Who would ever have thought I would be reading something from O Magazine, let alone an article that talks about queer women, gender fluidity and coming out?
Those are just a few of the topics covered in this O magazine article.
Lately, a new kind of sisterly love seems to be in the air. In the past few years, Sex and the City's Cynthia Nixon left a boyfriend after a decade and a half and started dating a woman (and talked openly about it). Actress Lindsay Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson flaunted their relationship from New York to Dubai. Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl" topped the charts. The L Word, Work Out, and Top Chef are featuring gay women on TV, and there's even talk of a lesbian reality show in the works. Certainly nothing is new about women having sex with women, but we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable--or at least, acceptable.
One bone I have to pick, which is apparent in the title, is the idea that all queer women have left a man for a woman. Some queer women never dated men at all. And sisterly love? Come on.
I was really pleasantly surprised to see the piece address gender and queerness, particularly addressing female masculinity. The author, Mary Fischer, draws on a lot on academic thought (and academic couples!) which gives it more theoretical grounding than you usually see in a magazine article.
Ironically--or not, as some might argue--it is certain "masculine" qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity. This was definitely true for Gomez-Barris, whose partner, Judith Halberstam, 47, (above right, with Gomez-Barris, left) says she has never felt "female." Growing up in England as a tomboy who had short hair and refused to wear dresses, Halberstam says people were often unable to figure out whether she was a boy or a girl: "I was a source of embarrassment for my family." As a teenager, she was an avid soccer player--not that she was allowed on any team. And her 13th birthday request for a punching bag and boxing gloves was met with the demand to pick something more feminine. "Throughout my youth," she says, "I felt rage at the shrinking of my world." Halberstam channeled her anger into a distinguished academic career and authored several provocative books, including, in 1998, Female Masculinity. It was during the past few years that she started calling herself Jack and answering to both "he" and "she."
If you haven't checked out Halberstam's book Female Masculinity, you should.
Feminist theorists were among the first to begin to uncouple sex from gender. In 1949 French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir published her groundbreaking book The Second Sex, with the famous line, "One is not born, but becomes a woman," suggesting that classic female characteristics--passivity, shyness, nurturing--aren't just biological but are embedded by parents and culture. Today, after the women's liberation movement's crusade for equality between the sexes, thinkers like Halberstam are challenging the very definition of gender roles. And as with sexual desire, the idea of fluidity is gaining currency, as evidenced by an ever-expanding vocabulary: transgender, transsexual, transvestite, boi, heteroflexible, intersex. And many who embrace fluidity are adopting the term gender queer with pride. But as passionate as they are, those who live by their newly won gender freedom still find themselves at odds with the prevailing culture.
I never thought I would see words like boi or heteroflexible in a woman's magazine. Maybe times are really changing? I have other issues with the article, but overall it adds some much needed dialogue to the discussion about female sexuality and queer identity.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: O Magazine: Why Women are Leaving Men for other Women.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12565
"Sisterly love"? WTF? Way to go for associating lesbianism with incest. Ugh.
Dear God, it has nothing to do with incest. Haven't you ever heard women or feminists refer to each other as as sisters. Just as men refer to each other as bros.
"Sisterly love"? WTF? Way to go for associating lesbianism with incest. Ugh.
and how the hell is "I Kissed a Girl" a lesbian anthem? It's a song for GUYS to be turned on by two girls kissing, it's not empowering for lesbians or bisexual women.
Excuse me while I go barf.
I dunno. There seems to be too much of a "hey, look at this latest shiny thing!" mentality to it. Like lesbianism is just the latest thing women are trying, like yoga, or pop Buddhism, or cooking classes. I mean, this quote is downright demeaning:
"It's clear that a change in sexual orientation is imaginable to more people than ever before, and there's more opportunity—and acceptance—to cross over the line," says Klein, noting that a half-dozen of her married female patients in the past few years have fallen in love with women. "Most are afraid that if they don't go for it, they'll end up with regrets."
Wtf??? Regrets about what, exactly?? She makes it sound like it's something you "try" just so you make sure you have the experience. I mean, how fucking disrespectful. Although it's definitely true that a lot of women have difficulty coming to terms with their lesbianism, and it's absolutely a positive that it's so much more acceptable now, to toss around these ideas like this is just some other version of new-agey self-discovery or a trendy way for women to get in touch with themselves is incredibly condescending.
Like I said, I don't know. I could be reading too much, overreacting, but this article REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Reading it, I get the sense it's trying make lesbianism into some kind of non-threatening diversion from heterosexuality -- almost like they're hinting "wink wink, nudge nudge, lots of women are 'lesbians' now! But don't worry, men, they still really love you."
Fuck that. Lesbianism isn't non-threatening because lesbians are really just straight women trying something new. Lesbianism is non-threatening because *PEOPLE HAVING THE COURAGE TO BE WHO THEY TRULY ARE IS ALWAYS NON-THREATENING*. Urgh.
Also, the discussion about women being attracted to "masculine" qualities makes me a little ill. It's so blatantly oversimplified. Of course women are attracted to masculine qualities. SO ARE MEN. Everyone is attracted to masculine qualities, when those qualities exist in the right way. Same thing with feminine qualities. God, I can just see some thoughtless MRA type waving around this article shrieking "see?? See??! The feminists have won! Women are abandoning men because they aren't masculine enough!!" I want to vomit just thinking about it :P
It seems that O Magazine has discovered "lipstick lesbianism" - that is, straight women pretending to be gay, for the amusement and/or lust of straight guys.
Way to go, Ms Winfrey!
Congrats on the female self hatred!
That's not what lipstick lesbian means. It refers to very feminine lesbians.
whoa. just because someone is a lipstick lesbian...aka a femme...doesnt mean that she is a straight girl trying to act gay.
i take huuuge personal offense to this. i think its time for me to write a post about being femme...
I would also take issue with those TV shows that seem to be mentioned as "proof" of something positive. Representation for queer women is really pretty awful on television, especially network television. The three shows name-dropped above might be decent (I don't know, haven't seen them) but they are all on cable channels. I believe the web site "After Ellen" has discussed the exact opposite problem in recent months... that the lesbian is *disappearing* from television, especially primetime network television... not experiencing some kind of heyday as this article seems to imply.
Miriam! I'm so glad you wrote about this. We always have O Magazine in our breakroom at work and while I was zapping my lunch yesterday, I found this article in it and read the whole thing in utter shock! I too could not believe the openess of this article and how it was willing to explore the different ways in which women love and find relationships.
Once you get passed the O Magazine mainstreamness of it, I think there is a lot to value in this kind of exposure. Do we not want the mainstream to understand the different types of sexualities and genders we identify as or explore? Won't a better understanding of these multi-layers help us get the rights, respect, safety, and justice we all deserve?
No this is not written in the best way many of us here could (and do) write better, citing Miss Perry was overly lame (among other things written about above), but this is the kind of breakout article that makes people discuss the issues that thousands deal with, but only handfuls learn about in specific academic settings.
In regards to the go for it or there will be regrets mentality, I don't think it's comparing it to a European vacation or anything, we know not everyone can come out right away - esp. if that person isn't sure what to come out as. If you're totally attracted to a specific gender then it's easier, but this article is touching on the possibility of sexuality as fluid. Something that is much more difficult for a person experiencing it to pin down. As someone who is a strong believer in sexuality as fluid, I found many parts of this article comforting.
Again, sure this could be presented better (writing is never perfect), but this is a magazine going out to mainstream women doing mainstream things. I'm delighted that these thoughts are being brought to them. This is a first step, a shaky new born foal step, but it's out there. Let's pick up and run with it, instead of shunning it.
greg, really? i mean, i've never heard "lipstick" used in a really positive way, but i've mostly heard it just used to deride femmes for being ridiculous, not for being straight.
otherwise, though, i'm kinda with you - and the other commenters - in thinking this is a tad infuriating (tad, infuriating, laugh)... article looks kinda dumb... maybe people should refrain from writing about communities in which they only have a passing interest. but, hey, it's O and it gives a fair (read non-judgemental), if uniformed and wrought-with-stereotypes, treatment considering where it's coming from.
i mean, really... are there more queer women now? or are lesbian and bi women more comfortable coming out, therefor more visible, therefor straights think there are more queer women?
to be fair, reading the whole article, it kinda actually treats lesbians as real human beings... whole human beings... with normal relationship dynamics despite being denied civil rights.
some of the stuff raises good questions, too... like why is it that the research they cite shows women exhibiting more gender fluidity than men? is it a biological thing? are men's roles more enforced by society, forcing a more extreme spectrum? blah blah blah... dunno...
finally, it gets me thinking that... well, y'all remember that 3-4% of men 1.5-2% of women are gay number from... ugh, can't remember where...? anyways, makes me think of how much gender and sexuality is proscribed and, if we move in a more ideal direction, what the more "natural" numbers would look like... i mean... are we talking 10-15% of folks are gay, 30% bi and still a good 55% straight (just making this shit up, don't trip)?... what would it look like if folks really had the opportunity to understand what kind of relationships really work for them? how could a more permissive society possible even drag down divorce numbers (considering that, even if a partner doesn't come out, perhaps s/h/ze would never be in an unsatisfying relationship if not for expectations)?
blah blah blah... rambling like a mofo... someone shut me up!
Most of these women aren't leaving men for women and changing their sexual orientation - they are probably closer to bisexual! So someone dated a guy, then after they were no longer together, dated a woman, OMG!!!!11 Not a terrible article, but the sensationalized title makes it sound as if there is some underground lesbian conspiracy to convert straight women and steal them from their husbands.
Also, it's interesting that all the couples presented were a more femme 'former straight girl' with an androgynous or butch lesbian. Maybe those relationships are more palatable because they superficially resemble hetero pairings, but I hate when things are always represented this way. There are lots of relationships, even 'straight' relationships, where people aren't so obviously divided into man/woman or butch/femme. You never hear in the media about queer women in relationships where both are more 'masculine', or see bisexual or straight women who are more 'masculine' represented. Both would apply to me, and many of the people I meet in real life are like this, but we don't exist to the media.
i would like to add that you dont see two femmes together either, unless it is for the amusement and sexual entertainment of straight dudes, but never as a serious, committed relationship.
a.,
so true... at least they mentioned the term gender queer, lol...
Is this article perfect? No. Is it degrading at times? Yes. But is it a step toward progress. I think so. I'm pretty thrilled by this.
C'mon. Were you expecting a perfect feminist viewpoint (as if that exists) where nothing is heteronormative to appear in O?
Nothing ever happens all at once. It happens gradually and imperfectly, and we should appreciate each development rather than condemn it. Give it time, people.
I also find it irritating how lesbian relationships are packaged as some kind of trend. I admit I'm guilty of wishing I could be gay, but the idea of women "converting" to homosexuality en masse is just too close to the male fantasy of seeing women kissing each other a la Kate Perry (who is homophobic as well as a self-hating female) and being "flexible" to the point of perhaps changing back, which of course says "don't worry guys, it's temporary."
Its always self-contained to not be threatening.
Went to check out Female Masculinity and there wasn't enough of a preview to determine to what extent generally *human* characteristics like assertiveness, feistiness, agression, drive, competitiveness and other such things are labeled as "masculine" in the book. This is one thing that always gets me. To me, "masculine" is a very loaded word. Even in clothing - there shouldn't be a gender-labeled distinction, only differences of style.
Female Masculinity is actually amazing. I read a chapter from it last semester in my Women's Studies class and I was blown away (I also saw Halberstam speak--he is one of the most brilliant academics out there). Halberstam talks a lot about and argues for a break down of gender binaries because, as he sees it, there are not only 2 genders or 2 sexualities but an infinite amount of each. He gives examples of people in the media and in real life who exhibit alternative masculinities/femininities and alternative genders and talks about the way in which society constructs the gender binary (ie, the culture of gendered bathrooms). I'm not doing it justice, but really, it's great.
So I don't think being lesbian is a trend, per se.
But I have absolutely lived in communities (usually liberal elite communities) where being a minority (such as black or gay) absolutely did seem to result in more people being interested in being friends with the person. Added an element of "cool" to them, if you will...
In these communities, there have tended to a be a larger number of "out" gays and bisexuals.
Realistically, I think a pretty large percentage of the human population is capable of being bisexual... but in a culture where that's looked at as wrong or dirty, fewer people are going to discover that aspect of themselves.
And too then: sex is wonderful, most people will have some form at some point in their life, but is sex really necessary? Also, while some queer folks have relatively sexually conservative, monogamous relationships, it just so happens that the majority I've known are more experimental with sex in general than the average heterosexuals I've known. Coincidence, or says something about the type of person they are? How much difference is there between someone living life as a closeted homosexual and two straight married people who have sex they find somewhat boring because they think it's what god intended? I don't have answer to all these questions...
As glad I am that Oprah gives light to some important queer realities and issues, I'm annoyed that she seems to act like it JUST happened because she only JUST heard about it.
Like, what? There are these women who have sex with other women and they're called lesbians?? Fascinating! Tell me more!
The positive is that now my mom knows what "intersex" means. That's pretty astounding. In the end, this will bring about more visibilty and acceptance for queer folk in the heartland of America, as Oprah tells the average, middle American staight woman about these issues that they never might have heard otherwise.
And I LOVE the book Female Masculinity. One of my fave non-fiction books. My only criticsm is that it only discusses masculinity on how it applied to gay women, when it could apply to all women. She admits this in the intro, but still. But it is a wonderful book with great references and I love the section about the "bathroom situation". I've never head anyone explain that feeling so clearly before.