9'5‘-’~V'-’-'*3'.xf:¥-T.-'.",=‘;?'.!$5;£=E?§‘x'9:3I:>;'77;-*§':tP;-rs! rr}',!:?.‘.'_¥:»".' *7‘-'v 4-’.7}'.‘?7Vi.V77?.I'.V.'YV',".r." v,v.:r.r,v:-zv-..~..v.. . . .‘  .v 1- .- .-r 7 VIP! 1 .— .- 7] xy .v x v z . r » « . r r: , . . . 7 . . 2 . . 7 . . . . .

6 | Out in the Mountains |January 2001
—— feature ——

CROW’S CAWS

by crow cohen

Betty, Back Off!

I’m pissed at Betty Friedan.
This is nothing new.

In the late ‘70s, she was
asked to be keynote speaker for
one of Burlington’s first femi-
nist conferences, “Women,
Women, Women.” Friedan
wrote The Feminine Mystique
in the early ‘60s——a book that
helped launch the second wave
of feminism. She exposed the
shocking news that many of the
privileged suburban house-
wives she interviewed were
profoundly dissatisfied with
their roles as devoted stay-at-

‘home wives and mothers,

despite the latest household
gadgets and shiny linoleum
floors that were supposed to
make them ecstatic.

I was asked to be on the
planning committee for the
conference. The organizers
were attempting to do outreach
to the radical lesbian feminist
community, their poor but
feisty sisters. I was the token
radical lesbian.

I remember advocating for
childcare and a sliding scale,,
biit I also attempted to have
Betty Friedan blocked as the
main speaker. At that time, she
was publicly trashing radical
lesbians who were challenging
her mainstream, as opposed to
revolutionary, politics. The les-
bian community demanded she
submit a written apology for
her outrageously homophobic
remarks before she was con-
firmed as the speaker. She
apologized; she spoke; and as I
recall, she basically managed
not to be offensive, although
she wasn’t particularly inspir-
ing. (Sweet Honey in the Rock,
on the other hand, tore the roof
off South Burlington High
School.)

Here it is, 25 years later, and
I eagerly ‘ pulled Friedan’s
recent autobiography My Life
So Far off the shelves of
Fletcher Free Library. I love
reminiscences of the women’s
movement, since that era total-

ly changed my life.

The first chapters drew me
in. After all, Friedan was writ-
ing for magazines such as
Ladies’ Home Journal in the
‘50s when she decided to pub-
licize long-suppressed feelings
that women‘ were treated as
second-class citizens in our
male-run world. Needless to
say, her views threatened the
postwar culture of returning
Gls. They just wanted to go
back to_ their jobs and resume
running the country (which
women had done while they

were gone). After the trauma of
war, they simply wanted to set-
tle down withtheir sweet wives
and 2.5 children, safely
ensconced behind the white
picket fence, and watch I
Remember_Mama on TV every
Friday night.

I was fascinated by
Friedan’s chutzpah. Her book
sold millions of copies world-
wide and was translated into
several languages, no thanks to
her original publishers, who
refused to print the copies
obviously being requested.
News of this book spread by
word of mouth as (mostly mid-
dle-class) women hungrily
found validation for the pain
that had no name: the malaise
of a generation of women who
felt empty and useless because
they’d bought into the male
view that womenwere not sup-
posed to think too hard,
become political activists, or
clamor for equality. Betty
frankly admits her husband
was beating her as she" was lec-

turing across the country on the ‘

subject of male domination.
But Betty had her blind
spots. She hated radical dykes.
She was furious when lesbian-
ism moved out of the realm of
“sexual preference” into the
arena of radical feminism. She
hated the concept of “sexual
politics”——the notion that sexu-
al behavior just may be drasti-
cally influenced by heterosex-
ist hegemony. In other words,
our so-called “sexual prefer-
ence” is often dictated by
straight male oppressors (con-
scious and otherwise) who are
invested in keeping women
under their domain so they can
control the institutions of mar-
riage, property, you name it.
Betty says, “I was...beside
myself at the damage being
done to the women’s move-
ment by extremists and the
‘radical chic.’ Sexual politics
was . . . overshadowing the
mainstream issues of abortion
and child care. . .and fomenting
an image . of the women’s
movement as just a bunch of
lesbians.” (p. 248) She thought

the militancy of us pushy dykesv

was not just about anger at
being shunned by our straight
sisters when homophobic slurs
were flung at us by anti-femi-
nists, but that we were part of a
government plot to divide the
movement. . A
“The question was, who was
provoking the disruptions and
pushing the lesbian agenda?
...The shock tactics of the rad-

air

ical. fringe made’ me suspect
outside agents,” she wrote.
“The attempt to equate femi-
nism and the women’s move-
ment with lesbianism had
always been a favorite device
of those who wanted to fright-
en women away from it. What
better way to divide and weak-
en the women’s movement
than to infiltrate and immobi-
lize it politically? It may seem
paranoid to have suspected
agents provocateurs being
planted within the movement.
But it turned out that it wasn’t.”
(p. 223)

Betty, dear, asking you to
apologize for dismissing us as
a bunch of distasteful, rabble-
rousing, divisive no-accounts
before we paid you hundreds of
dollars to speak to us was not
prompted by the FBI.

Betty presumed that women
who attended feminist confer-
ences were not interested in
exploring how empowered a
woman could be if she turned
her back on the male gaze in

the most thorough way possi-
ble—by becoming a lesbian. “I
did not take kindly to the
extremists who tried to take
over the stage and insist on
talking about lesbians,” she
wrote. “I didn’t want to discuss
lesbianism. And neither did the
audience. The audience had
come to hear about the issues
and changes facing all
women.” (p. 221)

Apparently Betty never con-
sidered that “changes facing all
women” might include redi-
recting their “sexual prefer-
ences” toward females, who
are often taught from the
moment of birth to nurture, to
value feelings, to cooperate.
There is no question that Betty
Friedan made huge contribu-
tions to the movement, and I
respect her for that; but in this
book, for me, she comes across
as petulant and resentful
instead of a power of example.

I’m not saying women who

are devoted to men can’t be
radical feminists. That’s much
too simplistic. I’mjust suggest-
ing that considering lesbianism
more than sexual preference is
one form of radical feminism.

I have to agree with Sonia
Johnson, who also believed
pushing the lesbian agenda was
more than just urging women
to have sex with each other. In
Going Out Q/‘Our Minds, Sonia
says, “Finding women sexually
attractive has nothing to do
with feminism; most men find
women sexually attractive. But
deeply admiring and appreciat-
ing women, dedicating oneself
to their welfare, giving them
and their values, their ways of
being in the world, one’s full,
first, and total loyalty no matter
what, this is the basis of femi-
nism.”

Crow Cohen is a lesbian
feminist who lives in Winooski.

V

802.660.8396

mediator

‘Diane M. Felicio, Ph.D.

Trying to work it out and getting nowhere?

Conflict can be productive.

separation - divorce - employee relations - consumer disputes