Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Three of us would like to know:

If you use any of the following terms to identify yourself, what do you mean:

- womanist
- woman-identified woman
- male-identified woman

We discussed several possibilities - what do *you* mean when you call yourself
-- or refer to another woman -- by that term? 

'woman-identified woman' - what I mean

I am a woman, I am female; therefore nothing I am or do is devoid of womanhood.
Hence, by definition, nothing I am or do can be 'unwomanly' or 'unfeminine' or
'masculine' or 'manlike'

By extension, I identify other women as women and as feminine regardless of
their personal styles or actions and how they might very from my own. they, too
are _always_ feminine. after all they are women.

I define no 'norms' for women beyond their being women.

So, in general, I equate self-determination in any woman as being 
'woman-identified'


'male-identified woman' - in contrast

the society I live in has a long history of male-dominance in social 
definition.  it is a patriarchal society.  this society defines masculine
and feminine attributes and norms.

a woman defining herself in terms of these societal norms, in this male-
dominant society, is male-defined no matter how she might deviate from the
societal definition[s] of woman or womanly.


  Ann

Strictly speaking, I define a woman-identified woman as a woman whose
primary emotional focus is on women.

Usually, though, I use it loosely to refer to a lesbian, since in my experience
*most* women who are women-identified are also lesbian.

        Carol

    Last week I heard an interview with Alice Walker on the radio.  She
    said she thinks of herself as a womanist vs. feminist because (of
    course she went into greater, more eloquent detail than this puny
    reply; her voice is as beautiful as her writing!!!) she felt womanist
    better describes her life experiences and is not as narrow a definition
    as is feminist.  She also said she didn't really like labels, but if
    she had to pick one....  I believe she wrote an essay about this topic.
    
    I feel woman-identified woman's primary social as well as emotional
    focus is woman.  I would define a lot of my straight women friends
    as woman-identified, as well as my gay friends.  I also would
    describe some lesbians I know as men-identified, since they have bought
    into the party line of wanting and needing men's approval, and
    socializing primarily with men.
    
    LindaB

 JUPTR::BELLIVEAU   
    I feel woman-identified woman's primary social as well as emotional
    focus is woman.  I would define a lot of my straight women friends
    as woman-identified, as well as my gay friends.  I also would
    describe some lesbians I know as men-identified, since they have bought
    into the party line of wanting and needing men's approval, and
    socializing primarily with men.
    
There's something not quite right here - if a woman-identified woman is one
who's primary social/emotional focus is on women, then why isn't a man-
identified woman one whose primary social/emotional focus is on men?  If
men-identified women need/want men's approval, than why don't women-identified
women need/wnt women's approval?

Your def'n for "woman-identified" sounds healthy and positive.  Your def'n for
"man-identified" sounds weak and unhealthy (terms like "buying into" and "party
 line" definitely have a negative connotation to *me*.)

By your former definition (primary focus) I guess you would say I am man-
identified.   But I am in no more need of *men's* approval than *women's* -
I think we all need others' approval sometimes, and I think a lot of us are
*too* dependent on others' approval, regardless of gender.

Why is there such a slant in your definitions?  Why is focussing on women 
so superior to focussing on men?  

What about "person-identified"?

D!

    Continuing my afternoon discussions with women friends on this topic,
    how about:
    
    A woman-identified woman is one whose definition of what it means to be
    a woman comes from women and her association with women.  A
    male-identified woman is one whose definition of what it means to be a
    woman comes from men and male-dominated society.
    
    Nancy

D!, how 'bout "other-identified"? I kind of like that, since I'm trying to
become more "self-identified".
	Mez

RE: D! - As a woman-identified woman I *do* have a slant. For me "party line"
=what a woman's identification should be as defined by patriarchal society.
I choose (I never know the correct spelling for that word!!) not to buy
into it, and I think men-identified *anybody* do. 

RE: Nancy - I ***love*** your definitions.  As far as womanist & Alice Walker,
what I was trying to suggest is that if you're familiar with Alice's writings,
philosophy, etc. than that is her definition of womanist.  I'll try to find
that essay she wrote on being a womanist.

LindaB  

>D!, how 'bout "other-identified"? I kind of like that, since I'm trying to
>become more "self-identified".

Bingo!!!  Love it!!  That catches what I was saying perfectly!  (This works
both by the definition of man-identified as a woman who relies on men for
approval, and the def'n of {woman|man}indentified as one who's definition of
self comes from other {women|men}.)

D!, becoming increasingly self-identified every day

>RE: D! - As a woman-identified woman I *do* have a slant. For me "party line"
>=what a woman's identification should be as defined by patriarchal society.
>I choose (I never know the correct spelling for that word!!) not to buy
>into it, and I think men-identified *anybody* do. 

But the problem is that the definitions don't *work* (and aren't fair) when
they aren't analogous.

You say women-identified are women who concentrate emotional and social
energy on women.

What would you call a woman who concentraged emotional and social energy on
men?  Obviously, men-identified.   But what if they *don't* buy into the
"party line" ore requiring men's approval?  Then either they 1) aren't male-
identified or 2) your definition is wrong.  Your definition imples that
every women who concentrates her social energies on men *must*, by definition,
"buy into the party line".  That is untrue and unfair.

Similarly, you call a woman who requires men's approval man-identified.  A
woman who requires women's approval is obviously then woman-identified. 
However, *requiring* approval of anyone for self-validation is unhealthy,
therefore the implication in your definition that being woman-identified is
inherently healthy is wrong.

What you said above (quoted) also implies further that the only possible 
reason a woman who have to be men-identified is that she is "buying into the
party line".  That she is not exerting her own choices in the matter, and
is just a sheep to society's whim.  That is positively insulting to any
woman who considered herself male-identified and alo considers herself a
thinking, deciding, intelligent woman.  Being one of those women who is
man identified (by your *first* definition of identified, the one you only
apply to women-identified people) I do find your definitions insulting.

I refuse to accept double standards.  having two definitions for the same
term, based on whether it is applied to men or to women, is the epitome of
a double standard, and I don't accept it.

I think Nancy's definition is right on the nose.  I think Mez's definition is
complementary to hers, not contradictory, and also on the nose.

D!

    I don't think the definitions have to be completely parallel (though
    *my* latest "working definitions" are).  It's quite conceivable, and
    probably quite common in our language, for parallel-*sounding* words
    to have very non-parallel definitions.  That's part of what makes
    language so fascinating!
    
    Since Linda's definitions are clearly *not* parallel, there no basis for
    being insulted by a definition that she did *not* provide.  You may
    well disagree with her defs :^) -- *discussing* what we mean is the
    purpose of this string, after all.  No need for anyone to take personal
    offense.
    
    PS - I haven't personally known of any woman who claimed to be
    "male-identified."  Have any of you?  If so, what did *she* mean by it? 
    I've only heard women say they are -- or have become or are trying to
    be -- "woman-identified." Thus they have used "male-identified" only to
    describe what they are *not* or what some other woman *is*.  Comments?
    
    Nancy

And along the lines of what Nancy said, are any men around here self-identified
as women-identified?
	Mez

    I've never heard the terms woman-identified and womanist outside of
    this file. And I read quite a lot though not from any strictly
    feminist sources.

    I liked MEZs definition. I am other-identified and am working towards
    being self-identifed. I've also had quite a bit of a problem doing it.
    I believe women are raised to be other-identified and that training
    starts very young.

    The problem with learning to be self-identified is that it takes a lot of
    confidence. There was a time when just a *look* of disaproval from my
    husband would have me crushed for the day. I felt the same way towards
    my parents. It's easier at work because the people here don't have the
    same emotional context as those in my personal life. liesl

    RE: .13
    
    I have heard these terms outside of this notesfile, liesl.  I heard
    them Monday night in my literature class at Northeastern University. In
    that class, a male-identified woman has been defined as a woman who
    feels she must relate more to men in order to succeed.  Quite the
    opposite of living up to men's idea of womanhood.
    
    This includes women who will only wear men-styled suits to climb the
    corporate ladder; women who think other women are "silly" for giving
    in to their emotions; women who flatly dislike all things that are
    commonly considered "feminine" because men have defined them that way.
    
    Using that definition (which was, by the way, in relation to the
    character Elizabeth in Jane Austen's _Pride_and_Prejudice_), a
    woman-identified woman is one who is comfortable with her femininity
    and doesn't believe she has to behave like a man in order to succeed.
    
    Using these definitions, I know that I am more male-identified than
    female.  I know that I don't want to be male-identified.  Stopping the
    identification that many of us had with our male role models during the
    "formative years is very difficult.  For some, it may be impossible. 
    Especially since our society still demands it of us.
    
    Susan