Sarah Hoagland’s Separating from Heterosexualism takes an extreme-separatist approach in order to resist gender-based oppression. Hoagland argues that heterosexualism is, “an entire way of living which involves a delicate, though at times indelicate, balance between masculine predation upon and masculine protection of a feminine object of masculine attention” and that resisting oppression under the system of heterosexualism is ineffective (522). In this essay I argue that taking a separatist approach to feminism is not only dangerous, but it is incapable of achieving the very gender equality feminism is striving for; A postmodern perspective applied to this body of theory would be better suited because of the emphasis on the institutions and systems that sustain such inequalities, while deconstructing them within their current state of existence.
First, it is important to understand the definitions of feminism we are working under. Separating from Heterosexualism was published in 1995 shortly after the end of second-wave feminism which was focused on expanding equality and opportunity, while minimizing discrimination. Unfortunately, second-wave feminism is also characterized by its distinct focus on white women’s oppressions, subsequently minimizing and erasing the oppressions faced by women of color. Hoagland attempts to escape this fault of the ideology by defining femininity as “any group which men in power wish to portray as requiring domination” (526). This definition seems to broaden who is oppressed by men in power; however, we must consider which groups men wish to portray as requiring domination. With this consideration in mind, we can realize that men of this era were not portraying women of color, queers, or gender-diverse people as requiring domination, because they were not considered as fully autonomous as the white woman was. Thus, Hoagland’s expansion on the inclusivity of the time is nullified.
Hoagland could achieve expanded inclusivity by employing a postmodernist lens – which originally developed as a critique to second-wave feminism. Postmodern feminists focus on how the institutions and systems we exist within are sustaining and progressing inequality and uses deconstruction as a modality of changing these systems and institutions. Hoagland narrowly misses what is critical within postmodern theories: deconstructing these systems from the inside out. Instead, Hoagland suggests we demolish our society in order to build a new one. While this ideology seems beneficial, it is actually unrealistic for any particular society to completely rebrand itself. Postmodernists, and myself, would argue that change is more effective when rolled out slowly and thoughtfully through the systems we are already existing within.
If we examine our current society, we find that we are reliant on the patriarchal order with emphasis on heterosexual organization. Under this system, masculine men are highlighted as the standard. Any member of society who is not a masculine man is deemed as an Other: women, gender-diverse people, femme men, trans*, as well as sexualities that diverge from heterosexuality. This is precisely where Hoagland misses a key postmodernist tennant: the importance of the ally. Allies, especially under circumstances of oppression, are vital to expanding inclusivity, resisting oppression, and occasionally provide an ‘in’ to the dominant side. In the context of Separating from Heterosexualism, Hoagland suggests feminists distance themselves from men in order to resist their oppressions. Not only does this invalidate feminist men, whose participation in feminism is critical to it’s reception within a patriarchal society, but it also erases the opportunity to have meaningful discourse with dominant men who are in a position of power to enact change.
The issue at hand is this: the patriarchy, or institutional oppression, is more at fault for creating oppression than men are themselves; however, this is not to say men themselves – interpersonal oppression – and women’s beliefs – internalized oppression – are not at fault as well. Intersectional feminists should recognize that all three forms of oppression are working simultaneously to sustain oppressions, but Hoagland places blame solely on interpersonal oppressions of men to women. I would suggest that if Hoagland placed equal emphasis on institutional and internalized oppressions, then her article would take a much different lens. As previously mentioned, allies are critical to progressing within our current systems, meaning that people with masculinities that do not conform to dominant norms can and should be included in our attempts to achieve gender equality. Moreover, Hoagland indirectly discourages female participation in feminism when she says, “women are not fully displeased with being defined as other,” (521). I believe Hoagland meant this as a call to action, but the sentiment is hard to parse. It instead comes across as Hoagland subordinating women by relaying that their attempts to resist oppression have not been enough. This becomes even more paradoxical when Hoagland critiques the male victimization of women as sexist while she victimizes women for not having already combatted/not actively combating the patriarchy (530-532). While I understand the human inquiry to find where to lay blame, it is both unnecessary and ineffective for combating the issue at hand. Many factors are working in tandem to create oppression and we should focus on changing these factors instead of punishing those who created them.
So far, I have only critiqued Hoagland’s positioning, but we must also analyze how she proposes solutions within her own framework. Again, I shall make critiques. Hoagland suggests we – and here, I am forced to question my own participation because, according to Hoagland, men would not be included within this ‘we’ – resist heterosexualism via a moral revolution in which women separate entirely from men. The notion of a moral revolution is undoubtedly a necessity, as Hoagland defines it as a “creation of values” (520). We must, as a society, create a new set of values that reflects equality across gender lines as well as across other diverse demographics, such as race, class, and sexuality. Hoagland is also correct in her definition of heterosexualism as part of the issue, because, in my understanding, heterosexualism and the patriarchy are inextricably linked. However, Hoagland’s aim of her proposed moral revolution is misguided. While she suggests we distance ourselves from men, I suggest we distance ourselves from the patriarchy. Our focus needs not be on the individual, but instead needs to be on the systems themselves. We should not let interpersonal oppressions slide by, but our main focus should be on changing the institutional oppressions that have become the norm, which will ideally result in the change in interpersonal relations/oppressions.
Our society cannot achieve equality if that equality is reliant on excluding/oppressing men. Obviously, not all men are beneficial to the feminist movement, but excluding those who are is counterintuitive. Hoagland goes so far as to define all people as hostile beings, “each consciousness holds a fundamental hostility towards every other consciousness and that each subject sets himself up as essential by opposing himself to all others” (521). This ideology suggests that each individual is only concerned with self-progression in society by means of opposing themself to all others, therefore othering the others. This statement from Hoagland is contradictory to her own goal, as she resorts to othering instead of allyship even amongst only women. It is also important to note how this statement reflects the ideologies of second-wave feminists who were focused on progressing rights for white women via opposing themselves to women of color and women who ‘weren’t born women’. A similar sentiment is employed within the men’s rights activist group: Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). MGTOW define themselves not as one men’s activist group, but as a plethora of them, with each man having their own specific ideology. These forms of individual-based activism – Hoagland’s hostile beings, MGTOW, and second-wave feminists – are all widely critiqued for not focusing on group demographics. These forms of activism are selfish and will not result in broad equality.
Hoagland’s moral revolution does provide a basis for a societal revamp, just not a revamp that I believe is particularly realistic. Instead of ridding our society of males, we should rid our society of the patriarchal order. As postmodernists suggest, equality can be achieved through the deconstruction of our current systems which sustain gender oppression. The creation of new values will allow our society to transform past the patriarchy. A creation of new values will support the transformation of government, class systems, education, and professionalism, all of which will then work to transform the values within the people. These very values need not be created by a singular societal revamp but through a continuous societal transformation.
These values are currently being created and currently being spread. While this is occurring we should continue resisting oppression under our current societal constraints. When discussing resistance, Hoagland says, “[it] may even take the form of insanity when someone is isolated within the confines of domination and means of maintaining integrity have been systematically cut off” (528). Instead of pathologizing the emotions felt as a result of oppression, I suggest we channel these emotions into productivity in spreading feminist ideologies. Afterall, a lack of resistance results in total domination via sustaining the patriarchal order.
Though Hoagland makes many valid points within Separating from Heterosexualism, her separatist approach proves to be ineffective and paradoxical to achieving gender equality. In taking a postmodern approach, Hoagland would be better suited to deconstruct our systems and institutions to overcome the patriarchy due to the postmodern emphasis on inclusion across demographics with the goal of improving equality for all.
References
Hoagland, Sarah (1995). Separating from heterosexualism. In Penny A. Weiss & Marilyn Friedman (eds.), Feminism and Community. Temple University Press. pp. 273.