#also the fact that the combahee river collective + NBFO had to be formed explicity bc of the racism of the feminist movement AND the sexism

[spacelesscowboy]

i hate doing the readings for this class they make me so upset

[woman-loving]

LBT Women and US Black Feminist Organizations in the 70s

Selection from Living for the Revolution: Black Feminist Organizations, 1968-1980, by Kimberly Springer, 2005.

This selection discusses how the issue of lesbianism figured in the collective identity of black feminist organizations in the 70s. It notably describes the incorporation of an antiheterosexism statement by the East Coast branch of the Third World Women’s Alliance in the 1972 issue of their newsletter, Triple Jeopardy, predating the Combahee River Collective Statement by several years.

It also gives an account of a black trans women who joined the National Alliance of Black Feminists after hearing the leader speak at one of her college classes. However, the leader later outed her to the group, and the woman--who is misgendered in the interview--stopped attending after being “confronted” by other members. Despite its transmisogynistic conclusion, the account raises the possibility that other trans women may have also taken interest in and attempted to attend early black feminist organizations.

There isn’t a focus on bisexuality in this selection, but a lesbian founder of the National Black Feminist Organization mentions that the organization was “multisexual” in that it had straight women, bisexuals, and lesbians.

These accounts also remind us to be attentive to the fact that lesbian, bisexual, and trans women don’t only organize in LGBTQ-specific movements, but may also be promoting their concerns through other movements.

Sexual Orientation and Black Feminist Collective Identity

Again, it is important to return to the distinctions among the black feminist movement, the separate organizations' visions of black feminism, and black feminist collective identity. While the black feminist movement's initial vision did not include sexual orientation as a defining aspect of black women's identity, individual organizations and members articulated lesbian-positive and/or antiheterosexist principles to the movement's vision. The NABF [National Alliance of Black Feminists, 1976-1979], NBFO [National Black Feminist Organization, 1973-1975], and BWOA [Black Women Organized for Action, 1973-1980] included discussions of sexuality in their organizations, but they did not interrogate heterosexism as an oppressive force in black women's lives, regardless of sexual orientation.[46] However, the East Coast branch of TWWA [Third World Women’s Alliance, 1968-1980] and Combahee [River Collective, 1974-1980] both laid the foundations for challenging heterosexism and including lesbianism as an integral part of the black feminist movement.

Combahee was the only organization in this sample to mention "heterosexual oppression," but it did not thoroughly explain this form of oppression and its impact on black women's identities. The term heterosexism, the normativity of heterosexuality, was not yet in use among activists.[47] However, most readers of Combahee's statement may have deduced the implicit meaning of heterosexual oppression as heterosexism or homophobia. For other readers, the Combahee statement was possibly the first time they were force to recognize publicly black lesbian existence, the daily oppression black lesbians face, and the considerable sexual diversity within black communities.

Combahee was on the front lines of black lesbian feminist struggle in the 1970s, yet the statement neglected to specify the ways black communities were complicit in perpetuating heterosexism. [...] The Combahee statement omitted an explicit challenge to heterosexism, due to the timing of the organization members' individual coming-out processes and the desire to explain feminism on its own merit. [Barbara] Smith and other Combahee members strategically claimed a black and feminist identity before they claimed a lesbian one, though they claimed all three equally. For Combahee members, the separate emergence of feminist and lesbian consciousness undermined stereotypes of all feminists as lesbians and all lesbians as feminists. For people who relied on this analogy, feminist and lesbian were conflated identities and the sum total of a black feminist identity. The Combahee statement sought to disrupt this conflation. To a degree, an explication of black heterosexism was present, but underarticulated in the interest of establishing the foundational basis of solidarity between Combahee's black feminism and black communities. Still, lesbian visibility was a courageous and revolutionary move for Combahee to make, particularly in a social movement environment often divided by homophobia.

Predominantly white feminist organizations experienced lesbian/straight splits that divided organizations and disrupted a unified definition of feminist identity. Of the five black feminist organizations, only the TWWA's members recall an expulsion of lesbians similar to the homophobia that gave rise to the "Lavender Menace" in NOW [National Organization for Women].[49] Homophobia erupted in both the East and West Coast branches of the TWWA and impacted the development of their feminist collective identities. How these two branches of the same organization handled issues of lesbian inclusion and homophobia differed dramatically.

It is unclear whether the West Coast heterosexual members, succumbing to fears of lesbian baiting, expelled lesbian members or whether members who were lesbians, weary of homophobia, left the organization. Regardless of that distinction, the West Coast branch lost several members who were central to running the organization. The expulsion acted directly against the established principles of the TWWA, but there were no formal sanctions against the West Coast branch.

On the East Coast, [Frances] Beal recalls, the organization was approached by out lesbians about membership. Unlike the schisms of the West Coast, the East Coast TWWA eventually saw the inclusion of lesbians as an opportunity for growth in its organizational objectives:

"Beal: That was the other ideological fight that we had, which was important. We were approached by two lesbians ... who said, "Listen, we want to be completely honest: we're lesbians. There's no organization for us." One was Puerto Rican, one was black ... so we had a big discussion about that. Some people said, "Oh, my god. We have enough problems as it is! People are already calling us lesbians." That was another thing. We were lesbian-baited. ... Two people said that they were lesbians, and we had this big discussion whether we should do this and some people said no, we shouldn't do it.

Interviewer: Allow them to be in the group?

Beal: Yeah. And finally, like I said, we had all this debate. People were very honest in terms of discussion and feelings and stuff, but finally people said, "In New York, how can we do this? I mean, we can't really turn sisters away. If they agree with the political orientation and purpose of the organization, there's no way that we can be prejudiced." So we came up with this, what I consider now--from what I understand about the gay and lesbian movement now--we came up with this very liberal position. Whether it's biological or social--you know, homosexuality--people should not be prejudiced and discriminated against. That was, basically, the position. ... And a couple women left over that. They said, "no." They had enough problems as it was. They didn't want to be lesbian-baited. [...]”

Beal cogently deconstructed the intent of lesbian baiting: it split the organization interpersonally and ideologically. In response, the East Coast branch incorporated an antiheterosexist position into the TWWA's principles of struggle, recognizing the connections between patriarchy and homophobia: "Whereas behavior patterns based on rigid sex roles are oppressive to both men and women, role integration should be attempted. The true revolutionary should be concerned with human beings and not limit themselves to people as sex objects. Furthermore, whether homosexuality is societal or genetic in origin, it exists in the third world community. The oppression and dehumanizing ostracism that homosexuals face must be rejected and their right to exist as dignified human beings must be defended."[51]

This statement, appearing in the 1972 issue of Triple Jeopardy, is not only politically progressive for the early 1970s, but is chronologically well in advance of Combahee's later assertion of the existence of lesbians and gay men in black communities. Hence, when Combahee is cited for its pioneering efforts to expand the black feminist agenda to include antiheterosexism, the work of the East Coast TWWA should also be recalled.

Not all black feminists or organizations openly opposed homophobia, and some were restrictive in their definitions of sexual freedom. Some members of the NABF, for example, did not want to discuss lesbianism in their consciousness-raising groups, committees, or Alternative School workshops on sexuality. The intricacies of black sexual diversity were decidedly marginal to some NABF members' definitions of black female sexuality.[52] [Brenda] Eichelberger recounts an incident in which she revealed that someone attending the NABF's monthly meetings was transgendered:[53]

“Eichelberger: We even had one time, and I don't remember the person's name--in retrospect, I should have said nothing, but I'm the one that brought it up--I brought up the fact that there was a man at our meetings. That this was a man in drag. This was a--I won't say, "drag." This was a man who was dressed like a woman. And actually what made him come ... was a professor at U of I [Illinois]. ... She was a black woman. She had me speak to her class, and this guy was there at the time--dressed like a woman all the time.

Interviewer: In class?

Eichelberger: Yeah, in the class and then he joined our organization. Now, I shouldn't have--well, of course, coulda', shoulda', woulda'--I can't change the past. But anyway, I know at one time I mentioned--because he was coming to the meetings--and I mentioned--I said, "You know we have someone here who was a man." And, um, I think some women knew who it was, and others were saying "Who? Who? Who? Who?" And, so, a number of women got very upset, and they wanted to confront him and they did confront the guy. [...]

[Janie] Nelson: This was actually a man who had had a sex operation and was now a female. And we were real concerned about that. I remember Brenda calling up the members saying "What should we do? What should we do?" Because if we put him out, he could sue us [because of the NABF's nonprofit status] ... and luckily, things petered out. He just disappeared. He didn't come back. [...]”

Rather than attempt to understand gender identity and how this particular female/male conceptualized existence as a woman in the organization, some members of the NABF pushed her/him out of the organization with their limited knowledge of transgender identity and homophobia.[55]

The incident within the NABF highlights a number of issues that occurred in black and feminist organizations in the 1970s. It is too simple to conclude that black feminists were conservative and counter to the sexual revolution ethos of "anything goes." Despite the NABF's claims to legal concerns, all feminist organizations, irrespective of race, faced a lack of language to describe the diversity within biological sex and gender, homophobia, and fear of difference.

Some lesbian NABF members felt other members were homophobic and that the organization's activities did not reflect black feminist collective identity in its entirety. Looking for affirmation and advice, Chicago NBFO chapter members such as Sharon Page Ritchie asked other black feminist organizations for guidance. Upon learning of Combahee's plans for a black feminist retreat in Boston, she wrote this in reply to Combahee's 1977 preretreat survey: "The small NBFO chapter we have exhausted itself in trying to counter [a local black feminist leader]. We never got much past C-R [consciousness raising], and eventually we stopped meeting for that. How have other women dealt with women who claim to be feminist, yet behave in very anti-woman, anti-lesbian ways."[56] Ritchie's query and the aforementioned incident with the NABF's transgendered recruit connect two issues: black women's divergent definitions of black feminist identity and the homophobia of heterosexual black women. In response to accusations of homophobia in the NABF, Eichelberger resolves the issue as one of members differing expectations[...]. [...]

Eichelberger conceptualized the NABF as an umbrella organization. From her perspective, lesbians who wanted more of a focus on "a lesbian agenda" should have used the NABF as a resource to start independent organizations. Eichelberger and Nelson group lesbians with other groups of women they labeled as "factions," for example, socialists in the organization, but to frame lesbians as a special interest group ignores discrimination and the heterosexual privilege of straight black women. Members who agreed with Eichelberger saw lesbian as a category separate from feminist. Although they wanted to broaden the feminist agenda to include race, some heterosexual members of the NABF effectively excluded sexual orientation, and its implications for heterosexual women's sexuality, from the agenda of the NABF.

In other black feminist organizations, lesbians and straight women worked together to varying degrees of success. Generally, those organizations (e.g. the NBFO and Combahee) were founded by lesbians and included opposition to homophobia by integrating an antiheterosexist position into black feminist collective identity. Eichelberger and [Margaret] Sloan note that most NBFO members knew that Sloan was a lesbian and respected her role in starting the organization.[58] Still, there were some members, lesbian and heterosexual, who had problems with her prominent role in the organization. One concern was that Sloan's lesbianism would deter potential constituents and allies from supporting NBFO. Similar to the TWWA's struggles concerning homophobia. Sloan, Eichelberger, and [Deborah] Singletary recall debates about lesbianism and heterosexual women's concomitant fear that they would be seen as lesbians by association.[59] Sloan did not see external homophobia as a concern of the NBFO, but she believed that internal homophobia slowed down the organizations' momentum:

"It [the ideological dispute] was just stuff about race, and there was ideological stuff about whether we were going to--the group was multisexual. I mean, there were straight women and bisexuals and lesbians. And I think that there was a fear that people would think that we were a lesbian organization--God forbid--so they didn't want us to--those of us who were lesbians--I think that they wanted to sort of keep that--it was sort of like NOW in the early days. You know, "We know you're running this. We know you're the best, but let's keep that down." ... So stuff like that, you know, any time a group of women gather people assume you're lesbian, so that was what they said about a lot of organizations during that time. It wasn't a big concern--it wasn't a big, big issue, but it was a concern. It was a concern."[60]

Similarly, Jane Galvin-Lewis and Deborah Singletary, in nothing the role of lesbians in starting the NBFO, remark on the reverberations of homophobia from within and without the organization:

“Galvin-Lewis: And even though that is the case people have this notion, "Oh yeah, well, you know, if they had a man they wouldn't be pro-woman." And it's much like the race thing. You know, if you're pro-black it doesn't mean you have to be antiwhite. And to be profemale does not mean you have to be antimale. But because we were going with the feminist notion and people had their own ideas about it being a gay organization, which it never was, was never intended to be, and that was not the point. But it kept raising its head. ... Then, on the other hand, we had those people when we just--as women--we would want to take a stand on a position that had to do with gay women--we got the overwhelming groundswell of people that felt, "Oh, no! Don't touch that. That's not what we want to be about. ..." I'm just saying that had raised its head several times, as I recall, and we never gave into because it was not our point. That's not what we wanted to be about. We wanted to be about women--not any gay women, straight women--we wanted to be about women.

Singletary: We did have a committee called "Triple Oppression: Being Black, Female, and Lesbian," and they formed to deal with some of the gay issues.

[Eugenia] Wilshire: But I think it's to the credit of the organization that that [a gay/straight split] was not what split it--ever.

Galvin-Lewis: No. It wasn't. ... It never took hold, but it was raised on several occasions. And on the other side it was raised on several occasions.”[61]

The NBFO, despite outside criticism, was one of the few black feminist organizations besides Combahee to have a committee dedicated to connecting the concerns of black lesbians to the organization's agenda. But the NBFO, like the NABF, had contested definitions of black feminist identity at work in the organization, this ideological dispute was only the beginning of the struggle to incorporate antiheterosexist principles into black feminist collective identity and the movement's vision more broadly.

The presence of lesbians or demands for inclusion did not disrupt black feminist organizations. But, the homophobia of heterosexual women stunted the growth of a cohesive black feminist collective identity. Although black lesbians were central to the formation of black feminist collective identity from the beginning, there were attempts to erase them from these organizations' historical narratives.