MeL's Point: Ch-Ch-Changes

By MeL on Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 11:39

Newsweek.com

Everything in this world is subject to change. Sometimes, it’s a change for the better, sometimes it’s a change for the worse, but still, without change, there would be no advancement, no evolution, no improvement. Honestly, how boring would that be?

Some changes affect the whole planet. Like the climate change, for example, or the financial markets crisis. This week, we witnessed the inauguration of a new American President, Barack Obama, “Mr. Change” himself, and the changes that he promised and that people hope for will most likely affect not only the U.S., but the whole world. (By the way, Congratulations and good luck, Mr. President!)

Some changes affect us on a more personal level, like the beginning or the end of a relationship, a new apartment, or leaving a job. I’ll get back to that later.

And then there are the changes that affect a certain community. Like the lesbian community, for example.

The other week, an article for the German “Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin” caused quite a stir among lesbians all over Germany and even here on eurOut. Entitled “Wenn Frauen sich mehr trauen” (loosely translated „When Women Become More Daring”), it describes – among other things – how the image of lesbian women and their perception by the public has changed in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, the “other things” were a mixture of outdated clichés and questionable arguments, like comparing sexual orientation to political attitude that can be revised anytime, making this article hard to read for any at least half-decent lesbian. And that’s too bad, because some of the statements in the article were, in fact, worth to take a closer look at.

I’m not talking about the statement that “Lesbians have arrived in the social mainstream”, because that’s simply not true. What might have arrived is an image of the hip, chic woman à la Katy Perry or Lindsay Lohan who likes to “experiment” or is even in a relationship with another woman but still wouldn’t call herself lesbian. As Sandra pointed out already, there’s a word for women like that, and it’s called “bisexual”. But while “real” lesbians are certainly very far away from the social mainstream, in spite of recent outings by women like Anne Will, Dunja Hayali, Jodie Foster and Cynthia Nixon or shows like “The L Word”, it’s true that these women and shows have started to change the perception of lesbian women by the public, thus reflecting a development that I have observed in the lesbian community for a while now – that you don’t have to look a certain way anymore when you’re a lesbian. Or in other words: You don’t have to look like a lesbian to be a lesbian.

And there’s more. Whereas – as the article points out – in the 1970s and 1980s, being a lesbian in Germany and probably other countries as well usually meant being part of a political movement against male dominance, resulting in the rejection of everything that was masculine (even male dogs), the “new lesbians” have a much more relaxed relationship with men. That doesn’t mean that they go as far as sleeping with them (as the article implies), but they don’t mind going out with them to party and have fun, or meet them in business and social networks. Being a lesbian is no longer about hating men (if it ever was), but about loving women, and even the broad public seems to finally notice that.

As always, where there is change, there are those who are against it or feel left out. As the article describes it, it’s a generation gap, and some of the women who went out on the streets and fought for more rights now feel betrayed. They complain about this new generation of lesbians who have longer hair, wear lipstick, shave their legs (and other body parts) and go to events at which men are not only allowed, but welcome, and they bemoan the demise of the political message. As annoying as this can be (and believe me, I have been the target of this kind of complaints more than once), I think it’s important to give those women credit for what they achieved, and to try to include them in the process of change by appreciating their opinion and remembering where we came from and the long way that still lies ahead of us. After all, all of the statements in the above mentioned article to the contrary, we’re still far away from general acceptance and the “social mainstream”, and that’s where the article that’s so full of clichés proves itself wrong. On the other hand, it’s also necessary for the preceding generation to accept that times have changed, and that the young lesbians nowadays try to achieve those goals differently, for example, by living their life openly and honestly. Because sometimes, just being open about who you are can be enough of a political statement and bring about what we all – the older ones and the younger ones – aim for and don’t have yet: equal rights and not just tolerance, but acceptance.

In other words: Change.

Another change that affects me personally as well as this website is that I’m no longer an editor for eurOut. Unfortunately, the challenge of co-creating this website, as exciting as it was, proved to be incompatible with my day job and my private life. I will stay with eurOut as a writer and columnist, though, and this column will return on February 8th, 2009.

The title of this column refers to the song “Changes” by David Bowie.
Pictures: www.barackobama.com, blog.newsweek.com

Tags: columns

Interesting take

Submitted by Natazzz on January 25, 2009 - 14:14.

I like how you can take such a different take on the same article that Sandra looked at.

You bring up some interesting points, especially about differences between the previous and new generation of lesbians.

It always makes me wonder if it is a generational thing or just an age thing. When I was in my early twenties I never understood those women who were so gay or so butch or so political about it all. Now a decade later I get them.

I'm not a big fan of change, although I know that in the long run change usually is a good thing.

- - - - - - - - - -

-Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

I blog, therefore, I am

Nice reflective blog. A

Submitted by shoveya on January 26, 2009 - 00:08.

Nice reflective blog. A personal change for myself has to do with my attitude towards the internet. I used to read/hear about women who found their 'own' on-line. These women felt that they were the only lesbian in their community until they met other lesbians on-line. I didn't think it was possible to find identity and strength on-line. But i've changed. Its possible if you look for it and seek it out. There's so much on-line for lesbians who feel alone to be assured that they're not.

I'm hoping for the kind of change where no lesbian will ever feel that they're the only one in their community.

I totally agree

Submitted by Charly on January 26, 2009 - 14:24.

as a woman who has longer hear, wears lipstick etc, I agree totally agree. I often feel excluded from other lesbian, just because of these simple facts. I remember the first time I sat with some lesbians and one leaned over to me and said "are you really gay? you have long hair!" I always, always had to fight to be accepted as a lesbian just because I don't look like a "typical" one.

I cut my hair really short once in my life but that was not at all because of these women. i just felt like it and I felt kind of betrayed when some lesbian told me that I looked way more gay and tough with this haircut - and should keep it.

I decided to let it grow again and now when some of this hypocrits say something, I just think of these adorable and great women in their late 30's that I know, that dress and are exactly like me...and had to fight harder years ago because things like lword etc did not exist.

whu..longest comment I ever made..concluding: be who you are, wherever you are! It really is time for a change :)

I agree on everything you

Submitted by Amy.M on January 26, 2009 - 18:15.

I agree on everything you (both) said! I used to have long hair and had that same problem. I don't think that lesbians can only be summed up according to the way they look. Some heterosexual girls look pretty masculine and don't have any doubt concerning their sexual orientation and some gay girls are really feminine, so feminine even some straight girls can't compete.

I've been judged a lot and I know it made me change a bit, but then you just go to places where you see that some girls are just like you and then it's all fine...

I think that the fact that the rainbow is our symbol should pretty much sum it all up. There are different colors, shades and hence types of lesbian. We don't summarize straight people in categories, the very straight looking and the non straight looking. Why does the lesbian community keep on judjing according to clichés and is sometimes not so tolerant among people who are just like them? The whole labeling and category concept will never stop to upset me.

I felt bad for a long time because of how I looked and I know that somehow it influenced me and some changes happened (and are going away now - or growing back ;)) but as you said Charlie, just be who you are, with high heals or not!

It might seem like...

Submitted by MeL on January 26, 2009 - 15:41.

...I'm a big fan of change, especially since I dedicated a whole edition of my column to this topic, but I have a hard time dealing with changes myself - new jobs, new cities, new apartments, each time it took me months to adjust. Come to think of it, maybe I just wrote this column to convince myself of the necessity of change...

Anyway, thanks everyone for the comments.

shoveya, thanks for sharing your story. I agree with you that the internet made it much easier to find other lesbians, especially when you're from a small town without any lesbian cafés or bars.

Natazzz, does this mean that you're so gay, so butch and so politcal yourself now that you're over 30? I get the being political, I became much more interested in politics and especially in LGBT issues lately. Still, what bothers me are the women who give me a hard time because they think that I'm not political enough, or who give Charly a hard time for not looking "lesbian" enough. If we start judging people from our own community, we don't need homophobes anymore to do that job.

And Charly, great conclusion to your comment. I know a woman who, when we first met, had very short hair and now has long hair. Even though I'm very into women with short hair, I think that she looks so much better with long hair. Every woman should be allowed to look like she wants to, and to look her best.

Mel's blog: Everything MeL

I'm sad to hear you had to

Submitted by Amy.M on January 26, 2009 - 18:14.

I'm sad to hear you had to left the team, but I hope it's for the best and tons of new opportunities you have to deal with ;)

Nah

Submitted by Natazzz on January 26, 2009 - 19:11.

Natazzz, does this mean that you're so gay, so butch and so politcal yourself now that you're over 30?

LOL. No, not at all. I am a lot gayer, but still not all that butch or political. I just understand where these "angry lesbians" are coming from, that's all.

As far as silly things like hair length go, I never much cared what people thought about unimportant stuff like that. I'm just me and being gay just means I am into women, it's not a secret club or sorority with stupid rules and regulations.

- - - - - - - - - -

-Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

I blog, therefore, I am

Prejudices have mostly at

Submitted by Sandra Showtime on January 28, 2009 - 17:28.

Prejudices have mostly at least two sides, I think. And here it is the same.

Let me just say again that this süddeutsche-article was extremely bad researched. And part of it was for sure to look at the 70ies-80ies as a lesbian movement, because history books will tell us it was a women-movement. I think it's even called like that "New Women Movement". "New" because back then they didn't fight to get the same rights as man anymore (they got them already in the 30ies[I guess] during the original women-movement) but for acceptance inside the heads of the society.

We all know these gray-areas in history when a suppressed group finally gets equal rights but society treats them still like they don't have it, e.g. black people. Same it was with the rights of women. Yes, they were able to vote but jobs and recognition still went to men. Part of this movement were, indeed, a lot feminists and lesbians. But it wasn't a lesbian movement. And so it wasn't "political hate towards men", how they called it in the article, coming from lesbians, but the demarcation from women to the behaviour/treatment of men.

I'm not really a fan of this "integration through separation thing" but I grew up in another decade, am already benefiting from their achievements. Back then it was important to point out boundaries and to create a safe space = women and only women together. It was also clearly necessary to NOT look like a sweet, sexy girl when you fight against exactly these prejudices and for being recognized as a serious person. Additionally, I guess, it wouldn't have been very practical while protesting on the streets.

Nowadays you can wear what you want, have long hair, etc and still be taken seriously. But this is not an achievement exclusively for lesbians, since it was only a group in another general group fighting for the same thing. But it is still used as exactly this: a prejudice against lesbians.

But, as I said in the beginning, there are at least two sides. I know about the prejudices against femmes but since I am pretty much surrounded by them, I know the contrary as well: The rolling eyes when a "woman doesn't look like a woman" aka butch. It's kind of embarrassing but I am one of them. The work for eurOut helped a lot but I still think things like "Oh damn, they picked this butch, why couldn't they pick a real woman?!" when I see a documentary about lesbians. What is wrong with me? Butches are just as excisting as femmes and not less woman or lesbian than me. But still...I judge and I hear a lot of these judgements in my environment.

But I am not only judge, since a couple of months I get judged as well. Because I am "too" political. Means that eurOut has a politcal section (which is really depressing to work for btw, kudos to Maxime) and I write posts, whether funny or serious, about social injustices. Inside of eurOut and outside this seems to be quite unpopular. No one wants to sound "angry", many people almost are afraid to be considered as this. So you better shut up or people roll with their eyes.

I am not really the shut-up person as you probably noticed but it makes me thinking, though.

There was a heated conversation in the German forum "Lesarion" exactly about this article. The common sense over there was pretty much: What's wrong with that? We are recognized as this anyway, no need to bother, and for sure no need to make noises.

Why? You guessed their argument: In the end they say we are angry!

Am I out of my mind or is there indeed a reason to make noises, or even be angry from time to time?

BBC invites a porn star to discuss ejaculating on lesbians and doesn't feel the need to perceive this as something not so light hearted. Christian Vanneste (French politician) repeats over and over again on national television that gays are second class citizens, homosexuality is something unnatural and worth to be fought, while courts consider this as "freedom of speech". And a sophisticated German newspaper claims homosexuality as a phase and women fighting for equality in the 70ies to be men-hater.

Thank God that there are still young women who live openly their lifes, just as Lindsay Lohan. But pay attention to all the shit she has to go through because of that. And yes, this is a new way to fight for equality, to just openly live your life.

But the "just" tastes sometimes a little bitter, since "living your life" as a gay person is, indeed, a fight itself.

I agree with MeL that we aren't "there" yet. And I guess it's for the same reason like during "New Women Movement" in the 70ies: The change is written on paper but not in the heads of society. With lipstick or baggy pants, on the streets or at a party...to shut up or take discrimination as a given is not a productive option.

And may I just say that I (the one who just wrote this post) got slapped into my face by a feminist on a party, five years ago. She was a little "too" political for my taste back then and I said that she shall come down because she is fighting against shadows in her head. And that I prefer to practice the rights I have, rather than to waul about some dickheads who still think I don't have it.

That's a change, huh? :p

agree and disagree

Submitted by maxime68 on January 30, 2009 - 13:32.

I agree with point that it‘s stupid to judge people by the looks of them; but the long hair, choice of clothing etc of some “younger” lesbians isn’t the reason why “older” lesbians are/were suspicious of them. And this new feminine looks weren’t an invention by a new generation of lesbians; after the more androgynous eighties, this was something to be observed among a lot of women, no matter the social background and no matter their sexual identification.

The main reason was and is the political disinterest of the younger generation, also something to be observed among many groups. I don’t mean that everybody has to join a political party or discuss nothing else than political topics, but everybody should know how one’s own country functions, what and where the dependencies of the political system are, who gets elected by whom, what does it take to pull through a new law and so on.

The topic of the column is change, a lot of comments were also about change, but change doesn’t happen on its own and even more important, once something has been changed, it needs to be “used”, you’ve got to claim your rights. And as we’re looking over to the US, we should not forget that a lot of other things were changed during the last eight years and a lot of them silently, often with reference to the patriot act.
We’re on the right path in Europe, but have a good look at some of our recent articles and question yourself, aren’t you envious of Norway? Of Sweden? Of Belgium? What makes those countries different? Why are they so far ahead of us in regards to „our rights“?

There's so much more I could write about, but that would be too much for a comment. ;-)
One last thing though, which opened my eyes "back then" - a friend said to me, that she wasn't so much for feminism, she was for equality. It took me some years to really understand what she meant, but today I'd also say "I'm for equality"!

http://www.myspace.com/417200048
http://twitter.com/maxime68