Further distinctions and divides

The distinction between socialist feminists and the traditional socialist Left organizations became increasingly sectarian during the 1970s. Four of the interviewees expressed similar sentiment to Patricia’s sense that the traditional Left had ignored the changing culture:

to relate to the working class – but the working class were growing their hair long at the time!…We were more cool and hip. We got that pop culture was a major influence that would not destroy your brain. We were more liberated in terms of sexuality and pop culture. The organized Left was largely still living in the 1930s, that way of thinking about the Left. Pure Marxists or pure Trotskyists. The national organizations would send them to Pittsburgh to work in the steel industry and they would go. They were very centralist, the national structures, and people did what we were told.

Another very prominent divide in the women’s movement during the late 1970s and into the ‘80s was over lesbian separatism (Echols 1989; Ryan 1989). The interviewees’ testaments echoed such divisions in Pittsburgh, too. Barbara recalled the general attitude during that time, that lesbians were the very definition of political correctness and thus separate from feminists who had relationships with men:

The lesbians were in the forefront and were the purists. The straight women, they were still sleeping with the enemy. The lesbians separated themselves from the patriarchy in terms of the personal. So, whenever you’re talking about political correctness, we were it.

So there was kind of a status hierarchy within [the women’s movement] and it was the lesbians on top. So straight women would sometimes not admit that they were straight.

They would come to the dance and definitely pretend that they fit right in, in order not to be judged, or rejected, or whatever was going to happen.

Three of the interviewees – two identified as straight, it should be noted – did not see separatism as a positive or healthy development in the movement, emphasizing a need for stronger, more united movement. The fifth interviewee recalled her ambivalence. Patricia had been excluded from speaking at an event because she lived with a man. She found it harsh but somewhat understandable:

What happened with Take Back the Night in Pittsburgh, it was also an autonomous lesbian movement. I was friends with all of these people but…I was living with a man. I was supposed to be a main speaker. I was told at the last minute that I couldn’t speak because I lived with a man. Again, I can see both sides of this. I didn’t think I should be shunned because I lived with a man, and a feminist man, but that’s not always an easy sell – men will say they are feminist when they’re not. It gets complicated because of all the changes that happened. In the women’s movement, there were more and more out gay people and lesbians. They were resentful…lesbians rightly felt their issues were not addressed, and they were right.

Another division became evident through the liberationist views of the interviewees and the movement activities on the ground. As noted in Chapter 4, there was heavy organizing in Pittsburgh in opposition to pornography. The pages of the Allegheny Feminist chronicled the actions, campaigns and opinions of the anti-porn struggle participants. A report on a 1980 symposium suggested that there may not have been a unanimous stance on the issue. The article mentioned that the Pittsburgh ACLU Women’s Rights Committee members were not in total agreement with those in Women Against Sexist Violence in Pornography and the Media, but that they were working together to share information and ideas, and they intended to form a steering committee to develop strategy together.⁵³ However, this was the only indication that contention existed around this issue. The informants and interviewees in this study indicated, rather, that strong sentiment against the push for censorship existed, even if no organized opposition materialized. Patricia explained why censorship was incompatible with socialist-feminist beliefs:

We didn’t believe in censorship. The rape/porn people did believe in censorship. They got more attention because their critiques fit into the hegemonic views of American media: the answer to all problems is law enforcement. It’s very familiar… getting into bed with the police would always be a mistake. Whether it’s a pimp, a hustler or the police, you’re still being the subject of some man telling you what to do. It’s a male criminal justice system, as sexist as anyone else. Protect people from what?…we should either fear for our lives all the time and go to police for protection, other feminists would enforce the idea that sex is a powerful thing, part of women’s liberation, free from the restraints of anyone.

Elsewhere in the country, opposition to groups such as Women Against Pornography came from radical gay and lesbian communities that were arguing for freedom of sexual expression. However, in Pittsburgh, Take Back the Night had both a heavy lesbian involvement and sharp criticism of the sex industry. In fact, Women Against Pornography and Violence in the Media came out of a Take Back the Night event. Were socialist feminists in Pittsburgh the main

lesbian separatist opposition? Did community splits impact an otherwise likely alliance over this issue? Was a lack of organized opposition an indicator of a radical strand in decline? The way these issues over pornography played out in Pittsburgh deserves further exploration.