Adrienne Rich begins her essay by lamenting the lack of lesbian acknowledgement by the feminist community. She argues that this – along with the exclusion of minority races from feminist writing – fights one facet of the system by feeding into its overall oppression.
Rich then point out how the literature positions lesbianism as a deviation from inherent tendencies or a rebellion against men. She believes the heterosexuality has a “compulsive” component when it is considered the norm. Women do not consider why one would choose to be a heterosexual; it simply is.
Rich thinks that this denies the important role lesbians have fulfilled historically, along with witches and spinsters, to undermine the traditional expectation of a heterosexual marriage. She deconstructs Chodorow’s claim that women are drawn to other women more emotionally but because of some unidentifiable deeper drive chose men. Rich thinks Chodorow’s argument ignores the pressures of society towards heterosexuality. She then examines a list of ways men oppress women and connects these to ways men confine women to heterosexuality.
Rich explains that this normalization of heterosexuality is cemented by the workplace where being feminine and submissive to men is part of a woman’s job regardless of her orientation. This along with pornography creates a world where, “male sexual desire itself may be aroused by female vulnerability” (22). I hope that that is not true.
Rich also discusses how this male desire has a long history of being considered superior in intensity and uncontrollable in relation to female sexual desire. When women accept this, they create a world where women participate in male identification and participate in their own subjugation.
Rich then gives examples of the lesbian continuum. She uses this term to refer not simply to female/female sexual relations but also intimate friendships. She gives historical examples. I think this is confusing because it is not how “lesbian” is understood. “Lesbian” is a term to refer to sexual things; to remove the sexuality is imprecise. Nevertheless, Rich’s use of this term prioritizes the deep female bond that occurs historically and in fiction. This bond is attacked by the normalization of heterosexuality which positions the male and the most important figure in a females relational life.
At the end of her essay, Rich includes letters with a group that published her essay. These letters bring up some of the same issues I was beginning to see. Some could read her writing as implying that all penetration is rape, for example. Rich’s response letter attempts to address some of these issues by acknowledging the distinction between the lesbian continuum, which is not sexual, and the lesbian existence, which is.
Leila J. Rupp’s essay explores the deviations in same-sex sexual activities from the lens of different cultures and times. I think this is extremely important work. She explains how homosexuality – gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity – is an extremely Western concept. Sexual actions typically associated with homosexuality do not correlate to homosexuality as we understand it in America today. Last semester I did a report on a group in Papua New Guinea that engaged in ritual semen consumption practices. This originally exposed me to the ideas Rupp is articulating.
This work connects to Rich’s by discussing the nature of close, intimate relationships between same-sex individuals. Though Rupp focuses on the potential sexual nature of these relationships it correlates to Rich’s proposed “lesbian continuum” where female intimacies, even non-sexual, correlate to lesbian closeness.
In some ways Rupp’s article takes the point even further than Rich’s. Rich argues for an acknowledgement by feminists of lesbianism while Rupp desires acknowledgement of the imprecise and changing meaning of these very labels with the implication that this includes heterosexuality.
Leila Rupp, “Towards a Global History of Same Sex Sexuality”
ReplyDeleteToday, it seems as though we are obsessed with labeling and categorizing. So much so that if we do not put things in a specific category we feel uneasy. In the article, Rupp emphasizes that American labels and definitions are not consistent with global ideologies about sex. Moreover, definitions of homosexual, heterosexual and transgender are not easily applicable to the men and women of different cultures. For instance, in ancient Greece, Athenian men would have sex with younger boys. In our society, older men having sex with young boys would be considered statutory rape and the older men would be considered pedophiles. However, this practice was considered customary in ancient Athens. Rupp writes that in Athens “age difference between older and younger men determined the ways they engaged in sex acts, and such relationships had educative functions that were as much the point as the sex.” This means that same sex intercourse between different age groups was considered normal, while the lack of any age differential was considered “deviant.” Furthermore, deviance in a particular society depends on its societal norms. Outside of that society we are just spectators who cast judgment and classify customs as taboo, while the practice of such customs is considered normal to those in that society. I found Rupp’s statement about transgender to be very interesting and eye opening. I have a female friend who is romantically involved with a biological female of male gender. At first I assumed that this meant they were lesbians, or at least bisexual. However, as my friend explained and as well as Rupp writes, “these interactions as same-sex may be totally foreign to the people involved.” My friend viewed her partner as a male and her self as heterosexual.
Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”
In this article, Rich expresses her outrage of the marginalization of lesbians in society and literature. These women are considered deviant because of their opposition to social norms. Rich claims that this marginalization creates a division between lesbians and feminists. Despite the fact that there is an abundance in feminist literature, it is surprising that lesbians are underrepresented in society.
Quotes that I found interesting:
"The lesbian, unless in disguise, faces discrimination in hiring and harassment and violence in the street"
"...male health professionals, particularly in the areas of marital sex, maternity, and child care, has echoed the dictates of the economic marketplace and the role of capitalism has needed women to play in production and/or reproduction"
"None of the 'experts' advice has been either particularly scientific or women-oriented; it has reflected male needs"
These two articles talk a lot about the labeling of people according to their sexual preference. They talk about the disadvantages that homosexuals in our society might face and they talk about how societal norms play a big role in determining whether sexual preference creates a problem in society or not. When I was in high school I learned about Asian cultures where men often dressed up as women in plays and were sexual with other men for entertainment purposes. In these same cultures homosexual activities went on but people were not labeled and therefore were not treated any differently. In modern society, people who are different are labeled and therefore are discriminated against. Our society has socially constructed a difference between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity. While there is an actual difference between the two, modern society has put a label on homosexuality and has therefore made it the "other" as opposed to everyone simply being on a level playing field. It is the creation of the "other" that makes people think that one particular group is deviating from the norm. Once people deviate from the status quo in our culture they are automatically ostracized and treated differently.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing i found interesting about Rich's article was her reference to men's sexual desire being much greater than that of women, which results in subservient behavior sexually by women. As we have seen in class, the second wave of feminism showed that women are sexual and that men and women both have equal sexual desire.
I agree with Jason about the articles labeling people according to their sexual desires. We talked in class about how your sexual preference can effect you in many ways throughout our society. For example, through jobs. Today a big issue that is still being talked about is the jobs in the army. They work with a "don't know, don't tell" relationship but people are trying to fix that today. I don't know how much success they will have with that. They might make it lawful but I think many people will still keep it to their selves for fear of still being judged based on their sexual relations. Another example of how our society is discriminatory against sexual preference is in marriage. Many states still are not pro- gay marriage and many people do not seek the benefits of living with their partners as they would if they were married.
ReplyDeleteAlso based on Jason's comment on how the article said that men have more sexual desires then women. Our society has proved that statement to be false. We have magazines and books stating how we have the same desires and they even give help on how to meet them. I really didn't like this article as much as the past ones but it is interesting to get different perspectives on the subject.