Here is a text version (split up into three files) of the people's global action gender reader from the european conference in Belgrade 2004.  Ssome formatting has been lost from the .pdf version of this file.  For an emailed copy of the .pdf file contact grassrootsbelfast2@safe-mail.net or if this email is defunct contact the pga directly

The Politics ofgender
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 1

Gender is the social organisation of sexual difference.
This does not mean that gender reflects or
implements fixed or innate differences between men
and women - sexual difference is not the root cause
from which social organisation comes. It is instead
variable social organisation itself which must be
explained. (Joan Scott 1988).
In other words In other words
WE HAVE A CHOICE. WE HAVE A CHOICE.
Gender, our knowledge of it and behaviour with
regards to it, implements forms of social hierarchies
in our societies. Our current society and the majority
of our HISstory demonstrates the operation of a
patriarchal social hierarchy in which men have higher
status than women (there are always exceptions).
Hierarchy is a value system in which your worth is
measured by the number of people and things you
control and how dutifully you obey those above you.
You are afraid to disobey those above you because
they can bring to bear against you the power of
everything and everyone under them and you are
afraid to abdicate your power over those below you
as they might end up above you.
The sexist patriarchal hierarchy operates smoothly
as lower status and higher status people have
internalised the behaviour patterns appropriate to
their rank which they act out repeatedly and
unquestioningly maintaining the social status quo.
They know their place and stick to it, regardless of
whether it is in heir best interests or not. We cannot
change this through merely talking about it, writing
about it or demonstrating about it. It is down to each
and every person who wishes to see change in the
social hierarchical structures of society to start with
themselves; by consciously examining their own
patterns of social behaviour, body language and
verbal communications; and if they have the courage
to do so, by questioning it and challenging it in
others and their everyday lives.
Gender issues cover three areas in which individuals are
subjected to rape, violence, bigotry, discrimination and
behavioural policing if they deviate from the societal norm,
resulting in persecution, suffering and even death for
many people.
So how do societal mechanisms work to enforce inequality?
Through institutionalised inequalities eg. wage division, the operation of mental health
policing with the backing of the law, and the outlawing of certain sexual expression in
some countries, and the portrayal of gender in the media and capitalist propaganda (i.e.
advertisments).
Through behavioural policing from people in general when they observe deviations from
the accepted societal norms mentioned above. Behavioural policing may take the form
of outright violence, verbal abuse or questioning, and non verbal communication.
Through the blind acceptance and perpetuation of our own traditional gendered
behaviour/roles by both men and women.
1Physical sex
Accepted societal norm: male
Individuals not fitting this category are subjugated
through SEXISM 2
3
Sexual orientation
Accepted societal norm: heterosexual
Individuals not fitting this category are subjugated
through HOMOPHOBIA
Self-expression of appearance and behaviour
Accepted societal norm: bi-polar opposites masculine/feminine
individuals who do not fit neatlyinto these categories
are subjugated through TRANSGENDERPHOBIA
The Politics ofgender
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 1

going to places that scare me
personal reflections on challenging male supremacy
by Chris Crass
part 1 : how can i be sexist? I m an anarchist!
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 2

""What do you mean I'm sexist?" I was
shocked. I wasn't a jock, I didn’t hate
women, I wasn't an evil person. "But how
can I be a sexist, I'm an anarchist?" I was anxious,
nervous, and my defenses were up. I believed in
liberation, for fighting against capitalism and the state.
There were those who defended and benefited from
injustice and then there’s us, right? I was 19 and it was
1993, four year after I got into politics.
Nilou, holding my hand, patiently explained, “I'm
not saying you're an evil person, I'm saying that you're
sexist and sexism happens in a lot of subtle and blatant
ways. You cut me off when I'm talking. You pay more
attention to what men say. The other day when I was
sitting at the coffee shop with you and Mike, it was like
the two of you were having a conversation and I was
just there to watch. I tried to jump in and say
something, but you both just looked at me and then
went back to your conversation. Men in the group
make eye contact with each other and act like women
aren’t even there. The study group has become a
forum for men in the group to go on and on about this
book and that book, like they know everything and just
need to teach the rest of us. For a long time I thought
maybe it was just me, maybe what I had to say wasn't
as useful or exciting. Maybe I needed to change my
approach, maybe I was just overreacting, maybe it's
just in my head and I need to get over it. But then I
saw how the same thing was happening to other
women in the group, over and over again. I'm not
blaming you for all of this, but you're a big part of this
group and you're part of this dynamic.” This
conversation changed my life and it’s challenge is one I
continue to struggle with in this essay.
This is an essay for other white, middle class, raised
male who identify themselves as male, left/anarchist
organizers struggling to build movements for liberation.
I want to focus on my own experience of dealing with
issues of sexism and anti-sexism from an emotional
and psychological centered perspective. I’m choosing
this focus because it is
personally challenging, it
has proved effective in
working with men against sexism and because of
consistent feedback from women who I organize with
not to ignore these aspects of the work. Rona
Fernandez of the Youth Empowerment Center in
Oakland writes, “Encourage men/gender privileged
folks to examine the role of emotions (or lack thereof)
in their experience of privilege. I’m saying this because
I think men/gender privileged folks also suffer under
the system of patriarchy and one of the most
dehumanizing ways they suffer is in their
inability/difficulty in expressing feelings.” Clare Bayard
of Anti-Racism for Global Justice puts it pointedly in
addressing gender privileged activist men, "It took
years of study and hard work to develop your political
analysis, why do you think emotional understanding
should just come to you, it requires work as well."
This essay looks to the leadership of women, women
of color in particular, who write about and organize
against patriarchy in society and sexism in the
movement. The work of Barbara Smith, Gloria Anzaldua,
Ella Baker, Patricia Hill Collins, Elizabeth ‘Betita’ Martinez,
bell hooks and so many others who provide the political
foundations, visions and strategies for the work gender
privileged white men need to do. Additionally, there are
more and more gender privileged men in the movement
working to challenge male supremacy. There are
thousands of us who recognize that patriarchy exists,
that we have privileges as a result, that sexism
undermines movement , that women, transgendered
folks and genderqueer people have explained it over and
over again and said “you all need to talk with each
other, challenge each other and figure out what you’re
all going to do.” And yet there are far more white men in
the movement who agree sexism exists in society,
perhaps in the movement, but deny their personal
involvement in it.
Lisa Sousa, who is part of the San Francisco
Independent Media Center and AK Press, told me that
in recent discussions she’s had in groups about sexism
and gender, she’s heard the following responses from
men: "we are all oppressed", "we should be talking
about class", "you are just using gender as a way to
attack such and such". When she raised the issue that
women leave the majority male group soon after
joining, the responses included: "men leave our group
too, women are not leaving more, people leave its a
fact in volunteer organizations", "we just need to
recruit more women, if women leave, there's more
where they came from".
These comments are so familiar and while it is
tempting to distance myself from the men who made
them, it’s important that I remember when I made those
comments. As a person who believes in movement
building and collective liberation, it’s important for me to
connect with the people I’m organizing with. As a person
with privilege organizing others with privilege, that
means learning to love myself enough to be able to see
myself in people who I would much rather denounce and
distance myself from. It also means being honest about
my own experiences.
When I think back to that conversation with Nilou and
her explaining how sexism operated. I remember trying
not to shutdown and I tried to listen.
going to places that scare me
personal reflections on challenging male supremacy
by Chris Crass
part 1 : how can i be sexist? I m an anarchist!
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 2

gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 3

The word "But" repeated over and over
again in my mind, followed by “it was a
misunderstanding, I didn't mean it that
way, I didn’t know you felt like that, I
wasn't trying to do that, I would love to see
you participate more, I don't understand,
no one said they didn't want to hear what
you have to say, we all believe in equality, I
love you and would never do anything to
hurt you, it was circumstances not sexism,
I don't know what to do.” Looking back ten
years later, it’s amazing to me how often
that same list of “buts” comes running to
mind. I’m more like those ‘other’ men that
I’d like to admit.
Nilou spent hours and hours talking with me
about sexism. It was tremendously difficult. My
politics were shaped by a clearly defined
dualistic framework of good and bad. If it was
true that I was sexist, then my previous sense
of self was in question and my framework
needed to shift. Looking back, this was a
profoundly important moment in my growth, at
the time it felt like shit.
Two weeks later, at our anarchist study
group meeting, Nilou raised her hand.
"Sexism is happening in this group." She
listed the examples she had told me. The
defensive reaction that I experienced was
now amplified by the 5 other men in the
room. Other women started speaking up.
They too had experienced these dynamics
and they were tired of taking it. The men
were shocked and defensive; we began listing
all the reasons why claims of sexism were
simply misunderstandings, misperceptions.
With genuine sincerity we said, “But we all
want revolution.”
After the meeting, the woman who had
been in the group the longest sat me down.
April had been part of the United Anarchist
Front for well over a year and she too gave
me example after example of sexist
behavior. Men in the group didn't trust her
to handle responsibilities, even if they were
newer. She wasn't looked to for information
about the group, nor were her opinions
asked for on political questions. Others
joined our conversation and men continued
to challenge the assertion of sexism. April
put forward an example that she had just
clearly explained to me and men denied it
as a misunderstanding. A few minutes later,
I restated the exact same example given by
April and this time it was met with
begrudging agreement from other men that
perhaps in this case it was sexist. April
called it out immediately, I hadn’t even fully
realized what happened. I looked at April
as she broke it down. April's words coming
from my mouth were heard and taken
seriously. There it is. I didn’t really want to
believe that sexism was happening, but
now I saw it. I felt horrible, like a kick to
the stomach. Nilou and April desperately
trying to get us to agree that there was a
problem. How could this be happening
when I hadn’t intended it to? I was scared
to say anything.
Two months later, I was sitting in a men's
caucus silently. We didn't know what to talk
about. More specifically, we were scared,
nervous, dismissive and didn't put energy into
creating a useful discussion about sexism. Nilou
and April had suggested we spend a day
talking about sexism and we'd start with
caucuses. "What are the women talking about",
we asked ourselves. When the group re-united
the discussion quickly turned into women
defending themselves, defending their
understandings of their own experiences. I felt
horrible and struggled to believe what I was
hearing. I felt completely clueless about how to
move in a useful way.
Several people of all genders left early in
tears, disillusioned and overwhelmed by
powerlessness. My Mom had observed part of
our discussion and asked to speak. "You're all
taking on enormous issues and these issues
are hard. It makes me happy to see you all at
such young ages seriously talk about it. It
shows that you really believe in what you're
fighting for and it's a conversation that
doesn't happen in one day." I could feel the
heaviness in the room as we looked at each
other, many with tears in their eyes. It was
clear that challenging sexism was far more
then learning how to make eye contact with
women in group discussions, it was
challenging a system of power that operates
on the political, economic, social, cultural,
psychological level and my internalized
superiority was but the tip of an iceberg built
on exploitation and oppression.
This essay looks to the leadership of women, women of color in particular, who write about and organize against patriarchy in society and sexism in the movement. The work of (from top to bottom) Patricia Hill Collins, Elizabeth 'Betita' Martinez, Bell Hooks, (on the following page) Ella Baker, Barbara Smith, Gloria Anzaldua and so many others who provide the political foundations, visions and strategies for the work gender privileged white men need to do.
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 3


Part II: "what historical
class am i in?"
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 4

""Do you know what class you're in?" Being a
white, middle class, male taking Women’s
Studies and Ethnic Studies classes for all seven
years that I was in school, I was asked that question a
lot. In a Black Women's history class, someone offered to
help me figure out where I needed to go.
I understood why people asked me and I understood
that the question wasn't just about class as in a room, but
class as in a social category in a white supremacist,
patriarchal, heterosexist, capitalist society hell bent on
maintaining control. I knew what class I was coming from
and I knew that my relationship to Women’s Studies and
Ethnic Studies was complicated. I knew some people
didn't want me in those classes and I knew that my very
presence made others feel uncomfortable. And many of
the teachers and some of the students told me that they
were glad I was there. It helped me see how complex
these struggles are and that there aren’t easy answers.
I went to community college for four years and then
San Francisco State for three. The majority of my
teachers were women and people of color. I had grown
up in a generally segregated community and had few role
models, authority figures, mentors or teachers who were
people of color.
What I read and studied in college - women of color
feminism, Black liberation struggle, Chicano/a history,
colonialism from the perspective of American Indian
history, labor history and organizing, queer theory, antiracism
from the perspective of immigrant and refugee
women - had a profound impact on me. However, having
people of color and women of color in particular grade
me, instruct me and guide me was incredibly important to
my development on psychological levels that I wasn't
necessarily aware of at the time. Having people of color
and women with progressive/left/radical politics leading
my educational development was a subversive shifting of
the power relationships that wasn't mentioned on the
syllabus but was central to my studies.
Learning in majority women and people of color
settings also had a deep impact, because it was the first
time that I had ever been in situations where I was a
numerical minority on the basis of race or gender.
Suddenly race and gender weren’t just issues amongst
many, they were central aspects of how others
experienced, viewed and understood the world. The
question I sometimes thougtht silently to myself, “why do
you always have to talk about race and gender”, was
flipped on it’s head; “how can you not think about race
and gender all the time?”
Over time I developed a strategy for school. I'd stay
pretty quiet for the first month or so of class, pushing
myself to really listen. In the first week of class I’d say
something to clearly identify myself as opposed to white
supremacy and patriarchy (sometimes capitalism) as
systems of oppressions that I benefit from, so people
knew where I was coming from. This was generally met
with shock, excitement and a sign of relief. I participated
in dialogue more as I tried to develop trust through
listening and being open to the information, histories and
stories. While this strategy incorporated anti-sexist goals,
it was also about presenting myself in a certain way.
The other part of the strategy was to participate and
raise questions and other perspectives in my Western
Civics, Political Science and other white, male dominated
classes. People of color and women I worked with were
clear that this was something they felt I had a
responsibility to do. "They expect it from us and dismiss
us as angry, emotional, stuck in victim mode. You need to
use your privilege to get heard by white people and men."
The goal wasn't to necessarily change the perspective of
the Professor but to open up space for critical dialogue
about race, class and gender with the other students who
were mostly white and often mostly male. This was
extremely useful learning as well, because frequently I
came across as cold, angry, self-righteous or unsure of
myself, none of which were particularly helpful. If my goal
is to yell at men and white people to alleviate my own
guilt and shame for being white and male, then perhaps
that's a useful tactic. If my goal is to actually work with
folks to embrace anti-racism and feminism, then I needed
to be more complex and real with myself.
I grew up believing that I was a lone individual on a
linear path of progression with no past. History was a set
of dates and events that, while interesting to learn, had
little or no relationship to my life. I was just a person,
doing my own thing. Then I started to learn that being
white, male, middle class, able-bodied, mostly
heterosexual and a citizen of the United States meant that
not only did I have privileges, but that I was rooted in
history. I was a part of social categories - white, male,
hetero, middle class. These are all groups that have
history and are shaped by history. Part of being in those
groups means being deemed normal, the standard which
all others are judged. My images of just being “my own
person” were now joined by images of slave ships,
indigenous communities burned to the ground, families
destroyed, violence against women, white ruling class
men using white poor men to colonize white women,
peoples of color and the Earth.
I remember sitting in an African American women's
history class, one of two white people, one of two men,
the other 15 people Black women and I'm the only white
man. We were studying slavery, Ida B. Wells’ anti-lynching
campaign and the systematic raping of enslaved African
women by white male slave owners - millions of rapes,
sanctioned and protected by law. Simultaneously
hundreds of Black men were lynched by white men who
claimed to be protecting white women from Black male
rapists. I sat there with my head down and I could feel
history in my nauseated stomach and in my eyes filling
with tears. Who were those white men and how did they
feel about themselves? I was scared to look into the faces
of the Black women in that room. "While there is mixing
of races because of love," the Professor said, "our people
are so many shades of Black because of generation after
generation of institutionalized rape." Who am I and how
do I feel about myself?
Part II: "what historical
class am i in?"
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 4

Part III:"this struggle is my struggle"
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 5

““ II
haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white heterosexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power.” - Robin Morgan from the introduction of Sisterhood is Powerful
"Face your fear/ the fear is you/ you cannot run/ you cannot hide/ the fear is you/ in the end, what have you done/ can it be true that the damage you bring is greater then the good you make/ face your fear/ embrace your fear/ the pain inside is the truth inside/ let it out/ let it out/ when the socialization is gone/ what is left/ the fear is more real then the hope you create/ where will you go/ what will you do/ let it all go cuz it's already you/ can I move forward/ can I move forward/ open it all up/ you know it's all true/ the hope is you" -white boy emo-hardcore
I have and do go through periods of hating
myself, feeling guilty, afraid. I know in my heart
that I had a role in liberation struggle and I know
through practice that there was useful work that I
could do, but still the question haunts me, "Am I
just fooling myself?" That is, am I fooling myself
to believe that I am more useful then problematic.
To be clear, I think Robin Morgan’s quote is useful
to struggle with, but not to get stuck on. I grew
up believing that I was entitled to everything. I
could go anywhere and do anything and wherever
I went I would be wanted/needed.
Patriarchy and heterosexism also taught me,
in subtle and blatant ways, that I was entitled
to women's bodies, that I was entitled to take
up space and put my ideas and thoughts out
there whenever I wanted to, without
consideration for others. This is a very different
process of socialization than most other people
in this society who
are told to shut up,
keep it to
themselves, hide who they really are, get out
of the way and to never forget how lucky they
are to be allowed here to begin with. I think it’s
healthy to not assume you're always needed, to
learn to share space and power and to work
with others to realize the role that you in fact
can and should play. What is unhealthy is how
rare it is for gender privileged men to talk with
each other about these issues and support
each other through the process.
Laura Close, an organizer with Students for
Unity in Portland, discussed this in her essay, "Men
in the Movement". She writes, "Every day young
men wake up and decide to get involved in
activism. Often they encounter language and
discussions about their male privilege that alienate
and silence them without anyone actually
supporting them to decolonize their minds.
Consider what it would be like for ally men to take
our younger/newer guys out to coffee and talk
about his own experiences as a guy in the
movement. Talk about what you've learned!
Consider what it would mean for men to cheer on
other men who are making progress towards
becoming allies." She put out a challenge for men
to mentor other men engaging in anti-sexist work.
I knew she was right, but the idea of really
doing it made me nervous. Sure, I had plenty of
close gender privileged friends, but to make a
political commitment to develop relationships
with other men and open up with them about
my own struggles with sexism seemed terrifying.
Terrifying because I could handle denouncing
patriarchy and calling out other men from time
to time, but to be honest about my own sexism,
to connect political analysis/practice to my own
emotional/psychological process, to be
vulnerable?
Pause. Vulnerable to what? Remember
when I said that in Women’s Studies classes I
would identify myself as opposed to patriarchy,
white supremacy and sometimes capitalism?
The level of consciousness of feminism, let
alone political commitment to it amongst most
gender privileged men in college was so low
that just reading one feminist book and saying
“I recognize that sexism exists” meant I was
way advanced. While the level of consciousness
and commitment is generally higher in activist
circles, it’s not that much higher. I have had
two major struggles going on most of my
political life - genuinely wanting to be down for
the cause and feeling a deep level of fear that I
wasn’t coming anywhere close to that
commitment. It’s far easier for me to make
declarations against patriarchy in classrooms,
political meetings and in writing then it is to
practice feminist politics in my personal
relationships with friends, family and partners.
This is particularly difficult when political men,
like myself, make so little time to talk with each
other about this.
What am I afraid to admit? That I struggle
everyday to really listen to voices I identify as
women’s. I know my mind wanders quicker. I
know that my instant reaction is take men’s
opinions more seriously. I know that when I
walk into rooms full of activists I instantly scan
the room and divide people into hierarchies of
status (how long they’ve been active, what
groups they’ve been part of, what they’ve
written and where it’s been published, who are
their friends). I position myself against them
and feel the most competitive with men. With
those I identify as women, the same status
hierarchies are tallied, but sexual desirabilty
enters my hetero mindset. What is healthy
sexual attraction and desire and how does it
relate to and survive my training to
systematically sexualize women around me?
Part III:"this struggle is my struggle"
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 5

Post script: "we must work to
make the struggle real"
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 6

This gets amplified by the day-to-day reality that this
society presents women as voiceless bodies to serve
hetero-male desire, we know that. But what does it mean
for how I communicate with my partners who are women
and who I organize with? How does it translate into how I
make love, want love, express love, conceptualize love?
I’m not talking about whether or not I go down on my
partner or say I love you, I’m talking about whether or
not I truly value equality in our relationships over getting
off on a regular basis.
The fact that my partners have provided far more
emotional and financial support then I have for them. I’m
talking about having almost never zoned out on what a
gender privileged man is saying because I thought about
him sexually.
I’ve repeatedly found myself zoned out thinking
about sex while listening to women speak who are
organizers, leaders, visionaries, my friends, my
comrades. I’m all about crushes, healthy sexual desire
and pro-sex politics, that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about power, entitlement and women’s
leadership marginalized by hetero male desire. I wish I
didn’t get defensive on a regular basis, but I do. I get
frustrated and shut down conversations about how
power operates between my partner and I. I get
defensive about how the world interacts with us and
how that influences our dynamics. I know that there are
times when I say, “ok, I’ll think more about it” when
really I’m thinking, “leave me alone”.
This isn’t a confessional so that I will be forgiven. This
is an on-going struggle to be honest about how deeply
shaped I am by patriarchy and these systems of
oppression. Patriarchy tears me up. I have so many fears
about whether or not I’m capable of being in healthy
loving relationships. Fears about whether or not I can be
genuinely honest and connected with myself so that I
can then open up and share with others. Fears about
organizing to genuinely build and share power with
others The scars of patriarchy are on every single person
I interact with and when I push myself to see it, to really
look and take the time to think about it, I’m filled with
sadness and rage. bell hooks, in her book All About Love,
writes that love is impossible where the will to dominate
exists. Can I genuinely love? I want to believe. I want to
believe in a political practice for gendered privileged men
forged in opposition to patriarchy.
I do believe that as we struggle against oppression, as
we practice our commitments, we actualize and express
our humanity. There are moments, experiences and
events when I see patriarchy challenged by all genders
and it shows what we can do. I believe that this is our
lives’ work and that at its core it’s a fight for our lives.
And in this fight we realize that even in the face of these
systems of oppression, our love, beauty, creativity,
passion, dignity and power grows. We can do this.
While it’s necessary to get into the hard emotional and
psychological issues, there is also an endless supply of
conrete steps we can take to challenge male supremacy.
An organizer working on Palestinian Liberation wrote me
saying, “some things gender privileged people can do: offer
to take notes in meetings, make phone calls, find meeting
locations, do childcare, make copies and other less
glamorous work. Encourage women and gender oppressed
people in the group to take on roles men often dominate
(e.g. tactical, mc-ing and event, media spokespeople). Ask
specific women if they want to do it and explain why you
think they would be good (don’t tokenize). Pay attention to
who you listen to and check yourself on power-tripping.”
She is one of hundreds of thousands of women and
gender oppressed people who has outlined clear, concrete
action steps that people with gender privilege can take to
challenge sexism and work for liberation. There is an
abundant supply of work to be done. The larger issue for
me has been, “what will it take for me to actually do that
work, to actually prioritize it and follow through on it?” In
additional to men talking with each other as discussed
above, we also need to hold each other accountable to
follow through. There are a lot of heavy emotional issues
that come up in doing this work and it’s critical that we
help keep each other from getting lost and help each other
take concrete steps forward. Asking ourselves, “how does
our work support the leadership of women?” “How am I
working to share power in my organizing?” “How am I
making myself open to hearing feedback from gender
oppressed people about my work?” Each of these questions
generates next steps to make it happen. Examining and
challenging privilege is a necessary aspect of our work, but
it’s not enough. Men working with other men to challenge
male supremacy is just one of many, many strategies
needed to develop women-led, multiracial, anti-racist,
feminist, queer and trans liberationist, working class based,
anti-capitalist movements for collective liberation. We know
that sexism will work to undermine movement building.
The question is, what work will we do to help build
movement and in the process expand our ability to love
ourselves and others.
Post script: "we must work to
make the struggle real"
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 6

Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism by Suzanne Pharr
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 7#

Homophobia and Heterosexism
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....
It is not by chance that when children approach
puberty and increased sexual awareness they begin to
taunt each other by calling these names: "queer,"
"faggot," "pervert." It is at puberty that the full force
of society's pressure to conform to heterosexuality and
prepare for marriage is brought to bear. Children know
what we have taught them, and we have given dear
messages that those who deviate from standard
expectations are to be made to get back in line. The
best controlling tactic at puberty is to be treated as an
outsider, to be ostracized at a time when it feels most
vital to be accepted. Those who are different must be
made to suffer loss. It is also at puberty that misogyny
begins to be more apparent, and girls are pressured to
conform to societal norms that do not permit them to
realize their full potential. It is at this time that their
academic achievements begin to decrease as they are
coerced into dependency upon a man for
economic survival.
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 of society's
protection.
Lesbians and Gay Men: A Threat to the
Heart of Sexism
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 being outside the acceptable, routinzed 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
men because their breaking ranks with male
heterosexual solidarity is 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 imposing rigid,
dehumanizing gender roles on them.
The two circumstances in which it is legitimate for
men to be openly physically affectionate with one another
are in competitive sports and in the crisis of war. For
many men, these two experiences are the highlights of
their lives, and they think of them again and again with
nostalgia. War and sports offer a cover of all-male safety
and dominance to keep away the notion of affectionate
openness being identified with homosexuality. When gay
men break ranks with male roles through bonding and
affection outside the areas of war and sports, they are
perceived as not being "real men," that is, as being
identified with women, the weaker sex that must be
dominated and that over the centuries has been the
object of male hatred and abuse. Misogyny gets
transferred to gay men with a vengeance and is increased
by the fear that their sexual identity and behavior will
bring down the entire system of male dominance and
compulsory heterosexuality.
Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism by Suzanne Pharr
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 7#

SELF IMAGE - Appearance as a Political Category
by Bosa Janjusevic
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 8

Appearance
Appearance says a lot about gender, sexuality, ethnicity
and class. In society divided along sexual, racial and
economic lines, these visual aspects also describe power
differences. Between a man and a woman, it might look
like this. The man in an expensive suit shows that he is
successful, has a high-class position and economic power.
His suit clearly advertises, silently but unmistakably,
authority and privilege. If a woman wants to get that sort
of attention, she must "speak" much louder. Traditionally,
the way that woman is dressed reflects her husband's
status, not her own, which makes her a passive object
like a hanger in someone's closet. Today this picture is
somewhat different since there are more women who are
the bread-winners in their family.
Since intelligence is attributed to men, women are only
left with the option of taking care of their bodies, over
which they have more control (within limits predetermined
by society) than their attempts to attain well-paid working
positions. The demands of the beauty industry pose the
standards of "natural" beauty and eternal youth,
abolishing cultural differences. To value oneself through
the category of beauty that is dictated by the beauty
industry and media means to succumb to stereotypes and
prejudices and neglect ones' body as it is, because as
long as the beauty is the most important aspect of
femininity, some women will not be able to be women.
The Beauty Industry
Society says that we have to be skinny and while
majority of us don't have control over our lives, we can
control our weight - we can starve to death or we can eat
whatever we want, without effects… Standards that we are
judged by and that we judge ourselves by are almost the
same. The demands for "sufficient femininity", "sufficient
attractiveness", have produced a commercialization of the
beauty codex and the privatization of shame. The beauty
industry sets standards that minimize living changes and
demand eternal youth. Ironically, the "natural look" as
commodified and promoted by the beauty industry belief
in one that very few women "naturally" possess.Body
becomes Other in continuity until it finally stops to exist,
which is rather disturbing for those who reduce themselves
to their body only.
The beauty market, under the control of a number of
multi-nationals, is expending around the world. Western
industry is standardizing women's beauty irrespective of
cultural differences, selling the product by a single
advertisement around the world and constructing the myth
of eroticism, success and adventure. Besides that, "selling"
what is "modern" produces desire for the "modern look",
which is valued for being perceived as "successful."
Female
Social expectations create a mirror that we are invited
to look at during the process of creating our sexual
identity. Women holding this mirror up to themselves will
discover that her look is framed by the equation that
"female is a woman is feminine is heterosexual". Under
this curved surface of expectations, our individual
combinations of biological sex (female/male), social sex
(woman/man), gender (femininity/masculinity) and
sexuality (erotic preferences) look as deformed and funny
as distortions in house of mirrors. The majority of women
will do anything to make "normal" picture instead of
criticising the mirrors, while some others who recognize
imposed gender roles will tend to oppose them and not
blame their anatomy.
Rebellion against feminine fashion at the same time
draws attention toward created differences. It's expected
that women demonstrate supposed inborn differences
between sexes through femininity. In that way, they - as
the "other" - are justifiably unequal in political,
economical and social spheres. It is important to stress
the artificial basis of the gender look in order to notice
that these differences are formed during life, that they are
not inborn, that femininity is heavy social lacquer put over
the human form. The reality of imposed femininity means
that women are faced with the choice between adaptation
and sexual and social acceptance or opposition and
possible abuse as being "asexual" and ugly.
Liberation
Trying out interesting alternatives that fulfill us personally
can be an act of liberation. Dressing "nicely" can be
interesting if at the same time we know that we deserve
respect, grace, admiration and passion without supplements
and costumes. The only way to make our appearance a
source of pleasure and not anxiety is to make it firmly deeprooted
in a sense of our personal value independently of it.
In order to resist the temptations of assimilation and
adaptation, we need more than just self-confidence and
courage - it's necessary to have support to get out of
isolation of having individual battles. Learning to look at
one another with pride instead of fear, we make visible
others and us. That way we encourage ourselves to
express our fantasies fully and we dare to do "unusual"
things instead of adapting to what is "appropriate".
In exchanging the secrets of beauty, our fears and
fantasies, we create an atmosphere where our
appearance will be based on political as well as personal
care. Playing with the look will be play only if we
deconstruct the "agreement" of gender and clothes,
identity and look, beauty and status.
bosa.j@yubc.net
Literature:
Chapkis, Wendy, Beauty Secrets - Women and the
Politics of Appearance, South End Press, USA, 1986
Pipher, Mary, Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of
Adolescent Girls, Ballantine Books, USA, 1995
(Pajfer, Meri, Budjenje Ofelije, Narodna knjiga Alfa,
Beograd, 1997)
SELF IMAGE - Appearance as a Political Category
by Bosa Janjusevic
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 8

Queer theory - the billy basics
by Dr. Mary Ann O’Farrell
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 9

Over Sunday morning coffee, Nancy and Cylinda--
having heard about academic work in the field called
"queer theory"--asked me "well, what is queer theory
anyway?" What follows is some version of what their
questions helped me say it was; it's certainly better taken
with caffeine, croissants, and company.
It might be useful first to start with theory. Any time
you contemplate what you do and how you do it,
elevating those decisions from the particularity of your
choices to principles by which one understands more
generally the workings of the world or the place of
oneself in it, you're doing theory. Does the peanut butter
go on first or does the jelly? Should repeat really follow
on lather and rinse? And if it does, does that make you
capitalism's fool or a clean freak? Are butch-femme roles
not just matters of what one does in bed on Tuesday or
how one wears one's hair, but (either) capitulations to a
heterosexizing scheme or subversive commentary on
gender roles? The principles with which you understand
your practices are theory.
What's sometimes useful and sometimes dangerous
about theory (you see it already) is its tendency to migrate
toward the realms of the evaluative and the imperative.
(You know, honey, it's really better to put the peanut
butter and jelly on separate slices, and only then. . . .)
The history of theorizing, when we understand it as a
way to organize experience and the world, has often
involved the division of things into comparative binaries:
sun/moon; cold/warm; man/woman; black/white;
soft/hard; reason/feeling; a little bit country/a little bit
rock-and-roll; me/not me. If the making of distinctions has
often been crucial both to understanding and to
articulation, it has as often brought along with it a
tendency toward ascribing values on one side of the
binary or another: good/bad has often been a favorite
binary, against which it has been all to easy to line up,
say, man-reason/woman-feeling, and sex (man/woman)
has often enough been the organizing pair when it comes
to the distribution of value.
Disturbed by the drift of these evaluations, some
thinkers have sought to overturn the evaluations implied
by these binaries ("woman" and "feeling" might then
become the valued terms), but such overturning -
whatever its political uses and personal appeal - leaves
intact a binary system that has sufficient flexibility to
permit responses to context while not questioning the
system's own omissions and failures in the project of
understanding the world. (The system proves all too good
at organizing the world.)
Enter queer theory (not alone), with its notion of
"queering" as a verb. Taking advantage of the idea that
queerness constitutes a "third sex" (and in doing so
subverting a notion that has sometimes been used to
isolate and marginalize queer sexualities), queer theorists
have chosen not always to make straight/gay conform to
the ways of binary thinking, choosing rather to
understand queerness as the third term that might
disempower a reductive and falsifying system. Doing so,
queer theorists fantasize, permit, and encourage the
disruption of the (oppressive) order of the binary.
Blurring the line and collapsing the bar (/) between
terms, queer theorists (like other workers in the field of
gay and lesbian studies) think about sexuality, sex
practices, and the sexuality-based identities that have
grown up around them in ways that involve not dispensing
with (that might be neither possible not desirable) but
playing with the terms of traditional binary understanding.
What might differentiate practicioners of queer theory from
some other people doing work in lesbian and gay studies
is not so much what they talk about (Broadway musicals,
AIDS politics, transgender identity, gay teen suicide,
mystery novels, tennis stars) as their self-conscious desire
to comment on and disturb the falsifying comfort of binary
ways of understanding the world.
If you're interested in thinking more about some of
these things, my suggestions are reading (try works by
Judith Butler, Lee Edelman, Michel Foucault, Eve Kosofsky
Sedgwick) and talking (try Sunday morning coffees with
your friends).
Dr. Mary Ann O'Farrell is an Associate Professor of
English at Texas A&M University. In a addition to Queer
Theory, her areas of interest include Jane Austen,
blushing, and shoes.
Queer theory - the billy basics
by Dr. Mary Ann O’Farrell
gender reader  belgrade  july 2004 9