I guess I'd shut my mouth and rethink for a minute

essentialist is right! penisfree, that is so 20th century. like they are so behind postmodern genderfuck discourse, haven't they heard of (born-bio) hermaphrodites and asexuals or samuel delaney's 7 sexual orientations?

oh well, i'm stayin' out of it. the only parties i want to crash are the ones where i know the crostini will be good. art/performance openings, man--particularly at nonprofit spaces. they ALWAYS have the best catering. not to mention (especially openings for new dance performances) the best genderfuck. if you are ever in the seattle area check out my former employer for new performance series openings, they get the MAD catering and one of the most intense multigenderfuck pickup scenes this side of the knitting factory.

Looks like you ought to be in Chicago soon, then, eh, Aaron?

jim, I think you need to come to some of my parties. Hell, I think I need to throw another one soon. It's been a few months.

I should add, pace Delaney, there are five chromosomal sexes that occur at statistically significant rates among live births. Only two of them are XX and XY. This has only been known to medical science since the 1960s... which strikes me as plenty of time for the good word to filter even as far as wimmin's land...

(Translation: don't get me started about the Michigan festival policies. I start shooting sparks out my nose and my gaze begins to turn sand into glass. It isn't pretty.)

One of the more entertaining bits of being a feminist these days is trying to explain to both second-wave feminists and lots of other people that feminism does not necessitate a hatred of men. I like men. My husband is one. He's smart and funny and cool and a great cook and he smells really good. His brains are no more contorlled by his genitalia than mine are.

And if we want women to feel safe with men around, one thing to do is start learning how the genders (all five!!!) can live together without baseline assumptions of violence and power dynamics. Hard to do in isolation, wot?

Warning signs of an Ani overdose: You start speaking in lyrics.

I rest my case.

Re: Patti: Look at the nails, man!

I have no idea what this comment about fingernails means. Why would I? You'll have to. . . you didn't say fingernails, did you?

Oh, shut up. Or tell Preston he's spelled Patti's name wrong. Not that he could ever get Arouj right, either. Not that I just did, either.

Neo, I take it the armistice is over, then?

Mmm. Coffee in hand, I return.

garrity -- yeah, right. You're exactly where I am on that, mentally, I think. At least, as far as I can tell from your comment. ;) I like my husband. Obviously rather much, since we have a child. (And yes, I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything, it's a joke, take a deep breath).

And that's the thing. Has anyone noticed that the more exclusionary and threatened people get, the more humorless they get? Fox and I joke about men all the time. ALL THE TIME. Of course, we also joke about everyone else, as well. It keeps me from going crazy.

The idea of "women-born women only" space on a lage, organized scale makes me want to poke myself repeatedly in the eye. Can't you see how counterproductive that is?

Maybe I should wait until the coffee settles in before actually commenting.

Hanne, 'Spider, garrity old pal, old chum [who'll be getting a call later today] thanks for the words. The exclusionary politics [& not just towards the trans community] of the festival have always made me twitch, get into verbal fisticuffs, & worse yet, be silent/ced. It's nice to hear other ppl speak out.

Oh- Aaron, yes, indeed. Movement of Byron, Pope, & Swift-masses cited around Twin Cities. Mockery watch in effect. Beep.

Nothing of substance to contribute here, but I would like to respectfully point out that the gentleman's name is Delany, not Delaney.

He does sign novels by Roger Zelazny that people bring up to him at appearances, though.

Don't suppose that new Movable Type release has a spell check built in?

Neo, be Kali-like.

all right, delany misspelling was my bad. should have known better. hell, used to be my job to stock the "sci fi" (please don't hit me) section at the bookstore.

thinking about "left hand of darkness" by ursula k. leguin...i need to read that again.

for the record, i want to make it clear that, retro as they may seem, i feel more sympathy toward "penis-free" gatherings of women/ womyn/ wimmin/ whatever than, say, robert bly-esque "men's lib" gatherings. i went to a really great men's gathering yesterday--it was at a roach-infested texas-style barbecue joint in pioneer square, where all the cops, construction workers and suits went to get their lunch. male to female clientele ratio: about 20:1. that did me enough for the next few months; now it's back to watching trading spaces with my wife and her girlfriend. [this is the point, i believe, at which jay would go "BONGGG!"]

I enjoy spending time with groups of women, and not for necessarily prurient reasons, mind. The whole idea of a heavily-regulated "women's-only festival" like MWMF rankles me, however.

At the same time, I recognize the whole "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of association" issues, so I'll be rankled over here, not patronizing the events and allowing them to do something I feel is stupid and has a negative impact.

Whee.

But...but...I LIKE penises...!

I can certainly appreciate the worht of a women-only gathering; you should HEAR what it's like when the chicks I've sprung from all get together and catch up (like once a decade). Niety years of no boy-children makes for a real interesting family.

But what strikes me as problematic about the festival are these things: 1) if you're vehemently in need of female-only space on a large gathering scale yearly and in perpetuity, then you're not growing beyond the negativity you started with, seems to me. 2) They imply it's about freedom form potential violence. This perpetuates the myth that women do not commit violence, especially on other women; Neo and I had a conversation about that one over coffeee just last night. Not true, even a little bit. 3) Also they imply that it's about being free from potential sexualized oppression -- the 'phallic gaze,' as some academic theorists term it. Um, hello? PLENTY of folks who go are lovers of women, so sex is still in the air, and a person can be sexually agressive or oppressive even if she's female (cf point #2).

So really I guess I think this whole 'no penises ont he land' business is a fundamental kind of dishonesty. Telling women that they're by nature more gentle, when we neither want nor need this to be true, is no real way to challenge patriarchy and the damage it does to ALL genders.

Please pardon my typos. It's bloody early.

Garrity, I hardly expect Dru's hallucinations to type better than she does.

Besides, your post moved Laura's off the front page, for which I'm infinitely grateful.

I've also calmed down enough to realize it's not necessary to exclude all men from groups/discussions to keep them pleasant. Just certain men.

I like penises, and the people they are attached to, as much as the next person, but I'm having a difficult time with this thread because I'm getting the sense that some of you have issues with woman only spaces (even without the complication of the 4 or so other genders which, admittedly, is an important issue to overcome when creating a space).

While I feel that a large festival like that isn't a place that I, personally, would like to gather with like-gendered people, I can definitely see the value in it. I'm sort of not getting you, Garrity, when you say "if you're vehemently in need of female-only space on a large gathering scale yearly and in perpetuity, then you're not growing beyond the negativity you started with, seems to me." I'm wondering if you mean that we should not even think about having "exclusionary" gatherings? Because I really disagree with this. I think it can be very healing for female-identified(however that is defined) people to have a space to openly discuss gender issues. I also think it is probably very healing for male-identified (again, however that is defined) to do the same. (my husband does this at least once a week. It's called "band practice" - a primitive ritual, but very effective.) And so-called "exclusionary" gatherings can be very very productive, although
I'm sure they are not always.

I do agree that it's bullshit to say that the reason for the female-born-female only policy is to avoid gawking and violence. And I really honestly have no idea how to go about defining who is female and who is not...I would say that choice is up to the people organizing the event, although I can see where that power can get out of hand as well.

It's a complicated issue, but I think it's counter-productive to dismiss the validity of "exclusionary" spaces altogether.

If that is, in fact, what some of you are advancing. I'm not altogether sure if I'm understanding completely, though...so this entire post could very well be moot.

Hmmmmm. A difficult thing. You've pointed to something I'm not myself sure about. Here are the thoughts rolling around, but I can't promise that they make a clear opinion or premise:

I value a certain amount of female-only space for myself. And you're right, for both genders that can be a growth thing, even a necessary thing. I think my point #1 is predicated more upon a sense I get from the rhetoric of that site, rather than a concrete reality -- a sense that reclaiming women-only space is something that they almost think should be a kind of baseline of day-to-day life. To wit, thier attitude seems such (and again, this is gut-level, rather than logical) that if they could, they'd have women-only space all the time. I think that phrase 'no penises on the land' really was the gut-level punch for me. I can see (the intergender and TG issue set aside for one moment, with apologies) the use of "no penises on THIS land RIGHT NOW." But the blanket way they phrase it makes it seem like a kind of universal wish. And that seems to me, if it's really there, like a long-term corrosive force. Fear and resentment exist; safe space to cope with them is perfectly reasonable; banishing penises from earth forever is not. It's bigotry in its own way.

So thanks for calling me on that. I suspect my issue (at leas in point #1) was more rhetorical that real. But it still does rub me the wrong way intutitively.

I'm sure I shouldn't weigh in moments before I must scream out & be teacherly, but here goes-
Dru- I acknowledge the importance of safe-spaces, and also of a culture that fosters these areas. What I'm not so keen on is a culture that uses a -single- safe-space as a defining trope, and in my experience, many lesbians see Michigan & "what it stands for" as in some ways definitive of lesbian culture. When Michigan was 1st held, such an idea was probably more useful as a galvanizing force w/in a culture & political movement. Today, however, we face a different set of challenges, one that may be better met with many, smaller safezones that can be better fit to the needs of participants, rather than a one-size-fits-all festival that can oversimplify things w/in our own culture, as well as to those watching us from outside. There is something deliciously Lacanian in the fact that Michigan has become too monolithic to adequately represent and service our culture's needs today. [Oh, must go, I invoked crit theory, & that's just sick.]

To add a complicating factor to what Neogrammarian's just said, there's also the issue that this creates what I feel are unnecessary divisions in a community (ahh, the mythical "communities"); those divisions go beyond unnecessary and into counterproductive with this announcement. Now, while I understand the need for women-safe space, let's be realistic here. I've met my fair share of predatory butches who operate in much the same way as penis people. ;P And, yes, I've met predatory femmes, too, for that matter, to avoid stereotyping, but the method of operation is usually different, pardon the possible pun.

By saying "women-born women only," (and I refuse that stupid fucking spelling, it annoys me) especially if this is not just a women's festival, they cut off people who need that women's space just as much as women-born women, and maybe even more so. Trasngendered people have a really rough time of it, and denying an MTF post-op entrance on the basis that she's "not really a woman by their definition" -- since, no matter how you put it, that's what it boils down to -- is damaging on a lot of levels. It's damaging to individuals, it's damaging to the "we are born this way" argument that lesbians themselves use, and it's damaging in the sense that it's something outsiders can point to and say, "Look, even your own kind doesn't believe you're really a woman."

And that does happen; the divisions within the "queer community" are strange and strong. The further into it I find myself, the more I find myself disturbed by the implications of some of the lines we draw. Some of the blatant ignorance that's been displayed either in my presence or to me directly has left me staggering. The flat-out statement that I couldn't know what it's like to be closeted as a bi girl floored me; it never occured to the person making that statement that there might be a part of my life about which I'm still at least semi-closeted for one reason or another. (There is.)

I'm starting to get off-topic here, so to bring it back to my original point: I think the policy is distressing, horrible divisive, and negative in its effect. However, since the organizers of the festival have every right to do what they'd like to do, the only way to express that is to exercise my freedom not to associate myself with that festival, and to express my feelings on the subject.

I'm with you VA. I haven't gone to the Dyke March SF in several years, due to their women only policy (I believe they now "allow" trans, how benevolent.) It's like, ok, what if I -- as the person of the hour, the girl who sleeps with girls -- want my male friends to walk with me down the street? Or even my boyfriend at the time, if he's so inclined.

So much for that idea, as it offends someone else's sensibility of the authentic, or something.

The horror.

I figure, if I want gender fundamentalism, I'll go back to rightwing Christianity. Otherwise, I'm quite content to leave the dames to their own devices for a day. Even if it is a public street...I just can't be bothered.

I guess it gives some people solace to be able to exclude when they have themselves been excluded. That's always how it seems to me.

But, sadly, that's still counterproductive.

I definitely see your point, Laura...and it does seem odd to enforce exclusion on a parade. I think the way I'm thinking of "exclusion" is more along the lines of conferencing and workshopping with "like" people. And I do feel that can be very productive. I use quotes around exclusion, because I'm sure there is a far less negative way of describing it than my feeble brain can think of at this point.

In my mind, in organizing a huge festival like MWMF it would seem possible to be more inclusive in general, and perhaps offer workshops or breakout sessions with people who identify in particular ways. However, I am involved with an organization which frequently uses "exclusive" forums for various groups and they find them to be very productive when it comes to processing and healing. The "exclusive" groups frequently report back to the large group with whatever information they wish to share.

But...I guess I'm not the organizer, so I guess I don't make those decisions...

And, I guess I'm still not sold on the idea that exclusive forums are counterproductive. My experiences with them have always been very productive.

oh, and neo...I hope your class went well. I definitely would not want to extrapolate exclusivity into public life at large (meaning...I personally am not interested in living in a penisless society). And I hear what you are saying about MWMF setting standards and being viewed as "the" reality of "the" community. That does seem negative, and I guess that's the reason why it's so important to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of exclusivity in open forums.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear that I was not talking about MWMF specifically, but about what I was hearing about exclusivity in general.

I can understand, certainly, the need to be in a large space with others like yourself, to celebrate identity. But to drawn the line and exclude those who identify themselves with you, people who are already pressed to the fringe and have such a hard time being accepted... I don't know, again, to me? That seems rather anti-equality.

But hey, not everyone seems to want equality. Me, it ain't my bag, all this exclusionist behavior.

The exclusivity that I've encountered in the queer community has been very different from that which I've encountered elsewhere, which may be why your experiences have been so different from mine. In my experience, it's been a largely negative thing, especially in the context of the sort of event that this discussion began by referencing as its starting point.

It's not something that can really be discussed beyond that, though; it's just my experience in this marginalized community, and if that's not going to be accepted as my experience, but debated or discussed, well... that's just that, isn't it?

Time to sleep.