds.
This misinformation most likely springs from the women’s liberation movement of the’60s and late’80s—categorized as second wave feminism—that pushed for change within the social infrastructure. This movement, associated with radical feminism, sought to overthrow “male supremacy” (patriarchal oppression) which was thought to be the source of gender inequality. Due in part to the general animosity directed toward the patriarchy, radical feminism is often associated with “man-hating.” However, because of the often subversive tactics used and the overarching goal of dismantling patriarchy, feminism became almost synonymous with anti-male sentiments.
Third wave feminism, originating in the early’90s and which still exists in the present, emphasizes sex-positivity and seeks to be a movement more inclusive to women of color. However, the perception of feminism in mass media seems to be mired in its early’70s incarnation. Just recently, former president George H.W. Bush recalled he “saw one of the ugliest and angriest woman I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Boy she was really bad. She charged my car with a sign…right up next to the window [that said] ‘Stay out of my womb’. No problem lady.” Aside from the obvious misogyny of this statement, Bush makes reference to a particularly nasty feminist stereotype: ugly (a quality worse than death when it comes to women), belligerent, and unnecessarily abrasive. Such statements conjure up images of bra-burning radicals bent on hating men.
Even though mainstream feminism has for the most part abandoned separatist leanings, a small faction of women today live in communes created exclusively for lesbians. A January 30th piece in the Guardian references these groups, which came about in the late’70s, whose mission statement argued that women could not be feminists without being lesbians. In’81, the pamphlet, “Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism,” was published and pushed the notion that “all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women…we think serious feminists have no choice but to abandon heterosexuality. Only in the system of oppression that is male supremacy does the oppressor actually invade and colonize the interior of the body of the oppressed…[penetration] is more than a symbol, its function and effect is the punishment and control of women.” The pamphlet, as well as the movement, provoked vitriol on both sides of the spectrum; many suspicious of the feminist movement saw the movement as another example of female aggression while heterosexual feminists demonstrably rejected the assertion that authentic feminism lay in homosexuality alone.
The movement also called into question the idea of a “natural” sexual orientation; the idea of lusting after or feeling a natural attraction to someone. Many felt political lesbianism seemed removed and calculated; it was odd to think of sexuality as such a conscious and intellectual decision. Recently, objections have been raised over the precept that one may choose their sexuality as it is akin to the far-right evangelical assertion that homosexuality is an immoral decision.
Despite opposition, some political lesbian communities flourished. In St. Augustine, Florida, the womyn’s land (the preferred name for such communes) has quietly existed for the past thirty years. Founded on the notion that women should coexist in exclusivity, “Alapine” and its sister commune located in Alabama are what some one would call the direct result of the political lesbianism of the’70s.
The women live in small houses or trailers on roads named after goddesses. However, with dwindling membership, many of the women fear the womyn’s lands will soon be nothing more than a relic. The problem with attracting new members seems to derive from a generation gap—the women living in such communes range in age from fifty to seventy-five years old and consequently their experiences differ quite dramatically from those of younger lesbians. Many of the members, who came of age in the’50s, well before the sexual revolution, were forced to live double-lives; most got married and had children. Thus, the years of silence understandably took their toll; after living in an unforgiving heterosexual environment for so many years, it’s not difficult to see why many would find solace in the womyn’s lands. But younger lesbians who have grown up in a more tolerant (though obviously far from perfect) society are loath to commit to an all-lesbian community.
Many of Alapine’s members feel as though men, non-lesbians, bisexual, and transsexual women should not be allowed inside of the gates. The rejection of men stems from the overgeneralization that all men are inherently violent. One woman describes her decision to situate herself in mostly all-female environments and why she had to leave wider society as reaction to her belief that “men are violent. The minute a man walks in the dynamics change immediately, so I choose not to be around those dynamics.”
It’s interesting to probe the idea that men are inherently oppressive; such separatist beliefs are obviously mired in a second-wave philosophy. Moreover, isn’t the assertion that men are all violent analogous to the widely disavowed belief that all women are weak-willed, emotional, and incapable? And even though these women view their flavor of feminism to be the purest, their proclamations seem to be a step back for more mainstream feminism, which mandates that men and heterosexual women can also be true feminists. Thus, by creating a small subset of “authentic” feminists, these groups ultimately alienate a large group of people that could have a very positive impact on the pursuit of gender equality and humanism.
But what I find most interesting about this “phenomenon” is its utter familiarity. Once one moves past the superficially bizarre notion of an exclusive lesbian commune, it’s not that foreign. People have always gravitated toward others of the same background, whether it be socioeconomic or cultural. That’s not to say that this is the inconvertible norm, as there are plenty of examples that refute this move towards homogeneity. The temptation to create a sort of utopia, complete with others who are similar and value the same things, is strong. As much as we value a pluralistic society, the comfort of being surrounded
by likeminded people, a family of sorts, is undeniably alluring. All of us, in a sense, surround ourselves with a sort of commune. However, doing so and creating our own worlds will do nothing to change the wider world around us. The true goal of feminism should be to bring equality to women everywhere, and surrounding ourselves with only those who are most like ourselves will only succeed in isolating us.
