COMPULSORY HETEROSEXUALITY AND SEPARATISM

These notes evolved from a number of recent conversations with heterosexual feminists, from which it appeared to me that — for a number of reasons — there wasn't a clear flow of communication. I hope that these brief notes will clarify the significance I intend of political lesbianism and separatism for heterosexual feminists. (And these notes are too brief to do much more than outline this). I am at the same time organizing my thoughts (Why I believe this self-questioning to be important is explained below.) Since I feel that part of a lack of undersstanding is due to an unacknowledged difference in definition, I begin with my own.

Political lesbians are woman identified women! who do not engage in sexual relationships with men. This does not imply compulsory sexual activity with women2. Feminist separation is "separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities which are maledefined, male-dominated and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege — this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women. (Masculist separatism is the partial segregation of women from men and male domains at the will of men. This difference is crucial.)" This separation can take many forms — from the avoidance of emotional or working relations to rudeness, from avoidance of participation in certain activities to ceasing to be loyal to something or someone3.

What I would like to pursue further is the basis of these two  terms — the theme of separation, and the recognition of heterosexuality as a political institution.

Compulsory Heterosexuality

Heterosexuality as a political institution is discussed by Adrienne Rich in "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence". In "Compulsory Heterosexuality" she examines the various economic and social means by which women are coerced into heterosexuality. Culture (and not only Western culture) asserts that women are inevitably drawn to men, that primary love between the different sexes is "normal" (and primary love between same sex couples is not), that women need men for adult sexuality and for psychological completion. For their economic and social survival women learn to behave in a "complaisantly and ingratiatingly heterosexual manner:"^ Women who do not act in this fashion are the targets of social and economic sanctions. At the same time, Lesbians who do not contradict the general assumption of
heterosexuality are rendered invisible (or are erased by historians and other researchers). It is this calculated invisibility of relationships between women, and the forced dependency of women upon men emotionally, socially, and economically that brings us to describe heterosexuality as compulsory.

Why is heterosexuality so important to men ? Part of the response lies in the central role that heterosexuality, and more specifically the heterosexual couple, plays in male control of women. The heterosexual couple is the basic unit of the political structure of male supremacy. It is both the model and the basis for other institutions of oppression such as the church and the legal system. Within the couple, "love and sex are used to obscure the realities of oppression, to prevent women from identifying with each other in order to revolt, and from identifying 'their' man as part of the enemy."5

But an equally important lesson heterosexuality has for women is the  establishment of the right of male access to women, the overall identification of women primarily as "sexual beings whose responsibility is the sexual service of of men."6

The huge number of men who are

pimps, procurers, members of slavery gangs, corrupt officials participating in the traffic, owners, operators, employees of brothels and lodgings and entertainment facilities,
pornography purveyors, associated with prostitution, wife beaters, child molesters, incest perpetrators, Johns (tricks) and rapists... should be cause for declaration of
an international emergency, a crisis in sexual violence. But what should be cause for alarm is instead accepted as normal sexual intercourse?.

This right of male access to women, the carefully inculcated "mystique of the overpowering, all conquering male sex drive"8 is used to rationalize why a woman "cannot" say no, to justify prostitution, incest, rape, wife-beating, purdah and pornography, along with other forms of women's (sexual) slavery.

Separation as Access Control and Self-Definition

This same concept of access is featured in Marilyn Frye's "Some Reflections on Separation and Power", in which she describes the "strength, energy, inspiration and nurturance of women that keeps men going" and institutions "such as heterosexuality, marriage, and motherhood" as those "which maintain female accessibility to males"9, and which men use to define women.

She also notes that the theme of separation - the limiting of access, and self-definition - are present in all feminist endeavors from divorce to exclusive Lesbian separatist communities, from women's studies programs to abortion on demand... "Most feminists, probably all, practice some separation from males and male-domainated institutions. A separatist practices separation consciously, systematically, and probably more generally than the others, and advocates thorough and "broad-spectrum" separation as part of the conscious strategy of liberation." This is not to say that feminist separation is sought or maintained directly as ultimate personal or political ends^O... Generally, the separations are brought about and maintained for the sake of something else like independence, liberty, growth, invention, sisterhood, safety, health, or the practice of novel or heretical customs. Often the separations... evolve, unpremeditated, as one... finds various persons, institutions or relationships useless,
obstructive or noisome and leaves them aside... or behind. Sometimes the separations are consciously planned... as necessary... conditions for getting on with one's business. Sometimes separations are accomplished or maintained easily, or with a sense of relief, or even joy. Sometimes they are accomplished and maintained with difficulty, by dint of constant vigilance, or with anxiety, pain or grief.11

Thus separatism is not a simple matter of "giving up men" as one would quit smoking or boycott South African (or Nestle) products. The re-orientation is more profound than who one sleeps with. It involves an internal shift from male identification to woman identification.12 No longer accepting male "reality", male "truths".

What I personally ask of heterosexual feminists, then, is that they challenge their assumptions - particularly the one that they were "born" heterosexual. I ask them to take responsibility for their heterosexuality and to acknowledge the privileges that accompany their heterosexual status. Moreover, despite numerous heated responses to Lesbian separatists (political lesbian) articles, I have yet to see a description of how emotional / sexual relationships with men contribute to feminist revolution. I would therefore like to see a real attempt to refute the assertion that heterosexuality is the cornerstone of male supremacy 12. And I would like them to do all this not in a spirit of self-defence or selfjustification, but because sexuality is not a personal matter, but a political one. And "we have all been lied t o ".

Roxanne Claire

FOOTNOTES

1. cf. a male identified woman who "places men above women, including (her)self, in credibility, status, and importance in most situations." (from Female Sexual Slavery by Kathleen Barry, p. 172). I would add that a male identified woman is one who continues to cling to male standards, ideals, and values.

2. Love Your Ertemy, the Debate between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism, p. 5. (See Resources following article).

3. "Some Reflections on Separatism and Power" by Marilyn Frye in Sinister Wisdom No. 6, p. 31. (See Resources following article).

4. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence by Adrienne Rich, p. 14. (See Resources following article).

5. Love Your Enemy, p. 6.

6. Barry, p. 103 (cited in Rich, p. 16).

7. Ibid., p. 220 (cited in Rich, p. 19).

8. /Wd., p. 140 (Rich p. 17).

9. Frye, p. 39.

10. But see "Lesbian Feminism" in Jill Johnston's Lesbian Nation, especially pages 180-181 where she states : "the energy expended in convincing or persuading or working on the man... is energy best directed toward the building and refining of new interactive structures among... women... To work out a suitable compromise
or apparent equality, at any private level, is an exceptional solution between exceptional people, and although not a solution to disregard or denounce in a disjunctive culture, remains an effort in isolation." "Historically, revolution has meant the overthrow of one class by another, leaving the oppressive institution itself intact"... (a Lesbian feminist revolution attacks the underpinning of every political-economic power base).

11. Frye, p. 32.

12. Love Your Enemy, p. 57.

13. Ibid., p. 48

RESOURCES

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence Adrienne Rich Onlywomen Press 38 Mount Pleasant LondonWCIXOAP England. QOp plus postage.

"Some Reflections on Seperatism and Power" Marilyn Frye Sinister Wisdom No. 6 P.O. box 660 Amherst M A 01004 USA. $2.50 plus postage.

Love Your Enemy, The Debate between Heterosexual feminism and Political Lesbianism Onlywomen Press, Ltd. 38 Mount Pleasant London W C 1 X 0 AP
England. £1.75 plus postage

We would like to point out that this is a personal article and does not reflect the views of all women at ISIS. We would very much like to have your responses to the article, though, with a view to possibly publishing them at a later date.