Thursday, November 30, 2006

More mullings

...off both this earlier post and a thread in the comments of another. I said:

...Before [encountering the wacky world of online feminism], i was a member of a primarily lesbian womens' theatre collective (aka Dyke Drama, Cll.), which was obviously very politicized. and yeah, there were certainly familiar thrashes , familiar dynamics. the older women were more likely to have been ID'd with the second wave, i've no doubt, and indeed there were generational clashes. the younger ones tended to be i guess now i'd call 'em anarcha-fems, some socialism, a few Greens, some more moderate Dems (not as many), some who were just...doing their thing, pretty much. it was trying to be many things at the same time, i felt, was one problem.

but y'know a lot of familiar core assumptions about womens' space, collective rather than hierarchical, overall quite left-leaning, feminist, anti-homophobia (obviously), yadda.

Some of the main thrashes included:

whether and to what degree to include transfolk;

whether and to what degree men could be part of the individual productions;

how much one ought to charge, and whether a sliding scale was adequate or classist or what;

some fidgeting over to what degree het women were or should be comfortable (a lot of that was primarily coming from one very crazy woman, i think, but my perspective is no doubt skewed);

racism, that was a big one (it was very white);

classism, in a muted sort of way, as it always or often is I suspect in the U.S., especially these days (just extrapolating wildly from my own admittedly very limited experiences)

whether and to what degree to be collectively linked to other organizations and causes, theatrical and political;

and a whole lot of intrapersonal shit, of course, mainly having to do with the care and feeding of the organization itself, the productions, the space, and so on and so forth.

oh, and there was a BIG thing about transitioning from a collective to an incorporated entity, which move was necessary on account of the city was trying to foreclose on the space, and it turned out it'd be possible to buy it back for a dollar, but only with the right paperwork. that was huge and complicated and beside the point here.

point being: of all the various thrashes, "pornstitution" and BDSM were, if present, at least not on my radar. I mean, i know that some folk were personally squeamish about BDSM, or just not into it; but i never witnessed any sort of stomping off because -gasp- zomg Suzie's into leather. (if anything, it'd have been more about "how could you kill that cow?" than "your pervy fetish oppresses wimmin!" --yes, there were meat-eaters too, but a lot of veggies as well).

as for porn and sex work; well, one friend of mine worked as a receptionist for an escort agency; as i recall no one ever gave her any static about it; it was understood that we all gotta eat, so.

at least one other member is/was a pro-domme;

others were or had been sex workers in one capacity or another, again, no big deal;

and many shows were sponsored by the local women-run (heavily queer and feminist-slanted, although obviously straight/men-friendly, or wouldn't stay in business) toy & pr0n/erotica/workshop/yadda shop.

oh, and we had erotic cabarets, which often included burlesque, lapdancing, stripping, and so on. Again, in a quite queer context.

"we are of different worlds, madame."

So is that it, then? Is it different for queers? Or am I missing something else?

Because yeah, i'm sure there were wimmin there who loathed the hetpr0n and were against prostitution, too, but it wasn't such a, you know, THING; and fuck knows we didn't spend all day agonizing about other peoples' blowjobs and how OPPRESSIVE they are, for fucks' sake. hell, i'd say a good quarter of the women were too busy getting their own strap-ons sucked...

as for makeup and such: well, there were femmes, there were butches, there were crunchy-granola types. Any or all of whom may or may not have shaved (plenty of smooth bois and femmes with hairy 'pits in this world). There was i should say a certain amount of sexism toward femmes, especially from the butcher sorts, yes. and there were people who had personal contempt for such things as makeup, i am sure.

but again: we had enough other shit on our plates, we didn't sit around navel-gazing about ZOMG this lipstick is so OPPRESSIVE, i'd throw it away if only i were a good enough feminist, maybe someday...

There are at least a couple of people here who may or may not be reading at this juncture, but who i know either are or were members of this selfsame organization; if you know what i'm talking about, feel free to confirm or deny my admittedly highly subjective perceptions.

5 comments:

Rootietoot said...

I believe, in my own sheltered hetero way, that MOST people, reguardless of orientation or proclivities, spend most of their time figuring out how to stretch their hard earned dollar, or what to fix for supper when they get home, and this time of year, whether or not to send Aunt Mary Gladys cookies for Christmas.

While I believe it is important to think about things, and to come to your own conclusions about politics, societal evolution, and all, and strongly believe that people who worry about it to the dgree that they are oppressing other folks beliefs, simply have too damn much time on their hands, and need to go work in a food bank somewhere.

Word verification: umxuzme
I am firmly convinced the WV gremlins are trying to psyche me out.

belledame222 said...

yeah, but it was a wimmins' feminist group; it was a bit differently vibed from your average fabulous thea-tahh crowd.

you may be right, though.

i don't have an Aunt Mary Gladys. speaking of oppression, i guess it is just about that time of year again, isn't it? time to declare War On Christmas! muhahahaha!

>Sorry, that comment was longer than I thought it would be.

um, Rey, you -have- -seen- -my- posts and comments, right? that was positively terse for these parts.

belledame222 said...

I know.

queen emily said...

hehe I knows that you knows. That ended up being a bit ranty at an invisible straight audience who don't know..

Anonymous said...

I think it's more simple than queer/straight theater/not. I think it boils down to the difference between 2D and 3D communications.

Rhetoric "plays" better in 2D. One can ignore the complicated messiness of humanity and hone in on pure logic (if there ever were such a thing). It's harder to to this with the flesh-and-blood human who stands before you, the one with the murky past, the complex life, the deep needs.

Can you imagine what real life would be if people were as rude to each other in real life as they are on the internet? Egad.