Scan barcode
bookish_smorgasbord's review against another edition
5.0
Lillian Faderman presents an accessible, thorough look at the development of lesbian consciousness and life during the 21st century (in the U.S.). She further informs the text with a review of romantic friendship and the cultural constraints on women during the 20th century. I couldn't put it down and recommend it to anyone with an interest in women's history.
lunaseassecondaccount's review against another edition
3.0
I actually feel this book is closer to four stars, but after reading a few reviews on here and sitting with some of my own discomfort regarding word choices and phrasing, I'm keeping it at three stars.
This is a very thorough and easy-to-read history of, well, lesbian life in twentieth-century America. The first half of the book, which details very late nineteenth/early twentieth century women, romantic friendships and the start of women's higher education leading to liberation was fantastic- a theme that continued up until Faderman's writing on McCarthyism and the 1950s. The concept of Boston marriages and romantic friendships is something that's been close to my heart most of my adult life and an ideology that, well, enchants me.
But once the history reached the 1970s and the concept of lesbian feminists and 'political lesbians' came about, I began to be turned off. From what Faderman wrote (and I'm not sure if this is her own belief or what actually occurred during this decade), but the idea of women 'choosing' to become lesbian is something that makes me grit my teeth. The idea that homosexuality is something someone decides to practice and not an innate part of the biological makeup bothers me. It also reeks a little of radfem ideology and verges into TERF territory, which I'm not thrilled about. I've read some discussions about fourth wave feminism being repackaged second wave feminism, and after reading these chapters, I'm inclined to agree.
Faderman also describes in the first half of the book about women who dressed as men to both find work and to go about their life easier, but also as a way of exploring their lesbian identity. I'm willing to chalk this up to a difference in language, given how language and gender identity has evolved over the past thirty years (and this is also addressed in the epilogue), but also... a good number of these folk could be trans. I'm not sure if Faderman has addressed this recently, but I'd be curious to read her thoughts.
Overall, I think this is a very valuable historical text and one that really does cover a lot of history. It's thoroughly researched and while I'd have liked a few more primary sources, I can't say I'm disappointed.
This is a very thorough and easy-to-read history of, well, lesbian life in twentieth-century America. The first half of the book, which details very late nineteenth/early twentieth century women, romantic friendships and the start of women's higher education leading to liberation was fantastic- a theme that continued up until Faderman's writing on McCarthyism and the 1950s. The concept of Boston marriages and romantic friendships is something that's been close to my heart most of my adult life and an ideology that, well, enchants me.
But once the history reached the 1970s and the concept of lesbian feminists and 'political lesbians' came about, I began to be turned off. From what Faderman wrote (and I'm not sure if this is her own belief or what actually occurred during this decade), but the idea of women 'choosing' to become lesbian is something that makes me grit my teeth. The idea that homosexuality is something someone decides to practice and not an innate part of the biological makeup bothers me. It also reeks a little of radfem ideology and verges into TERF territory, which I'm not thrilled about. I've read some discussions about fourth wave feminism being repackaged second wave feminism, and after reading these chapters, I'm inclined to agree.
Faderman also describes in the first half of the book about women who dressed as men to both find work and to go about their life easier, but also as a way of exploring their lesbian identity. I'm willing to chalk this up to a difference in language, given how language and gender identity has evolved over the past thirty years (and this is also addressed in the epilogue), but also... a good number of these folk could be trans. I'm not sure if Faderman has addressed this recently, but I'd be curious to read her thoughts.
Overall, I think this is a very valuable historical text and one that really does cover a lot of history. It's thoroughly researched and while I'd have liked a few more primary sources, I can't say I'm disappointed.
anachronistique's review
I can't remember when this was recommended to me, but I didn't realize it was written as far back as 1991. DNFed for stuff that hasn't aged well - nothing wildly offensive but just enough, especially regarding trans men, that I wasn't up for reading it right now.
grace_b_3's review against another edition
1.0
I finished this book because I wanted to learn more about lesbians of the past. I did walk out of this book knowing a little bit more about lesbian subcultures of the past.
My issue with this book has everything to do with the social constructionist lense that Faderman utilizes. I also found this book dated, and while I try to be understanding of the time a book was published in, I found the way that trans and racial issues were handled distasteful.
Here is a quote from the introduction that I feel illustrates my issues with this book (honestly, should have stopped reading here):
My issue with this book has everything to do with the social constructionist lense that Faderman utilizes. I also found this book dated, and while I try to be understanding of the time a book was published in, I found the way that trans and racial issues were handled distasteful.
Here is a quote from the introduction that I feel illustrates my issues with this book (honestly, should have stopped reading here):
…in the debate between the "essentialists" (who believe that one is born a lesbian and that there have always been lesbians in the past just as there as lesbians today) and the "social constructionists" (who believe that certain social conditions were necessary before "the lesbian" could emerge as a social entity) my own research has caused me to align myself on the side of the social constructionists. While I believe that some women, statistically vey few, may have been "born different, i.e., genetically or hormonally "abnormal," the most convincing research I have been able to find indicates that such an anomaly is extremely rare amongst lesbians...A small number of the women I interviewed told me they were convinced that they were born men trapped in women's bodies; however, for the most part they suspected that they were not lesbians but "transexuals" (two of them had actually had sex change operations and are living as men). Others told me they were born lesbians, but what they said in the interview suggested to me that what they saw as the earliest signs of "lesbian feeling," erotic interest in other females, in most cases may have not been particularly different from the childhood crushes that even Freudians have described as being "normal" in the young. Their early "lesbian behavior" also seemed often to have amounted only to "inappropriate" gender behavior, a phenomenon that has been convincingly called into question by feminism.
If, after reading that quote, you feel like you could read about 300 more pages, maybe it would be worth wading into this book for more insight into lesbian history. If that quote makes your blood boil, skip this.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Homophobia, Racism, and Transphobia
captaincocanutty's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 stars
Thorough account of lesbian history throughout the 20th century, and how perceptions of and ideas around same-sex relationships changed over time. At some times a little slow but a lot of interesting information.
Thorough account of lesbian history throughout the 20th century, and how perceptions of and ideas around same-sex relationships changed over time. At some times a little slow but a lot of interesting information.
starrygal's review against another edition
4.0
Well written, interesting, informative, fairly comprehensive. It's cool to have more context on stories I've heard about lesbians from older times. My main complaint is that it's pretty cisnormative.
thomasgoddard's review against another edition
4.0
After a book that carefully and unbiasedly (mostly) examines both the history of lesbianism and women's movements over the past century? Look no further.
Although, be prepped for a moment of disbelief when you discover that there really is no such thing. I mean, it's one of those strange situations where you realise that there's no such thing as a fish; there's just many independent organisms that are categorised, for ease, as fish.
For example, a salmon is more closely related to a camel than it is to a hagfish. (Thank you Wikipedia)
And so, back to lesbians. The only thing that connects women who identify as such is that they prefer women.
Brief digest: women often paired up historically but it was more of a situation only the rich could indulge in, lesbian was coined by some dudes who thought a women uninterested in men was sexually Inverted, 1920s saw more women able to work and support each other in pairings, 1930s had packs of women roaming the country for work, 1950s the butch and femme appeared out of a desire to invent traditions, rituals and a coded identity for themselves, 1960s sexual revolution largely didn't touch lesbians as they viewed it as a patriarchal conspiracy, 1970s the lesbian-feminism started which was a heavily separatist move to start communities, publishing houses, record companies, etc... But all died due to bad organisation within 10 years (they rejected the 'patriarchal' hierarchical way of organising)... And they were heavily TERFy, uncomfortable for diverse and disabled people and hated Gay men because they were men... 1980s they realised they shouldn't construct their entire lives around a single character trait and rejoined the Gay community to help during the AIDs epidemic... they also came back into the wider community again and work within it and so they won a lot of respect and understanding from the wider public again... 1990s the book ends with a warning to younger women that they were falling into the same dark patterns that women in the 1960/70s had in becoming separatist, misandrist and overly concerned with socialist ideas that never work when the foundation is a sexual preference.
There's way more than that. I've obviously heavily simplified things. But it was really amazing to see the way that history seems to be repeating itself today. Militant people ruining a well-intentioned movement in order to profit and achieve power for themselves.
One day we'll rise above our obsession with difference and realise that we're human and therefore all disgusting, self-obsessed, selfish, greedy, liars. But until then, read this book. It's heavily focused on American life though. Just FYI.
And the rest of the people who reviewed this low and got stroppy about it not talking a lot about Black people and transgender lesbian history: you're an idiot. The whole point is that the movement has been historically self-centred and against those people, the whole book criticised that fact too! It was a bad thing. There are plenty of books written by people who know that side of things WAY better than this white cis author does or could. Read more broadly. If they HAD written more about that, you'd probably get salty because they didn't 'do it right'. The last part of the book was directed at you, re-read it... you nonsensical virtue-signalling sophomoric pedants.
Same goes for the idiot that read this entire book (I actually doubt that) and still came away locked into the same closed down position that the author was somehow writing a book about people who 'say' they are lesbians but aren't really.
Just because YOU have an idea of what a lesbian is, doesn't make you right. It is just YOUR idea of what a lesbian is. If other women want to identify as a lesbian and YOU don't agree... Keep it to yourself... Because it's exactly your brand of exclusionary militant nonsense that held all types of people out of the community for the last hundred years... minorities, non-binary, trans people, the poor.... You don't own the term and people can identify how they like.
Although, be prepped for a moment of disbelief when you discover that there really is no such thing. I mean, it's one of those strange situations where you realise that there's no such thing as a fish; there's just many independent organisms that are categorised, for ease, as fish.
For example, a salmon is more closely related to a camel than it is to a hagfish. (Thank you Wikipedia)
And so, back to lesbians. The only thing that connects women who identify as such is that they prefer women.
Brief digest: women often paired up historically but it was more of a situation only the rich could indulge in, lesbian was coined by some dudes who thought a women uninterested in men was sexually Inverted, 1920s saw more women able to work and support each other in pairings, 1930s had packs of women roaming the country for work, 1950s the butch and femme appeared out of a desire to invent traditions, rituals and a coded identity for themselves, 1960s sexual revolution largely didn't touch lesbians as they viewed it as a patriarchal conspiracy, 1970s the lesbian-feminism started which was a heavily separatist move to start communities, publishing houses, record companies, etc... But all died due to bad organisation within 10 years (they rejected the 'patriarchal' hierarchical way of organising)... And they were heavily TERFy, uncomfortable for diverse and disabled people and hated Gay men because they were men... 1980s they realised they shouldn't construct their entire lives around a single character trait and rejoined the Gay community to help during the AIDs epidemic... they also came back into the wider community again and work within it and so they won a lot of respect and understanding from the wider public again... 1990s the book ends with a warning to younger women that they were falling into the same dark patterns that women in the 1960/70s had in becoming separatist, misandrist and overly concerned with socialist ideas that never work when the foundation is a sexual preference.
There's way more than that. I've obviously heavily simplified things. But it was really amazing to see the way that history seems to be repeating itself today. Militant people ruining a well-intentioned movement in order to profit and achieve power for themselves.
One day we'll rise above our obsession with difference and realise that we're human and therefore all disgusting, self-obsessed, selfish, greedy, liars. But until then, read this book. It's heavily focused on American life though. Just FYI.
And the rest of the people who reviewed this low and got stroppy about it not talking a lot about Black people and transgender lesbian history: you're an idiot. The whole point is that the movement has been historically self-centred and against those people, the whole book criticised that fact too! It was a bad thing. There are plenty of books written by people who know that side of things WAY better than this white cis author does or could. Read more broadly. If they HAD written more about that, you'd probably get salty because they didn't 'do it right'. The last part of the book was directed at you, re-read it... you nonsensical virtue-signalling sophomoric pedants.
Same goes for the idiot that read this entire book (I actually doubt that) and still came away locked into the same closed down position that the author was somehow writing a book about people who 'say' they are lesbians but aren't really.
Just because YOU have an idea of what a lesbian is, doesn't make you right. It is just YOUR idea of what a lesbian is. If other women want to identify as a lesbian and YOU don't agree... Keep it to yourself... Because it's exactly your brand of exclusionary militant nonsense that held all types of people out of the community for the last hundred years... minorities, non-binary, trans people, the poor.... You don't own the term and people can identify how they like.