Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why Sexism and Homophobia are the same fight
Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)
Homophobia, a Weapon of Sexiam, Suzanne Pharr (this is a link to the downloadable .pdf)One of the most impactful feminist books I've ever read. I recommend it whenever I get the chance, most recently in a thread in M&H and now here. It was used in Women's Studies classes and maybe still is (written in 1988, in some ways it seems a little dated, tho some aspects of it may never be "darted"
and now available online at that link for free.
Because it's a book, I'm going to quote more than 4 paragraphs. If that's not okay with the hosts/moderators, then shut it down if you want, or contact me so I can excise the extra.
Actually, we have to look at economics not only as the root cause of sexism but also as the underlying, driving force that keeps all the oppressions in place. In the United States, our economic system is shaped like a pyramid, with a few people at the top, primarily white males, being supported by large numbers of unpaid or low-paid workers at the bottom. When we look at this pyramid, we begin to understand the major connection between sexism and racism because those groups at the bottom of the pyramid are women and people of color. We then begin to understand why there is such a fervent effort to keep those oppressive systems (racism and sexism and all the ways they are manifested) in place to maintain the unpaid and low-paid labor.
Susan DeMarco and Jim Hightower, writing for Mother Jones, report that Forbes magazine indicated that “the 400 richest families in America last year had an average net worth of $550 million each. These and less than a million other families—roughly one percent of our population—are at the prosperous tip of our society. In 1976, the wealthiest 1 percent of America’s families owned 19.2 percent of the nation’s total wealth. (This sum of wealth counts all of America’s cash, real estate, stocks, bonds, factories, art, personal property, and anything else of financial value.) By 1983, those at this 1 percent tip of our economy owned 34.3 percent of our wealth. Today, the top 1 percent of Americans possesses more net wealth than the bottom 90 percent.” (My italics.) (May, 1988, pp. 32-33)
In order for this top-heavy system of economic inequity to maintain itself, the 90 percent on the bottom must keep supplying cheap labor. A very complex, intricate system of institutionalized oppressions is necessary to maintain the status quo so that the vast majority will not demand its fair share of wealth and resources and bring the system down. Every institution—schools, banks, churches, government, courts, media, etc—as well as individuals must be enlisted in the campaign to maintain such a system of gross inequity.
Economics is the great controller in both sexism and racism. If a person can’t acquire food, shelter, and clothing and provide them for children, then that person can be forced to do many things in order to survive. The major tactic, worldwide, is to provide unrecompensed or inadequately recompensed labor for the benefit of those who control wealth. Hence, we see women performing unpaid labor in the home or filling low-paid jobs, and we see people of color in the lowest-paid jobs available.
The method is complex: limit educational and training opportunities for women and for people of color and then withhold adequate paying jobs with the excuse that people of color and women are incapable of filling them. Blame the economic victim and keep the victim’s self-esteem low through invisibility and distortion within the media and education. Allow a few people of color and women to succeed among the profit-makers so that blaming those who don’t “make it” can be intensified. Encourage those few who succeed in gaining power now to turn against those who remain behind rather than to use their resources to make change for all. Maintain the myth of scarcity—that there are not enough jobs, resources, etc., to go around—among the middleclass so that they will not unite with laborers, immigrants, and the unemployed. The method keeps in place a system of control and profit by a few and a constant source of cheap labor to maintain it.
If anyone steps out of line, take her/his job away. Let homelessness and hunger do their work. The economic weapon works. And we end up saying, “I would do this or that—be openly who I am, speak out against injustice, work for civil rights, join a labor union, go to a political march, etc.—if I didn’t have this job. I can’t afford to lose it.” We stay in an abusive situation because we see no other way to survive.
Susan DeMarco and Jim Hightower, writing for Mother Jones, report that Forbes magazine indicated that “the 400 richest families in America last year had an average net worth of $550 million each. These and less than a million other families—roughly one percent of our population—are at the prosperous tip of our society. In 1976, the wealthiest 1 percent of America’s families owned 19.2 percent of the nation’s total wealth. (This sum of wealth counts all of America’s cash, real estate, stocks, bonds, factories, art, personal property, and anything else of financial value.) By 1983, those at this 1 percent tip of our economy owned 34.3 percent of our wealth. Today, the top 1 percent of Americans possesses more net wealth than the bottom 90 percent.” (My italics.) (May, 1988, pp. 32-33)
In order for this top-heavy system of economic inequity to maintain itself, the 90 percent on the bottom must keep supplying cheap labor. A very complex, intricate system of institutionalized oppressions is necessary to maintain the status quo so that the vast majority will not demand its fair share of wealth and resources and bring the system down. Every institution—schools, banks, churches, government, courts, media, etc—as well as individuals must be enlisted in the campaign to maintain such a system of gross inequity.
Economics is the great controller in both sexism and racism. If a person can’t acquire food, shelter, and clothing and provide them for children, then that person can be forced to do many things in order to survive. The major tactic, worldwide, is to provide unrecompensed or inadequately recompensed labor for the benefit of those who control wealth. Hence, we see women performing unpaid labor in the home or filling low-paid jobs, and we see people of color in the lowest-paid jobs available.
The method is complex: limit educational and training opportunities for women and for people of color and then withhold adequate paying jobs with the excuse that people of color and women are incapable of filling them. Blame the economic victim and keep the victim’s self-esteem low through invisibility and distortion within the media and education. Allow a few people of color and women to succeed among the profit-makers so that blaming those who don’t “make it” can be intensified. Encourage those few who succeed in gaining power now to turn against those who remain behind rather than to use their resources to make change for all. Maintain the myth of scarcity—that there are not enough jobs, resources, etc., to go around—among the middleclass so that they will not unite with laborers, immigrants, and the unemployed. The method keeps in place a system of control and profit by a few and a constant source of cheap labor to maintain it.
If anyone steps out of line, take her/his job away. Let homelessness and hunger do their work. The economic weapon works. And we end up saying, “I would do this or that—be openly who I am, speak out against injustice, work for civil rights, join a labor union, go to a political march, etc.—if I didn’t have this job. I can’t afford to lose it.” We stay in an abusive situation because we see no other way to survive.
VIOLENCE is the second means of keeping women in line, in a narrowly defined place and role. First, there is the physical violence of battering, rape, and incest. (snip)
The violence is used to wreak punishment and to demand compliance or obedience. Violence against women is directly related to the condition of women in a society that refuses us equal pay, equal access to resources, and equal status with males. From this condition comes men’s confirmation of their sense of ownership of women, power over women, and assumed right to control women for their own means. Men physically and emotionally abuse women because they can, because they live in a world that gives them permission. Male violence is fed by their sense of their right to dominate and control, and their sense of superiority over a group of people who, because of gender, they consider inferior to them.
The violence is used to wreak punishment and to demand compliance or obedience. Violence against women is directly related to the condition of women in a society that refuses us equal pay, equal access to resources, and equal status with males. From this condition comes men’s confirmation of their sense of ownership of women, power over women, and assumed right to control women for their own means. Men physically and emotionally abuse women because they can, because they live in a world that gives them permission. Male violence is fed by their sense of their right to dominate and control, and their sense of superiority over a group of people who, because of gender, they consider inferior to them.
HOMOPHOBIA works effectively as a weapon of sexism because it is joined with a powerful arm, heterosexism. Heterosexism creates the climate for homophobia with its assumption that the world is and must be heterosexual and its display of power and privilege as the norm. Heterosexism is the systemic display of homophobia in the institutions of society. Heterosexism and homophobia work together to enforce compulsory heterosexuality and that bastion of patriarchal power, the nuclear family. The central focus of the rightwing attack against women’s liberation is that women’s equality, women’s self determination, women’s control of our own bodies and lives will damage what they see as the crucial societal institution, the nuclear family. The attack has been led by fundamentalist ministers across the country. The two areas they have focused on most consistently are abortion and homosexuality, and their passion has led them to bomb women’s clinics and to recommend deprogramming for homosexuals and establishing camps to quarantine people with AIDS. To resist marriage and/or heterosexuality is to risk severe punishment and loss.
(snip)
There was a time when the two most condemning accusations against a woman meant to ostracize and disempower her were whore” and “lesbian?’ The sexual revolution and changing attitudes about heterosexual behavior may have led to some lessening of the power of the word whore, though it still has strength as a threat to sexual property and prostitutes are stigmatized and abused. However, the word lesbian is still fully charged and carries with it the full threat of loss of power and privilege, the threat of being cut asunder, abandoned, and left outside society’s protection.
To be a lesbian is to be perceived as someone who has stepped out of line, who has moved out of sexual/economic dependence on a male, who is woman-identified. ***** A lesbian is perceived as someone who can live without a man, and who is therefore (however illogically) against men. A lesbian is perceived as being outside the acceptable, routinized order of things. She is seen as someone who has no societal institutions to protect her and who is not privileged to the protection of individual males. Many heterosexual women see her as someone who stands in contradiction to the sacrifices they have made to conform to compulsory heterosexuality. A lesbian is perceived as a threat to the nuclear family, to male dominance and control, to the very heart of sexism.
Gay men are perceived also as a threat to male dominance and control, and the homophobia expressed against them has the same roots in sexism as does homophobia against lesbians. Visible gay men are the objects of extreme hatred and fear by heterosexual males because their breaking ranks with male heterosexual solidarity seen as a damaging rent in the very fabric of sexism. They are seen as betrayers, as traitors who must be punished and eliminated. In the beating and killing of gay men we see clear evidence of this hatred. When we see the fierce homophobia expressed toward gay men, we can begin to understand the ways sexism also affects males through posing rigid, dehumanizing gender roles on them.
(snip)
There was a time when the two most condemning accusations against a woman meant to ostracize and disempower her were whore” and “lesbian?’ The sexual revolution and changing attitudes about heterosexual behavior may have led to some lessening of the power of the word whore, though it still has strength as a threat to sexual property and prostitutes are stigmatized and abused. However, the word lesbian is still fully charged and carries with it the full threat of loss of power and privilege, the threat of being cut asunder, abandoned, and left outside society’s protection.
To be a lesbian is to be perceived as someone who has stepped out of line, who has moved out of sexual/economic dependence on a male, who is woman-identified. ***** A lesbian is perceived as someone who can live without a man, and who is therefore (however illogically) against men. A lesbian is perceived as being outside the acceptable, routinized order of things. She is seen as someone who has no societal institutions to protect her and who is not privileged to the protection of individual males. Many heterosexual women see her as someone who stands in contradiction to the sacrifices they have made to conform to compulsory heterosexuality. A lesbian is perceived as a threat to the nuclear family, to male dominance and control, to the very heart of sexism.
Gay men are perceived also as a threat to male dominance and control, and the homophobia expressed against them has the same roots in sexism as does homophobia against lesbians. Visible gay men are the objects of extreme hatred and fear by heterosexual males because their breaking ranks with male heterosexual solidarity seen as a damaging rent in the very fabric of sexism. They are seen as betrayers, as traitors who must be punished and eliminated. In the beating and killing of gay men we see clear evidence of this hatred. When we see the fierce homophobia expressed toward gay men, we can begin to understand the ways sexism also affects males through posing rigid, dehumanizing gender roles on them.
If lesbians are established as threats to the status quo, as outcasts who must be punished, homophobia can wield its power over all women through lesbian baiting. Lesbian baiting is an attempt to control women by labeling us as lesbians because our behavior is not acceptable, that is, when we are being independent, going our own way, living whole lives, fighting for our rights, demanding equal pay, saying no to violence, being self-assertive, bonding with and loving the company of women, assuming the right to our bodies, insisting upon our own authority, making changes that include us in society’s decision-making; lesbian baiting occurs when women are called lesbians because we resist male dominance and control. And it has little or nothing to do with one’s sexual identity.
To be named as lesbian threatens all women, not just lesbians, with great loss. And any woman who steps out of role risks being called a lesbian. To understand how this is a threat to all women, one must understand that any woman can be called a lesbian and there is no real way she can defend herself: there is no way to credential one’s sexuality. (“The Children’s Hour,” a Lillian Heilman play, makes this point when a student asserts two teachers are lesbians and they have no way to disprove it.) She may be married or divorced, have children, dress in the most feminine manner, have sex with men, be celibate— but there are lesbians who do all those things. Lesbians look like all women and all women look like lesbians. There is no guaranteed method of identification, and as we all know, sexual identity can be kept hidden. (The same is true for men. There is no way to prove their sexual identity, though many go to extremes to prove heterosexuality.) Also, women are not necessarily born lesbian. Some seem to be, but others become lesbians later in life after having lived heterosexual lives. Lesbian baiting of heterosexual women would not work if there were a definitive way to identify lesbians (or heterosexuals.)
To be named as lesbian threatens all women, not just lesbians, with great loss. And any woman who steps out of role risks being called a lesbian. To understand how this is a threat to all women, one must understand that any woman can be called a lesbian and there is no real way she can defend herself: there is no way to credential one’s sexuality. (“The Children’s Hour,” a Lillian Heilman play, makes this point when a student asserts two teachers are lesbians and they have no way to disprove it.) She may be married or divorced, have children, dress in the most feminine manner, have sex with men, be celibate— but there are lesbians who do all those things. Lesbians look like all women and all women look like lesbians. There is no guaranteed method of identification, and as we all know, sexual identity can be kept hidden. (The same is true for men. There is no way to prove their sexual identity, though many go to extremes to prove heterosexuality.) Also, women are not necessarily born lesbian. Some seem to be, but others become lesbians later in life after having lived heterosexual lives. Lesbian baiting of heterosexual women would not work if there were a definitive way to identify lesbians (or heterosexuals.)
Table of Contents
Introduction xi
Her personal story, a very good read.
The Effects of Homophobia on Women’s Liberation 27
A discussion of the welcome lesbian women got in feminist groups when they joined them. Clue: not pretty. Some lesbians hold hetero feminists responsible even now for what happened back then.
Strategies for Eliminating Homophobia 45
As far as we've come over the years -- and more so in the last few as same-sex marriage has been legalized here and there -- there is still a LOT of material in here about what yet needs to be done. For example: "As long as women’s organizations are afraid to use the word lesbian in public speeches, in written materials, in grants, then those organizations are not safe places for lesbians to work or to seek services." I love the suggestion for dealing with lesbian baiting.
The Common Elements of Oppression 53
Extremely valuable material everyone should read and have at hand for future reference eternally. It lays out exactly how oppression works. The defined norm (white male) and how that's communicated and inculcated throughout society, the role of stereotypes, institutional underpinnings, violence and the threat of violence, tokenism, etc.
Here's where I'm coming from, the feminism I learned and embrace:
"IT IS VIRTUALLY impossible to view one oppression, such as sexism or homophobia, in isolation because they are all connected: sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, ableism, anti-Semitism, ageism. They are linked by a common origin— economic power and control — and by common methods of limiting, controlling and destroying lives. There is no hierarchy of oppressions. Each is terrible and destructive. To eliminate one oppression successfully, a movement has to include work to eliminate them all or else success will always be limited and incomplete."
Frankly, it seems to me as I re-read this material on the economics of it all (not to mention the linkedness), this is something the 99% Movement should be aware of. They may ultimately disagree with this analysis, but it certainly seems appropriate for them to consider it.
Women in Exile: The Lesbian Experience 65
Those of us who are hetero may or may not have a really good understanding of what lesbians (and gay men, etc) live with on a daily basis, but a shocking reminder every now and then is in order, I think. I love this passage because it shows her courage, but it also shows that coming out, being strong and firm in one's truth (whatever that may be) is the ONLY sure way to freedom:
"Because I had not hid as a lesbian, I endured life-threatening phone calls, police harassment at my house, personnel committee meetings that I was not allowed to attend, and finally a large public hearing where I was made to stand outside while others went in to testify whether my being a lesbian affected my work. I survived this attack in large part because I was visible and because I had good supportive women around me. Those who led the attack were not primarily concerned with my lesbianism; they were looking for an opportunity to challenge my effectiveness and fire me. They mistakenly thought I would want to keep my sexual identity hidden and would be most vulnerable in that area. They also discovered that in the Arkansas Ozarks good character and ethics can sometimes have a greater impact than sexual identity. "
Afterword: Where We Are Now 93
A riveting disucssion covering the period from Stonewall to now plus analysis. Not to be missed.
Annotated Bibliography 123
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
