Dykes raising sons
Jesaka Irwin
here on the subject but more in depth. There are many questions on
this topic I would like to ask. I am a dyke, a mother, and a proud
mother of a son. I have experienced as have others certain
discriminations for these reasons. I was a dyke when I decided to have
a child, although certain women find problems because they liked men
at one point or another in thier life. I am curious on thoughts in
this arena.
Why should a self-confirmed dyke who has been for many years be
considered less because she has had relationships with men? ( Lets say
five to ten years ago hypothetically) Which is something I have seen
alot. Is this not seperatism?
The issue of being a mother cannot be pointed in either direction as
all preferences seem to have issues with the child factor so that is
left to personal choices.
But... why are there certain issues with dykes raising son's? I wanted
a son. I have experienced and read of experiences where certain
feminists, and feminist groups who will support you in having a
child without the traditional ideas also shun you for conceiving a
boy. My friends, and certain people I was involved with in feminist
issues had slight/major problems with the fact that I have a son, but
have gotten over it or are merely no longer in my life. Why am I less
of a friend or feminist because i have a son? I am curious why
feminism for some has to equal hatred for men? It baffles me as a
human and a feminsist. I have read where women have gone so far as to
say "Have an abortion". Does this not in a way, lower these
particulaer kinds of people to the same levels of the men they
supposedly hate? What exactly does this accomplish? As a feminist and
activist in any area, essentially equal rights is the goal. Once again
we have discovered another form of seperatism.
Why must there be seperatism at all in feminist/dyke/women's issues? I
have always thought the best way to overcome obstacles especially in
feminist/dyke issues was through unity. So, why so much seperatism
among our community?
I could rant further into seperatist issues among our community , but
they would be off the topic and I am sleepy.
I'm not sure if anyone here can help with these questions, but I am
interested in the response.
Jesaka
--------------some words live in my throat breeding like adders,
others know sun seeking like gypsies over my toungue to explode
through my lips like young sparrows bursting from shell. Some Words
Bedevil Me. -Audre Lourde-
--
Soc.women.lesbian-and-bi is a moderated newsgroup. The moderation policy
and FAQ are available at <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~wjfraser/swlab/>.
Questions and concerns should be emailed to the moderators at
<swlab-...@panix.com>.
Roving Reporter
they take more energy, at least until they get to their
teenage years, and then they *all* take a lot of energy.
My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
them. I, OTOH, ended up with a brother who is respectful
and nonviolent. Of course so is his mother...
HTH.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
See Deaf Expo at http://www.deafexpo.org/
-------------------------------------------
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing here
should be regarded as representing my employer's opinions.
Kelizascop
>
>My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
>or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
>them.
What, praytell, has led you to this theory?
-Eliza
----
"We champion gay rights: we refused to vacation
in Colorado." --Dr. Jill Brock
Kelizascop
>Why must there be seperatism at all in feminist/dyke/women's issues?
Because some feminists/dykes/women believe in separatism.
Paula Cobb
> I am a dyke, a mother, and a proud
> mother of a son. I have experienced as have others certain
> discriminations for these reasons.
I expect you could find a dyke to defend pretty much any position you
could name, sensible or strange, since dykes are a large group of
diverse people. But I've never heard any lesbian express such a
prejudice.
and Roving Reporter replied:
> My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
> or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
> them. I, OTOH, ended up with a brother who is respectful
> and nonviolent.
Hmm. If we exclude you and your brother, me and my brother, my
girlfriend and her three brothers, my hair stylist and his sister, and
every other lesbian & brother / brother & lesbian combination that I
know, then your theory makes a lot of sense.
--
pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu
Cambridge, MA
b_b_pr...@excite.com
>
> Why should a self-confirmed dyke who has been for many years be
> considered less because she has had relationships with men? ( Lets say
> five to ten years ago hypothetically) Which is something I have seen
> alot. Is this not seperatism?
I am new to this group but I would say that it is a form of separatism. I
personally have a problem with separatism because it excludes women who
"sleep with the enemy" as well as women who have male children and male
friends. I would think what you are doing would be revere because that child
will grow up without the sexist and heterosexist ideas that many children are
taught at home. Have you ever read the book Between Friends. It is a book of
fiction letters between four women who actually deal with the same issue that
you are dealing with. One of the women is a separatist. She calls herself a
political lesbian. The woman she falls for in the book is a lesbian who is
rearing a son. The conflicts they have are very interesting and not
unrelated to the problems that you are going through. I highly recommend the
book Good luck to you In search of the meaning of a BA in the humanities,
Lynn
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Roving Reporter
>Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
>>or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
>>them.
>
Anecdotal evidence.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
See Deaf Expo at http://www.deafexpo.org/
-------------------------------------------
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing here
should be regarded as representing my employer's opinions.
--
Christina Matta
Kelizascop <keliz...@aol.com> wrote in article <1._$&sx2=v...@panix.com>...
> sapph...@mindspring.com (Jesaka Irwin ) wrote:
> >Why must there be seperatism at all in feminist/dyke/women's issues?
>
> Because some feminists/dykes/women believe in separatism.
Like, DUH...
Tina
Angst Girl
<Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
> On 23 Jan 1999, Kelizascop wrote:
> >Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
> >>or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
> >>them.
> >
> >What, praytell, has led you to this theory?
>
> Anecdotal evidence.
>
> --
> Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
Let me blow a hole in your "theory". I have two brothers, one of whom I
have an excellent relationship with. I also have a wonderful relationship
with my father. Still, I lived in a lesbian seperatists compound for quite
a few years. It's not about excluding men. It's simply not about men at
all (as hard as that can be to comprehend being as all of life tends to
revolve around men). It's about devoting your life to lesbians and only
lesbians.
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
Roving Reporter
>In article <1.gz}sx27{3...@panix.com>, Roving Reporter
><Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 1999, Kelizascop wrote:
>> >Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
>> >>or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
>> >>them.
>> >
>> >What, praytell, has led you to this theory?
>>
>> Anecdotal evidence.
>>
>> --
>> Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
>
>Let me blow a hole in your "theory". I have two brothers, one of whom I
>have an excellent relationship with. I also have a wonderful relationship
>with my father. Still, I lived in a lesbian seperatists compound for quite
>a few years. It's not about excluding men. It's simply not about men at
>all (as hard as that can be to comprehend being as all of life tends to
>revolve around men). It's about devoting your life to lesbians and only
>lesbians.
Um, I was talking about separatists who don't accept lesbians with boy
children. I think that's a bit extreme, even if you don't, and IMHO, it
does imply a bit more than "excluding men" since *boys* are not *men*
and short of abortion or murder, there's not much a woman can do about
not having boy children if that's what she ends up with.
I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
that same category. They're just *not*.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
See Deaf Expo at http://www.deafexpo.org/
-------------------------------------------
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing here
should be regarded as representing my employer's opinions.
--
MindSpring User
>
>
(Jesaka Irwin ) wrote:
>> >Why must there be seperatism at all in feminist/dyke/women's issues?
>>>Kelizascop wrote:
>> Because some feminists/dykes/women believe in separatism.
Wouldn't seperatism between ourselves (i.e.) discriminating against each
other as women, or dykes, or feminists, or all of the above be a bit
hypocritical? Not to mention defeating the purpose? (i.e.) Discriminating
between ourselves when discrimination is something we are trying to combat
in the first place.
>--
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
On 23 Jan 1999, Jesaka Irwin wrote:
> Why should a self-confirmed dyke who has been for many years be
> considered less because she has had relationships with men? ( Lets say
> five to ten years ago hypothetically) Which is something I have seen
> alot.
That hasn't been my experience.
> Is this not seperatism?
I believe that separatism for lesbian-feminists focused on building
women-only institutions of various kinds.
> But... why are there certain issues with dykes raising son's? I wanted
> a son. I have experienced and read of experiences where certain
> feminists, and feminist groups who will support you in having a
> child without the traditional ideas also shun you for conceiving a
> boy. My friends, and certain people I was involved with in feminist
> issues had slight/major problems with the fact that I have a son, but
> have gotten over it or are merely no longer in my life. Why am I less
> of a friend or feminist because i have a son?
Again, this hasn't been my experience.
I am curious why
> feminism for some has to equal hatred for men?
Some men need hating. (ObTexas)
> Why must there be seperatism at all in feminist/dyke/women's issues? I
> have always thought the best way to overcome obstacles especially in
> feminist/dyke issues was through unity. So, why so much seperatism
> among our community?
Haven't noticed it myself, tho' I think women's spaces remain a necessity.
> I could rant further into seperatist issues among our community , but
> they would be off the topic and I am sleepy.
Lesbian-feminist separatism produced many valuable institutions. How much
do you actually know about it?
Gwendolyn
(To send an email message,
please use gd...@cornell.edu.)
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> and Roving Reporter replied:
> > My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
> > or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
> > and nonviolent.
> Hmm. If we exclude you and your brother, me and my brother, my
> girlfriend and her three brothers, my hair stylist and his sister, and
> every other lesbian & brother / brother & lesbian combination that I
> know, then your theory makes a lot of sense.
I have a lousy relationship with my brother; I've adopted my sister's
response to any inquiry about him -- "What brother?". Denial can be
liberatory. I have a male child, tho', who I'm quite fond of and have
never found particularly troublesome.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
> that same category. They're just *not*.
It depends on how they are reared. I've seen many small male children
already well-patterned into traditional male behavior. Being parented by
a lesbian doesn't seem to necessarily effect this, since IME, many, if not
most lesbian parents are predominantly concerned with rearing "normal"
children.
Sport
>Um, I was talking about separatists who don't accept lesbians with boy
>children. I think that's a bit extreme, even if you don't, and IMHO, it
>does imply a bit more than "excluding men" since *boys* are not *men*
>and short of abortion or murder, there's not much a woman can do about
>not having boy children if that's what she ends up with.
>
>I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
>that same category. They're just *not*.
I would indeed put children in the same category. Many more little
boys commit sexual assault against little girls than vice versa. Some
may say that we should feel sorry for these little boys because they
are most likely also abused. One on level this is true, and I hope
that all abused kids get the therapy they need to stop the cycle of
abuse. It is important to note, however, that little girls constitute
the overwhelming majority of abuse survivors, and they still make up
the great *minority* of children who abuse children.
--Sport
Sport
>On 24 Jan 1999, Roving Reporter wrote:
>> I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
>> that same category. They're just *not*.
>
>It depends on how they are reared. I've seen many small male children
>already well-patterned into traditional male behavior. Being parented by
>a lesbian doesn't seem to necessarily effect this, since IME, many, if not
>most lesbian parents are predominantly concerned with rearing "normal"
>children.
>
>Gwendolyn
This is absolutely true. In fact, I have discerned that the boy
children of lesbians tend to me even more socialized into obnoxious
child-machismo that the boy children of straight people. I think that
this is because lesbian parents are trying to over compensate for the
absence of a male parent.
Sport
>
>Wouldn't seperatism between ourselves (i.e.) discriminating against each
>other as women, or dykes, or feminists, or all of the above be a bit
>hypocritical? Not to mention defeating the purpose? (i.e.) Discriminating
>between ourselves when discrimination is something we are trying to combat
>in the first place.
>>--
I am not a separatist, but I think that it is important that
"separatist spaces" exist. I fully believe in the right of
marginalized people to have "safe spaces" in which only their
particular identity category is represented. These spaces--whether
they are weekly meetings, annual festivals, or women's land
communities--are sources of respite and rejuvenation, in a world that
is hostile to any form of difference that is not white, male, or
heterosexual.
Roving Reporter
>Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>Um, I was talking about separatists who don't accept lesbians with boy
>>children. I think that's a bit extreme, even if you don't, and IMHO, it
>>does imply a bit more than "excluding men" since *boys* are not *men*
>>and short of abortion or murder, there's not much a woman can do about
>>not having boy children if that's what she ends up with.
>>
>>that same category. They're just *not*.
>
>boys commit sexual assault against little girls than vice versa. Some
>may say that we should feel sorry for these little boys because they
>are most likely also abused. One on level this is true, and I hope
>that all abused kids get the therapy they need to stop the cycle of
>abuse. It is important to note, however, that little girls constitute
>the overwhelming majority of abuse survivors, and they still make up
>the great *minority* of children who abuse children.
If you exclude only boy children, that's sexual discrimination. The reason
you've enumerated above is insufficient for blanket condemnation of minors.
In the Deaf community, hearing children of Deaf parents are tolerated and
included in the group with Deaf children in any community activities where
children are invited. I expect the lesbian community to be at least as
accepting. Or are you trying to tell me that lesbians are more intolerant?
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
See Deaf Expo at http://www.deafexpo.org/
-------------------------------------------
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing here
should be regarded as representing my employer's opinions.
--
MindSpring User
>
>I would indeed put children in the same category. Many more little
>boys commit sexual assault against little girls than vice versa. Some
>may say that we should feel sorry for these little boys because they
>are most likely also abused. One on level this is true, and I hope
>that all abused kids get the therapy they need to stop the cycle of
>abuse. It is important to note, however, that little girls constitute
>the overwhelming majority of abuse survivors, and they still make up
>the great *minority* of children who abuse children.
>
Should you not blame this on the way they were raised than because they are
boys? ( I'm not saying you should feel sorry for anyone that abuses someone
else. Age does not matter) Are you saying that its a man/boys nature to
abuse women? Not to mention can you imagine the values my son will have
towards women, being raised in the environment he is being raised in? I was
abused as a little girl by a grown man. Not to mention two other things that
happened at the hands of men when I was young. I should blame the whole
gender is that what you are telling me? It didn't stop me from wanting a
little boy. Yes a Dyke/Femininst wanted to have a boy-child.
Jesaka
who is in the process of making a T-shirt
Dykes raising sons. Working together to create just a few good men. (laugh)
MindSpring User
>>It depends on how they are reared. I've seen many small male children
>>already well-patterned into traditional male behavior. Being parented by
>>a lesbian doesn't seem to necessarily effect this, since IME, many, if not
>>most lesbian parents are predominantly concerned with rearing "normal"
>>children.
>>
My son will have the freedom to be whoever he wants to be. I prefer that he
be far above "Normal" but I suppose that depends on what your idea of normal
is. My goal in raising my son is that he hold no predjudice towards anyone
for any reason. (Which unfortunately today is not normal) I will embrace him
in whatever he chooses (i.e.) should he choose barbie over Gi Joe. Which is
something most parents hoping to raise "Normal" children would shun. If my
son be gay or straight, Bi or A-sexual. I also believe there are differences
in Lesbians to Straight family environments.
>
> In fact, I have discerned that the boy
>children of lesbians tend to me even more socialized into obnoxious
>child-machismo that the boy children of straight people. I think that
>this is because lesbian parents are trying to over compensate for the
>absence of a male parent.
>
The last thing I will be over compensating for is the absence of a male
parent. In my experience having not one but two horrible fathers... I know
that he doesn't need a father at all. Father/Son relationships that I have
viewed through friends are pretty nauseas anyway... The old "You must
fulfill my dreams of who you should be" father expectations, (Which are for
the most part parentalnot just fatherly) etc. So once again we discover it
is what "you" as a parent teach teach them. The values you teach them. I
will say that females make slightly more positive rolse models in raising
boy children because, we have no designs of the "kind" of man they should
become.(i.e. Football player, Good fighter, Crazy with the ladies, etc.)
Only that they become good respectful loving people that are confidant in
who they are. I as a mother as a dyke as woman will give him all the
freedoms to discover "Who" he is. Which alot of parents do not do. They want
you to be perfect. Not excepting there differences and even trying to
oppress these so called difference. Because of my differences I will be able
to embrace his differences whatever they may be.
MindSpring User
>>
>>Wouldn't seperatism between ourselves (i.e.) discriminating against each
>>other as women, or dykes, or feminists, or all of the above be a bit
>>hypocritical? Not to mention defeating the purpose? (i.e.) Discriminating
>>between ourselves when discrimination is something we are trying to combat
>>in the first place.
>>>--
>I am not a separatist, but I think that it is important that
>"separatist spaces" exist. I fully believe in the right of
>marginalized people to have "safe spaces" in which only their
>particular identity category is represented. These spaces--whether
>they are weekly meetings, annual festivals, or women's land
>communities--are sources of respite and rejuvenation, in a world that
>is hostile to any form of difference that is not white, male, or
>heterosexual.
>
>--Sport
>
I agree that such spaces are needed at times. What I am speaking of here is
being cut of by certain women/dyke/groups simply because I have a male
child. Or women being cut off by certain people simply because at one point
in thier life they dated men.
MindSpring User
>>Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>Um, I was talking about separatists who don't accept lesbians with boy
>>>children. I think that's a bit extreme, even if you don't, and IMHO, it
>>>does imply a bit more than "excluding men" since *boys* are not *men*
>>>and short of abortion or murder, there's not much a woman can do about
>>>not having boy children if that's what she ends up with.
>>>
>>>I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
>>>that same category. They're just *not*.
>>
>>boys commit sexual assault against little girls than vice versa. Some
>>may say that we should feel sorry for these little boys because they
>>are most likely also abused. One on level this is true, and I hope
>>that all abused kids get the therapy they need to stop the cycle of
>>abuse. It is important to note, however, that little girls constitute
>>the overwhelming majority of abuse survivors, and they still make up
>>the great *minority* of children who abuse children.
>
>you've enumerated above is insufficient for blanket condemnation of minors.
>
>In the Deaf community, hearing children of Deaf parents are tolerated and
>included in the group with Deaf children in any community activities where
>children are invited. I expect the lesbian community to be at least as
>accepting. Or are you trying to tell me that lesbians are more intolerant?
>
>--
I would also like to state something a little on a different subject...
Doesn't discriminating towards men and treating them as they have us in the
past and possible future only teach them to have hostilities towards women,
as some women have hostilities towards men?
I by no means want to excuse men for the crimes they have made against women
I only want to point out that blaming the whole gender acomplishes nothing.
It only lowers these women to the same level of sexism that we try to fight
against everyday.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> I would also like to state something a little on a different subject...
> Doesn't discriminating towards men and treating them as they have us in the
> past and possible future only teach them to have hostilities towards women,
> as some women have hostilities towards men?
Who discriminates against men? Men need to be *taught* to be hostile to
women?
> I by no means want to excuse men for the crimes they have made against women
> I only want to point out that blaming the whole gender acomplishes nothing.
You introduced the concept of blame -- what are talking about?
> It only lowers these women to the same level of sexism that we try to fight
> against everyday.
Define sexism.
Sport
>The last thing I will be over compensating for is the absence of a male
>parent. In my experience having not one but two horrible fathers... I know
>that he doesn't need a father at all. Father/Son relationships that I have
>viewed through friends are pretty nauseas anyway...
Just as an aside, I have to tell you that I have seen nothing but
healthy, progressive father-son relationships...at least within my own
family and among my friends. And the father-daughter relationships
have been pretty good, too. A lot of my lesbian friends are just as
bonded with their dad as they are to their mom, or even more bonded
with their dad.
--Sport
Sport
>
>>
>>I would indeed put children in the same category. Many more little
>>boys commit sexual assault against little girls than vice versa. Some
>>may say that we should feel sorry for these little boys because they
>>are most likely also abused. One on level this is true, and I hope
>>that all abused kids get the therapy they need to stop the cycle of
>>abuse. It is important to note, however, that little girls constitute
>>the overwhelming majority of abuse survivors, and they still make up
>>the great *minority* of children who abuse children.
>>
>>--Sport
>
>
>Should you not blame this on the way they were raised than because they are
>boys? ( I'm not saying you should feel sorry for anyone that abuses someone
>else. Age does not matter) Are you saying that its a man/boys nature to
>abuse women?
Puh-leeze. If I believed that I would have said that. That's dumb
essentialism. If you're a dumb essentialist, then you will probably
have those beliefs. I am neither (dumb nor essentialist).
>Not to mention can you imagine the values my son will have
>towards women, being raised in the environment he is being raised in?
I can't imagine anything about your son or his environment. I don't
even know you. I am not even talking about your son. I am talking
about the idea, advanced by many mothers of sons, that having boys in
a woman-only space makes no difference to the integrity of the space
(as woman-only). Basically, I am putting forth evidence against the
argument that children are innocent and gender/sex free people, and
the related argument that having male children in a women only space
is the same as having girl child in that space. Women only spaces are
refuge from the male-centered environment of the rest of the world. If
women want a space that is without the presence of males, then they
should be able to have it.
> I was
>abused as a little girl by a grown man. Not to mention two other things that
>happened at the hands of men when I was young. I should blame the whole
>gender is that what you are telling me?
Lady, gimme a break. I ain't saying jack about you. Like I said, I
don't even know you. Blame who you want. I know nothing about your
personal history. Personally, I think that people who black all
members of a group for an isolated incident that they experienced are
assholes.
>It didn't stop me from wanting a
>little boy. Yes a Dyke/Femininst wanted to have a boy-child.
Whatever.
--Sport
>
>Jesaka
> who is in the process of making a T-shirt
>Dykes raising sons. Working together to create just a few good men. (laugh)
>
>
>
>
Chloe Pajerek
>
> This is absolutely true. In fact, I have discerned that the boy
> children of lesbians tend to me even more socialized into obnoxious
> child-machismo that the boy children of straight people. I think that
> this is because lesbian parents are trying to over compensate for the
> absence of a male parent.
>
> --Sport
Is this peculiar to *lesbian* parents, or can such a pattern
be seen in any situation where women are raising male children
alone?
- Chloe
Chloe Pajerek
> I am not a separatist, but I think that it is important that
> "separatist spaces" exist. I fully believe in the right of
> marginalized people to have "safe spaces" in which only their
> particular identity category is represented.
This makes sense as long as we're talking about marginalized
groups.
However, in going back to the original article by Jesaka Irwin,
she was concerned not only about separatism in the abstract, but
specifically with the *hostility* that some lesbians (apparently)
display toward those who are seemingly "less pure" in their
lesbianism. If such hostility does in fact exist, I would think
that it is a legitimate cause for concern. It would suggest that
str8 people aren't the only ones who need to work on accepting
people *as they are*.
> --Sport
Al
behold jesaka, the stereotype attacker!
On 25 Jan 1999, MindSpring User wrote:
:I only want to point out that blaming the whole gender acomplishes nothing.
:It only lowers these women to the same level of sexism that we try to fight
:against everyday.
behold jesaka, the stereotype propagator!
On 25 Jan 1999, MindSpring User wrote:
:The last thing I will be over compensating for is the absence of a male
:parent. In my experience having not one but two horrible fathers... I know
:that he doesn't need a father at all. Father/Son relationships that I have
:viewed through friends are pretty nauseas anyway... The old "You must
:fulfill my dreams of who you should be" father expectations, (Which are for
:the most part parentalnot just fatherly) etc.
jesaka dear, are you sure that's *mind*spring you're using?
obthreadtying: i wonder if the pretty nauseas in question are cat nauseas
and whether they're good enough for martha.
-al
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code..."
--Unknown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
Ellen Evans
Chloe Pajerek <qpc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
[]
>However, in going back to the original article by Jesaka Irwin,
>she was concerned not only about separatism in the abstract, but
>specifically with the *hostility* that some lesbians (apparently)
>display toward those who are seemingly "less pure" in their
>lesbianism.
Some people are cranky. Some people aren't, so much. Unless those
cranky people have the power dramatically impact one's life (she hurt my
feelings doesn't cut it IMO) just don't talk to the cranky people.
It makes life so much simpler.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>
>I did my best to exclude men from my existence between the age of 17
>and about 26 or so (1977-1986). I lived in the Berkeley Women's Music
>Collective and played some with Bebe K'Roche (as on Olivia Records)
>and I was awfully damned happy to live in an environement where my
>aversion to men was completely accepted. I found it interesting that
>many men were basically enraged that I wanted nothing to do with
>them... including providing them with an insight or explanation for my
>motivations - this despite the fact that I was not seeking to harm
>them in any way. I simply wanted nothing at all to do with men and
>that is how I tried to the best of my ability to live my life. This
>had nothing to do with "treating them as they have us in the past" but
>the social dynamic was that I seemed to be sinning against half the
>race by trying to exclude them from my existence.
>
>I just mention this because it was a tremendous personal help to me to
>live this kind of life when I was young... amongst strong accepting
>women who I could look to for advice and role models. For me, as for
>many women at some time in our lives, the question became one of what
>I had to do for *myself*. Men simply didn't fit into the picture.
>
>Kiira
I understand completely that someone women need to do this for themselves. I
personally have had no interactions with men for very long periods of time,
but I did not hate them. I just had no need for them. My reply was in the
sense that some women/people judge men as a gender not as a singular person.
(i.e. my son being discriminated upon for being male. (He's not quite 2
years old) Myself being discriminated upon as a dyke/feminist for having a
male child)
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
---Some words live in my throat breeding like adders, others know sun
seeking like gypsies over my tongue to explode through my lips like young
sparrows bursting from shell. Some Words Bedevil Me. ---Audre Lourde--
Mireille92
In article <1.5&0ux2=6...@panix.com>, "MindSpring User"
<anaisu...@mindspring.com> writes:
> I
>will say that females make slightly more positive rolse models in raising
>boy children because, we have no designs of the "kind" of man they should
>become.(i.e. Football player, Good fighter, Crazy with the ladies, etc.)
>Only that they become good respectful loving people that are confidant in
>who they are.
I'm not saying that *you* have this plan for your son, or that any woman here
does, or even that women in general do--but some women do. Just today at lunch
one of my co-workers lamented that her son doesn't want to play football (he's
on the baseball and track teams, so lack of physical activity isn't the issue
here) and tries to avoid getting into fights. I know the boy's father, and it's
not pressure from him that is causing her to feel this way.
My mother's the same way, and even when she was married to him, it wasn't
pressure from my Dad that made her act like that--Dad's a quiet, bookish sort
of guy who is much happier debating politics or explaining group theory to
random passersby than he would ever be watching the Super Bowl, and he's sort
of distressed at men who don't behave in what he considers a "civilized"
manner.
IOW, while it is true that in U.S. culture, many men do want a "he-man" son,
and many women would not choose that if the choice were wholly theirs, I don't
think that it's fair to say that "women," in general, make more positive role
models because we don't expect our sons to behave like testosterone-poisoned
idiots -- because some women are idiots, too.
--
Mirei...@aol.com
"I've always wanted to be somebody. Next time I'll be more specific."
Chris Waigl
<anaisu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Doesn't discriminating towards men and treating them as they have us in the
>past and possible future only teach them to have hostilities towards women,
>as some women have hostilities towards men?
How does living in or creating an all-women space equate "treating men
as they have us in the past"?
>I by no means want to excuse men for the crimes they have made against women
>I only want to point out that blaming the whole gender acomplishes nothing.
It should be clear from a number of posts that blame doesn't
(necessarily) enter at all here. Wan't you imagine other reasons for
wishing to live among women that rancour and blame, not even when
alternatives are explained to you?
Chris, not_mod
--
Mais ce n'est pas parce qu'un humain bêle d'amour
qu'il en devient un vrai mouton. (_Le féminin et le sacré_)
Trish Pollekoff
> Gwendolyn Alden Dean <gd...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 24 Jan 1999, Roving Reporter wrote:
> >> I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
> >> that same category. They're just *not*.
> >
> >It depends on how they are reared. I've seen many small male children
> >already well-patterned into traditional male behavior. Being parented by
> >a lesbian doesn't seem to necessarily effect this, since IME, many, if not
> >most lesbian parents are predominantly concerned with rearing "normal"
> >children.
> >
> >Gwendolyn
I understood that in your experience many lesbian parents are
predominantly concerned with rearing "normal" children, I just wanted to
add my own experience, which greatly differs.
As a mom of a male child I can definitely say that
I never worried about raising a "normal" child in that sense.
My concern is that he has been exposed to a man who committed acts of
domestic violence and spoke in very negative terms about women and other
marginalized groups and their value in his presence.
I worried that those words/actions/behaviors towards these groups would
have a negative effect on my son's treatment towards them.
As you pointed out,it does depend on how they are raised. So,I undertook a
very proactive means to parenting.
Fortunately, I believe my kids never learned those negative behaviors.
They have been talked to about it since they were very young and in very
real ways.
And gratefully this teaching has not come just from my beloved and I. My
own father has had a great deal of influence in my son's life.
However, that is not to say that we haven't had our share of deprogramming
to do. Many of my son's classmates and even unwitting (I hope) teachers
reward their peers/students for traditional male behavior. For me I can
only hope that I have and continue to give my son(and daughter,too) good
models of behavior and that they adopt those. So far, I see them doing so.
>
> This is absolutely true. In fact, I have discerned that the boy
> children of lesbians tend to me even more socialized into obnoxious
> child-machismo that the boy children of straight people. I think that
> this is because lesbian parents are trying to over compensate for the
> absence of a male parent.
I would question one's use of absolutely. Certainly this may be your
experience-and I don't want to minimize that-but,I believe this is not the
case in my family. Not because of what we say; but what we do.
--Trish
___________________________________________________________________________
Trish Pollekoff ______
ppo...@gl.umbc.edu ___\___ / Living well...
\ \/ / is the best revenge!
\ /\/
\/ - Anonymous
Christina Matta
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin) <sapph...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<1.7?9ux...@panix.com>...
> years old) Myself being discriminated upon as a dyke/feminist for having a
> male child)
Eliza, would you happen to have a lesson prepared on reflexive pronouns with
which you could enlighten ourselves?
Tina, feeling snippy
Kelizascop
>Sappho (Jesaka Irwin) <sapph...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><1.7?9ux...@panix.com>...
>
>> years old) Myself being discriminated upon as a dyke/feminist for
>>having a male child)
>
>Eliza, would you happen to have a lesson prepared on reflexive
>pronouns with which you could enlighten ourselves?
I have one for herself, yes.
The most effective one for one to avoiding misusing the reflexive
pronoun is to stop oneself from writing. Anything.
HTH.
-Eliza
P.S. Tina: I'm really glad we're getting married!
----
"We champion gay rights: we refused to vacation
in Colorado." --Dr. Jill Brock
Roving Reporter
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>MindSpring User (anaisu...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>+------
>| I would also like to state something a little on a different
>| they have us in the past and possible future only teach them to have
>| hostilities towards women, as some women have hostilities towards men?
>| women I only want to point out that blaming the whole gender
>| sexism that we try to fight against everyday.
No, because *men* already have their attitudes set. What we do will only
become a statistic. The discussion was about boy children, who are still
impressionable.
>I did my best to exclude men from my existence between the age of 17
>and about 26 or so (1977-1986). I lived in the Berkeley Women's Music
>Collective and played some with Bebe K'Roche (as on Olivia Records)
>and I was awfully damned happy to live in an environement where my
>aversion to men was completely accepted.
Sounds like an interesting experience. I have very few men in my life
(just my gay boss, right now) and it's nice. Over the years I've learned
to ignore them and make my own decisions. It's true that if you allow men
to be part of your life, they seem to want to take over. That's something
I will never allow however.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
See Deaf Expo at http://www.deafexpo.org/
-------------------------------------------
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing here
should be regarded as representing my employer's opinions.
--
Dianne Millen
>I am new to this group but I would say that it is a form of separatism. I
>personally have a problem with separatism because it excludes women who
>"sleep with the enemy" as well as women who have male children and male
>friends. I would think what you are doing would be revere because that child
This is a truly boneheaded thing to say. Separatism by definition
excludes men. Women who sleep with "the enemy" (come on, we can't -all-
be fucking Pat Robertson at the same time!) presumably do not
seek out separatism, and therefore are unaffected by it. You
make it sound as if separatists are predatory, trying to include
women who choose to interact with men, and not understanding why
such women aren't interested.
Not so. Separatism is a choice for those who want it. If
you want to relate to men, don't be a separatist. It's really
not that difficult. If you have a problem with excluding men,
nobody says you -have- to be a separatist.
I'm not, personally, but only because I find most women as
annoying as most men. I'm only a separatist in the sense
that I want to exclude most of the human race from my life,
not just men.
>will grow up without the sexist and heterosexist ideas that many children are
>taught at home. Have you ever read the book Between Friends. It is a book of
>fiction letters between four women who actually deal with the same issue that
>you are dealing with. One of the women is a separatist. She calls herself a
>political lesbian. The woman she falls for in the book is a lesbian who is
>rearing a son. The conflicts they have are very interesting and not
>unrelated to the problems that you are going through. I highly recommend the
I do find this interesting though. On the one hand, I support
anyone who wants to create a separatist environment for themselves.
I also agree that little boys are not innocent cherubim free
from any form of attitude or behaviour. Jesus, I was sexually
harassed the entire way through junior school before going to
an all-girls secondary school, and nobody labelled it harassment
nor did a damn thing about it (and it was happening to -every-
girl in the class). However, I would find a lesbian partner who
couldn't cope with my hypothetical son (I have no kids) just
as upsetting as the sort of boorish man one comes across now
and again who can't stand raising 'another man's kids'. I'd
hope that loving the kids, whether they are male or female, would
be the number one priority. I don't know how that would shake
down with wanting to live a separatist life. I'm really glad
that I don't have to deal with that, and my sympathies to those
who do.
Dianne
x
--
'When it comes, and the opening credits roll, I nearly burst into song! I
go crazy with joy and do a little dance in my seat. Then I watch with a
frenzied concentration that a phone call from Jesus Christ could not break.'
- Katherine Dahlsgaard (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/071698/tv.shtml)
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
Al wrote in message <1.505...@panix.com>...
>
>behold jesaka, the stereotype attacker!
>
>On 25 Jan 1999, MindSpring User wrote:
>
nothing.
>:It only lowers these women to the same level of sexism that we try to
fight
>:against everyday.
>
>
>On 25 Jan 1999, MindSpring User wrote:
>
>:The last thing I will be over compensating for is the absence of a male
>:parent. In my experience having not one but two horrible fathers... I know
>:that he doesn't need a father at all. Father/Son relationships that I have
>:viewed through friends are pretty nauseas anyway... The old "You must
>:fulfill my dreams of who you should be" father expectations, (Which are
for
>:the most part parentalnot just fatherly) etc.
Please note: (Which are for the most part are parental not just fatherly.)
Also Father/Son relationships which I have viewed through friends. I am
stating strictly from my experience. It is not a stereotype. I personally
know that a person does not *need* a father. I'm sure in some cases they do
not *need* a mother either.
>obthreadtying: i wonder if the pretty nauseas in question are cat nauseas
>and whether they're good enough for martha.
Good enough for martha.
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>
>>Doesn't discriminating towards men and treating them as they have us in
the
>>past and possible future only teach them to have hostilities towards
women,
>>as some women have hostilities towards men?
>
>as they have us in the past"?
My issue is not with women wanting all women spaces, my issue is with women
who discriminate
A: because you have a male child
B: because you have had relationships with men in the past.
C: Women who blame the whole gender for actions of particulaer men.
>>I by no means want to excuse men for the crimes they have made against
women
>>I only want to point out that blaming the whole gender acomplishes
nothing.
>
>It should be clear from a number of posts that blame doesn't
>(necessarily) enter at all here. Wan't you imagine other reasons for
>wishing to live among women that rancour and blame, not even when
>alternatives are explained to you?
>
Its not about wanting to exclude men from your life, its about hating men.
Its about not associating with me as a dyke/feminist because I have a male
child. To go so far in some instances (not in mine but in other) to say
"Have an abortion". Its about not associating with women/dyke because at
some point they had relationships with men.
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
---Some words live in my throat breeding like adders, others know sun
seeking like gypsies over my toungue to explode through my lips like
young sparrows bursting from shell. Some Words Bedevil Me. ---Audre Lourde--
shannon salisbury
> I'm not, personally, but only because I find most women as
> annoying as most men. I'm only a separatist in the sense
> that I want to exclude most of the human race from my life,
> not just men.
<swoon>
Dianne, you totally rock my ass. I adore people who hate people. Does that
make me the anti-Streisand?
-s.
--
shannon salisbury, B.A. english literature IV
ssal...@chat.carleton.ca http://wabakimi.carleton.ca/~ssalisbu
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>should be able to have it.
I agree. I just don't think I should be descriminated against because I have
a boy child. Nor do I believe it is right for people to hate/discriminate
against my son strictly because he is male.
>> I was
>>abused as a little girl by a grown man. Not to mention two other things
that
>>happened at the hands of men when I was young. I should blame the whole
>>gender is that what you are telling me?
>
Blame who you want. I know nothing about your
>personal history. Personally, I think that people who black all members of
a group for an isolated incident that they experienced are
>assholes.
I agree, and that is my point.
>>It didn't stop me from wanting a
>>little boy. Yes a Dyke/Femininst wanted to have a boy-child.
>
>Whatever.
>
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
---Some words live in my throat breeding like adders, others know sun
seeking like gypsies over my toungue to explode through my lips like young
sparrows bursting from shell. Some Words Bedevil Me. ---Audre Lourde--
>.
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>> Doesn't discriminating towards men and treating them as they have us in
the
>> past and possible future only teach them to have hostilities towards
women,
>> as some women have hostilities towards men?
>
>women?
Are you saying that all men are hostile towards women?
( I personally know this to be untrue although I know in the worst ways how
hostile "Some" can be.)
Who discriminates against men?... Many people, women, My son is
discriminated against by people I used to call friends simply because he is
a boy. Not because he disrespects them or has hurt them in any way, but
simply because he is of male gender.
>> I by no means want to excuse men for the crimes they have made against
women
>> I only want to point out that blaming the whole gender acomplishes
nothing.
>
>You introduced the concept of blame -- what are talking about?
I am speaking of blaming the whole male gender for the insecurities and
crimes of particular men.
>> It only lowers these women to the same level of sexism that we try to
fight against everyday.
>
>Define sexism.
Sexism/Sexist:
Disriminatory behavior towards someone because of thier gender. Stereotyping
someone because of thier Gender. I could go one but I think that pretty much
says what I meant in using the word sexism.
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>
>I did my best to exclude men from my existence between the age of 17
>and about 26 or so (1977-1986). I lived in the Berkeley Women's Music
>Collective and played some with Bebe K'Roche (as on Olivia Records)
>and I was awfully damned happy to live in an environement where my
>aversion to men was completely accepted. I found it interesting that
>many men were basically enraged that I wanted nothing to do with
>them... including providing them with an insight or explanation for my
>motivations - this despite the fact that I was not seeking to harm
>them in any way. I simply wanted nothing at all to do with men and
>that is how I tried to the best of my ability to live my life. This
>had nothing to do with "treating them as they have us in the past" but
>the social dynamic was that I seemed to be sinning against half the
>race by trying to exclude them from my existence.
>
>I just mention this because it was a tremendous personal help to me to
>live this kind of life when I was young... amongst strong accepting
>women who I could look to for advice and role models. For me, as for
>many women at some time in our lives, the question became one of what
>I had to do for *myself*. Men simply didn't fit into the picture.
>
>Kiira
I understand completely that someone women need to do this for themselves. I
personally have had no interactions with men for very long periods of time,
but I did not hate them. I just had no need for them. My reply was in the
sense that some women/people judge men as a gender not as a singular person.
(i.e. my son being descriminated upon for being male. (He's not quite 2
years old) Myself being descriminated upon as a dyke/feminist for having a
male child)
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
---Some words live in my throat breeding like adders, others know sun
seeking like gypsies over my tongue to explode through my lips like young
sparrows bursting from shell. Some Words Bedevil Me. ---Audre Lourde--
liz
than fleetingly disappointed by the gender of their child. This seems to be
getting more serious now that it is possible to select gender using some
assisted reproductive technologies. I think politics and gender issues are
wonderful, but not when that means loving a child less.
Just my two cents, I've told too many women and girls they were pregnant and
watched their faces fall and I've delivered too many unwanted babies to not
comment.
Liz
Al
:>behold jesaka, the stereotype propagator!
:>
:>On 25 Jan 1999, MindSpring User wrote:
:>
:>:The last thing I will be over compensating for is the absence of a male
:>:parent. In my experience having not one but two horrible fathers... I know
:>:that he doesn't need a father at all. Father/Son relationships that I have
:>:viewed through friends are pretty nauseas anyway... The old "You must
:>:fulfill my dreams of who you should be" father expectations, (Which are
:for
:>:the most part parentalnot just fatherly) etc.
:
:Please note: (Which are for the most part are parental not just fatherly.)
which says that some mothers are just as bad as fathers, but has no
intention of redeeming fathers in any way.
:Also Father/Son relationships which I have viewed through friends. I am
:stating strictly from my experience. It is not a stereotype. I personally
:know that a person does not *need* a father. I'm sure in some cases they do
:not *need* a mother either.
well, jesaka, ime, a person doesn't *need* a mother, and i *know* this, so
why don't you just give up your child for adoption?
the point being, just because some things are true "in my world", as
you're fond of saying, doesn't mean i *know* they're true for any other
person. if i went around saying that i *know* everything i did was right
for everyone else, not many people would talk to me afterwards. i have a
good relationship with my father (even if i do have to bitch and whine
about him once in a while), and i don't need you to tell me that you
absolutely *know* that i don't need that.
that was the point of my comment re your stereotyping--aren't you, to
paraphrase your own posts, blaming all fathers for the mistakes your
father(s) have made with you? if i were to read more into what you've
written, your words would seem to imply that men don't
deserve to have children, a) because you *know* that children don't need
them and b) because children are better off without them. that definitely
isn't everyone's experience, and shows some heavy stereotyping on your
part. i'm not saying that you should run out into the street and look for
someone to be the father of your boy, but i won't tolerate your presenting
your experience as absolute truth, when it isn't.
-al
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code..."
--Unknown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
--
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> However, I would find a lesbian partner who
> couldn't cope with my hypothetical son (I have no kids) just
> as upsetting as the sort of boorish man one comes across now
> and again who can't stand raising 'another man's kids'.
My lesbian partner is really unhappy about the existence of the kid and
her unhappiness is intensified by the fact that he's male. Of course,
she's also convinced that I'm a lesbian-identified bisexual, tho' she's
learned not to say that anymore. ;)
Funny, the only place that I encounter these attitudes is in my own home.
Must be karmic retribution.
Gwendolyn
who used to joke with a friend that if all the nasty stuff in this life
was karmic retribution for bad things we did in a past life, I hope that
we had lots of fun in the past life and were never even a tiny bit sorry
(To send an email message,
please use gd...@cornell.edu.)
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> the
> >> past and possible future only teach them to have hostilities towards
> women,
> >> as some women have hostilities towards men?
> >
> >Who discriminates against men? Men need to be *taught* to be hostile to
> >women?
Do you have any idea how to quote and attribute properly? You need
to learn.
> Are you saying that all men are hostile towards women?
> ( I personally know this to be untrue although I know in the worst ways how
> hostile "Some" can be.)
I think that many men are -- traditional masculinity includes hostility
towards women and toward "the feminine." When they're not hostile,
they're often contemptuous.
> Who discriminates against men?... Many people, women, My son is
> discriminated against by people I used to call friends simply because he is
> a boy. Not because he disrespects them or has hurt them in any way, but
> simply because he is of male gender.
So, you define "discrimination" as "makes me feel icky?"
You're not describing being kept from education or housing or employment,
right? You're not describing social attitudes that violence, regardless
of existing legislation, right?
> >You introduced the concept of blame -- what are talking about?
> I am speaking of blaming the whole male gender for the insecurities and
> crimes of particular men.
And I would say, no one's talking about that. Only you.
> >Define sexism.
> Sexism/Sexist:
> Disriminatory behavior towards someone because of thier gender. Stereotyping
> someone because of thier Gender. I could go one but I think that pretty much
> says what I meant in using the word sexism.
Ah, no power, no privilege -- it's an equal-playing field argument. I
knew it.
peg boucher murphy
throw a bunch of things together, complain about them
as if they were one thing (let alone related), and then
get defensive when people have as much trouble with your
posting *style* as with what you say.
i'm gonna attempt to respond to this post because i'm
getting more and more annoyed at your (apparent, imho)
thoughtless posting style, here *specifically* about a
topic near and dear to my heart (as the mother of two
sons).
you really should remember that because all we have here
is the written text, precision (especially in language)
and a lot of forethought and editing of what you actually
send is almost always a good idea.
your posts usually read to me like something you've been
thinking about, but just tossed off in one draft. some
people can do that. so far, it doesn't seem that you are
one of them -- especially given your lack of punctuation
between periods.
that aside...
In article <1.m2$sx2...@panix.com>,
Jesaka Irwin <sapph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I am a dyke, a mother, and a proud mother of a son.
are you proud of being a mother? of being a dyke mother?
specifically of having a son (because he's your child?
instead of a daughter? -- the latter is certainly one way
to read what you wrote, you know)?
>I have experienced as have others certain
>discriminations for these reasons.
(fwiw, this is one of many sentences that needs punctuation.)
>I was a dyke when I decided to have
>a child, although certain women find problems because they liked men
>at one point or another in thier life.
i have absolutely no idea what you think this sentence means.
you were a dyke when you decided to have a child, although
(even though? despite the fact that?) some women find problems
(presumably with you? you being a dyke? you deciding to have
a child?) because they liked (for what value of "liked") men
at one point point or another in their life?
huh?
>Why should a self-confirmed dyke who has been for many years be
>considered less because she has had relationships with men? ( Lets say
>five to ten years ago hypothetically)
whoa -- i thought we were talking about issues around dykes
with sons. *now*, only a few lines later, you're talking
about dykes' past histories with men -- and apparently excluding
the possibility of bisexual dykes. both of these issues have
been addressed *exhaustively* on this newsgroup (and others)
before, and both have a tendency to turn into massive flame
wars. and neither is directly related to your subject header,
nor to what you *said* you wanted to talk about.
>The issue of being a mother cannot be pointed in either direction
i can't even begin to fathom what you mean by this. directions?
>as all preferences seem to have issues with the child factor so that is
>left to personal choices.
i can't fathom this, either. i had hoped that if i broke it up
more, i'd see it. but i still don't.
>But... why are there certain issues with dykes raising son's?
okay, are you upset that there are certain issues, that there
are issues at all, or with what some "certain issues" are? do
you just want to know why certain issues exist for different people?
for the community (such that it is)?
>I wanted a son.
would you have not wanted a daughter? is there some reason
that you have a strong preference?
>I have experienced and read of experiences where certain
>feminists, and feminist groups who will support you in having a
>child without the traditional ideas also shun you for conceiving a
>boy.
another sentence that needs punctuation. you have experienced
-- and have read of experiences -- where certain feminists and
feminist groups will who will support your having a child {without
the traditional ideas? what do you mean by that?) also shun you
for conceiving a boy.
what are you saying? that some people (feminists/feminist groups)
support dykes having kids, but not when those kids are sons? is
that what you're trying to say here?
i'll respond to that, sort of...
okay, as a mother of sons, i have found my sons -- not me --
unwelcome in women-only space. i was never "shunned" for simply
*conceiving* a boy-child (which would have been tough, since i
did no tests to determine gender during either pregnancy), nor
have i witnessed such a thing.
i *have* seen pretty negative responses to queer women who are
pregnant/trying to get pregnant who express a strong preference
for a boy. but i would expect dykes to have issues with that.
<shrug> i'd expect a lot of non-dykes to take issue with that.
>My friends, and certain people I was involved with in feminist
>issues had slight/major problems with the fact that I have a son, but
>have gotten over it or are merely no longer in my life. Why am I less
>of a friend or feminist because i have a son?
well, i have had issues with dyke friends who have had sons.
not because they gave birth to (or adopted) boys, but because
of the way they are raising their boys -- stereotypically,
allowing those sons to dominate their lives in a way that
encourages little boys to feel entitled and privileged and grow
up to to be men that act on that entitlemnt and privilege.
someone else has already answered this point a bit (sport, i
think) and i'm going to answer her directly on this one.
<snip>
>I am curious why feminism for some has to equal hatred for men?
i think that this is a vast minority. most of the women i know
who hate men are not dykes (and many don't consider themselves
feminists). being angry and resnetful of those who constantly
oppress you really shouldn't be *that* surprising to you -- i
read what you wrote about "christians". it's the same sort
of anger.
<big snip>
>Why must there be seperatism at all in feminist/dyke/women's issues?
because some women are empowered by living without having to
deal with male oppression at all? because some of us are
empowered just knowing that such places are possible, even if
we can't/don't want to live in them full-time? because for
many it is impossible to see what not being oppressed would
be like within the systemic and systematic oppression of
patriarchal culture?
(there are a few places to start...)
>I have always thought the best way to overcome obstacles especially in
>feminist/dyke issues was through unity.
apparently, not everyone agrees that "unity" should include
men. why isn't that okay with you? do we all have to agree
with you?
>So, why so much seperatism among our community?
how much is there? i don't know of too many separatist
communities anymore. <shrug> there are separatist music
festivals and organizations, but they are hardly omnipresent
or even the majority of ways that women have to get together
as feminists and/or dykes.
do you mind that separatist space exists at all?
are you unhappy because your sons aren't welcome in separatist
space? are you saying that you -- without your sons -- aren't
welcome in separatist space?
what, exactly, is it that you are asking/saying?
peg
-very frustrated with jesaka's posts and posting style and who
wishes she wouldn't keep on bringing up topics that are
*interesting*...
peg boucher murphy
Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On 24 Jan 1999, Angst Girl wrote:
>>> >Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>> >>My theory is that many lesbians either don't have brothers,
>>> >>or if they do, they don't have a good relationship with
>>> >>them.
>>
>>Let me blow a hole in your "theory". I have two brothers, one of whom I
>>have an excellent relationship with. I also have a wonderful relationship
>>with my father. Still, I lived in a lesbian seperatists compound for quite
>>a few years. It's not about excluding men. It's simply not about men at
>>all (as hard as that can be to comprehend being as all of life tends to
>>revolve around men). It's about devoting your life to lesbians and only
>>lesbians.
>
>Um, I was talking about separatists who don't accept lesbians with boy
>children.
angst girl did just identify herself here as someone who
lived as a separatist for quite a few years.
>I think that's a bit extreme, even if you don't, and IMHO, it
>does imply a bit more than "excluding men" since *boys* are not *men*
boys are not yet men. but at what point do they become men?
if you let boys live in a separatist compound until a certina
age (for example), how horrible would it be for them when they
then hit some magical age and have to leave, because they are
now the enemy?
who is going to determine that magical age?
<sigh> my sons are young adolescents and while they are certainly
not yet adult men, they *are* [becoming] young men. i've worked
hard to teach them to be feminist, etc, but they would certainly
not be appropriate in a women-only community. it wouldn't be
fair to the women who want to live without men -- even proto-men,
like my sons have been for years. and it wouldn't be fair to
the sons in question, having to leave a safe environment and
be demonized at a certain age. the fact is, this *isn't* quite
so easy as "boys are not men". it *is* different with girl
children in women-only space.
>and short of abortion or murder, there's not much a woman can do about
>not having boy children if that's what she ends up with.
she can choose to not live -- or try to live -- in a woman only
space with a boy child.
many people do consider sex-selective abortions. others might
not choose to raise a boy child. most choose to change their
living situations, so the boy child will be welcome and loved.
>I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
>that same category. They're just *not*.
i ask again: when does a boy become a man and get to be thrown
out of women's communities? when he can talk? when he hits
puberty? when?
and who decides?
peg
-who doesn't think that this is an easy question, and so doesn't
accept the pat answer...
Empress of Blandings
>who used to joke with a friend that if all the nasty stuff in this life
>was karmic retribution for bad things we did in a past life, I hope that
>we had lots of fun in the past life and were never even a tiny bit sorry
Karmic retribution 'round these parts involves lots of ankle-biting.
Karma's a bitch. Teehee.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ Momentum! A paying market for metrical poetry.
pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.piglet.org/momentum
Empress of Blandings
>I understand completely that someone women need to do this for themselves. I
>personally have had no interactions with men for very long periods of time,
>but I did not hate them.
Your implication, again, is that those separatist women under
discussion *do* hate men. How can you say both "I understand
why they're doing it" *and* "they must hate men" at the same
time?
>... some women/people judge men as a gender not as a singular person.
>(i.e. my son being descriminated upon for being male. (He's not quite 2
>years old) Myself being descriminated upon as a dyke/feminist for having a
>male child)
I question your use of the word discrimination here. Excluded from
separatist all-female space? I should certainly hope so. Your son
is not female. Therefore, he does not belong in women-only space.
That's not discrimination.
peg boucher murphy
>Gwendolyn Alden Dean <gd...@emory.edu> wrote:
>>It depends on how they are reared. I've seen many small male children
>>already well-patterned into traditional male behavior. Being parented by
>>a lesbian doesn't seem to necessarily effect this, since IME, many, if not
>>most lesbian parents are predominantly concerned with rearing "normal"
>>children.
>
<nod> this has been my experience, too. <sigh>
>In fact, I have discerned that the boy
>children of lesbians tend to me even more socialized into obnoxious
>child-machismo that the boy children of straight people. I think that
>this is because lesbian parents are trying to over compensate for the
>absence of a male parent.
we have really avoided some friends who were dykes raising sons
for big chunks of time over this issue. they had sons who even
when very young were aggressive and very boy-machismo. one
exhibited this as young as 2yo. (something for those of you
who keep insisting that little ones are *different* should
note!)
what made it especially hard to be around (especially since i
was *not* raising my kids that way (i only tolerate aggression
between people in relatively equal power situations, and violence
only between siblings over a certain age <evil grin> and in self
defense or in defense of someone who genuinely needs defending
from a larger or more powerful aggressor -- and even then, it
should not be the first choice! but i digress...) was the
mothers' reactions.
i've seen too many lesbian moms worried about not having "normal
boys". for many, the big fear is that we're going to be accused
of man-hating *towards* *our* *own* *sons*, of turning our boys
feminine (and maybe even -- gasp! -- gay!) out of that hatred.
so, because of cultural stereotypes about what boys are/do ("boys
will be boys"), they are hesitant to correct behaviors that might
"just be boy things". these parents let their then let their boy
children get away with horrible behavior that they would *never*
have tolerated in a girl child, setting up some weird (and imho,
bad) power structures within their own families. these habits
can even encourage some behaviors that (imho) encourage boys'
sense of entitlement, especially when it comes to girls/women
(which i'm not going to list here).
it's really a problem, and "the little boy problem" (lesbian
moms with a first born or only son who is out of control) has been
an issue in more than one queer parent group i've seen.
my kids *still* talk with amazement (and my daughter with some
disgust) about some of what they've wintessed. barb and i have
mostly found it very depressing that some of the most patriarchal
boys we've known (right up through high school age) are the
sons of dykes.
peg
-endeavoring to do it very differently...
Praocak
In article <1.7$rux...@panix.com>, "Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)" writes:
>My issue is not with women wanting all women spaces, my issue is with women
>who discriminate
>A: because you have a male child
>B: because you have had relationships with men in the past.
>C: Women who blame the whole gender for actions of particulaer men.
Could you please explain in concrete terms (i.e. by using
*examples*) how you have faced _discrimination_ because
you have a male child or because you have had relationships
with men in the past? Thanks.
shelley
_______Magnetic Poetry Line-of-the-Week:_______
the night was frantic luscious magic until the apparatus crackled
and moaned and a green glowing juice sprayed on my leg
_____________________________________________________
chlogiston
>i've seen too many lesbian moms worried about not having "normal
>boys". for many, the big fear is that we're going to be accused
>of man-hating *towards* *our* *own* *sons*, of turning our boys
>feminine (and maybe even -- gasp! -- gay!) out of that hatred.
you know, the idea that lesbian parents need to somehow expose their male
children to "male role models" has always disturbed me on some level, but
so many people seemed to be saying it that without questioning i assumed
that it had already been put through the usual feminist rigors.
but really! what is going to happen that is so terrible? i see now that it
has to be femininity.
how distressing.
--
Chloe Joan Lopez cjl...@fas.harvard.edu +
"With kids these days, it's computers, computers, computers. Doesn't
anyone watch television anymore?" -- Jeffrey Hwang
+ +
shannon salisbury
> In article <1.0^rux...@panix.com>, ssal...@chat.carleton.ca (shannon
> salisbury) wrote:
> > Dianne, you totally rock my ass. I adore people who hate people. Does that
> > make me the anti-Streisand?
> If so, will you marry me?
> -- Ali, who hates Streisand.
Yay! I finally earned a marriage proposal!
*happy dance*
I'm part of the harem, I'm part of the harem....
-s.
--
shannon salisbury, B.A. english literature IV
ssal...@chat.carleton.ca http://wabakimi.carleton.ca/~ssalisbu
--
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> You're not describing being kept from education or housing or employment,
> right? You're not describing social attitudes that violence, regardless
Woops, we need the verbs!
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>
>I'm not, personally, but only because I find most women as
>annoying as most men. I'm only a separatist in the sense
>that I want to exclude most of the human race from my life,
>not just men.
That doesn't make you a seperatist only introverted. (Like myself)
Define Seperatist: An advocate of seperation as from a political body. Such
as an organized group people. ( I have no problem with seperatism as a whole
as long as you don't hate/discriminate against this group for unjust
reasons) (i.e. when you are a seperatist in the female sense and are
disriminating against other women)
>
>I do find this interesting though. On the one hand, I support
>anyone who wants to create a separatist environment for themselves.
>I also agree that little boys are not innocent cherubim free
>from any form of attitude or behaviour. Jesus, I was sexually
>harassed the entire way through junior school before going to
>an all-girls secondary school, and nobody labelled it harassment
>nor did a damn thing about it (and it was happening to -every-
Thank God they are doing things about it now. Do you agree though that even
in this instance you should not judge all men/boys as if they are all this
way?
>girl in the class). However, I would find a lesbian partner who
>couldn't cope with my hypothetical son (I have no kids) just
>as upsetting as the sort of boorish man one comes across now
>and again who can't stand raising 'another man's kids'. I'd
>hope that loving the kids, whether they are male or female, would
>be the number one priority.
This is my point exactly.
I had 2 friends that I had been very close to for a couple of years that
completely removed themselves from my life when I cam with the news that I
was having a boy. (Which doesn't bother me so much cause why would I want
people like that in my life. though I loved them very much)
> I don't know how that would shake
>down with wanting to live a separatist life.
It doesn't, that is just something people keep throwing in,because I
mentioned that some dyke/feminist/women discriminate against me for having a
boy child , and also women who have in the past slept with men.This is a
form of seperatism. (The saddest part is it is between women.) I have no
problem with women that choose to live in purely female environments. It is
at women who think I am less a feminist because I have a male child. Women
who think certain women are less of a dyke simple because they have slept
with men in the past. Women who have a problem with my son, simply because
he is male. (ie. the two friends that are no longer in my life.) Women that
have gone so far (not in my circumstance but in others) to say have an
abortion. This is where my issues lie. This is where my comments are
directed. People keep throwing in as if I am attacking the need for
female-only environments, which I am not doing at all. I just strongly
believe it is wrong to discriminate within ourselves, and to judge men as a
gender.
>I am very glad that I don't have to deal with that, and my sympathies to
those
>who do.
>
>Dianne
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
---Some words live in my throat breeding like adders, others know sun
seeking like gypsies over my toungue to explode through my lips like
young sparrows bursting from shell. Some Words Bedevil Me. ---Audre Lourde--
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>
>Could you please explain in concrete terms (i.e. by using
>*examples*) how you have faced _discrimination_ because
>you have a male child or because you have had relationships
>with men in the past? Thanks.
>
>shelley
>
Well as a feminist I lost friends and was criticized for my desire and
accomplishment in giving birth to a male child.
Women in certain feminist circle's that I was involved in considered me less
of a feminist because I had a male child.
( I know that not all women/groups are like this I am just speaking of
particular women/groups)
I and Two friends of mine in particular no longer have contact. A few others
got over it.
I was reading on another thread about a woman who started to associate with
a woman romantically when she spoke of her daughter and grandson everything
changed she had believed it was because of her past relations with men. I
have a friend here in New Orleans who recently came out and has met people
but in finding that she dated men in the past became distant towards her.
Not to mention the other woman here who posted how her partner considers her
a lesbian identified bi-sexual. (though this particular woman was not
discriminate against) It proves my point though that women who have had
relationships with men in the past are considered less a dyke. Why must that
be?
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
---Some words live in my throat breeding like adders, others know sun
seeking like gypsies over my tongue to explode through my lips like young
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> Define Seperatist: An advocate of seperation as from a political body. Such
> as an organized group people. ( I have no problem with seperatism as a whole
> as long as you don't hate/discriminate against this group for unjust
> reasons) (i.e. when you are a seperatist in the female sense and are
> disriminating against other women)
For goddess' sake, spell it right.
Melinda Shore
>It makes her a misanthropist.
It makes her misanthropic or a misanthrope, actually.
I'm on a prescriptivist binge. Stay outta my way.
--
Melinda Shore - Cayuga Whine Trail - sh...@panix.com
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> accomplishment in giving birth to a male child.
> Women in certain feminist circle's that I was involved in considered me less
> of a feminist because I had a male child.
> ( I know that not all women/groups are like this I am just speaking of
> particular women/groups)
> I and Two friends of mine in particular no longer have contact. A few others
> got over it.
Equals "makes me feel icky."
> Not to mention the other woman here who posted how her partner considers her
> a lesbian identified bi-sexual. (though this particular woman was not
> discriminate against) It proves my point though that women who have had
> relationships with men in the past are considered less a dyke. Why must that
> be?
No, it doesn't prove your point. It actually demonstrated how rarely
*I've* encountered those particular reactions. And if my gf had felt she
couldn't be in a relationship with me, I wouldn't have been happy but I
would have understood and not felt that it was "discriminatory." One has
various requirements of one's nearest and dearest that generally exclude
many folks. I, for instance, could not be in a relationship with a
closeted woman or a Republican and some people think that's horrible.
Tough.
Beth
[Shelley wrote:]
: >Could you please explain in concrete terms (i.e. by using
: >*examples*) how you have faced _discrimination_ because
: >with men in the past? Thanks.
: Well as a feminist I lost friends and was criticized for my desire and
: accomplishment in giving birth to a male child.
That's not discrimination.
: Women in certain feminist circle's that I was involved in considered me less
: of a feminist because I had a male child.
That's also not discrimination.
: I was reading on another thread about a woman who started to associate with
: a woman romantically when she spoke of her daughter and grandson everything
: changed she had believed it was because of her past relations with men.
People who don't want to date you are not guilty of discrimination.
: I
: have a friend here in New Orleans who recently came out and has met people
: but in finding that she dated men in the past became distant towards her.
Wow, look at all these examples of things that are NOT discrimination.
I'm not saying that these aren't bad things, but deciding not to socialize
with someone is not discrimination. People may make those decisions based
on prejudices of one sort or another and, while that's not particularly
admirable, nobody's obligated to like anyone else.
: Not to mention the other woman here who posted how her partner
: considers her a lesbian identified bi-sexual. (though this particular
: woman was not discriminate against)
Somehow, I suspect Gwendolyn would indeed prefer that you not mention her
in attempting to prove your "point."
: It proves my point though that women who have had
: relationships with men in the past are considered less a dyke. Why must that
: be?
Do you really believe that all lesbians have the same attitude towards
women who've been involved with men in the past? Plenty of women who've
dated men, myself included, don't get treated as "less a dyke" by anyone.
Why might that be?
-Beth
--
Beth Linker
bli...@mtcc.com
"it should be blindingly obvious that my time here is
about creating the longest running personal ad in history" - FJ!!
Ellen Evans
>at women who think I am less a feminist because I have a male child. Women
>who think certain women are less of a dyke simple because they have slept
>with men in the past. Women who have a problem with my son, simply because
>he is male.
So you "have no problem" except that you believe that you should get to
decide what they do and don't believe?
They've made a choice. Maybe it's a shitty choice, but they get to make
that choice. Just like you get to make the choice to love your son.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Ellen Evans
>you know, the idea that lesbian parents need to somehow expose their male
>children to "male role models" has always disturbed me on some level,
Having positive adult male figures in boys' lives !necessarily= having
macho asshole figures in boys' lives. peg and barb's kids have *lots* of
adult males in their lives.
Ellen Evans
>Well as a feminist I lost friends and was criticized for my desire and
>accomplishment in giving birth to a male child.
>of a feminist because I had a male child.
>particular women/groups)
>I and Two friends of mine in particular no longer have contact. A few others
>got over it.
Not being your friend != discrimination. You made a choice. The choice
had consequences, good and bad. There are vegetarians out there who
won't be your friend if you are meat-eater. They have that right.
[]
>It proves my point though that women who have had
>relationships with men in the past are considered less a dyke. Why must that
>be?
Because some people are cranky, for all sorts of reasons.
Al
:In article <1.+~rux...@panix.com>, "liz" <liz...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
:
:> I'm very distressed about the concept of any woman or any person being more
:> than fleetingly disappointed by the gender of their child. This seems to be
:> getting more serious now that it is possible to select gender using some
:> assisted reproductive technologies. I think politics and gender issues are
:> wonderful, but not when that means loving a child less.
:> Just my two cents, I've told too many women and girls they were pregnant and
:> watched their faces fall and I've delivered too many unwanted babies to not
:> comment.
:
:I have to agree. Peg mentioned that people would have issues if a lesbian
:wanted a male baby. I don't see why -- it's not as if a woman's going to
:want to have sex with her baby, whether it's male or female.
i believe that the "issues" in question would not be ones of orientation,
but rather of wanting a male child rather than a child of
any gender. i myself am peeved with people who have a strong preference
towards the gender of a future baby. afaik, when such a preference is
exhibited, it is usually toward a male child, and to me, it is
understandable why a feminist would have issues with that.
or did i misread?
-al
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code..."
--Unknown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
--
Al
:Define Seperatist: An advocate of seperation as from a political body.
what does that mean?
:Such
:as an organized group people.
what does *this* mean?
:( I have no problem with seperatism as a whole
:as long as you don't hate/discriminate against this group for unjust
:reasons)
against what group, and what do you define as unjust reasons?
:(i.e. when you are a seperatist in the female sense and are
:disriminating against other women)
what the heck is a "separatist in the female sense" and how does it
involve discrimination against other women?
jesaka, if you want a decent discussion, you need to learn to express
yourself coherently. i, for one, cannot understand what you are saying.
you would get a much better and more constructive (to the argument, not
necessarily to you) response if you could explain yourself. people have
asked you questions, requesting that you clarify your position. all you
do is rehash your previous, er, arguments in the same jumbled
(semantically, grammatically, and orthographically) way people originally
objected to. you realize that gets you nowhere, do you?
Dianne Millen wrote:
:> I don't know how that would shake
:>down with wanting to live a separatist life.
:
:
:It doesn't, that is just something people keep throwing in,because I
:mentioned that some dyke/feminist/women discriminate against me for having a
:boy child , and also women who have in the past slept with men.This is a
:form of seperatism. (The saddest part is it is between women.) I have no
:problem with women that choose to live in purely female environments. It is
:at women who think I am less a feminist because I have a male child. Women
:who think certain women are less of a dyke simple because they have slept
:with men in the past. Women who have a problem with my son, simply because
:he is male. (ie. the two friends that are no longer in my life.) Women that
:have gone so far (not in my circumstance but in others) to say have an
:abortion. This is where my issues lie.
but that's not called separatism. why did you invoke separatism when your
complaints, in fact, have nothing to do with it? ditto, for
discrimination. check the dictionary next time, will ya?
-al, who couldn't care less which gender children jesaka (or anyone else)
is bringing up, but sure hopes jesaka's not the one teaching them to spell
Al
:On 26 Jan 1999, Sappho (Jesaka Irwin) wrote:
:
::Define Seperatist: An advocate of seperation as from a political body.
:
:what does that mean?
following up on that: found the dictionary jesaka must be using.
needless to say, the definition looks much more understandable when
punctuated.
-al, who cannot believe how someone can mess up punctuation when copying
directly from a written source.
Cheryl Trooskin
>I'm very distressed about the concept of any woman or any person being more
>than fleetingly disappointed by the gender of their child.
>I think politics and gender issues are
>wonderful, but not when that means loving a child less.
I'm not sure I agree with a construct that equates disappointment
with 'loving a child less.'
I've been disappointed with various characteristics of quite a few
people in my life, but, with the exception of traits that I believe
should be controllable (for example, a violent temper of an adult),
that disappointment is neither cause nor effect of loving them less.
sev, who's not a parent and cannot speak much of being disappointed
by a child, beyond the fact that, when I did something
egregiously inappropriate, my parents were quite successful
at conveying their disappointment without making me worry that
they loved me any less...
--
s...@byz.org can also be found at http://www.byz.org/~sev
death before decaf!
Ayana Craven
If you're going to include the text, include who said it.]
>>I'm not, personally, but only because I find most women as
>>annoying as most men. I'm only a separatist in the sense
>>that I want to exclude most of the human race from my life,
>>not just men.
>
>That doesn't make you a seperatist only introverted. (Like myself)
>Define Seperatist: An advocate of seperation as from a political body. Such
>as an organized group people. ( I have no problem with seperatism as a whole
>as long as you don't hate/discriminate against this group for unjust
>reasons)
This is the oldest myth in the book, this business of saying that
separatism is about hating the ones you're staying apart from.
Not to mention that little problem you have with the definition of
discrimination.
>(i.e. when you are a seperatist in the female sense and are
>disriminating against other women)
Which, again, you've not been able to give any example of.
[]
>>girl in the class). However, I would find a lesbian partner who
>>couldn't cope with my hypothetical son (I have no kids) just
>>as upsetting as the sort of boorish man one comes across now
>>and again who can't stand raising 'another man's kids'. I'd
>>hope that loving the kids, whether they are male or female, would
> >be the number one priority.
>
>This is my point exactly.
> I had 2 friends that I had been very close to for a couple of years that
>completely removed themselves from my life when I cam with the news that I
>was having a boy. (Which doesn't bother me so much cause why would I want
>people like that in my life. though I loved them very much)
This is very sad, but it is not discrimination. If you'd gotten a
dog, and they didn't want to be around you anymore because you had a
dog, would that be discriminating against you ?
>> I don't know how that would shake
>>down with wanting to live a separatist life.
>
>It doesn't, that is just something people keep throwing in,because I
>mentioned that some dyke/feminist/women discriminate against me for having a
>boy child ,
You have yet to give any example of discrimination. We aren't
required to like you, or to associate with you, and if you change
your self or your life in a way that others don't like, they are
competely and perfectly free to stop spending time with you.
>and also women who have in the past slept with men.This is a
>form of seperatism.
Okay, here we are again. Either it's okay, which you've said, or
it's not. Again, we're not required to associate with people. If
I want to have no computer geeks in my life, and my friend starts
learning perl, it's really okay if I decide to not spend time with
her anymore.
>(The saddest part is it is between women.) I have no
>problem with women that choose to live in purely female environments. It is
>at women who think I am less a feminist because I have a male child. Women
This has nothing whatsoever to do with separatism.
>who think certain women are less of a dyke simple because they have slept
>with men in the past.
This also has nothing to do with separatism.
>Women who have a problem with my son, simply because
>he is male. (ie. the two friends that are no longer in my life.)
Hang on, you just said you have no problem with women who want to
live in a purely female environment. So where's your beef here ?
>Women that
>have gone so far (not in my circumstance but in others) to say have an
>abortion.
This has nothing to do with separatism.
>This is where my issues lie. This is where my comments are
>directed. People keep throwing in as if I am attacking the need for
>female-only environments, which I am not doing at all.
If you aren't talking about separatism, I'd suggest that you stop
using the word.
>I just strongly
>believe it is wrong to discriminate within ourselves, and to judge men as a
>gender.
I believe strongly that being discriminating about who I have in my
life is a very healthy thing, and one which I would encourage in
others. As it's been said "you need a different set of friends".
And again, separatism has nothing to do with judging men as a
gender. As a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with men, which
is why a great many men find it problematic.
Ayana, not-mod
--
"Just don't talk to the cranky people"
-- Ellen Evans
Ayana Craven
>who discriminate
>A: because you have a male child
>B: because you have had relationships with men in the past.
>C: Women who blame the whole gender for actions of particulaer men.
Then why are you calling it "separatism" ? Because none of those
things is about separatism.
[]
>Its not about wanting to exclude men from your life, its about hating men.
That would be "man-hating".
>Its about not associating with me as a dyke/feminist because I have a male
>child.
That would be "I don't want to hang out with women who have sons".
Or possibly "I don't wamt top hang out with *you*, now that you have
a son", although the distinction might be hard for you to see.
>To go so far in some instances (not in mine but in other) to say
>"Have an abortion".
That would be "Parthenogenesis or extinction!".
>Its about not associating with women/dyke because at
>some point they had relationships with men.
This would be the "Eighner bisexual" separatist.
chlogiston
>In article <1.*k-u...@panix.com>, chlogiston <cjl...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>you know, the idea that lesbian parents need to somehow expose their male
>>children to "male role models" has always disturbed me on some level,
>Having positive adult male figures in boys' lives !necessarily= having
>macho asshole figures in boys' lives.
You're right.
But what i was taking issue with was the idea that boys somehow "need"
positive male role models over and above the role modeling that their
two woman parents provide. I never could figure out, if that is the case,
what exactly such role models were supposed to be providing that the
parents could not.
For what it's worth, I was agreeing with Peg.
Are my posts overly elliptical or something?
--
Chloe Joan Lopez cjl...@fas.harvard.edu +
"With kids these days, it's computers, computers, computers. Doesn't
anyone watch television anymore?" -- Jeffrey Hwang
+ +
--
Praocak
>> Seperatist: [snip] seperation [snip]
>> [snip] seperatism [snip]
>> [snip] seperatist [snip]
>
>For goddess' sake, spell it right.
You're being too subtle, Gwendolyn.
I've been dying to say this: there's A RAT in the middle of sepARATe.
shelley
_______Magnetic Poetry Line-of-the-Week:_______
the night was frantic luscious magic until the apparatus crackled
and moaned and a green glowing juice sprayed on my leg
_____________________________________________________
--
debbie...@yahoo.com
that person.
-deb
back to your regular scheduled programming
First some-unnamed-person wrote:
> >women want a space that is without the presence of males, then they
> >should be able to have it.
Then "Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)" wrote:
> I agree. I just don't think I should be descriminated against because I have
> a boy child. Nor do I believe it is right for people to hate/discriminate
> against my son strictly because he is male.
(snip-o-rama)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Christina Matta
Gwendolyn Alden Dean <gd...@emory.edu> wrote in article
<1.0l$ux2|=6...@panix.com>...
> On 26 Jan 1999, Sappho (Jesaka Irwin) wrote:
> > That doesn't make you a seperatist only introverted. (Like myself)
> > Define Seperatist: An advocate of seperation as from a political body. Such
> > as an organized group people. ( I have no problem with seperatism as a
whole
> > as long as you don't hate/discriminate against this group for unjust
> > reasons) (i.e. when you are a seperatist in the female sense and are
> > disriminating against other women)
>
> For goddess' sake, spell it right.
I <heart> Gwendolyn.
Tina
Ellen Evans
[]
>But what i was taking issue with was the idea that boys somehow "need"
>positive male role models over and above the role modeling that their
>two woman parents provide.
Actually, I'd say it would be good if male and female children had good
role models of both sexes available to them, since almost all children
will be spending time in a world with awful examples of both sexes.
Still, it does make a kind of sense for a boy trying to figure out how to
grow into manhood within the specifics of his own culture to have good
role models of people who have done well at figuring it out before him.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
--
Deborah Pate
>Not being your friend != discrimination.
Are you restricting the word 'discrimination' to its legal sense?
Otherwise, I think I'd say that choosing not to be someone's friend
because they are black, for example, is discrimination. So I'm not
sure why choosing not to be someone's friend because they have a son
shouldn't be.
>You made a choice. The choice
>had consequences, good and bad. There are vegetarians out there who
>won't be your friend if you are meat-eater. They have that right.
And we have the right to consider them intolerant and bigoted, don't
we? And to say so in this newgroup?
Perhaps I'd better go and read the FAQ again. I must have missed the
bit where it says we all have to refrain from criticizing anyone...
Deborah Pate
(nervously awaiting retribution)
Christina Matta
Gwendolyn Alden Dean <gd...@emory.edu> wrote in article
<1.v&#ux2...@panix.com>...
> On 26 Jan 1999, Gwendolyn Alden Dean wrote:
> > You're not describing being kept from education or housing or employment,
> > right? You're not describing social attitudes that violence, regardless
> > of existing legislation, right? ^condones
>
> Woops, we need the verbs!
Yes. Verbs good.
Tina, using Small Words
Christina Matta
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin) <sapph...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<1.6^rux...@panix.com>...
> >women want a space that is without the presence of males, then they
> >should be able to have it.
>
>
> I agree. I just don't think I should be descriminated against because I have
> a boy child. Nor do I believe it is right for people to hate/discriminate
> against my son strictly because he is male.
Yes, there's a lot of discrimination against males these days. Sexism is
running rampant!
Tina, who can count on...let's see, NO fingers the number of times she's seen
someone discriminate against a male on basis of gender
liz
Cheryl Trooskin wrote in message <1.y4&ux2...@panix.com>...
>On 26 Jan 1999 07:39:45 -0500, liz <liz...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>I'm very distressed about the concept of any woman or any person being
more
>>than fleetingly disappointed by the gender of their child.
>[...]
>>I think politics and gender issues are
>>wonderful, but not when that means loving a child less.
>
>I'm not sure I agree with a construct that equates disappointment
>with 'loving a child less.'
>
>I've been disappointed with various characteristics of quite a few
>people in my life, but, with the exception of traits that I believe
>should be controllable (for example, a violent temper of an adult),
>that disappointment is neither cause nor effect of loving them less.
>
>sev, who's not a parent and cannot speak much of being disappointed
> by a child, beyond the fact that, when I did something
> egregiously inappropriate, my parents were quite successful
> at conveying their disappointment without making me worry that
> they loved me any less...
I may have been unclear- it's understandable to be somewhat transiently
disappointed in some cases by the gender, but _not_ to love the child less
based on that. Your parents may have been disappointed by your conduct and
expressed that but I hope they didn't make you feel that they were sorry you
weren't a boy. Not that many parents don't do this, but that's what
bothers me.
Liz
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
peg boucher murphy wrote in message <1.q{xux...@panix.com>...
>you know, jesaka, you have an amazing ability (fsvo) to
>throw a bunch of things together, complain about them
>as if they were one thing (let alone related), and then
>get defensive when people have as much trouble with your
>posting *style* as with what you say.
I thought it was very obvious that they were not related.
I was intentionally throwing several things out there, because they were on
my mind. I will be sure to make seperate topics next time to avoid
confusion.
>i'm gonna attempt to respond to this post because i'm
>getting more and more annoyed at your (apparent, imho)
>thoughtless posting style, here *specifically* about a
>topic near and dear to my heart (as the mother of two
>sons).
>
>you really should remember that because all we have here
>is the written text, precision (especially in language)
>and a lot of forethought and editing of what you actually
>send is almost always a good idea.
>your posts usually read to me like something you've been
>thinking about, but just tossed off in one draft. some
>people can do that. so far, it doesn't seem that you are
>one of them -- especially given your lack of punctuation
>between periods.
I won't get too in depth into this but maybe there are reasons behind this.
Maybe I should quit posting because of my lack of education, even though I
am a very educated person. Though I do not a have a degree in english, nor
do I have much education in that subject past 9th grade. I do not apologize
for my short-comings. Pardon me for being a bit defensive here.
>that aside...
>
>Jesaka Irwin wrote:
>>I am a dyke, a mother, and a proud mother of a son.
>
>are you proud of being a mother? of being a dyke mother?
>specifically of having a son (because he's your child?
>instead of a daughter? -- the latter is certainly one way
>to read what you wrote, you know)?
I am proud of all that I am. I antisipated a son, and would have loved
either equally regardless of gender.
>>I have experienced, as have others, certain
>>discriminations for these reasons.
>
>(fwiw, this is one of many sentences that needs punctuation.)
I added one comma two seems too much but probably needed.
>>I was a dyke when I decided to have
>>a child, although certain women (not me) find problems because they liked
men
>>at one point or another in thier life.
this is why it says certain instead of I also find.
>i have absolutely no idea what you think this sentence means.
>you were a dyke when you decided to have a child, although
>(even though? despite the fact that?) some women find problems
>(presumably with you? you being a dyke? you deciding to have
>a child?) because they liked (for what value of "liked") men
>at one point point or another in their life?
>huh?
>
>>Why should a self-confirmed dyke who has been for many years be
>>considered less because she has had relationships with men? ( Lets say
>>five to ten years ago hypothetically)
>
>whoa -- i thought we were talking about issues around dykes
>with sons. *now*, only a few lines later, you're talking
>about dykes' past histories with men -- and apparently excluding
>the possibility of bisexual dykes.
I was talking about two different types of discrimination that happen
between dykes against dykes.
Excluding no one. If you'd like to get into discriminating against bi-sexual
women we can go there too. I know many people that do.
> both of these issues have
>been addressed *exhaustively* on this newsgroup (and others)
>before, and both have a tendency to turn into massive flame
>wars. and neither is directly related to your subject header,
>nor to what you *said* you wanted to talk about.
Simply at my lack of english skills and personal experiences.
(Puts on her flame retardent suite)
>>The issue of being a mother cannot be pointed in either direction
>
>i can't even begin to fathom what you mean by this. directions?
I was saying basically, that I am not talking about being discriminated upon
by people because I am a mother, because both women and men have certain
problems with women that have children.
>>as all preferences seem to have issues with the child factor so that is
>>left to personal choices.
>
>i can't fathom this, either. i had hoped that if i broke it up
>more, i'd see it. but i still don't.
>
>>But... why are there certain issues with dykes raising son's?
>
>okay, are you upset that there are certain issues, that there
>are issues at all, or with what some "certain issues" are? do
>you just want to know why certain issues exist for different people?
>for the community (such that it is)?
I was upset that women are considered less of a feminist because they have a
boy-child, or less of a dyke because they have had relationships with men in
the past.
>>I wanted a son.
>
>would you have not wanted a daughter? is there some reason
>that you have a strong preference?
I don't have a strong preference I would have loved a girl just as much.
Some people thought I was crazy to be a dyke/feminist and antisipate a son.
>>I have experienced and read of experiences where certain
>>feminists, and feminist groups who will support you in having a
>>child without the traditional ideas also shun you for conceiving a
>>boy.
>
>another sentence that needs punctuation. you have experienced
>-- and have read of experiences -- where certain feminists and
>feminist groups will who will support your having a child {without
>the traditional ideas? what do you mean by that?) also shun you
Traditional ideas ... Sex with a man. Relationship. etc.
>for conceiving a boy.
>what are you saying? that some people (feminists/feminist groups)
>support dykes having kids, but not when those kids are sons? is
>that what you're trying to say here?
Yes. I have experienced this kind of discrimination.
>i'll respond to that, sort of...
>okay, as a mother of sons, i have found my sons -- not me --
>unwelcome in women-only space. i was never "shunned" for simply
>*conceiving* a boy-child (which would have been tough, since i
>did no tests to determine gender during either pregnancy), nor
>have i witnessed such a thing.
>i *have* seen pretty negative responses to queer women who are
>pregnant/trying to get pregnant who express a strong preference
>for a boy. but i would expect dykes to have issues with that.
><shrug> i'd expect a lot of non-dykes to take issue with that.
Alot of people have *ideas* of what gender thier child may e. It doesn't
have to make it a strong preference. So, we have established that you have
a problem with anyone showing any sort of idea of what child they may have.
These dykes that you expect to have issues with the fact that a dyke
antisipates a boy... First would they be more accepting of me if I had
antisipated a girl? If so is that right? Why is it ok to be a dyke and favor
having a girl, yet it's not if you want a boy?
>>My friends, and certain people I was involved with in feminist
>>issues had slight/major problems with the fact that I have a son, but
>>have gotten over it or are merely no longer in my life. Why am I less
>>of a friend or feminist because i have a son?
>
>well, i have had issues with dyke friends who have had sons.
>not because they gave birth to (or adopted) boys, but because
>of the way they are raising their boys -- stereotypically,
>allowing those sons to dominate their lives in a way that
>encourages little boys to feel entitled and privileged and grow
>up to to be men that act on that entitlemnt and privilege.
First, I will say these things happened while I was pregnant, or just after
his birth. Second, this is not the way I was or have raised my son thus far.
>someone else has already answered this point a bit (sport, i
>think) and i'm going to answer her directly on this one.
>
><snip>
>>I am curious why feminism for some has to equal hatred for men?
>
>i think that this is a vast minority. most of the women i know
>who hate men are not dykes (and many don't consider themselves
>feminists). being angry and resnetful of those who constantly
>oppress you really shouldn't be *that* surprising to you -- i
>read what you wrote about "christians". it's the same sort
>of anger.
This is why I said *for some*. I will state for me the minority has been
unaccepting. This could be geographical. Who knows.
I would also like to say that I don't hate christians. That was aimed at the
Phelps sort of religious groups. Who in which I do have problems with for
good reason.
I had written rather hastily in that column. I have learned to be more
spacific and put more thought in my posts. If a group of men hated women I
would not like them, but I would not judge all men by thier actions.
><big snip>
>>Why must there be seperatism at all in feminist/dyke/women's issues?
>
>because some women are empowered by living without having to
>deal with male oppression at all? because some of us are
>empowered just knowing that such places are possible, even if
>we can't/don't want to live in them full-time? because for
>many it is impossible to see what not being oppressed would
>be like within the systemic and systematic oppression of
>patriarchal culture?
>(there are a few places to start...)
I am speaking of seperatism between ourselves.
>>I have always thought the best way to overcome obstacles especially in
>>feminist/dyke issues was through unity.
>
>apparently, not everyone agrees that "unity" should include
>men. why isn't that okay with you? do we all have to agree
>with you?
Unity between women. You don't have to agree with me, I just wish people
we're understanding me.
Of course this is my lack of education.
>>So, why so much seperatism among our community?
>
>how much is there? i don't know of too many separatist
>communities anymore. <shrug> there are separatist music
>festivals and organizations, but they are hardly omnipresent
>or even the majority of ways that women have to get together
>as feminists and/or dykes.
>do you mind that separatist space exists at all?
>are you unhappy because your sons aren't welcome in separatist
>space? are you saying that you -- without your sons -- aren't
>welcome in separatist space?
I do not mind that seperast spaces exist. I mind that I am not accepted by
certain groups merely because I have a son. (i.e. not being enough of a
feminist to be involved because I have a son) Its not an issue of him being
welcome in thier space. I understand that part.
>what, exactly, is it that you are asking/saying?
I am asking why should *I* be discriminated upon because I have a son, or be
considered less of a feminist? Why should women that have had relationships
with men in the past be discriminated upon, or be considered less of a dyke?
Why do some women consider men/boys as a gender rather than a person? Human.
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
---Some words live in my throat breeding like adders, others know sun
seeking like gypsies over my tongue to explode through my lips like
young sparrows bursting from shell. Some Words Bedevil Me. ---Audre Lourde--
Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)
>:Please note: (Which are for the most part are parental not just fatherly.)
>which says that some mothers are just as bad as fathers, but has no
intention of redeeming fathers in any way.
The intention was thier you just do not see it. My mother wasn't that great
either. I was aiming at father/son relationships that I viewed through
friends. Which states very clearly that I am speaking of these particular
relationships.
>:Also Father/Son relationships which I have viewed through friends. I am
>:stating strictly from my experience. It is not a stereotype.Ipersonally
>:know that a person does not *need* a father. I'm sure in some cases they
do
>:not *need* a mother either.
>
>well, jesaka, ime, a person doesn't *need* a mother, and i *know* this, so
>why don't you just give up your child for adoption?
A child needs love (how beatlesque) Whether raised by only a mother or only
a father, or both, or neither. Achild needs someone that loves them.
I love the fact that I have to phrase everything just so or it gets totally
blown out of proportion. When I say *I personally know* I mean *I* did not
need a father. That is something I know. I have many friends with great
relationships with thier fathers. Mostly female though. When I stated
father/son relationships in my experience it was because this is what I
viewed through my friends. I am by no means an authority on fathers and
thats clear. I am strictly staing the experiences I have seen through most
of my male friends.
>the point being, just because some things are true "in my world", as
>you're fond of saying, doesn't mean i *know* they're true for any other
>person. if i went around saying that i *know* everything i did was right
>for everyone else, not many people would talk to me afterwards. i have a
>good relationship with my father (even if i do have to bitch and whine
>about him once in a while), and i don't need you to tell me that you
>absolutely *know* that i don't need that.
I know that *I* didn't need one.(this was my point) Some people do not need
fathers, this is a true statement. I was merely trying to point out that a
family can be a family without two parents. Without the need to
overcompensate for the parent that is missing. It was aimed at father
because the woman from the previous post had stated that in her experience
the boy children of lesbians still have the macho traits because the mother
is trying to overcompensate for the lack of a father.
>that was the point of my comment re your stereotyping--aren't you, to
>paraphrase your own posts, blaming all fathers for the mistakes your
>father(s) have made with you?
I am not having a child without a father simply because my fathers were
horrible. I am having a child without a father because I am single, and a
dyke.
>f I were to read more into hat you've
>written, your words would seem to imply that men don't
>deserve to have children, a) because you *know* that children don't need
I am by no means implying this. My point was only that
I have no reason to overcompensate for the lack of a father because in my
opinion a child does not need one. Just as much as a man does not need to
overcompensate for the lack of a mother. It is nice to have both parents and
I envy my friends that have great relationships with thier parents. Not all
people do in which case they do not need them. It seems as though you are
implying that children need both a mother and a father to be well adjusted
children. Which in my experience is not true.
>them and b) because children are better off without them. that definitely
>isn't everyone's experience, and shows some heavy stereotyping on your
>part. i'm not saying that you should run out into the street and look for
>someone to be the father of your boy, but i won't tolerate your presenting
>your experience as absolute truth, when it isn't.
>
>-al
I am not trying to imply that everything I say is absolute truth. I am
stating opinions that I have made from my experiences. Nor do I think men
are unworthy of children. Nor do I think they are better or worse without
them, or a mother for that matter. Though some people think they are better
off with or
without them.
I just do not think two parents are absolute necessity, or that and parent
is automatically trying to overcompensate for the lack of the other.
Ellen Evans
Deborah Pate <De...@djpate.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Ellen Evans wrote in message <1.{e^ux2...@panix.com>...
>>Not being your friend != discrimination.
>
>Are you restricting the word 'discrimination' to its legal sense?
>Otherwise, I think I'd say that choosing not to be someone's friend
>because they are black, for example, is discrimination.
Discrimination != has crummy attitudes. As long as those crummy attitudes
have no power over your life (get you thrown out of housing, lose your
job, etc.) they're just crummy attitudes. There are people who don't want
to be my friend because I'm a lesbian. That's fine. I don't require that
people like me - they have a perfect right *not* to like me. Having
everybody be my friend is not a civil right. Not being fired from my job
simply because of who I am ought to be.
[]
>And we have the right to consider them intolerant and bigoted, don't
>we? And to say so in this newgroup?
We can say whatever we like, as long as it doesn't violate the mod
policy. We can *consider* anyone anyway we like. And everyone else here
has exactly the same rights.
Including the right to question the nature and substance of someone's
complaints.
>Perhaps I'd better go and read the FAQ again. I must have missed the
>bit where it says we all have to refrain from criticizing anyone...
As you're doing it right now, and no one is stopping you, my guess is
there is no such obligation.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
--
Ellen Evans
Alas, the only thing we have here of you are your skills in written
English. This is the nature of the beast. You don't have to be
eloquent, but you do have to have sufficient mastery to make yourself
understood.
[]
>I am asking why should *I* be discriminated upon because I have a son, or be
>considered less of a feminist?
Some people are cranky.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
--
Angst Girl
> antisipates
> antisipated
>
>
Jesaka, if you cannot spell (and goddess knows some of us cannot,myself
included) please make use of the spell-checker supplied in many news
reading programs or possibly a dictionary.
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
DAG
>
> Ellen Evans wrote in message <1.{e^ux2...@panix.com>...
> >Not being your friend != discrimination.
>
> Are you restricting the word 'discrimination' to its legal sense?
> Otherwise, I think I'd say that choosing not to be someone's friend
> sure why choosing not to be someone's friend because they have a son
> shouldn't be.
I believe that this would be prejudice rather than
discrimination. Perhaps the loss of friends has more to
do with the mother's shift of interest. The interests
of new mothers and non mothers, be they straight or
gay, often diverge.
DAG
Al
attributions, k?
On 26 Jan 1999, Sappho (Jesaka Irwin) wrote:
Al wrote:
:>:Please note: (Which are for the most part are parental not just fatherly.)
:>which says that some mothers are just as bad as fathers, but has no
:intention of redeeming fathers in any way.
:
:The intention was thier you just do not see it.
well, how *would* i see it if you didn't write it down? my psychic fax
machine (aside: anyone see "nadja"?) is in the shop this week.
:>:Also Father/Son relationships which I have viewed through friends. I am
:>:stating strictly from my experience. It is not a stereotype.Ipersonally
:>:know that a person does not *need* a father. I'm sure in some cases they
:do
:>:not *need* a mother either.
:>
:>well, jesaka, ime, a person doesn't *need* a mother, and i *know* this, so
:>why don't you just give up your child for adoption?
:
:
:A child needs love (how beatlesque) Whether raised by only a mother or only
:a father, or both, or neither. Achild needs someone that loves them.
:
:I love the fact that I have to phrase everything just so or it gets totally
:blown out of proportion.
as ellen pointed out, all we know about you is what you write. if you
don't express yourself clearly enough, i have to struggle and make what i
can of it. if you don't want that to happen, learn to be more precise.
:When I say *I personally know* I mean *I* did not
:need a father. That is something I know.
well, then why don't you say "i know i don't need a father" if that's what
you mean? that is *entirely* different than saying "*a* person doesn't
need a father." excuse me for assuming that you mean what you write.
:I have many friends with great
:relationships with thier fathers. Mostly female though. When I stated
:father/son relationships in my experience it was because this is what I
:viewed through my friends. I am by no means an authority on fathers and
:thats clear. I am strictly staing the experiences I have seen through most
:of my male friends.
then perhaps you should refrain from wording your statements as if they
were gospel truths.
<major snippage where jesaka finally clarifies her statements of oh, five
posts ago?>
:It seems as though you are
:implying that children need both a mother and a father to be well adjusted
:children. Which in my experience is not true.
if i wanted to imply that, i would. i haven't. there's no reason why i
would, as i have been raised by one parent and a set of grandparents. i
just don't go around saying that should be the standard for every child.
:>i won't tolerate your presenting
:>your experience as absolute truth, when it isn't.
:
:I am not trying to imply that everything I say is absolute truth.
once again, then don't word it that way. if you write it that way, i will
assume that is what you meant. you cannot write, "i like blueberries" and
then clarify, 5 posts later, "oh, what i really mean by that is that i
hate carrot cake."
-al, who thinks there's room for food in every thread
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code..."
--Unknown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
--
ava...@zoo.uvm.edu
> Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Um, I was talking about separatists who don't accept lesbians with boy
> >children. I think that's a bit extreme, even if you don't, and IMHO, it
> >does imply a bit more than "excluding men" since *boys* are not *men*
> >and short of abortion or murder, there's not much a woman can do about
> >not having boy children if that's what she ends up with.
> >
> >I don't like living with men *either* but I would not put children into
> >that same category. They're just *not*.
ama...@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Sport) wrote:
> I would indeed put children in the same category. Many more little
> boys commit sexual assault against little girls than vice versa. Some
> may say that we should feel sorry for these little boys because they
> are most likely also abused. One on level this is true, and I hope
> that all abused kids get the therapy they need to stop the cycle of
> abuse. It is important to note, however, that little girls constitute
> the overwhelming majority of abuse survivors, and they still make up
> the great *minority* of children who abuse children.
The difference I see here is that up to a certain developmental age, children
typically lack the ability to understand the origins of their actions. And
not to stand completely on the nurture side of the argument, but kids *do*
tend to be a product of their environment. Adults, OTOH, are *supposed* to be
able to cognitively identify the source of their behavior.
So I have a problem with excluding male children as somehow degenerate
strictly because they are genetically males, which, forgive me if I'm wrong,
seems to be what you're suggesting.
Andrea, donning my asbestos suit
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Roving Reporter
>boys are not yet men. but at what point do they become men?
>if you let boys live in a separatist compound until a certina
>age (for example), how horrible would it be for them when they
>then hit some magical age and have to leave, because they are
>now the enemy?
Usually the age of "separation" in communities that do that kind of
thing (coming of age ceremonies and suchlike) put the age at 13. It
seems like a reasonable point in time. Besides, I wasn't personally
looking at Separatists so much as I was looking at the idea of events
where lesbians might go such as women's festivals, etc. which are
temporary but to which children might be brought. If the majority of such
events shun boy children, I can see how that might crimp someone's
lifestyle, babysitters being as expensive as they are, and also bearing in
mind that these often are done on vacation time, if such a thing is
available. Children are usually brought on vacations for financial as well
as personal reasons.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
See Deaf Expo at http://www.deafexpo.org/
-------------------------------------------
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing here
should be regarded as representing my employer's opinions.
Roving Reporter
>Ellen Evans wrote:
>>In article <1.*k-u...@panix.com>, chlogiston <cjl...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>>you know, the idea that lesbian parents need to somehow expose their male
>>>children to "male role models" has always disturbed me on some level,
>>Having positive adult male figures in boys' lives !necessarily= having
>>macho asshole figures in boys' lives.
>
>You're right.
>
>positive male role models over and above the role modeling that their
>what exactly such role models were supposed to be providing that the
>parents could not.
Male role modelling. How comfortable would any of you have felt if you'd
been raised only by men, discussing issues that come up as you grew up, if
any of them seemed to be "female"? I can see talking to a guy about guys in
terms of understanding what they're like, but suppose a str8 young woman
wants to ask about what they should do as a female on a date? Their
"fathers" only know the male side of things, not the female.
When a kid has not yet reached puberty, yes, I agree that two same-sex
parents can raise children pretty successfully, but I hope that when kids
get to around 12 or so, that these same sex partners look up Big Brothers
or Big Sisters or find something similar so their kids have an adult of the
other gender to talk to about things that the parents are inappropriate
for.
Roving Reporter
>is automatically trying to overcompensate for the lack of the other.
I think for financial reasons two parents (regardless of gender) is usually
essential. For *psychological* reasons (a parent needs to be able to take
time off for a few hours!) a child should be raised by two parents, unless
the single parent is so well-off that they can afford to hire a permanent
housekeeper or babysitter, in effect "hiring" a second parent.
Praocak
In article <1.eq}ux2...@panix.com>, "Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)" writes:
>peg boucher murphy wrote in message <1.q{xux...@panix.com>...
>>i was never "shunned" for simply
>>i *have* seen pretty negative responses to queer women who are
>>pregnant/trying to get pregnant who express a strong preference
>>for a boy. but i would expect dykes to have issues with that.
>><shrug> i'd expect a lot of non-dykes to take issue with that.
>
>Alot of people have *ideas* of what gender thier child may e. It doesn't
>have to make it a strong preference.
Okay so far. Like, a woman is pregnant and she says,
"It's going to be a girl, I just have a feeling." Right?
>So, we have established that you have
>a problem with anyone showing any sort of idea of what child they may have.
Nope. Haven't established that at all.
>These dykes that you expect to have issues with the fact that a dyke
>antisipates a boy...
Okay, see, here's where you got lost. You changed Peg's words
"express a strong preference" to "anti[c]ipate." Not the same thing.
See how that changes the meaning completely?
>First would they be more accepting of me if I had
>antisipated a girl?
Who knows? How can we answer that?
>[snip confusing question] Why is it ok to be a dyke and favor
>having a girl
No one said it was. And again, you changed "strong preference"
to "favor." Not as different as "strong preference" and "anticipate,"
but still not the same.
>yet it's not [okay] if you want a boy?
No one here has said that it's okay for dykes to want to give birth
to a girl but not okay for them to want to give birth to a boy.
HTH
shelley
_______Magnetic Poetry Line-of-the-Week:_______
the night was frantic luscious magic until the apparatus crackled
and moaned and a green glowing juice sprayed on my leg
_____________________________________________________
--
Praocak
>There are people who don't want
>to be my friend because I'm a lesbian.
And may I be the first to make it clear that I am
*not* one of *those* people.
;)
shelley
walking a thin line
chlogiston
>Actually, I'd say it would be good if male and female children had good
>role models of both sexes available to them, since almost all children
>will be spending time in a world with awful examples of both sexes.
but i guess what i was asking was why the sex of the people was important
in the first place.
>Still, it does make a kind of sense for a boy trying to figure out how to
>grow into manhood within the specifics of his own culture to have good
>role models of people who have done well at figuring it out before him.
see, i guess what bothers me is that "specifics of their own culture"
business.
though if i think about it a bit i guess most lesbians have not experienced
growing up as a boy. but then there are a lot of things that children
experience that parents have not, without inducing the parents to find
outside rolemodels to replace the parental role-modeling.
i mean, i guess what i am trying to ask is what is it about "manhood" that
is so different from "womanhood" that mothers are incapable of modeling it?
yeah, that's what i'm trying to ask.
--
Chloe Joan Lopez cjl...@fas.harvard.edu +
"With kids these days, it's computers, computers, computers. Doesn't
anyone watch television anymore?" -- Jeffrey Hwang
+ +
--
Ellen Evans
[]
>see, i guess what bothers me is that "specifics of their own culture"
>business.
Not male culture, but the general culture that daily bombards the kid with
images of what it is to be a man. Having a reasonable caring guy there he
can talk to about the stuff he is going through can help protect him from
the images he is seeing in a way having a reasonable caring woman doesn't,
because no matter how much she loves him and he her, there is stuff she
simply won't know about or stuff he needs to hear from a guy.
>though if i think about it a bit i guess most lesbians have not experienced
>growing up as a boy. but then there are a lot of things that children
>experience that parents have not, without inducing the parents to find
>outside rolemodels to replace the parental role-modeling.
Not replace, add to. No one is suggesting that other models *replace*
good parents, of whatever sex.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
--
Mireille92
>you know, the idea that lesbian parents need to somehow expose their male
>children to "male role models" has always disturbed me on some level, but
>so many people seemed to be saying it that without questioning i assumed
>that it had already been put through the usual feminist rigors.
Well, if we (meaning my partner and I, not you and I <g>) have a boy (that is,
when we can afford kids), I want him to have some male role models, if only to
counteract the prevalent image of masculinity. I want him to spend a lot of
time with my father and with some of my close male friends so that he will see
that being male does *not* have to mean being a violent cretin.
--
Mirei...@aol.com
"I've always wanted to be somebody. Next time I'll be more specific."
Dianne Millen
Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I think for financial reasons two parents (regardless of gender) is usually
>essential. For *psychological* reasons (a parent needs to be able to take
>time off for a few hours!) a child should be raised by two parents, unless
>the single parent is so well-off that they can afford to hire a permanent
>housekeeper or babysitter, in effect "hiring" a second parent.
And I think that for *psychological* reasons you ought to
talk to a few kids of single-parent families and not
fucking pronounce on what they 'should' and shouldn't
have experienced growing up.
What an amazingly ignorant and insulting statement that
was to make. I'm frankly appalled that this sort of
nonsense is -still- being propagated.
Dianne, angry on behalf of her single parent family whose mom is by no
means well off but did her damndest alone
x
--
'When it comes, and the opening credits roll, I nearly burst into song! I
go crazy with joy and do a little dance in my seat. Then I watch with a
frenzied concentration that a phone call from Jesus Christ could not break.'
- Katherine Dahlsgaard (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/071698/tv.shtml)
Dianne Millen
>In article <1.7~#ux2_&8...@panix.com>, "Sappho (Jesaka Irwin)"
><sapph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Dianne Millen (I believe) said:
>> >
>> >I'm not, personally, but only because I find most women as
>> >annoying as most men. I'm only a separatist in the sense
>> >that I want to exclude most of the human race from my life,
>> >not just men.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't make you a seperatist only introverted. (Like myself)
>
>
>It makes her a misanthropist.
No, it makes her someone who's amused by the level of
crap analysis that stemmed from a single throwaway
humorous remark.
Sigh. And -please- learn to spell 'separatist!
Dianne, who never claimed to be a separatist at all
Dianne Millen
[I wrote this]
>>I'm not, personally, but only because I find most women as
>>annoying as most men. I'm only a separatist in the sense
>>that I want to exclude most of the human race from my life,
>>not just men.
>
>That doesn't make you a seperatist only introverted. (Like myself)
I wasn't being entirely serious. I'm not a separatist
of any flavour.
>Define Seperatist: An advocate of seperation as from a political body. Such
>as an organized group people. ( I have no problem with seperatism as a whole
>as long as you don't hate/discriminate against this group for unjust
>reasons) (i.e. when you are a seperatist in the female sense and are
>disriminating against other women)
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here.
It's a bit of a quandary. I don't like the fact that the
Internet is still the province of the educated,
privileged class (and indeed largely of people from the
United States, Canada, UK and Australia rather than
Eastern and Mediterranean Europe, Africa, and the
various parts of Asia). I don't like that at all, and
I don't like women to be slapped down for poor
expression, poor educational level and stuff like
spelling. On the other hand, the words you write
are all I have to go on when having a discussion
with you. What you may have felt when writing, what
your life is about - I have no access to this at all.
Only your words count.
If you have the wit to operate a computer,
find swlab and write a post to it, you have the
wit to run your posts through a spellchecker.
Maybe you even have access to a grammarian or
thesaurus. I don't think impeccable, crafted,
seamless prose is required or expected. But
the harder it is to work out what it is you are
arguing. You may then become frustrated, a little
defensive, and we all lose the chance to have a
meaningful and positive dialogue.
I would add also that since you have access to
a computer, and presumably to a library offline,
you might find it useful to read up a bit on
feminist history and lesbian-feminism. Not
necessarily so that you can participate in this
discussion more effectively, but just because there
is a whole load of background and history and
cultural politics which you don't seem to know
much about and which are rich and diverse and
interesting.
>>anyone who wants to create a separatist environment for themselves.
>>I also agree that little boys are not innocent cherubim free
>>from any form of attitude or behaviour. Jesus, I was sexually
>>harassed the entire way through junior school before going to
>>an all-girls secondary school, and nobody labelled it harassment
>>nor did a damn thing about it (and it was happening to -every-
>
>Thank God they are doing things about it now. Do you agree though that even
I don't know that they are.
But it was clear that from age 7 or 8, these boys felt they
had the right to exercise power over girls' bodies, space,
time, energy and thoughts.
>in this instance you should not judge all men/boys as if they are all this
>way?
Well, in principle yes. I do have friends who are men, although
I don't know many young boys or adolescents. That said, it
is my belief that sexism and gendered expectations are so
incredibly pervasive in the society I live in, so fundamental
to making it the society which it is, that virtually no man
(or woman) can truly pass through childhood without being
affected by it. Even the gentlest, sweetest men I know
are very often sexist, or at least act with the assumption
of male privilege. Even those who accept feminist ideas,
who are open to new ideas, who are queer, who are working
on unlearning racism - I have never met a single man who
didn't, at some level, believe himself to be privileged,
to have the right to speak, to exist, to dominate, because
he was male. I don't really believe that such men exist.
I believe that some men can overcome this for enough of
the time to make them worth dealing with, worth loving,
but they are still products of a patriarchal culture.
That does not make me a hater of individual men. It makes
me someone who hates the patriarchy which makes men and
women the way they are.
>This is my point exactly.
> I had 2 friends that I had been very close to for a couple of years that
>completely removed themselves from my life when I cam with the news that I
>was having a boy. (Which doesn't bother me so much cause why would I want
>people like that in my life. though I loved them very much)
I'm sorry that you had this hurtful experience.
I would question your assumption that it is
'discrimination'. It's preference, choice.
Maybe a poor choice, but a choice. These
women have no institutional power whatsoever.
Discrimination is the exercise of institutional
power, not personal preference.
>problem with women that choose to live in purely female environments. It is
>at women who think I am less a feminist because I have a male child. Women
>who think certain women are less of a dyke simple because they have slept
>with men in the past. Women who have a problem with my son, simply because
>he is male. (ie. the two friends that are no longer in my life.) Women that
>have gone so far (not in my circumstance but in others) to say have an
>abortion. This is where my issues lie. This is where my comments are
>directed. People keep throwing in as if I am attacking the need for
>female-only environments, which I am not doing at all. I just strongly
>believe it is wrong to discriminate within ourselves, and to judge men as a
I don't believe that I was the one who brought separatism into it.
Again, I don't think these views and beliefs constitute
'discrimination'.
And whilst I don't believe it is right to judge every man as
if he was incapable of ever stepping out of the socialised
pattern of maleness, I think it -is- legitimate and useful
to judge 'men as a class'. The class of beings named 'men' in
our society wield power over the class of beings named
'women'. This does not mean that individual men
cannot transcend the set of experiences they have had,
or the expectations others have of them. But it can
be useful to have a bedrock of expectations of 'men'.
It can be safer.
Dianne
Dianne Millen
Dianne Millen <dia...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Oh, the rich and vibrant irony...
>Maybe you even have access to a grammarian or
>thesaurus. I don't think impeccable, crafted,
>seamless prose is required or expected. But
>the harder it is to work out what it is you are
>arguing. You may then become frustrated, a little
>defensive, and we all lose the chance to have a
>meaningful and positive dialogue.
I meant
"But the harder it is to work out what it is
you are arguing, the more likely it is that
people will criticise your postings for
things which you didn't think you were
saying, or ignore the things you
thought you meant but didn't actually say."
Damn vi crashed on me.
Dianne
x