pick out a statement that you find interesting, create a question, and then try to answer your own question.
Note: Do NOT pick a statement from the introduction of the reading!
Note: Example of someone else’s work below
Example of someone else’s s work:
“As Black women we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face.”
“We reject the stance of lesbian separatism because it is not a viable political strategy for us. It leaves out far too much and far too many people, particularly black men, women, and children… We must also question whether lesbian separatism is an adequate and progressive political analysis and strategy, even for those who practice it, since it so completely denies any but the sexual sources of women’s oppression, negating the facts of class and race.”
They hardly mention that their members are predominantly lesbian, and when they do it is an understated side note. Why is this not the third pillar from which the group stands upon?
Sexual orientation seems to be placed in the same bin as gender liberation, but today we would never clump the two together. This seems like a key piece of the group’s identity, and likely is a major form of oppression which they could write on in this document. I know that many forms of sexual liberation made their way to the forefront of American political discussion several years later, such as Harvey Milk in 1978 and the Aids Epidemic in the early 80s, but I am unsure if the political climate of the mid 70s was different enough to constitute this discrepancy. If race and gender are important enough to make their way to the title, why does heterosexuality only earn a single word in the introductory roadmap on the first page? Perhaps one unstated point is that homosexuality would not fair well with Christian supporters of the group, but this is sheer conjecture. The fact that the collective must state explicitly that it is not politically viable to identify with their sexual preference is in stark contrast to the rest of the text. It seems likely that it was expelled from this piece to keep their ideas mainstream enough to receive traction, but that itself is a travesty in my opinion. In today’s political climate, I believe that sexual orientation would firmly be at the forefront of the argument.