Actually, i think Nick makes an extremely good case. What i got out of it runs in the same vein as what was said about the male-to-male gaze here: just as how much men are socialised to avert, women are socialised to accept it, both of which cases are--for the want of a better word right now--urrrrrgh. This does not, however, take into consideration that there're intersectional differences, that in certain settings, one's race, sexual orientation, etc might make one less (though not completely excused) affected by the gaze rules.

As Nick points out, perhaps Serena simply needs to explain the implication of women "who walk for themselves" as sex objects ("fucking sexy"). Personally, i find little use in employing patriarchal terms traditionally meant to disenfranchise others especially in discussing its meta topic.

Growing up in New York City, I learned early on how to walk down the street and not give a shit. You look straight-ahead and don't make eye contact. I don't think this is a gay or straight thing - it's just how we survived.

Living here in Indiana, I don't "walk down the street" as much as I used to as I did in New York. And (sigh) I know I don't get looked-over that much by men anymore, so I don't have much to say about that. I think those days are over for me.

And for what it's worth about dresses, the main reason I like skirts and dresses is because in the summer, it's a heck of a lot cooler than wearing pants. I could say more about that but it wouldn't come out right, so I'll keep my mouth shut. (lol)

I will never forget the time when a group of friends and I walked into a elevator. We were all gay men and involved in the "butch" topic of home improvement. At the time we approached the door one of us was describing how he had just taken out part of a wall with a sludge hammer. As we approached the elevator, it open to allow three women out. We stepped aside to let them exit and then quickly stepped into the empty cabin. As the doors closed we could clearly hear one of the women with indignation say, "Can you believe it! Not one of those guys even bothered to look at us." We started laughing and could not stop for at least five floors.

Oh dear, guess this means I need to flesh it out more...

Firstly, I do not dispute or question Freewomyn's convictions and records on advancing both women and GLBTQ issues; as far as I'm concerned, she probably has done more than the average person, going beyond simply legally changing her name to "Freewomyn" from whatever it was the previous incarnation.

That said, what I do find questionable in this scenario is just that "fucking sexy" expression, a point which I thought Nick* felt "implicitly": (emphasis mine)

So that’s all that I wanted to object to – the idea that women can’t give a shit (or act like they give a shit) about the fact that they are constantly on display. ___Or at least that they can’t do those things without being labeled unsexy (implicitly) or being told that they aren’t “walking for themselves”.___

My bone of contention lies with the fact that women (straight, lesbian, bi, queer, confident striders, seemingly non-confident striders, white, black, asian, short, tall, skinny, obese, etc) seem subject to sex-appeal evaluation in (and likely out of) their public movement, which is the generative problem that Feministing post picked up on in the very beginning. Why can't all women just go about their business without someone telling them that they're sexually worthy or not? Why are women always at the centre of attention of this evaluative gazing that is almost invariably sexual by the general public?

I do not think the problem easy to unravel, because I do--as a (pro-)radfem reader--believe that there is a ingrained mechanism socialised in all of us by the patriarchy, and insofar as we're not in a post-patriarchy age, that big man institution would continue to influence the way we think and socialise in general. That also means that GLBTQ or not, our behaviours and belief will continue to develop relative to the dominant patriarchal sphere. Being gay simply does not preclude me from its influence, and I have high doubts as to whether any one person who hasn't been living under a rock all hir life could claim to have developed a social identity inside of a vacuum.

Most of the unevenness in Freewomyn's comment I think Nick addressed, I just took a step further to suggest that perhaps we should rethink having to justify the very problem of the sexually-evaluative gaze by subjecting these "[women who] walk for themselves alone" with yet another manifestation of what Norah Vincent, amongst others, suggests as "an object of desire or at least semiprurient interest to the men." I think women are equally capable of objectifying other women in this manner (i.e. sexual object, regardless of audience), although we often highlight male perpetrators because of real-life serious safety risks entailing the deed.

On the same token, perhaps to reframe this, I think gay people are also not necessarily incapable of gay-bashing; I always wonder what we would call gay people who say something that we identify as gay-bashing from non-gay people: just bashing?

Also, this is not to say that we cannot begin to find some way to reappropriate language and behaviour to fit a new light. Just as how we've more or less managed to assimilate "queer" as an inclusive vernacular, perhaps we should be able to express that some random passerby were "sexy". I don't know; maybe, maybe not? Though at the moment, before any of this suggested reappropriation has taken place, I will continue to be wary of any uneasiness in socio-linguistic use at even a site as progressive as TBP. Just as how, sometime ago, Browning called Rev. Irene Monroe out when she analogised what she argues as bad "family" discretion in Obama's "crazy uncle", just as how some other readers felt about Freewomyn's post that capitalised on the expression "fag hag" in her discussion of finding herself in a new (gay) bestfriend, just as how I pointed out to the pitfall in the title of Michele O'Mara's "50 Ways to Keep Your Lover".

A lot of feminism-inclined people, myself included, continue to iron out tiny wrinkles when we spot one, meanwhile we do with the tools we have available and hope that we're not screwing up. Are we misogynistic because we haven't ironed out every single crease?

No.

I did not and continue not want to suggest that Freewomyn is a misogynist simply because of this singular expression, I do bring up patriarchy as a concern due to my belief that this could be indeed be a genuine case of how many of us haven't yet reflected enough of ourselves with respect to the greater hegemony. That is also why I suggested that Freewomyn might want to explain her comment, and maybe we can truly have a real discussion and maybe strategise ways by which we can begin to reclaim some ideas, words, etc without perpetuating any current problems.

Right. That's the simpliest not-that-you-don't-already-know-this explanation I can field for now. Hope it's olive branch enough, and perhaps a fodder as well for discussion with others--even with Browning.

+++

* Nick - feel free to redress any misconstrued sentiments expressed here with regards to your input.

If Serena, who legally changed her last name to Freewomyn, is being labeled patriarchal and taken to task for saying she thinks that strong willed lesbian women who refuse to be demeaned by men's street ogling are sexy, there's nothing I can say that wouldn't get me bombarded with negativity for engaging in the discussion.

I'm sorry, but just because you're an outright feminist doesn't mean that you are always saying the right thing. And that just wasn't the best thing to say.

As someone who spent most of their life as a queer woman, I can't say that I didn't notice or didn't care about male gaze--it pissed me off, but I wasn't free from reaction to it. It's a fine thing to say about a situation or one certain person but to say that all queer women are more confident/impervious to the male gaze and that all straight women aren't, then that's a bit too much of an extrapolation.

Anyways, getting lost in the details--this is a great article Alex.