FAQ: Aren’t feminists all lesbian man-haters?

Short answer: No. Feminists come from a variety of backgrounds, with a variety of values and opinions, and (among other things) are in no way uniform in their sexual preferences. Some feminists identify as lesbian, some as heterosexual, some as bisexual, some as asexual, etc. As for the “man-hating” moniker, it has more to do with a backlash against women speaking out about oppression than it does with true incidents of “man-hating” perpetuated by feminism/feminists (see this FAQ entry on conflating the alleged actions of an individual with the ideology of a group).

Feminists as lesbians

Myth#3: Feminists are bitter because they are ugly, hairy and lesbians.
Why would any good consumer be bitter over saving gobs of money by rejecting the billion dollar beauty industry, aimed at manufacturing stepford wives?

What’s wrong with being a lesbian? Let me guess:you think its unfair competition for heterosexual men with little foreplay skills? I say, competition is a good thing; it allows the best lover at the lowest emotional drain to win the girl.

[Aspazia (Mad Melancholic Feminista): Feminism 101: Myths and Facts.]

As you can see by the above quote, the “all feminists are lesbian” myth is often coupled with the myth of all feminists being hairy legged/flannel wearing/mannish/ugly. Neither of which, it’s noted over and over again, is a bad thing. The problem is that these attributes are 1) being used as shorthand for “bad” in a way that allows the speaker to casually dismiss the group and its members, and 2) being forced on people in the group who do not subscribe to them, thus creating effectively erasing their experiences.

Beyond the individual level, however, it’s also important (especially for heterosexual feminists) to recognize that lesbianism has had played a significant and positive role in shaping modern feminism. Notably, Lesbian feminism(Wikipedia link), for all of its flaws (especially regarding its erasure/rejection of trans* people, identity, and issues), called out mainstream feminism on its homophobia and heteronormativity. As the qlbtq article on Lesbian Feminism states, “Indeed, one of the most significant accomplishments of the lesbian feminist movement was to facilitate a network of social and political support that helped lesbians cope with the isolation, stigma, and legal problems that many homosexuals battled.”

Feminists as man-haters

Unlike the “all feminists are lesbian” myth, the “all feminists are man-haters” myth would be a very bad thing if it were true. Good thing, then, that it’s not (this is discussed in more detail in the Why do you feminists hate men? FAQ entry).

Beyond the fact that the “man-hating” myth is, well, a myth, it’s important to note that it has roots in homophobia:

The idea that feminists hate men seems to be based partly upon media representations of 1960s and 1970s radical feminism, especially the horror of lesbian separatism. Here we have a very marginal, but radical, aspect of feminism highlighted and made representative of the entire movement. This claim also compounds the homophobic link between feminism and lesbianism…

[Winter (Mind the Gap): Springing the Traps: On Countering Anti-Feminism(Article no longer available).

]

Indeed, mainstream feminists in the past hoped to distance themselves from the “man-hater” stereotype by distancing themselves from lesbians/lesbianism:

[Betty] Friedan, and some other straight feminists as well, worried that the association [between lesbianism and NOW/the emerging women's movement] would hamstring feminists’ ability to achieve serious political change, and that stereotypes of ‘mannish’ and ‘man-hating’ lesbians would provide an easy way to dismiss the movement.”

[Wikipedia: Lavender Menace.]

Of course, the “threat” to men inherent in both lesbian and feminist thought is that women need not, and should not, position men as the center of their lives:

The Woman-Identified Woman‘s] authors claimed that lesbians and lesbianism are of central, rather than peripheral, importance to the feminist movement. The woman-identified woman, they contended, undermines patriarchy by withdrawing her energy from men, by affirming a connection with other women, and by validating women on their own terms, independent of men. So long as women seek the approval of men and male institutions, they argued, they cannot become autonomous human beings.

[glbt: Lesbian Feminism.]

Related Reading:

• FAQ: Why do you feminists hate men?
• FAQ: Aren’t feminists just hairy-legged makeup haters?

Introductory:

• Melinda Kanner and Kristin J. Anderson: “The Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist” in Michele A. Paludi [ed.] (Praeger, 2009): Feminism and Women’s Rights Worldwide: pp. 1-26.
• glbt: Lesbian Feminism.

Clarifying Concepts:

• Claiming man-hating as a distraction technique:

  It does not really matter whether or not a few individual feminists “hate” men (I haven’t met one yet but I promise I’ll tell you if I do), for accusations of misandry constitute yet another distraction technique. When encountering this statement, don’t go on the run and start talking about your lovely boyfriend and men friends who you (obviously) don’t hate. There’s no way you can prove that feminists don’t hate men to someone who believes this to be the case and, anyway, the argument is again a strategic one. Ask them what man-hating feminists have they met? Can they direct you to references to man-hating feminist articles and books? You’d be interested to read them. Or, if you want to be really provocative, ask them if they understand why some women have good reason to have issues with some men? I mean, if my husband beat me, I might not hate all men, but I might justifiably be very frightened of them. Ask them what they think could be done to stop women feeling frightened of men and feminists from being angry?

  [Winter (Mind the Gap): Springing the Traps: On Countering Anti-Feminism(Article no longer available).

  ]

• Addressing the homophobia of the myth:
  

  Where women are concerned, the line taken is “I don’t want to be a feminist because feminists are all lesbians.” Calling upon homophobic stigma, this claim also presumes lesbianism to be a bad thing with which one does not want to be associated. When young women calmly express the view that they don’t want to be feminists because feminists are lesbians, I am most concerned that these young people are still so comfortable with their own homophobia. Is the existence of lesbians within feminism enough to render the movement disgusting? Are lesbians really considered such socially abject creatures? As a lesbian feminist, the idea that my identity is a source of revulsion to young men and women is not a little disconcerting. There is no point in giving them examples of heterosexual feminists and to do so is again to implicitly disavow all the lesbian feminists. Instead, I would just tell them I find their homophobia utterly repulsive. If they don’t consider themselves homophobic, this might shake them up a bit and open to the way to an actual discussion. If, however, they are happy homophobes, you might be better off finding someone worth talking to.

  [Winter (Mind the Gap): Springing the Traps: On Countering Anti-Feminism(Article no longer available).

  ]

Feminism 101: Periods

Editor note: This is an old post of Melissa’s, but it’s an issue we haven’t addressed here, and myths about PMS are still well worth debunking.

originally posted at Shakesville by Melissa McEwan at Monday, March 17, 2008

And here I always thought it was my period!

Even though this is technically Woman 101, I’m filing it under Feminism 101, because I don’t feel inclined to create a separate category of informative posts about the mysteries of boobies and cooters. I do, however, just want to take a moment to quickly address a myth about menstruation that has always aggravated me, but is now seriously grating on my last good nerve like a cheese grater to parmesan at the Olive Garden.

(And yes, sadly, it has reached a fevered pitch because a woman, and a post-menopausal woman at that, is running for president.)

“Ooh, touchy! You must be on the rag!”—First we need to deal with the fact that anyone who says this is an idiot, and not just because they have the emotional maturity of a zygote. The misogynistic “joke” here is predicated on the concept that women are “moody” when they have PMS, which stands for premenstrual syndrome. Pre. As in before. As in not having her period yet. For many PMS-sufferers, getting one’s period alleviates some of all symptoms of PMS, particularly as regards irritability and tension. So the whole “on the rag” thing doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense, for a whole lot of women. I suppose the sort of fuck-knuckle who uses a “joke” like this isn’t too concerned about its medical accuracy, but I’m a pedant, so there you go.

My real gripe, however, is the general presumption, which is widely held, even by some of the most feminist people I know, that women who suffer cyclical irritability with their menstrual cycles get “irrational” and/or express anger about things that don’t really bother them; it’s just that they’re being “sensitive” because of the whole period thing.

FAQ: What is “slut-shaming”?

Short answer: Slut-shaming, also known as slut-bashing, is the idea of shaming and/or attacking a woman or a girl for being sexual, having one or more sexual partners, acknowledging sexual feelings, and/or acting on sexual feelings. Furthermore, it’s “about the implication that if a woman has sex that traditional society disapproves of, she should feel guilty and inferior” (Alon Levy, Slut Shaming). It is damaging not only to the girls and women targeted, but to women in general an society as a whole. It should be noted that slut-shaming can occur even if the term “slut” itself is not used.

FAQ: vagina vs vulva and public “faces of feminism”

Q: A celebrity feminist said something about the incorrect usage of vagina vs vulva and I want you to explain every nuance of her thoughts to me and why feminism thinks that way.

A: “Feminism” doesn’t necessarily think that way just because that celebrity feminist does.
Possibly there is controversy about her opinion.
Possibly her opinion is highly unpopular.
Also, just a thought, possibly she didn’t actually say quite what you think she said?

This same sort of “justify feminism’s opinion on this” request gets made all the time based on the media asking celebrity feminists to opine on various matters, but the vulva/vagina distinction is a golden oldie, so why not let it be the model?

OK, let’s start with some anatomy revision.

FAQ: Rape Culture 101

This post was written by Melissa McEwan and originally published at Shakesville on October 09, 2009
Editor’s note: this post does not follow the usual FF101 FAQ conventions, but it’s being included in the FAQ list anyway.

[Trigger warning.]

Frequently, I receive requests to provide a definition of the term “rape culture.” I’ve referred people to the Wikipedia entry on rape culture, which is pretty good, and I like the definition provided in Transforming a Rape Culture:

A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes. This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

But my correspondents—whether they are dewy noobs just coming to feminism, advanced feminists looking for a source, or disbelievers in the existence of the rape culture—always seem to be looking for something more comprehensive and less abstract: What is the rape culture? What are its borders? What does it look like and sound like and feel like?

It is not a definition for which they’re looking; not really. It’s a description. It’s something substantive enough to reach out and touch, in all its ugly, heaving, menacing grotesquery.

How is asking the question “Why are there no fat elves in Dungeons and Dragons?” offensive to feminists?

A long question left in comments, so I’m promoting it to the front of the blog.

I was referred to this site after discussing image issues on the role-playing game website, Giant In The Playground. At that site, I started a topics of discussion regarding body image in fantasy art and RPG books, particularly involving the game Dungeons and Dragons.

The thread in question can be found here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105473

One particular poster, whom I leave anonymous out of respect, said the following:

“Also, “heavy women are beautiful too!” is no less objectifying. That’s not the point! Women don’t exist to be attractive and sexual objects. It shouldn’t matter if they’re thin or fat or neither, ugly or pretty or neither, and there’s no real RPG art shouldn’t depict real people of both genders (and “conventions of the genre” are no excuse; I’m looking at you, superhero comics and superhero comics games). Holy hell, people.”

After responding to the effect that fantasizing is unavoidable, regardless of gender, he sent me a link to this blog, mainly for the reasons listed in the FAQ.

When asked by another poster “I’m sorry, how exactly is “heavy women are beautiful too” objectifying?” His response was thus:

“It’s “as objectifying as” “thin women are beautiful.”

It’s the idea that women’s attractiveness has any sort of inherent value or importance. Beauty as a value is a product of and a contributor to objectification. It doesn’t matter whether you say “thin women are beautiful” or “fat women are beautiful”, you’re still valuing them based on appearance.

By becoming aware that we are all taught to think like this – women and men both – and then realizing the idiocy of it, you can start to contribute, in a small way, to society being less objectifying.

And you cannot talk about people’s bodies without talking about people, directly or indirectly – especially in the context of western society, where the word “fat” automatically makes people think of qualities like “stupid”, “ugly”, “sick”, “greedy”, and so on.

Links again (because no, I am not here to educate, I am here to argue points):”

One of those links brought me here, and I’m hoping I could get some answers as to just what I’ve said that was offensive.

I have nothing against feminism (at least I don’t think I do), but I don’t know if I can avoid fantasies about them. Yes, I think heavy women are more attractive than thin women, but that doesn’t mean I judge women, or any other people for that matter, on appearance alone. I don’t allow my fantasies to get out of hand, or to hurt people. I just keep them to myself. Yes, I have sometimes roleplayed characters who conform to my fantasies, but that’s just fiction. It’s not real, and I’d be an idiot to think it was.

Can I truly be non-objective, even in my fantasies? Are my fantasies really that bad? How is asking the question “Why are there no fat elves in Dungeons and Dragons?” offensive to feminists?

Thank you for hearing me out.

I suspect that there’s more to the other person’s response than merely the question being asked. Just guessing because I haven’t had time to read the thread in question, but a slew of responses along the lines of “hell yeah fatties are sexy” would more likely be the culprit.

Online interaction and free speech

What John Scalzi said, after noting that despite the opinion of some people, not everywhere in the world is covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

this person is just absolutely, completely, ice-pick-to the-eyeballs wrong in their understanding of the First Amendment, how it applies to my site, and how it applies to the Internet. Reading this person’s understanding of how the First Amendment applies in these instances is like being slathered in a thick coat of ignorant, and then being put out into the sun to dry out before a second coat is applied, which itself will be topped off by a sealant of complete and utter stupid, and lightly drizzled with a glistening varnish of epic fail.

He then goes into detail about exactly why the particular person is so monumentally wrong, but it basically comes down to the difference between interactions between private persons and interactions between private persons and persons acting as agents of a government.