The women’s movement is in considerable disarray. While most self-described feminists are concerned mainly with job prospects, equal pay, and abortion rights, the radical wing of the movement is busy advocating everything from witchcraft to lesbianism. This was never more apparent than at NOW’s recent convention. While most delegates were content with denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the radicals of the organization were busy pushing for the creation of a new political party that would better represent such things as “lesbian rights.”

Still, within official feminism there remains substantial agreement on one issue—the need for linguistic reform. For insight into this aspect of the women’s movement take a glance through a few issues of Lesbian Ethics, a radical lesbian journal published in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This journal—the direct offspring of the women’s movement’s push for linguistic reform—is one of the principal proponents of “lesbian discourse,” a linguistic world in which “man” has no presence—no presence as a word, no presence as a syllable. Until recently the one thing women in the women’s movement could agree on was the fact that they belonged to a “women’s movement.” But those days of consensus have passed. For now there is a movement for wimin, wymin, wymyn, and wim.

Both radical lesbians and mainline feminists base their call for linguistic reform on the Wittgensteinian idea that “a language is a form of life.” Because traditional society has been male-dominated, feminists believe traditional language patterns must similarly be dominated. To be more specific, feminists see traditional language as inherently misogynist: it is a reflection of male supremacy and female inferiority because it preserves and perpetuates unfair social stereotypes while denying women the right of visibility.

Where mainline feminists and radical lesbians differ is the degree to which linguistic reform should be taken. The former have been generally content in merely fighting the generic use of such words as “he” and “man”; they have been content to bask in the glow of their successful efforts to replace firemen, policemen, congressmen, and chairmen with firefighters, police officers, congressional representatives, and chairs.

Radical lesbians, however, call for more. In fact, radical lesbians even see the linguistic behavior of radical feminists as too tame. Whereas radical feminists have long spoke of womanists who believe in womanity, who partake of womanism, who cultivate their womanliness, and who even write womanifestoes for the womanist movement—radical lesbians never would. On the contrary, as the Proudhons and Bakunins of the women’s movement, radical lesbians see mere elaborations of the word “woman” as still not enough. For the word “woman” is still tainted: it is tainted by the proximity of the ever-present devil, “man.”

Thus, from the radical lesbian perspective, a true and wholesome female could only be a womyn, a womin, a womon, or a wom. And if among true and wholesome friends, they could only be wimin, wymyn, wymin, or wim, this last word being the plural form of wom. Of course, radical feminists would not object to a female being a womynist who believes in wominity, partakes of womonism, cultivates her womynliness, and who writes womonifestoes for the wimminist movement. But most of them would just prefer to be dykes, whereupon they can be dykish, exude dyke-ness, experience dykity, and even be dyking—presumably all in one afternoon.

Nor do radical lesbians have any use for such words as “history,” “English,” “democracy,” and “ex-husbands.” They instead prefer to speak of herstory, manglish, phallocracy, and wusbands. Even the seemingly harmless trio of “they,” “them,” and “their” apparently harbors linguistically the social structures and power relations of American patriarchy. For shem, shey, and sheh have found their way into lesbian discourse. And, of course, in the lexicon of mainline feminists and radical lesbians alike, the word “gentleman” remains a contradiction in terms.

Radical lesbians, however, do not limit their idiosyncratic approach to the English language to the spelling of gender-related words. Quite the contrary: no aspect of the English language is safe in Lesbos. Capitalization, punctuation, and the spelling of the most common of words—all such things are to be exposed and excoriated as conspirators in the war against women and womanhood. As a result, journals like Lesbian Ethics are filled with such words and phrases as “the moreness of life,” “a feminist university had occurred,” “my conclusions and envisionments,” “I relax into my no-ings,” and “how much wronger can I be.”

One can perhaps understand how a radical lesbian in need of making a radical statement might wallow in the realm of “transformative language forms,” might resort to the elimination of the word “man” and the concoction of strange cognates—all for the purpose of “consciousness-raising.” There is, after all, historical precedent for such actions:,as during the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution when Frenchmen were called either “citizen” or “citizeness,” or as in the period after the Bolshevik Revolution when Russians became “comrades.” Indeed, linguistic change has often been seen as sine qua non for social change.

But can occurring universities and people who are wronger and relaxing into their no-ings really raise social consciousness?

Then there is the section of the journal devoted to artistic expression. Robespierre had his David, Lenin his Gorky, and Lesbian Ethics its “creative writing,” a section of the journal filled with action-packed dialogue and riveting narration:

Old Separatist and Gypsy Dyke were sitting around the universe, “Just how separate are you?” Gypsy Dyke was asking.

 

“Oh, just as separate as I can get,” Old Separatist was saying back to her.

Moving accounts of conflict and inner turmoil:

ii want to grow mii hair and sometimez ii ahm afraid othurr separatists will no longer honour mii knowings/no-ings afraid ii will feel sohh ashamed ii will retreat away from mii self . . .

And gripping drama:

how I would love to have the courage to say to a sister in distress, “breathe with me, Joanna.” would she remember this from the wanderground and respond, “breathe with me, zana?”

But the most creative writing is to be found on the “Notes on Contributors” page, where the writers have opted for winsome pseudonyms. Thus, we find that this “forum” for the discussion of “ethics and philosophy” (the journal’s proclaimed purpose) pivots on the ruminations of such people as Dicey Yates, Teena Delfina, Sage Desertdyke, and Flowing Margaret Johnson. The contributors’ hobbies are equally informative. Lori Saxe, for instance, enjoys cultivating “intense bonds with cats,” and she is currently working on “a Lesbian theory of animal liberation.” And certainly one should mention the heroic feat of Margaret “Chase” Smith, who continues to contribute to the journal seemingly against all odds: she’s dead, but a channeler continues to feed us her work.

Occasionally, the essays in Lesbian Ethics actually do touch upon the ethics and philosophy of the radical lesbian community. Though the degree to which radical lesbians adhere to the tenets of their philosophy varies from individual to individual—and, as is the case among the community of radical feminists, there is a great deal of debate between Marxian and non-Marxian interpretations of women’s history—the basic philosophy and ethics of radical lesbianism can be simply summarized: hate all men, separate from all men, and kill men, if possible.

In other words, whereas mainline feminists merely reject the validity of the male point of view, radical lesbians and some radical feminists reject the right of men even to exist. Men are the Satans of earthly existence—the cause and controllers of all evil in the world—and hence they should die. Period. Indeed, it is not for nothing that many radical feminists and lesbians still revere as the quintessential expression of “woman’s work” the writings and actions of the late-1960’s radical Valerie Solanas—the androcidal zany who shot pop artist Andy Warhol to dramatize the need for the murder of all” men, and who wrote the notorious 1968 manifesto for SCUM (the Society for the Cutting Up of Men).

Dicey Yates, in the fall 1988 issue of Lesbian Ethics, succinctly states the radical lesbian position:

We, uniquely, are both willing and able to oppose men in a sustained way. . . . It is up to the handful of us to end the regime of men. . . . Unwillingness (including ambivalence) to do/cause violence to men has been a barrier to community—any womon community anywhere since patriarchy. . . .

Nor does this call for violence against men exclude the sons, brothers, or fathers of lesbians; if a lesbian has not the courage to kill them, then at least she should sever all ties with them. In fact, such things as artificial insemination and the abortion of male fetuses are now being discussed in some lesbian circles. From their skewed perspective, science can indeed be their handmaiden to progress by providing them with the means for the propagation of more women as well as the means for the murder of future men.

But where would this get them? After all, without men to hate feminists would be like vampires without victims, conservatives without communism.