[BRIEF NOTE] On those political lesbians

[rfmcdonald]

A couple of other people have commented, at length, on this rather remarkable Julie Bindel article from The Guardian in which she issues a call to feminists--and women in general--to embrace the label of "political lesbian." What does this mean? It comes out in Bindel's 2005 interview with the feminist Sheila Jeffreys who started off the whole concept.

She became a lesbian in 1973 because she felt it contradictory to give "her most precious energies to a man" when she was thoroughly committed to a women's revolution. Six years later, she went further and wrote, with others, a pamphlet entitled Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism And Political Lesbianism. In it, feminists who sleep with men are described as collaborating with the enemy. It caused a huge ruction in the women's movement, and is still cited as an example of early separatists "going way too far".

"We do think," it said, "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." Although many of the more radical feminists agreed, most went wild at being told they were "counter-revolutionary".

Further down, Bindel relates her choice of sexual orientation seemingly not to innate orientation so much as to a political reaction against a particular--if common--socially-bound pattern of heterosexual life.

When I was growing up on a council estate in Darlington, the expectation was that I would one day marry a local boy, settle down and start producing kids. Frankly, the thought horrified me. I was surrounded by men - my father and two brothers - and at an early age I had picked up on the stories of domestic violence, child abuse and general unhappiness that seemed to emanate from neighbouring households. I was also struck by the drudgery on display. While men were out drinking, embarking on fishing trips and generally enjoying their freedom, women were stuck cooking for them, cleaning for them, and running around after children. For women, heterosexuality seemed a total con.

At 15 then, having only ever had one, non-serious, boyfriend, I came out as a lesbian. Three years later, I moved to Leeds in search of the scary-sounding feminists I had heard about and, having joined a group that campaigned against pornography, finally met the RFs. They engaged me in discussions about heterosexuality in the pub, and critiquing this mainstream sexual culture made sense to me - after all, the women I had met during my childhood clearly hadn't benefited from it. The RFs told me that, to them, lesbianism was a choice that women could make, and not a "condition" we are born with. "All women can be lesbians" was the mantra. I loved the sense that I had chosen my sexuality and rather than being ashamed or apologetic about it, as many women were, I could be proud, and see it as a privilege.

Might I go on the record as saying that choosing your sexual orientation for political reasons is a waste of the sexual fluidity that exists in a goodly number of people to a greater or lesser degree? I'd always thought that the whole point of coming out was to let people express their sexual and romantic inclinations without regard for political or cultural convention whether hegemonic or counter-hegemonic. I know that I'm not a woman and can't testify from lived experience, and I can imagine that gender relations can stand to be reconstructed on healthier lines on a broad scale and in some particularly, sure, but rejecting the very possibility of heterosexuality? At all? Because it's politically and/or culturally inconvenient? I may as well start trawling for a girlfriend, then.