Lets talk about bisexual lesbians. Or, more specifically, the use of the term bi-lesbian. Can a bi woman be a lesbian? My answer is yes for many, many reasons, but this is perhaps the most important.
The question is asked, why can't lesbians have this one thing?
Now most people don't catch this, but there are actually two different questions there combined into one, and different people will read that differently. The questions and their respective answers:
Can we have something of our own only for us? Yes, you can. I am not sure you are going to have a lot of luck creating some hard division for that term to rest on, but if you think conceptually it is very important then that's fine.
Can that thing be the word lesbian? No, it cannot be the word lesbian.
The reason is quite simple. For a good amount of wlw history the term lesbian did not refer to only women who exclusively loved women. It was widely used by women loving women in general. This particular argument is constructed to make it seem as if exclusively women loving women created this term for themselves and then others invaded it, but historically the opposite occurred. The term was inclusive, and only by deliberate and malicious efforts was the term made exclusive. I wont get into the details of the history, but you might know them as bisexual exclusionist radical feminists. In other contexts you may know the closely related and heavily overlapping group, terfs.
These are the same people who came up with the idea of the gold star lesbian, which can be summed up as the idea that lesbians can be permanently tainted by having had contact with maleness. Have you ever kissed a man? You are permanently damaged goods and an inferior lesbian. They also came up with the idea of political lesbianism, which is that women can and should choose to be lesbians, and if you do not then you are a bad person and bad feminist. There is much, much more we could name, but we would be here all day.
Every negative stereotype of bi women was fully endorsed and used by these women as justification for this ousting of bi women, including things like the idea that bi women are dangerous perverts, that bi women are to be blamed for lesbians being attacked by men, that bi women are not actually real at all and they are either confused lesbians or malicious straight women.
Policing the use of lesbian by bi women started as an act of exclusionism and has continued to be so. Time has not dulled that truth. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you are either a bi exclusionist, or you support bi women using the term lesbian.
I used bi women as the center of my explanation here, but this applies to most if not all of the many instances of using the term lesbian outside of the exclusionist meaning. Even if a particular use is not covered under this pattern, lesbian was never an exclusive term in the way rad fems would have you believe. It is not meaningfully possible to create an exclusionary meaning for lesbian in the same way it is not meaningfully possible to create an exclusionary meaning of the word 'woman' as terfs and conservatives constantly try to do.
That all said, it is understandable that people don't know the details of this issue. The confusing of this issue was and is deliberate. You are not a bad person if you were not already on board with this, and if it takes you some time to think it over then good. You shouldn't be flipping your opinions on a dime because of a single post anyway.
This is not an ultimatum that demands you fall in line. Treat it as a single point of data to bring into your wider consideration. Maybe its the last one you need, maybe its a starting point. But please do think on it.
10 notes
·
View notes
Can you explain more what you mean about Ridley Scott having old man gaze? I'm really curious lol
Back in the day... Ridley's day too,
-Most mainstream big movies had that dynamic. Some leading white guy who was older than his love interest. This was that white male director's gaze. So it was standard. We didn't see it as fanfiction back then... But once it clicks into place....
The guy was a good 10 - 20 years older than his female love interest.
Ridley Scott is 86 years old.
86.
He is still directing the same kinds of movies with the same gaze as he did in the 80's.
It's not about historical accuracy. It's about defending that gaze and that "tradition".
It's in the same realm of debate as "when will real cinema come back", a subject that is always brought up by or centered around old white male auteurs.
They act like it's about being tired of one subject dominating genre (IP and especially comic book films) but really, it's more about the increased inclusion, in both the players and the gaze steering the proceedings and audiences enjoying it.
So, when Ridley is cussing about his disregard of accuracy, he's really being defensive of his gaze being so much less taken at face value, without basic interrogatives about it, these days. He's an old man yelling at a cloud. And having what used to be baseline normalcy in American film; instead inspiring knowing chuckles and eye-rolls, because of course, you cast the boring old standard of a too-old J. Phoenix and too-young V. Kirby, even when the reality (Jo was actually six years older than Napoleon) would have made that dynamic in your movie much more interesting... But upholding old cliches as "real cinema' regardless of the actual quality/watchability of the film matters more to him.
65 notes
·
View notes