My last
class at the art school was on lesbian separatism, which the kids just didn’t
get.
“They’re
like stereotypes of what people think feminists are,” one of my (white) (female)
students said.
One of
my (white) (gay) (male) students brought up this section from the reading,
where Sonia Johnson posits that once men’s violence disappears from the world,
animals will stop killing each other, some evidence of which we have from the
Bible, which, although a record of the systematic genocide of goddess peoples,
has vestigial memories of lions lying down with lambs.
“I just
don’t find that plausible,” he was like, after he read out those several paragraphs
to the class, at my request.
“Why?”,
I was like.
“Science,”
he said.
At that
point, I decided I had to defend Sonia Johnson, so I asked my class how Sonia
Johnson might respond to that remark.
No one
really knew, so I stepped up, and began talking in a painfully immediate stage voice.
“But
nature is a web, we are interconnected, violence ripples out and effects
*everything*,” I was like.
“But in
nature animals kill each other,” he was like.
“Why are
you separating manunkind out from nature?”, I was like. “That’s mensgame, we’re here, and animals are
here, and we’re separate from everything, and we can dominate and destroy them
at our desire.”
“But
that’s just not plausible,” he was like.
“In my
heart, I know it’s true,” I was like, “And I know you’ve seen it too. We’ve all seen glimpses of a womyn’s world,
we’ve all felt it, we all know it can be true again – at least those of us who
aren’t afraid. Why are you so attached
to your science? It’s keeping you from
so much, that’s a classic part of mensgame.
Let it go, let it go so you can dance, let it go so you can live, let it
go so you can *dream*.”
Then, after a very short pause, I was like, "Dream."
Then, after a third very short pause, I was like, "DREAM."
Then,
after a longer pause, I broke character and asked students if that was a plausible response, as if Sonia
Johnson was here.
They
nodded, and one was admiringly like, “It’s all so earnest.”
Later,
after we discussed how a lesbian separatist commune gained knowledge of
chainsaws, my one (white) (gay) (male) student spoke up again, and was like,
“If it’s okay for them to get traditionally male knowledge and incorporate that
into part of their community, why is it wrong for me to take on feminine
behavior? That upsets social order, that
makes me be an ally.”
“Class,”
I was like, “Did the readings address anything like that?”
It
hadn’t, and the class said so.
“So
then, class,” I was like, “How might a lesbian separatist respond to that
objection?”
No one
really knew, so I gave them a minute to think over the answer.
“Anyone
want to step up and rebut?”, I was like.
No one
did, so I was like, “Let me try,” and I began by thanking my student for
voicing serious, substantive objections, and having the good will to be an
opposition opponent in public debate.
Then, I got intense, and was like, “Okay, you want to be woman, you really
want to be a woman? Well, you know
what? You’re welcome to it. You try being raped, you try being murdered,
you try being sexually abused at the hands of men, and then *you* tell *me* how
*you* enjoyed your vacation.”
After I
let that sink in, I broke character and was like, “Okay, so how was that, was that a
plausible response from a lesbian separatist?”
People nodded, and my one fashion student commented after a pause, “I liked how you did that
little movement with your head at the end.”
Then,
someone else was like, “You really got into that.”
I didn’t
directly respond, but again thanked my one (white) (gay) (male) student for his
participation and goodwill.