After finally getting my head together after the reading, I think I have a pretty clear definition of what is meant by "Compulsory Heterosexuality" and "Lesbian Existence".
I'll start with the former. Heterosexuality has always been the "norm" in society. Which is pretty much why we have the concept of "coming out" when a person identifies his or herself as anything other than "straight". When it comes to Compulsory Heterosexuality, it is not only living in a world where "straightness" is seen as the main sexual orientation, but the concept of being heterosexual is thrust upon everyone; it is a "political institution". Even though this doesn't directly relate to heterosexuality in women (well, it certainly does seeing as though men are in some sick way benefiting from it), there were a few points made by Rich about what Kathleen Gough lists as eight characteristics of male power. This section alone made me understand the most about the effect that compulsory heterosexuality had on women. How forced women are to act a certain way because men want them to in order to be looked at as normal. It was really interesting to see how each of these characteristics manifested themselves in every day life, and how overlooked they are by everyone who experiences them as well as cause them.
When it came to defining, or rather understanding, Lesbian Existence, I had a more difficult time. To me, Lesbian Existence is the lack of...existence in lesbianism. I might be complete wrong, but when I read the article,something that caught my attention was when Rich spoke about Nancy Chodorow's thoughts on lesbianism. She (Chodorow) was talking about lesbianism as an idea, as something that doesn't exist. That it's nothing but the reverse version of the Oedipus complex. And once more, an anti-feminist form of the male form of homosexuality. Not as it's own thing, but a part of something that comes from men. When it comes to the subject of lesbianism, Rich wrote, it is something that feminists rarely focus on, and when they do it is not always something that they talk about in a positive manner.
Interesting connection to "coming out" maybe we can talk about it more in class?
ReplyDeleteCS
I had honestly not thought about how hard and frustrating it could be to bE anything other than straight, in the this consuming world. I was honestly watching the Disney movie Milan the other night and I was mortified. These girls were singing about being thin, and being given away to a husband. And bringing their families HONOR by doing so. Do you know what kind of message that sends a little girl? And these movies and others have been consuming these children for yearrrrs. In my mind I have never thought of it, have never had to declare to anyone my sexuality,nor "come it " about It. It was so over looked before I began exploring in this class.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even realize that's what Chodrow was saying -- that lesbians could not, would not, and do not exist without the male model of homosexuality, and as such the act of identifying as a lesbian is strictly anti-feminist. Well, as we've learned from this class, it does not matter what gender you are when it comes to considering yourself a feminist. So, I don't really see why orientation should matter, either. The funny thing is, more often than not, you hear it the other way around; that lesbians are strictly male-bashing feminists, which is also not true. That's not to say that some are not, but certainly not all are. Interesting analysis, Daury. I think I managed to clarify a lot of Rich's main points but you picked up on some really great text that was otherwise misunderstood or overlooked.
ReplyDelete