Making her (in)visible: Cultural representations of lesbianism and the lesbian body in the 1990s

Feminist Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 577-608

  Ciasullo, Ann M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039296290     PISSN: 00463663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3178806     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. I use the term "luscious lesbians" to refer to a kind of lesbian representation that is directed at and meant primarily for a straight male audience - one that typically appears in straight porn films. As Michael Segell, in "Two Girls for Every Boy," explains: "All men - straight ones, anyway - are aroused by the idea of two women having sex with one another. . . . Male fascination with female coupling is so universal, in fact, that some researchers consider the erotic response to it a reliable indicator of heterosexuality." See Michael Segell, "Two Girls for Every Boy," Esquire, January 1997, 31.
2. Ann Northrop, quoted in Alexis Jetter, "Goodbye to the Last Taboo," Vogue, July 1993, 86.
3. I want to clarify my point here: I do not believe that the femme is completely incapable of challenging hegemonic discourses about lesbianism; in many ways, she can shatter stereotypes and pose a threat to heterosexual mainstream audiences. For discussions of the subversive potential of the femme, see Judith Roof, A Lure of Knowledge: Lesbian Sexuality and Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 244-54; Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990), 122-24; Joan Nestle, "Flamboyance and Fortitude: An Introduction," in The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader, ed. Joan Nestle (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992), 13-20; and Biddy Martin, "Sexualities without Genders and Other Queer Utopias," in Femininity Played Straight: The Significance of Being Lesbian (New York: Routledge, 1996), 71-94. Although I find these arguments quite compelling (particularly as they take issue with the invisibility of the femme within lesbian feminist theoretical circles), at the same time I question whether the femme in popular culture - in movies, on television, in magazines - loses her potential for disruption and subversion.
4. I want to clarify my point here: I do not believe that the femme is completely incapable of challenging hegemonic discourses about lesbianism; in many ways, she can shatter stereotypes and pose a threat to heterosexual mainstream audiences. For discussions of the subversive potential of the femme, see Judith Roof, A Lure of Knowledge: Lesbian Sexuality and Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 244-54; Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990), 122-24; Joan Nestle, "Flamboyance and Fortitude: An Introduction," in The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader, ed. Joan Nestle (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992), 13-20; and Biddy Martin, "Sexualities without Genders and Other Queer Utopias," in Femininity Played Straight: The Significance of Being Lesbian (New York: Routledge, 1996), 71-94. Although I find these arguments quite compelling (particularly as they take issue with the invisibility of the femme within lesbian feminist theoretical circles), at the same time I question whether the femme in popular culture - in movies, on television, in magazines - loses her potential for disruption and subversion.
5. I want to clarify my point here: I do not believe that the femme is completely incapable of challenging hegemonic discourses about lesbianism; in many ways, she can shatter stereotypes and pose a threat to heterosexual mainstream audiences. For discussions of the subversive potential of the femme, see Judith Roof, A Lure of Knowledge: Lesbian Sexuality and Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 244-54; Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990), 122-24; Joan Nestle, "Flamboyance and Fortitude: An Introduction," in The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader, ed. Joan Nestle (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992), 13-20; and Biddy Martin, "Sexualities without Genders and Other Queer Utopias," in Femininity Played Straight: The Significance of Being Lesbian (New York: Routledge, 1996), 71-94. Although I find these arguments quite compelling (particularly as they take issue with the invisibility of the femme within lesbian feminist theoretical circles), at the same time I question whether the femme in popular culture - in movies, on television, in magazines - loses her potential for disruption and subversion.
6. I want to clarify my point here: I do not believe that the femme is completely incapable of challenging hegemonic discourses about lesbianism; in many ways, she can shatter stereotypes and pose a threat to heterosexual mainstream audiences. For discussions of the subversive potential of the femme, see Judith Roof, A Lure of Knowledge: Lesbian Sexuality and Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 244-54; Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990), 122-24; Joan Nestle, "Flamboyance and Fortitude: An Introduction," in The Persistent Desire: A Femme-Butch Reader, ed. Joan Nestle (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1992), 13-20; and Biddy Martin, "Sexualities without Genders and Other Queer Utopias," in Femininity Played Straight: The Significance of Being Lesbian (New York: Routledge, 1996), 71-94. Although I find these arguments quite compelling (particularly as they take issue with the invisibility of the femme within lesbian feminist theoretical circles), at the same time I question whether the femme in popular culture - in movies, on television, in magazines - loses her potential for disruption and subversion.
7. Arlene Stein, quoted in Jetter, 92.
8. For further discussion of butch-femme relationships in the 1950s and 1960s, see Lillian Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 159-87.
9. Michelle Fisher, "Butch Nouveau," Utne Reader, July/August 1996, 27.
10. Jeanie Kasindorf, "Lesbian Chic: The Bold, Brave New World of Gay Women," New York, 10 May 1993, 34.
11. Lisa Walker, "How to Recognize a Lesbian: The Cultural Politics of Looking Like What You Are," Signs 18 (summer 1993): 878-79.
12. Susan Bordo, "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture," in Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 275.
13. The image accompanying this interview is of a rather feminine-looking Martina: she is wearing what appears to be a bejeweled gown (the photo shows her from the waist up only) and gold hoop earrings, and her shoulder-length hair is attractively styled. Given the readership of the magazine, the reasons for this feminization of Martina are obvious. I am not suggesting, however, that this photo negates the role that Martina plays as an out lesbian. As Diane Hamer points out in her essay, "Netting the Press: Playing with Martina" (in The Good, the Bad, and the Gorgeous: Popular Culture's Romance with Lesbianism, ed. Diane Hamer and Belinda Budge [London: Pandora, 1994], 57-77), Navratilova was the representative lesbian of the 1980s, an unfriendly and judgmental decade. And although Navratilova continues to be quite visible as a political activist, I would assert that her presence on the landscapes of popular culture is rather limited.
14. Elise Harris, "Women in Love," Mademoiselle, March 1993, 180.
15. Jetter, 86.
16. Terry Castle, The Apparitional Lesbian: Female Homosexuality and Modern Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 4.
17. Vito Russo, The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1987).
18. Kasindorf, 33-34.
19. David Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 373.
20. Charles Gandee, "Cross-Dressing for Success," Vogue, July 1997, 148.
21. Guinevere Turner, "'I, Melanie, Take You, Mary. . . ,'" Glamour, February 1997, 90.
22. A. J. Jacobs, "Out?" Entertainment Weekly, 4 Oct. 1996, 22.
23. As Richard Dyer, in his book, Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society (London: British Film Institute, 1986), points out, "Star images are always extensive, multimedia, inter-textual" (3).
24. David Ansen, "Boy Meets Lesbian," Newsweek, 7 Apr. 1997, 73.
25. Kasindorf, 33.
26. Sherrie Inness, The Lesbian Menace: Ideology, Identity, and the Representation of Lesbian Life (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1997), 67.
27. Sadie Van Gelder, "It's Who I Am," Seventeen, November 1996, 142.
28. Brian D. Johnson, "Sex and the Sacred Girl," Maclean's, 5 May 1995, 93.
29. Rachel Abramowitz, "Girl Gets Girl," Premiere, February 1996, 84.
30. Peter Castro and John Griffiths, "A House in Harmony," People, 5 Sept. 1994, 58.
31. Ronnie Polaneczky, "Why She Had to Leave the Husband She Adored," Redbook, July 1997, 86, 106.
32. Even though Go Fish is one of the better-known lesbian movies of the 1990s, I do not think that it could be called either a mainstream film or a mainstream representation of lesbianism, and thus I do not offer a reading of the movie itself. Although the film does present several characters who could be considered butch (Ely and Daria, for example), it is marketed through the advertisement of the film's femme starlet, Guin Turner. The appeal for those people browsing at the video store, I would argue, is the picture on the box, one that seems to promise yet another story of "luscious lesbians."
33. Abramowitz, 81, 95.
34. Corie Brown, "Hollywood Lesbians: It's a 'Girl World,'" Newsweek, 14 Apr. 1997, 69.
35. Allison Gaines, "'Chasing' Down the Rumors," Entertainment Weekly, 28 Nov. 1997, 87.
36. Brown, 69.
37. Jetter, 88. I want to pause here to concur with Jetter's third point, that mainstream lesbians "seem more interested in makeup and clothes than in feminism." To be sure, the visible lesbian is typically a depoliticized lesbian, divorced from her feminist roots. If current representations of the lesbian are trying to shatter the image of the 1970s' "ugly militant lesbian" by replacing her with the 1990s' "lipstick lesbian," there's no better way to achieve this goal than to sever the ties between the lesbian and her politics. The question of "style" or "fashion" and its effects on the political efficacy of lesbian feminism is one of ongoing concern. Although it is beyond the scope of my article to enter this debate, there are several excellent essays which address this issue; see, for example, Inge Blackman and Kathryn Perry, "Skirting the Issue: Lesbian Fashion for the 1990s," Feminist Review 34 (spring 1990): 67-78; Sue O'Sullivan, "Girls Who Kiss Girls and Who Cares?" in The Good, the Bad, and the Gorgeous, 78-94; Danae Clark, "Commodity Lesbianism," in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, ed. Henry Abelove, Michèle Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1993), 186-201; and especially Arlene Stein, "All Dressed Up but No Place to Go? Style Wars and the New Lesbianism," in Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, ed. Corey K. Creekmur and Alexander Doty (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), 476-83.
38. Jetter, 88. I want to pause here to concur with Jetter's third point, that mainstream lesbians "seem more interested in makeup and clothes than in feminism." To be sure, the visible lesbian is typically a depoliticized lesbian, divorced from her feminist roots. If current representations of the lesbian are trying to shatter the image of the 1970s' "ugly militant lesbian" by replacing her with the 1990s' "lipstick lesbian," there's no better way to achieve this goal than to sever the ties between the lesbian and her politics. The question of "style" or "fashion" and its effects on the political efficacy of lesbian feminism is one of ongoing concern. Although it is beyond the scope of my article to enter this debate, there are several excellent essays which address this issue; see, for example, Inge Blackman and Kathryn Perry, "Skirting the Issue: Lesbian Fashion for the 1990s," Feminist Review 34 (spring 1990): 67-78; Sue O'Sullivan, "Girls Who Kiss Girls and Who Cares?" in The Good, the Bad, and the Gorgeous, 78-94; Danae Clark, "Commodity Lesbianism," in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, ed. Henry Abelove, Michèle Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1993), 186-201; and especially Arlene Stein, "All Dressed Up but No Place to Go? Style Wars and the New Lesbianism," in Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, ed. Corey K. Creekmur and Alexander Doty (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), 476-83.
39. Jetter, 88. I want to pause here to concur with Jetter's third point, that mainstream lesbians "seem more interested in makeup and clothes than in feminism." To be sure, the visible lesbian is typically a depoliticized lesbian, divorced from her feminist roots. If current representations of the lesbian are trying to shatter the image of the 1970s' "ugly militant lesbian" by replacing her with the 1990s' "lipstick lesbian," there's no better way to achieve this goal than to sever the ties between the lesbian and her politics. The question of "style" or "fashion" and its effects on the political efficacy of lesbian feminism is one of ongoing concern. Although it is beyond the scope of my article to enter this debate, there are several excellent essays which address this issue; see, for example, Inge Blackman and Kathryn Perry, "Skirting the Issue: Lesbian Fashion for the 1990s," Feminist Review 34 (spring 1990): 67-78; Sue O'Sullivan, "Girls Who Kiss Girls and Who Cares?" in The Good, the Bad, and the Gorgeous, 78-94; Danae Clark, "Commodity Lesbianism," in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, ed. Henry Abelove, Michèle Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1993), 186-201; and especially Arlene Stein, "All Dressed Up but No Place to Go? Style Wars and the New Lesbianism," in Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, ed. Corey K. Creekmur and Alexander Doty (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), 476-83.
40. Jetter, 88. I want to pause here to concur with Jetter's third point, that mainstream lesbians "seem more interested in makeup and clothes than in feminism." To be sure, the visible lesbian is typically a depoliticized lesbian, divorced from her feminist roots. If current representations of the lesbian are trying to shatter the image of the 1970s' "ugly militant lesbian" by replacing her with the 1990s' "lipstick lesbian," there's no better way to achieve this goal than to sever the ties between the lesbian and her politics. The question of "style" or "fashion" and its effects on the political efficacy of lesbian feminism is one of ongoing concern. Although it is beyond the scope of my article to enter this debate, there are several excellent essays which address this issue; see, for example, Inge Blackman and Kathryn Perry, "Skirting the Issue: Lesbian Fashion for the 1990s," Feminist Review 34 (spring 1990): 67-78; Sue O'Sullivan, "Girls Who Kiss Girls and Who Cares?" in The Good, the Bad, and the Gorgeous, 78-94; Danae Clark, "Commodity Lesbianism," in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, ed. Henry Abelove, Michèle Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1993), 186-201; and especially Arlene Stein, "All Dressed Up but No Place to Go? Style Wars and the New Lesbianism," in Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, ed. Corey K. Creekmur and Alexander Doty (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), 476-83.
41. Raymond Murray, Images in the Dark: An Encyclopedia of Gay and Lesbian Film and Video (New York: Plume, 1996), 337.
42. Ibid.
43. In Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), Nancie Caraway points out: "Black women historically have been powerless to displace the patriarchy's monopolization of the negative imagery which has cast them variously as depraved sexual temptresses, castrating matriarchs, breeders, or sexless, deferential mammies" (78)-in other words, as excluded from the realm of "true" womanhood, of femininity. For further reading on the mythologies of Black womanhood, see bell hooks, Ain't I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism (Boston: South End Press, 1981), and Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992); and Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Routledge, 1990).
44. In Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), Nancie Caraway points out: "Black women historically have been powerless to displace the patriarchy's monopolization of the negative imagery which has cast them variously as depraved sexual temptresses, castrating matriarchs, breeders, or sexless, deferential mammies" (78)-in other words, as excluded from the realm of "true" womanhood, of femininity. For further reading on the mythologies of Black womanhood, see bell hooks, Ain't I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism (Boston: South End Press, 1981), and Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992); and Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Routledge, 1990).
45. In Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), Nancie Caraway points out: "Black women historically have been powerless to displace the patriarchy's monopolization of the negative imagery which has cast them variously as depraved sexual temptresses, castrating matriarchs, breeders, or sexless, deferential mammies" (78)-in other words, as excluded from the realm of "true" womanhood, of femininity. For further reading on the mythologies of Black womanhood, see bell hooks, Ain't I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism (Boston: South End Press, 1981), and Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992); and Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Routledge, 1990).
46. In Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), Nancie Caraway points out: "Black women historically have been powerless to displace the patriarchy's monopolization of the negative imagery which has cast them variously as depraved sexual temptresses, castrating matriarchs, breeders, or sexless, deferential mammies" (78)-in other words, as excluded from the realm of "true" womanhood, of femininity. For further reading on the mythologies of Black womanhood, see bell hooks, Ain't I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism (Boston: South End Press, 1981), and Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992); and Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Routledge, 1990).
47. It is significant that Cleo's femme lover is a Black woman with blonde hair-blondeness that may well function to "whiten" her. For an incisive reading of the connection between "blonde ambition" and whiteness, see bell hooks's "Madonna: Plantation Mistress or Soul Sister?" in Black Looks, 157-64.
48. Joan Morgan, "The Queen of Screen: Latifah Goes to the Movies," Essence, January 1998, 70.
49. Amy Linden, "From Here to Royalty," The Source: The Magazine of Hip-Hop Music, Culture, and Politics, August 1998, 157, 158.
50. Havelock Ellis, quoted in Greenberg, 382.
51. Hamer, 70-71.
52. Martin, 86.
53. Rosanne Kennedy, "The Gorgeous Lesbian in LA Law: The Present Absence?" in The Good, the Bad, and the Gorgeous, 141.
54. O'Sullivan, 85.
55. Inness, 200.
56. O'Sullivan, 79.
57. Faderman, 179-81.
58. Leslie Feinberg, Stone Butch Blues (Ithaca, N.Y.: Firebrand Books, 1993).
59. Kasindorf, 34.
60. Brown, 68, 69.
61. Inness, 203, 188.
62. Roof, 248.
63. Inness, 204.