I always wondered why people tried to make types of attraction: does anyone has a type, do we have all our types? Does stereotypes and prejudices exist and if yes, does lesbian community has its own? I believe lesbian community has some stereotypes and I have my own type. When I asked former LL Passion writer Frost if she would write an article about prejudices, femininity and lesbians she was somehow reluctant and did not understand why I would want an article about that. I replied why not and if she did not notice that there were certain stereotypes and prejudices about feminine lesbians? She did not, she replied and at the end agreed to write an article and then forgot about it. However, I believe that 'femmephobia' is not uncommon in lesbian community and that there are unique ways that the negative perceptions of femininity intersect with LGBTQ+ identities as we can also read in the article »Femmephobia: The role of anti-femininity and gender policing in LGBTQ+ people's experience of discrimination« (Hoskin, 2019). Femmephobia exists mainly because femininity is traditionally considered to be a performance for men and as a means to attract the male gaze. Traditional femininity which is positioned in opposition to masculinity and is typically devalued in society, includes the assertion that women should be gentle, submissive, and sexually responsive to men’s advances. For instance, a good example of that is a recent scene of a lesbian couple, both feminine women, when approached by bunch of men making advances towards them in TV series Station 19 (USA, 2018-) broadcasted on 2 April 2020. As Hoskin states scholars have documented the devaluation of femininity for decades (e.g. noting that women are often taken less seriously in the workplace, are not seen as having the characteristics to lead effectively, etc.) and the ways femininity is socially policed (i.e. women who act outside of traditionally feminine characteristics are often chastised and punished) and that is why I believe that (some) lesbians do not appreciate feminine lesbians because they remind them of the things they wish to avoid and for injustices done towards them. Therefore regardless of the sexual orientation women who are more traditionally feminine are perceived to be seeking male attention and/or looking for male sexual partners, whereas when women presented themselves as androgynous or "butch," they are perceived to be lesbians, regardless of their true sexual orientation. Like there is some kind of implicit assumption who could genuinely pose as a lesbian and who not and that is defined according to traditional men or masculine, women or feminine definitions in appearance and behaviour. Such stereotypical assumption is not unique to only those who identify as women. Men who are more feminine in their body shape and/or appearance are often thought to be gay and looking for male attention compared to their masculine-presenting peers, whether or not they identify as such. This concept is at least two thousand years old and it is the same from ancient Greek to (post)modern structuralist or phenomenology philosophers. It presumes the binary of feminine and masculine, where feminine means weak, body, concealed, fragmented (dispersed), following and also beauty, grace, charm, seduction, attractiveness, being looked at, chosen and desired, whereas masculine means strong, mind (spirit), focused, leading, looking, choosing and desiring. It is astonishing what some philosophers said of women, femininity and which purpose should it serve and how most men did not find intelligent, educated, strong and successful women attractive and desirable. Perhaps the most notorious philosophers to be mentioned in this sense are Aristotle, Rousseau and Freud. This explains aforementioned notions of femininity and that is the reason why lesbian community is cautious with feminine lesbians. They assume they are not really or honestly part of the lesbian community and that feminine lesbian are just experimenting, seeking additional attention from and pleasure with women and therefore they are not serious and reliable. While on one side arguably "passing for straight" may come with some privileges, including being less likely to be targeted for one's sexual orientation, on the other side feminine lesbians often describe a feeling that part of their sexuality and their identity is ignored and not being welcomed for the exact aforementioned reasons and that is why they have continuously have to “come out”, proving their sexual identities and demonstrate that they, in fact, belong in the spaces they occupy. This sounds to me that lesbian community indeed have their assumptions about femme lesbians, if not downright prejudices or preferences to who is more welcomed into the community then the other, who best fits into appearance, behaviour and notion of being a homosexual or bisexual woman and who do not. However, looks can be deceiving and feminine lesbians are not only about being fragile, submissive, sweet and 'passing for straight' but also about being strong, independent and influential leaders and this is also where lesbian community falls short of feminine lesbians. As it is again showed in the episode (2 April 2020) Station 19 where femme lesbian (who used to be an Olympic athlete too) proves to be physically stronger then the male when performing the same physical task and in this sense defies the notion of the weaker sex. It is also worth mentioning that she plays captain of the whole fire squad/station 19 – however in 2022 she does not hold this position anymore. Sure, it is a fictional representation, however that does not mean there are no lesbians who are in fact feminine, strong and influential leaders on top positions in real life. I could also tell from my own experiences what prejudices and stereotypes I got from different people when I introduced my ex-girlfriend to them. For instance, a fellow female philosopher commented about my second ex-girlfriend: 'Oh, she is so pretty' in a genuinely surprised tone, like 'she is too pretty to be lesbian'. Another male colleague told me, it is too bad that such a pretty woman is a lesbian, another fellow male philosopher told me what a charismatic woman I was because I dated one of the most desirable women in the town where she came from, another complimented me for having such beautiful ex-girlfriend like it was some kind of victory/prize to be especially proud of. And this is the reason why people still remember her and ask me about her although I am not with her since 2009! Common people, I have long moved on.
0 Comments
When I started the LL Passion website, I originally wanted to publish this article. It is about different ideas of family structures and in relation to the organisation/structure of society. The story is somewhat related to my work on the philosophy of love and emotions, and last but not least, how all this relates to society's attitudes towards lesbian and bisexual women? Please bear with me while I make a rather long introduction to the latter topic. I will therefore begin this article with the French historian Emmanuel Todd, whose work I became familiar with a few years ago. Todd's work shows an obvious correlation between family structure and a particular social system of each country, and how we could use this to create inclusive and happy societies that would allow a better acceptance of differences between nations. For example, he talks about how the French family tends to have more equal (but not totally equal) relationships between family members and that power is distributed horizontally, which correlates with the French social system that promotes equality, freedom and brotherhood/sisterhood, whereas the Germans form a family structure with a strong father figure, where power is distributed vertically, which makes for a country with strong leadership and others following. It's a highly organised, disciplined, hard-working nation that follows rules; the French, on the other hand, are not so easy to lead because they are more 'fluid' and have a high value for freedom and equality. And the third example is the UK, which is sort of in between the French and German family structures. Todd then lists which nations within the EU have one of the three family structures and claims that if we knew more about these different structures there would be more peaceful, fruitful dialogue, understanding and acceptance within the EU members and not only within the EU but also in the world. I trust his findings because he clearly has a distinctive method that can be validated and the results can be repeated and verified. Of course, it is the Scandinavian countries that for decades have had the least vertical distribution of power and where men spend almost as much time as women on domestic work, for example. But it should be noted that the modern French nation-state had a very different origin from that of Britain - the former is revolutionary-democratic, the latter capitalist; the former came into being by taking power away from the crown and giving it to the people, the latter became rich not so much through the industrial revolution and trade as through colonialist exploitation. This also clearly shows which nations have more progressive attitudes and policies towards inclusion and diversity in relation to so-called minority and vulnerable groups, such as LGBT people, but there are other factors that have a strong impact on inclusion, as France for example is not as progressive as the UK and even less so than Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.I like the fact that if leaders took Todd's findings into account, there would be more understanding of how to achieve possible long-term peace, equality, tolerance, modernisation, solidarity and prosperity.It fits with my thesis about which family structure, and especially which attitude to child rearing, enables a more democratic, free and equal system.It is the so-called nurturing parent model (caring father and/or caring mother) as opposed to the strict father model. The first is a democratic model and the second is an authoritarian model of family and society, which I will discuss at the end of this article. If Todd speaks from a historian's point of view, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson speak from a philosophical point of view, looking at family structure in relation to politics. Their nurturing parent vs. strict parent model adds another layer of understanding to the creation of politics. The strict parent (or father model) is modelled on the Christian model (morality, discipline) and the nurturing parent on the atheistic, democratic, emphatic model. Her study proved that children of nurturing parents behave morally better than children of strict fathers. The following is an excerpt from the article by Lakoff and Johnson: “The Nurturant Parent Model. > Nurturant Parent. In the Nurturant Parent progressive family, it is assumed that the world is basically good. And, however dangerous and difficult the world may be at present, it can be made better, and it is your responsibility to help make it better. Correspondingly, children are born good, and parents can make them better, and it is their responsibility to do so. Both parents (if there are two) are responsible for running the household and raising the children, although they may divide their activities. The parent's job is to be responsive to their children, nurture them, and raise their children to nurture others. In the Nurturant Parent family, the highest moral values are empathy and responsibility. Effective nurturing requires empathy, which is feeling what someone else feels - parents have to figure out what all their children's signs mean in order to take care of him or her. Responsibility is critical, since being a good nurturer means being responsible not only for looking after the well-being of others, but also for being responsible to ourselves so that we can take care of others. Nurturant parents raise children to be empathetic toward others, responsible to themselves, and responsible to others who are or will be in their care. Empathy connects us to other people in our families, our neighborhoods, and in the larger world. Being responsible to others and oneself requires cooperation. In society, nurturant morality is expressed as social responsibility and that is why nurturant parents are more inclusive and accept diversity. This requires cooperation rather than competition, and recognition of interdependence. Nurturant parents are mostly atheists. This model of the family induces a very different set of moral priorities, which can be characterized by another set of metaphors for morality. Here are the metaphors:
This metaphor entails that moral action requires empathy, involves sacrifices and that helping people who need help is a moral responsibility.
Strict Father: In the conservative worldview, it's assumed that the world is, and always will be, a dangerous and difficult place. It is a competitive world and there will always be winners and losers. Children are naturally bad since they want to do what feels good, not what is moral, so they have to be made good by being taught discipline. There is tangible evil in the world and to stand up to evil, one must be morally strong, or "disciplined." In the "Strict Father" family, the father's job is to protect and support the family. Children are to respect and obey him. The father's moral duty is to teach his children right from wrong, with punishment that is typically physical and can be painful when they do wrong. It is assumed that parental discipline in childhood is required to develop the internal discipline that adults will need in order to be moral and to succeed. Morality and success are linked through discipline. This focus on discipline is seen as a form of love - "tough love." The mother is in the background, not strong enough to protect and support the family or fully discipline the children on her own. Her job is to uphold the authority of the father and to care for and comfort the children. As a "mommy," she tends to be overly soft-hearted and might well coddle or spoil the child. The father must make sure this does not happen, lest the children become weak and dependent. Competition is necessary for discipline. Children are to become self-reliant through discipline and the pursuit of self-interest. Those who succeed as adults are the good (moral) people and parents are not to "meddle" in their lives. Those children who remain dependent - who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant - undergo further discipline or are turned out to face the discipline of the outside world. When everyone is acting morally and responsibly, seeking their own self-interest in a self-disciplined fashion, everyone benefits. Thus, instilling morality and discipline in your children is also acting for the good of society as a whole. In Strict Morality, the Strict Father is the moral authority, determining right from wrong, and protecting the family from a world that is chaotic and threatening. Evil is a major force in the world that must be fought using moral strength, which has the highest moral priority. Evil is both external and internal. Internal evil is fought with self-discipline and self-denial to achieve "self-control." "Weakness," and the tolerance of it, is immoral since it implies being unable to stand up to evil. Punishment is required to balance the "moral books": if you do wrong, you must suffer a negative consequence. Let me conclude. Why is all this knowledge good for LGBT people and especially lesbian and bisexual women? Because the notions of nurturing and strict parents can also be applied to what Emmanuel Todd wrote about the difference between different family structures and how these can be used in politics within the EU and in the world. We have also seen that non-religious people are more open-minded, forgiving, kind and willing to give opportunities to 'all kinds' of people. This knowledge can of course also be used and applied in the politics of LGBT people around the world. It means that homosexuality is more accepted and valued in families where parental power and authority is more evenly distributed, and where love and care come before punishment and discipline. Countries with more supportive family structures also have more laws that protect human rights and freedom of speech and movement, and they have laws and recommendations that protect vulnerable groups and value inclusivity and diversity in the home, the workplace and society in general. Not only that, but the representation of LGBT people in society is better and more visible, as evidenced by the numerous TV shows with LGBT characters played by LGBT people, advertisements featuring LGBT people and couples, employers more willing to hire LGBT people, LGBT people getting more of their projects funded, politicians willing to mention LGBT people, and more protection for single women (either gay or straight). In short, the Nurturant Parent Family makes the world a more peaceful, good, equal, fair, loving and happy place. Katarina Majerholdphilsopher, lesbian, editor Archives
May 2023
Categories |