Figure Descriptions

Figure I.1. Twelve-panel comic laid out in four rows where a topless masked superheroine leads the charge for social justice and other characters chime in about specific causes, all while breaking the fourth wall and looking out at the reader. In the first panel, the superheroine crosses her arms and says in two speech bubbles, “Hold it. We’re sorry to do this, but we have to hijack this last page.” In the next panel, we see the artist, Mary Wilshire, standing in front of her drafting table shrugs, who shrugs and asks, “The Eighties, right?” In the third panel, the superheroine joins the artist in her studio and confirms, “That’s right.” She continues in three more speech bubbles, “Have I got your attention? Good. Some of my friends are here to share in this statement.” In the corner of the panel, the artist stares at her with a perplexed look, wondering in a thought bubble, “Who is that masked woman?!” In the second row of panels, we are introduced to a wide array of women. The first, a Black construction worker sitting sprawled with a jack hammer, says, “We think Mary is right to be wacky and light-hearted, but . . .” In the next panel, an older white woman in an office sitting in front of a business graph takes off her glasses, and continues, “It’s time to fight for what we love—again!” In the third panel, three women—a seated older white woman and two younger women of color in stylish outfits and current hairstyles—come together to intone, “That means racial equality that comes from the heart—everyone’s.” In the third row of panels, we meet an even wider array of individuals. In the first panel, we see two mothers with their three children exclaim, “Freedom to have an abortion!” In the next panel, a fit man in a tank top and sunglasses adds, “To be gay!” In the third panel, the artist and the superheroine join with three scantily clad women as the artist says, “To restore dignity to erotic art!” while the four women standing behind her verbally agree, “Yeah!” In the fourth panel, a female newscaster concludes, “to be gentle, and passionate . . . these are radical privileges—and they’re in jeopardy. Just look at the eyes of Nancy Reagan!” In the fourth and final row, a woman lifting weights while wearing a leotard with a T-shirt on top that says Lisa stands in front of the artist’s drafting table and proclaims, “Do something really political. Learn how to take care of yourself . . . Enjoy life!” In the next and final panel, an open book showing an image of the Mona Lisa has her join the conversation to add, “And pass it on.” The superheroine stands in front of the opposite page of the book, rests her hands on the bottom panel border, leans forward, and says, “And if you think this is just a lotta corny bullshit . . . you’d better just check and see when your last period was!”

Return to figure

Figure 1.2. A typeset page titled “The Barnard Women’s Center, 1971–1982,” which recounts the history of the space. Penciled marks ineffectually try to edit the page. The original, four-paragraph text reads: “In the fall of 1981 the Barnard Women’s Center celebrated its tenth anniversary. Founded in 1971 by a task force of administrators, faculty, trustees, alumnae, and students, its purpose was to create a physical and psychological space for women within and outside the university. Through its resource collection, its up-to-date information on women’s programs and events, its discussions, lectures and conferences, the Center encourages a continuing dialogue on feminist theory and practice. Staffed by a director, associate director, and administrative assistant, it is governed by a 12-member Executive Committee composed of equal representation from students, faculty, administrators, and alumnae. Barnard College provides ⅔ of its annual budget and the remaining third comes from gifts and grants. A link between the college and women of the larger community, the Women’s Center is an important meeting ground for feminist activities.” The second paragraph continues, “As part of its commitment to the new scholarship on women, the Women’s Center holds an annual Scholar and the Feminist Conference each spring. Initiated in 1974 and funded by the Helena Rubinstein Foundation, the conferences provide a useful framework for the investigation of the impact of feminist on traditional scholarship. The Women’s Center works closely with an academic coordinator and planning committee—composed of scholars and activists from Barnard and the larger community—in developing the theme, selecting speakers and organizing the conference. During the past eight years the Scholar and the Feminist Conference has become a New York City feminist event, bringing together over 600 people, mostly women—scholars, artists, and activists.” The third paragraph reads, “The first Scholar and the Feminist Conference, 1974 (academic coordinator, Susan R. Sacks), raised the fundamental question, can feminism and scholarship be integrated? Themes of subsequent conferences reflect the continuing dialectic between feminist consciousness and women’s studies: 1975, (II) ‘Towards a New Criteria of Relevance’ (Nancy K. Miller); 1976, (III) ‘The Search for Origins’ (Hester Eisenstein); 1977, (IV) ‘Connecting Theory, Practice and Values’ (Mary Parlee); 1978, (V) ‘Creating Feminist Works’ (Elizabeth Minnich); 1979, (VI) ‘The Future of Difference’ (Alice Jardine); 1980, (VII) ‘Class, Race and Sex: Exploring Contradictions, Affirming Connections’ (Amy Swerdlow); and 1981, (VIII) ‘The Dynamics of Control’ (Hanna Lessinger). ‘Towards a Politics of Sexuality,’ coordinated by Carole S. Vance, is our ninth conference.” The fourth and final paragraph concludes, “Papers from three of the earlier conferences, (1976, 1977 and 1978) have been published in pamphlet form by the Barnard Women’s Center. The Future of Difference edited by Hester Eisenstein and Alice Jardine, an anthology of essays from the 1978 conference, was published by G.K. Hall and Company in December, 1980. Class, Race and Sex: The Dynamics of Control (G.K. Hall), papers from the 1980 and 1981 conferences, edited by Amy Swerdlow and Hanna Lessinger, will appear in late 1982.” The three women who currently lead the Women’s Center are listed in typeset under the statement, “Jane S. Gould, Director; Janie Kritzman, Associate Director; Maria La Sala, Assistant to the Director.”

Return to figure

Figure 1.4. Five personal messages, typed and handwritten, in vertically stacked boxes from the conference planning committee about the conference. The first, third, and fifth are typewritten and take up most of their rectangles, while ample white space surrounds the second and fourth handwritten statements, providing some visual balance on the page. The first one is two paragraphs typeset from Julie L. Abraham, whose name follows the statement. It reads, “The committee asked many more questions than it could possibly begin to answer, or find ‘experts’ to address. Nevertheless the questioning was itself valuable.” In a second paragraph, Abraham continues, “One issue not overtly raised was that of the difficulties of a common lesbian and heterosexual feminist discussion of sexuality. Avoiding debate by assuming that an issue is recognised, and being recognised, settled, is not necessarily a good tactic. The debate goes on.” The second statement by Hannah Alderfer is handwritten in capital letters and simply signed, “Hannah.” In four lines, it reads, “MY SECRET DESIRE WAS TO WRITE IN A PERSONAL DIARY / YET WHERE COULD I WRITE WHAT I WANTED / BUT IN A DIARY THAT MUST BE MADE PUBLIC? / WITH MUCH LOVE TO MY COLLABORATORS AND THIS DIARY.” The third statement is typeset in italic text and signed at the end “/M. Altman” for Meryl Altman. In one paragraph, it reads, “Why talk about ‘sexuality’ and not ‘sex’? At the beginning, we had trouble even defining ‘sexuality’ so that we could work with it. For me, sexuality is inseparable from its representation (visual, linguistic, psychic). We can only talk about sex across culturally-given metaphors that encode the dominant ideology, that mediate our own ‘experience’ and are embedded in the very words we have to use because there are no others (yet). To say ‘sexuality,’ not ‘sex,’ is to acknowledge that our perspectives are partial.” In the fourth statement, signed at the end by Jan Boney, she contributes a single sentence in cursive handwritten script: “Being a part of the planning committee has provided new ways for me to see some important connections among the personal, political, feminist, social, sexual and academic parts of my own life.” In the final message on the page, signed by Frances Doughty, she contributes a dense paragraph entitled “HETEROPHILIA: ITS CAUSES AND CURES.” The paragraph reads, “A pioneering conference that removes the stigma from heterophilia by considering it as a clinical entity in the light of the most recent research. Originated and planned by the 192 St. John’s Place Research Institute; Tee Corinne, concept; Alma Routsong, Frances Doughty, Tee Corinne, panels. THE SOCIAL WORLD OF THE HETEROPHILIAC: WHAT HETEROPHILIACS DO IN THE DAYTIME[.] A CURED HETEROPHILIAC: A CASE STUDY[.] HORMONE IMBALANCES IN HETEROPHILIA[.] PROBLEMS OF SELF-CONTEMPT AMONG HETEROPHILIACS[.] DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE HETEROPHILIA[.] Closing Ceremony: Gala Banquet—The conference will feature reports from four heterophiliacs themselves: men and women who have the conscience and courage to appear, disguised by paper bags, as witnesses to the agony of heterophilia in today’s society.” The page number, 9, appears in the bottom right corner.

Return to figure

Figure 1.5a. The page shows an open envelope at the bottom and Carole S. Vance’s hand-signed and photocopied letter shown in full, semi-diagonally on the page. Originally there was Barnard letterhead accompanying this letter, but that has been removed from this version, so the page of the letter is unadorned apart from the words. Dated September 2, 1981, the multi-paragraph, one-page letter is addressed “Dear Colleague:” and reads, “I invite you to join with the planning committee and the Barnard Women’s Center in working on ‘The Scholar and The Feminist IX’ conference. Our purpose in the first and subsequent meetings is to explore ‘sexuality’ as this year’s theme and, through discussion, to identify the most pressing concerns for feminism. By refining the theme, defining questions and topics, and selecting appropriate speakers and workshop leaders, we hope to put together a conference which will inform and advance the current debate.” A second paragraph continues, “Feminist work on sexuality starts from the premise that sex is a social construction which articulates at many points with the economic, social, and political structures of the material world. Sex is not a ‘natural fact.’ Consistent feminist interest in sexuality is reflected in journals (Signs, Heresies, M/F) and newspapers, as well as in recent activism on pornography and sexual violence. All ask questions about the place of sexuality in our theory and in our lives. Published materials do not fully exhaust the range of women’s experiences; it is likely that women of different communities (based on sexual preference, race, class, and ethnicity) have not only different things to say but different ways they want to say them.” A third paragraph introduces a list of guiding questions: “Some of the questions which have been raised in these works might inform our first discussion.” The first item in the list: “How do women get sexual pleasure in patriarchy?” The second item in the list: “Given the paradox that the sexual domain is a dangerous one for women, either as an arena of restriction and repression or as an arena of experimentation and resistance, how do women of various ethnic, racial, and class groups strategize for pleasure?” The third item in the list: “What are the points of similarity and difference between feminist analyses of pornography, incest, and male and female sexual ‘nature’ and those of the right wing?” The fourth item in the list: “Dare we persist in questioning traditional sexuality and sexual arrangements in the current political climate? If not, when is a ‘good’ time for feminists to do so?” The fifth item in the list: “What is the political significance of the position outlined by Betty Friedan, which would jettison gay and lesbian rights and sexual nonconformity as issues marginal to feminist goals?” The sixth and final item in the list: “What is the nature of the current conflict between ‘social purity’ and ‘libertarian’ factions in the feminist community? What can be learned from similar debates during the first wave of feminism in the 19th century?” Following, there’s a short paragraph: “These are just a few questions. I’m sure you’ve already though of many more.” In closing, it reads, “Looking forward to seeing you at the first meeting” and then signs off with “Sincerely” followed by signed and typewritten versions of Vance’s name.

Return to figure

Figure 1.5b. Copyright page text accompanied by the visual designers’ lip prints and handwritten statement as described in the chapter. The copyright information is arranged below in two columns. One is headed, “acknowledgements.” Under it are groupings of individuals thanked. The first grouping, “EDITORIAL WORK,” lists “Hannah Alderfer, Meryl Altman, Kate Ellis, Beth Jaker, Marybeth Nelson, Esther Newton, Ann Snitow, Carole S. Vance.” The second grouping, “CONSULTATION AND REVIEW,” lists “Diane Harriford, Amber Hollibaugh, Andrew Tyndall, Paula Webster.” The third grouping, “VISUAL RESOURCES,” lists “Lesbian Herstory Archives, Deb Edel and Joan Nestle / New York Public Library Picture Collection / Schomburg Reference Library Photography Archives.” The fourth grouping, “SPECIAL THANKS,” lists “Tony DiCiaccio for preliminary typing assistance / Dorothy Jaker for visual research.” The fifth grouping, “VERY SPECIAL THANKS,” lists “Meryl Altman for editorial assistance / Anne Drillick, without the contribution of her invaluable production work and long hours this diary would not have met its deadline / Carole S. Vance.” Under these groupings, it reads, “Set in Memphis and Helios by Brooklyn Bridge and igloo graphics / Printed by Faculty Press. / © copyright Hannah Alderfer, Beth Jaker, Marybeth Nelson // Second Printing, February 1983.” A second column of about half the height entitled, “the scholar and the feminist / toward a politics of sexuality,” reads, “Saturday, April 24, 1982 // Carole S. Vance, Academic Coordinator // Conference Planning Committee / Julie Abraham, Hannah Alderfer, Meryl Altman, Jan Boney, Frances Doughty, Ellen DuBois, Kate Ellis, Judith Friedlander, Julie German, Faye Ginsburg, Diane Harriford, Beth Jaker, Mary Clare Lennon, Sherry Manasse, Nancy K. Miller, Marybeth Nelson, Esther Newton, Claire Riley, Susan R. Sacks, Ann Snitow, Quandra P. Stadler, Judy R. Walkowitz, Ellen Willis, Patsy Yaeger // Barnard Women’s Center / Jane Gould, Janie Kritzman, Maria La Sala.”

Return to figure

Figure 1.6. Page spread showing the first two typewritten pages of the Tuesday, September 22, 1981, planning meeting minutes, which begins under a “Dear Diary” header. Set apart by an extra paragraph return from the rest of the minutes, the first paragraph summarizes the meeting: “Carole described briefly the nature and development of her interest in the topic of sexuality. Following the round-robin method, each member described her responses to the first meeting and thoughts during the intervening week: comments flew thick and fast.” Over the two pages, these comments are organized into an unordered list:

• “—A recent workshop on sexuality at the Communist University in London was dominated by the ‘politics of rage,’ not just an expression of anger, but the embodiment of the anti-intellectual premise that thought is not necessary to political action; feeling will suffice. This is a heritage of feminism.
• “—Important and interesting topics for further discussion: the question of ‘political correctness’ in sexuality; the links between sexual ‘political correctness’ and other forms of ‘political correctness’ both on the Left and the Right; the silence of heterosexual women and reasons for it; implications of celibacy.
• “—What do we mean by ‘sexuality’? What is sexual? How can we have a conference without defining what it means? Who determines sexuality and for whom? Is all pleasure sexual? Is all sexuality pleasurable? What is the relationship between the two?
• “—Are the issues mentioned at our first meeting specific to a particular cohort or generation of women? Examples: the issue of orgasm (difficulty in obtaining an orgasm; vaginal versus clitoral) was a larger one for women over forty than for nineteen year olds today.
• “—What is sexuality? Is it defined by specific organs (the genitals) or specific physiological reactions? This definition would have no room for the prostitute, who may be experiencing little or no ‘sexual’ sensation, yet the act is surely a sexual one in some respects.
• “—Without being totally utopian, what are feminists’ expectations for sexual change?
• “—In our dislike of biological reductionism, have we been unwilling to consider biological or physiological features of sexual response? What about Masters and Johnson’s work? Is it an error to think there is an irreducible physical bedrock to all or some sexual experience?
• “—Are we going to focus exclusively on genital sexuality? Scylla and Charybdis: sex is only the most orgasm-directed and genital behavior, which leads to talking about little but technique versus such a broad definition of sexuality/sensuality that it includes seeing a good movie. A discussion followed, with the following example offered as a rough guideline for our group: maternal sexuality would include women’s specifically sexual response to nursing and issues of sexuality between mothers and daughters but would not include viewing nurturing as a generalized form of sexuality.
• “—In the current debates within the feminist community and with the New Right, the issue is genital sexuality. The conference must address this issue.
• “—Why and how is human culture the agent of sexual repression?
• “—We need to include infant sexuality, which surely is continuous to some degree with adult experience.
• “—Observe the following contrast: feminists explain why women can’t get any pleasure in patriarchy, at the same time a popular literature proliferates instructing women on how to get sexual pleasure. Who is buying these books? Are women succeeding in obtaining pleasure? If so, why don’t we know much about their experience? On the other hand, who writes these books and, more generally, what does ‘popular culture’ represent?
• “—What is the relationship between lesbian separatists and the anti-pornography movement? Do both groups share a vision of a world made safe for women? Why was ‘violence against women’ (campaigns against rape, battering and incest) superseded by ‘women against pornography’ (campaigns against pornographic visual representation)?
• “—The anti-pornography movement poses a problem regarding male sexuality, in that it is presented as ‘naturally’ different from that of women. If so, what is to be done?
• “—Feminists’ criticism of psychoanalysis and psychodynamic explanations has led to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Feminists need to give more attention to psychological dynamics.
• “—What is the relationship between gender and sexuality? Why are women attracted to men? What creates attraction? Why women are attracted to women seems evident (Chodorow, Dinnerstein). What causes the exclusivity of attraction to men or women? Where does that leave bisexuals who are really violating a rigid dichotomy? Do sanctions against bisexuality (not only by moralists, but by those who find them politically disloyal) illustrate the point that taboo is always present in some form, even though it may move around from one area to another? Why do we in our categories always construct binary oppositions (female/not male)? (See Levi-Strauss, Mary Douglas.)
• “—The Women Against Pornography (WAP) Times Square tour featured a porno supermarket, the ultimate in capitalist production, display and consumption. What is the relationship between capitalism and sexuality? Pornography in past centuries had been the prerogative of the elite; now it is available to all for democratic consumption.
• “—Can one say anything good about capitalism? It permitted women, especially daughters, to get out of the family. It permitted the formation of sexual minorities.”

Return to figure

Figure 1.7a. In two comics panels, cartoon images of a Black and white woman under a bed hesitate to discuss sexuality. In the first panel, a historical photograph of enslaved people standing alongside white children of an enslaver family occupies the background. In the foreground, the Black woman looks cautiously at the white woman who looks back at her. In a dialogue box below the image, the Black woman wonders, “You, here with me?” while the white woman thinks, “You? Here? You?? Here??” In the second panel, the Black woman and white woman turn away from each other, their eyes shut in shame and disgust. In the background, we see portrait photographs of Black and white suffragettes, including Sojourner Truth. In the dialogue box below the image, the Black woman thinks, “(I know what she thinks . . . animal like, hot, can’t get enough. . . ,” while the white woman ponders, “(Uh-huh, I know she thinks I’m cold as ice, a nympho, don’t feel sex, tell my analyst about it . . .).”

Return to figure

Figure 1.7b. In two comics panels, cartoon images of a Black and white woman under a bed consider each other. In the first panel, the two women have their hands resting on their elbows as they look at each other with askance glances. A photograph from the 1968 Memphis sanitation strike splits in half in the background. The Black woman, glaring at the white woman, thinks, “(I know, she’s come to get my man!),” while the white woman considers, “(I wonder if she’s gay?).” In the second panel, the women get closer to each other and start to pull themselves out from under the bed; behind them photographic images of bottom halves of faces where a Black and white woman touch hands to their lips cant and recede in the background. The Black woman says out loud, “Well then, what do you want?” to which the white woman replies, “The same as you? I want to talk about sex.”

Return to figure

Figure 1.7c. In the first comics panel, a Black and white woman emerge from under the bed; a photograph recedes behind them. The Black woman says, “Talk isn’t cheap. Do you suppose we’re alone?” to which the white woman responds, “Perhaps we’d better lock the door . . .” In the second panel, many Black and white women also emerge from under the bed and join the two women who sit reclined on the bed. There is no background photograph behind them. The women look around at all of the women (at least seven figures, but likely more) coming out from under the bed. The dialogue box below them says, “Ready?” suggesting that all these women also want to join this conversation about sexuality.

Return to figure

Figure 1.8a. “Politically Correct, Politically Incorrect Sexuality” workshop description with postcards from leaders Dorothy Allison, Muriel Dimen, Mirtha N. Quintanales, and Joan Nestle. The first postcard shows Dorothy Gale from The Wizard of Oz in a gay bar and the caption on the other side reads, “Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore!” and is hand signed, “Dorothy.” The next postcard reads, “Hello New York City” and shows two stylish women. The reverse of the postcard, which is from Galas’ Exotic Novel Cards, has an unsigned handwritten message: “The best thing about sex—and New York—is the combination of innocence and sleaze.” The third postcard has a photograph of Joan Nestle smoking a pipe on the front and, on the reverse, is a quote from her article in Heresies #12 (1981), dubbed the Sex Issue: “Butch–fem was an erotic partnership, serving both as a conspicuous flag of rebellion and as an intimate exploration of women’s sexuality.” This quote is typewritten alongside a photograph of a woman who appears to also be Nestle. At the bottom of the photograph, Nestle adds the typewritten annotation, “I came out in the powerful Lesbian subculture of the 1950’s as a working class fem.” The workshop title, “POLITICALLY CORRECT, POLITICALLY INCORRECT SEXUALITY,” spans the page under these postcard images. Each woman then contributes a textual statement about their participation in the workshop. Dorothy Allison’s statement reads, “Dorothy Allison, currently a member of the editorial staff of Conditions, has interrupted her studies in anthropology at the Graduate Faculty of the New School For Social Research to concentrate on her writing. For the past three years she has been working on an ethnography of the female-dominant s/m subculture in New York City. Her work emphasizes both the political nature of commonly held concepts of gender and deviance, and the class bias which dominates sexual theory in both academic and feminist communities.” Muriel Dimen’s statement reads, “Is the idea of ‘Politically Correct / Politically Incorrect Sexuality’ valuable? Does it polarize or does it unify? Does it engender change, or does it doom us to repeat the subjective and historical past? Does it answer, or beg, the question of how the personal and political are connected? Feminism is a struggle for sexual liberation. I hope this workshop can, in confronting these questions, advance us along the road toward savoring the ambiguity at the heart of all sexual experience.” Mirtha N. Quintanales’s statement reads: “‘Society and the Bedroom: Third World Women’s Perspectives on the Politics of Sexuality.’ Paper by Mirtha N. Quintanales. A critique of current feminist debates regarding the nature of women’s sexuality, women’s sexual oppression and the meaning of women’s sexual freedom.” Joan Nestle’s statement reads, “The fem part of Butch–Fem sexuality—a dramatic monologue starting in the fifties and raising questions about the seventies. An exploration of fem lust, love and power.”

Under these statements, there’s a list of suggested readings:

1. “Acker, Kathy. Kathy Goes to Haiti.
2. Allison, Dorothy. ‘Erotic Blasphemy.’ The New York Native #26 (December 7, 1981).
3. Buffalo Lesbian Oral History Project. Work of Avra Michelson, Liz Kennedy and Madeline Davis. Working papers at Lesbian Herstory Archives. Will appear as a book.
4. Colette. Anything
5. Griffin, Susan. Woman and Nature.
6. Lorde, Audre. ‘Age, Race, Class and Sexuality: Women Re-defining Different.’ Lesbian-Feminist Clearinghouse, 1980.
7. Michelson, Avra. ‘Some Thoughts Towards Developing a Theory of Roles.’ Unpublished paper, 1979. At LHA.
8. Nestle, Joan. ‘Esther’s Story.’ Common Lives / Lesbian Lives #1 (1981), pp. 5–9.
9. Nestle, Joan. ‘My Mother Liked to Fuck.’ Womannews, February 1982.
10. Moraga, Cherríe and Gloria Anzaldúa, eds. This Bridge Called My Back. Massachusetts: Persephone Press, 1981.
11. Quintanales, Mirtha N. and Barbara Kerr. ‘On Difference and the Complexity of Desire.’ Conditions #8 (1982).
12. Smith, Barbara and Lorraine Bethel, eds. Conditions #5: Black Women’s Issue, 1979.
13. Rubin, Gayle, ‘The Leather Menace: Comments on Politics and S/M.’ Coming to Power. San Francisco: SAMOIS, 1981.”
14. Note that the Buffalo Lesbian Oral History Project was published as the Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold book by Routledge in 1993.

Return to figure

Figure 1.8b. “Concepts for a Radical Politics of Sex” workshop description with a postcard from workshop leader Gayle Rubin. As further described in the chapter, the postcard image is from Tom of Finland. The reverse contains a typewritten quotation from pp. 95–96 of Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality (1978): “. . . there is no single locus of great Refusal, no soul of revolt, source of all rebellions . . . Instead there is a plurality of resistances, each of them a special case: resistances that are possible, necessary, improbable; others that are spontaneous, savage, solitary, concerted, rampant, or violent . . . the points, knots, or focuses of resistance are spread over time and space at varying densities, at times mobilizing groups or individuals in a definitive way, inflaming certain points of the body, certain moments in life, certain types of behavior.” Near the right-hand corner, there’s a stamp that shows two bats and says, “Thought Crimes,” referencing George Orwell’s 1984. Under that, Gayle Rubin included her name as well as her academic affiliation: “Dept. of Anthropology, University of Michigan.” Under the postcards, which are presented diagonally on the page, is the description and suggested readings for the workshop as well as the workshop title, styled in capital letters. Rubin’s three-paragraph description starts, “The social relations of sexuality have always been as political as the social relations of class, race, gender, and ethnicity. However, at certain periods of time, in certain societies, the organization of sexual behavior is more actively contested, and in arenas more visible and centrally located. Since 1977, in the United States and in much of the western capitalist world, sexuality has become the locus of intense, focused, and bitter political struggle. A generation of political activists, veterans of the 1960’s and 1970’s, have been taken by surprise by attempts to reimpose tighter standards of sexual morality.” The second paragraph reads, “There has been a lack of conceptual tools with which to record, analyze, and position the events of the many discrete battles in the new sex wars. Many radicals have assumed that the body of feminist theory contained the necessary concepts. But feminist analysis was developed to describe and criticize oppression based on gender. While sexual experience is affected by the social relations of gender, sexuality is nevertheless not the same thing as gender. Just as gender oppression cannot be understood by an analysis of class relations, no matter how exhaustive, sexual oppression cannot be conceptualized by way of an understanding of gender relations, no matter how complete.” The third and final paragraph of the description reads, “We need to develop an analytical apparatus specifically engineered to see, describe, and criticize sexual oppression. This workshop will propose some elements of a radical political theory of sex. The agenda for building such a body of thought about sexuality would include the following items: (1) It is essential to learn, albeit critically, the existing body of knowledge about sexuality. Sexological work contains useful empirical information, as well as material from which some of the structures of erotic oppression can be inferred. (2) It is important to get rid of the idea of sex as an asocial or transhistorical biological entity. (3) The persistence of the western (and especially Anglo-American) idea of sex as a destructive force needs to be explored. (4) The idea that there is a single kind of ‘good’ sex that is ‘best’ for everyone needs to be criticized. (5) Above all, we need to understand that there is systematic and serious mistreatment of people based on sexual behavior. Oppression generated out of sexuality is just as real, unjust, and barbarous as are the oppressions of class, race, gender, and ethnicity.” The suggested readings are:

1. “Califia, Pat. Sapphistry. Tallahassee, Florida: Naiad Press, 1980.
2. English, Deirdre, Amber Hollibaugh and Gayle Rubin. ‘Talking Sex.’ Socialist Review, July–August 1981, pp. 43–62.
3. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon, 1978.
4. Gagnon, John. Human Sexualities. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1977.
5. Samois. Coming To Power. San Francisco, California: Samois, 1981.
6. Walkowitz, Judith. Prostitution and Victorian Society. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
7. Weeks, Jeffrey. Coming Out. New York: Quartet Books, 1977.”

Return to figure

Figure 1.9a. Six parallelogram-shaped photographs of pornographic sexual intimacy are arrayed in a vertical sequence along the left-hand side of a text essay. The essay text on the page, which is arranged in two columns to the right of the images, continues from the page before and continues onto the following page. The end of a paragraph that begins on the prior page reads: “. . . their neighborhoods to a vision of sex leading to Armageddon.” The first full paragraph on the page reads, “Pressure this past year from the motley collection of anti-porn groups in Indianapolis led Mayor Hudnut, a Presbyterian minister, to look for new ways to battle pornography. Obscenity laws hadn’t proved effective. Although the city’s zealous antivice prosecutor and police department had been willing to make the arrests, their cases repeatedly failed to persuade juries or were thrown out on technicalities. The zoning laws used to restrict ‘adult businesses’ had been tied up in court challenges as well (there is now a new zoning law, however). Mayor Hudnut finally received inspiration from an unlikely source—the progressive city of Minneapolis and radical feminists Dworkin and MacKinnon.” The next paragraph reads: “Dworkin and MacKinnon didn’t plan to write a new municipal law against pornography. In the fall of 1983, they were teaching a class at the University of Minnesota, presenting and developing their analysis of the role of pornography in the oppression of women. Each woman is known for her advocacy of one of the more extreme forms of anti-pornography feminism—the belief that sexually explicit images that subordinate or degrade women are singularly dangerous, more dangerous than nonsexual images of gross violence against women, more dangerous than advertising images of housewives as dingbats obsessed with getting men’s shirt collars clean. In fact, Dworkin and MacKinnon argue that pornography is at the root of virtually every form of exploitation and discrimination known to woman. Given these views, it’s not surprising that they would turn eventually to censorship—not censorship of violent and misogynistic images generally, but only of the sexually explicit images that cultural reactionaries have tried to outlaw for more than a century.” The next paragraph, which begins the second column, continues, “Dworkin and MacKinnon were invited to testify at a public hearing on a new zoning law (Minneapolis’s ‘adult business’ zoning law had been stricken in the courts also). When they appeared, they testified against the zoning strategy and offered a surprising new idea instead. Dworkin railed at the City Council, calling its members ‘cats and dogs’ for tolerating pornography; MacKinnon suggested a civil rights approach to eliminate, rather than merely regulate, pornography. City officials must have enjoyed the verbal abuse—they hired the women to write a new law and to conduct public hearings on its merits.” The next paragraph reads, “In Minneapolis, Dworkin/MacKinnon were an effective duo. Dworkin, a remarkably effective public speaker, whipped up emotion with sensational rhetoric. At one rally, she encouraged her followers to ‘swallow the vomit you feel at the thought of dealing with the city council and get this law in place. See that the silence of women is over, that we’re not down on our backs with our legs spread anymore.’ In contrast, MacKinnon, a professor of law, offered legalistic, seemingly rational, solutions to the sense of panic and doom evoked by Dworkin. In such a charged atmosphere, amid public demonstrations by anti-porn feminists—one young woman later set herself on fire to protest pornography—the law passed. It was vetoed by the mayor on constitutional grounds.” The next paragraph, which continues onto the following page, reads here, “Indianapolis, though, is not Minneapolis. When Mayor Hudnut heard of the Dworkin/MacKinnon bill at a Republican conference, he didn’t think of it as a measure to promote feminism, but as a weapon in the war on smut. He recruited City–County Councilmember Beulah Coughenour—an activist in the Stop ERA movement—to introduce the law locally. A Republican conservative, she is a member of the lobbying group Pro-America; she sent her children to Reverend Dixon’s Baptist Tem- . . .”

Return to figure

Figure 1.9b. Four parallelogram-shaped photographs of pornographic sexual intimacy are arrayed in a vertical sequence along the right-hand side of a text essay. The essay text is arranged in one column to the left of the images and contains three paragraphs. The first paragraph, which continues from the page before, reads, “. . . MacKinnon/Dworkin approach by asserting that pornography causes ‘sodomy’ and ‘destruction of the family unit,’ as well as crimes and immorality ‘inimical to the public good.’ In Washington, Pennsylvania senator Arlen Spector is broadening his congressional hearings on child pornography to investigate the effects of adult porn on women. President Reagan has also announced his intention to establish a federal commission to study pornography and offer legislative action. Imagine the administration that brought you the Family Protection Act introducing measures to control pornography. Imagine anti-pornography feminists helping to legitimate such a nightmare.” The next paragraph reads, “In Canada, the conservative Fraser Committee on Pornography and Prostitution has been holding hearings across the country, while some city governments have already been prosecuting prostitutes, rounding up gay men in bathhouses, and bringing charges against gay publications for obscenity. Canadian anti-porn feminists, joined by some American sympathizers, have testified in favor of more restrictions on sexual representation.” The final paragraph reads, “If the discussion of sexuality surrounding the anti-porn law in Indianapolis had resulted in increased awareness of feminist issues, in the increased visibility and social/political power of feminists, in the enhanced ability of feminists on both sides of the issue to define and control the terms of debate, perhaps it could have been useful. But it didn’t. Instead, Catharine MacKinnon joined with the right wing in invoking the power of the state against sexual representation. In so doing she and her supporters have helped spur a moral crusade that is already beyond the control of feminists—anti-porn or otherwise. And that moral crusade can only be dangerous to the interests of feminists everywhere, and to the future of women’s rights to free expression.”

Return to figure

Figure 1.10. An essay page spread that’s majority visual and combines images of women receiving sexual pleasure with wild animals and animal print, which is described in further depth in the chapter. The text begins on the page “. . . word for stimulation appropriate to a feminist consciousness, while ‘pornography’ was defined as exclusively male and therefore ‘naturally’ devoid of distinctions between sex and violence. The implications of this neat dichotomization and sex-typing of desire reflect, unchanged, the Victorian ideology of innate differences in the nature of male and female libido and fantasy. Men, we are to presume, because of their ‘excessive’ drive, prefer the hard edge of pornography. Women, less driven by the ‘beast,’ find erotica just their cup of tea.” The next paragraph continues, “Given this map of the sexual world, it was most distressing that during the slide show no erotica was ever presented, leaving the impression that erotica itself is very rare, or so mundane that we can trust our memories to recall its charge. This category of images, absent and therefore mute, was considered essentially unproblematic. It was good, healthy sexual imagery—the standard against which pornography and perhaps our own sexual lives were to be judged. The subjectivity involved in dividing explicitly sexual material into hard-core, soft-core, and erotic was never challenged by the audience.” The next paragraph reads, “What is defined as pornography and what is defined as erotica no doubt depends on personal taste, moral boundaries, sexual preferences, cultural and class biases. These definitions have contracted and expanded over time; advocates of one or the other form of imagery have switched camps or staunchly defended their own. Just as normative attitudes about sexual behavior, masculinity and femininity, and the social relations between the sexes have shifted, so have attitudes about sexually explicit material. There are no universal, unchanging criteria for drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable sexual images. As feminists, we might question the very impulse to make such a rigid separation, to let a small group of women dictate the boundaries of our morality and our pleasure.” The next paragraph continues, “No discussion immediately followed the slide show. Divided into groups, we walked down 42nd Street, entering the shops and arcades where films, magazines, and live sex shows are offered to the male public. For the price of a subway ride, I could actually watch for a few minutes, in my own private booth, the act that for all my years in the nuclear family was considered dirty, disgusting, and therefore taboo. If pornography is propaganda, and I do believe that it is, it is not promoting the violation and degradation of women, but traditional heterosexual intercourse and gender relations. (Perhaps they overlap, but that is another story.) What is missing is romance, shared social status, worries about contraception and shame. The short film I saw was not about love, but it was undeniably about sex.” The next paragraph reads, “I was grateful for this opportunity to demystify a territory that had been off-limits to me as a woman. I felt relieved about the dangers of pornography, since I had viewed little violence and a lot of consensual sex. However, I was more curious than ever about the meaning and function of such a zone dedicated to solitary sexual stimulation and voyeuristic fantasies. The secrecy surrounding sexual activity had been, for me, the price all women paid for femininity. We were not to speak of our desires, only answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ The tour evoked complex reactions, including envy, fear, and sexual arousal. The social and psychic repression of my female desire was giving way, ever so slightly, under the barrage of sexual imagery. I was a fascinated tourist in an exotic, erotic, and forbidden land.” The next paragraph reads, “The tour and slide show raised many questions for me. What is the underlying appeal of pornography? And what does the volume of business done on 42nd Street say about sexual relations? What can pornography tell us about the nature of desire and its relations to fantasy? Is pornography really any more dangerous to women than fashion magazines, television commercials, and cinema? Otherness in the guise of domestic purity and mindless submission seems more pernicious than Otherness in the guise of sexual activity. How, I wondered, can we begin to measure the effects of objectification in pornography when the Otherness ascribed to us at birth because we are not male already labels us as socially inferior? Such an ancient Otherness leaves little room for any avowal of our subjectivity. Moreover, reality and representation of reality are not the same. Objectification may be a function of representation. All the actors (male and female) in pornography are objectified. They do not speak. They are not individuals. They have no depth, no contours. They are the ritual performers of the culture’s sexual paradigms. They are not the real, but a commentary on the real.” The next paragraph, which continues onto the next page, begins, “What I felt after the tour and slide show was the need for discussion of our many . . .”

Return to figure

Figure 2.1. Densely illustrated eleven-panel comics page. In the first panel, the protagonist, Pudge, is visiting a doctor in the exam room who is unknowingly being robbed by cowboy-looking bandits. Drawn from Pudge’s perspective, the panel shows her looking at the bandits in the background, but also focusing on the doctor, who says, “Whatever it is, you can tell me. After all, I am a DOCTOR.” We see a halo atop the doctor’s head, and he’s pointing at the word DOCTOR, which is in all caps and the most prominent element in the panel. In the second panel, the doctor says, “Just tell me what the trouble is . . .” He’s interrupted by the bandit, who asks, “Hey man! Can I use yore pen?” Without skipping a beat or even realizing that there are intruders in the exam room, the doctor responds, “Why, yes.” In the third panel, we see Pudge batting her eyelashes and asking, “How wouldja like a home-cooked meal?” The doctor responds, “Wot the hell!” He is primarily incensed at realizing that the bandits have cleaned out the exam room, but he is also annoyed by Pudge. In the next panel, which begins the second row of panels, we see a small image of the doctor kicking Pudge out of the room (and out of the panel) and yelling at her, “Out! You’re no emergency case! Come back when there is something wrong, dammit!!” In the next panel, Pudge consults the Mission Bulletin and finds a poster for a self-help clinic. Meanwhile, a shady man asks her, “Hey, seester! Wanna lid?” She blithely responds, “No thanks. I got a hat.” In the next panel, we see a silhouette of Pudge entering a darkened room and asking “hello?” In the next panel, which begins the third row, we see Pudge from behind looking at another door and quizzically reacting as she hears voices from behind the door saying, “Oooh . . . what’s that? Aahh. It’s so pink! Move over. How about that?” In the next panel, Pudge sees a Black woman leading a slide show about the cervix to a group of women. The slide projected shows a close-up image of female anatomy with annotated text labeling the cervix and the cervical canal. She’s saying, “One major learning skill here is the ability to recognize what is normal and . . .” Someone in the crowd responds, “Anybody got a Dramamine?” while Pudge responds, “Biology! Yuk!” Following the slideshow, in the next panel, a woman hands Pudge a handbook and tells her, “Here’s a booklet with some details. Say, you’re just in time for self-examination. You’re gonna see your own cervix!” Pudge responds, “Urp!” In the next, large panel, which starts a new row and is two panels tall, we see Pudge and the other women looking at their own cervixes with the help of other women. A lot of commentary fills the room: “It’s an Esther Williams watercade!,” “Everybody got a mirror?,” “Mine’s pinker than yours,” “Hey, what’s that little bump?,” “That’s your clitoris, Alice,” “You may have trichomonas,” “Tricky who?,” “Oh yeah?,” “Everyone’s cervix is quite different, just like noses,” “Funny. . . yours doesn’t look Jewish,” “Wonder how Linda Lovelace got started?” For her part, Pudge adds, “Wow! Lookit that! Gee, it’s so big in there . . .” In the next panel, the leader of the demonstration says to the women, “Accepting the care of our own physical selves is the first step toward full self-determination. Only then can we . . .” However, Pudge doesn’t hear her as she is distracted by and drooling over cases of yogurt that she has spotted. As she’s about to take a bite in the next panel, a woman stops her, saying, “Hey, that’s for vaginas!” Pudge responds with a “huh?” as she’s about to put a spoonful of yogurt into her mouth.

Return to figure

Figure 2.2. Spiraled page layout shows Pudge attending multiple consciousness-raising sessions with a diverse group of women. The page is titled “The Group,” and the first panel shows women carrying Pudge off, while she verbally protests, saying, “ I don’t wanna be with a buncha girls!” while one of her friends replies, “You wanna be happy, Pudge—so try anything. It can’t hurt you to go to a new women’s group! You don’t have to stay, anyway.” The next, fairly wide panel shows Pudge entering the room, saying “hi!” as her Black friend tells her, “This is Joan, Pudge.” Joan, who’s holding a plate of cookies, directs her, “Hiya. Just have a seat.” We see the women talking to each other in pairs in the room, sharing their issues: “Raising a kid by yourself is a heavy trip. I hope for a support from the group in dealing . . . ,” “Uh huh. Uh huh,” “You? Stifled? I’m more oppressed than you! Why, I’ll . . . ,” “I love your sweater,” “I just came here ’cause my hubby felt I should have a night out with the girls.” At the center of the page is a spiral of panels that read from the inside out, beginning at a start arrow, which overlays a tiny panel of Pudge saying, “I feel fat.” Responding to her in the next panel, a woman says, “It’s the society here—everyone who isn’t beautifully perfect is ugly, and since no one’s perfect . . . ,” to which Pudge responds, “yeah.” In the next panel, we see the tops of three heads, and one woman says, “It’s gotten so I really hate men! I keep telling myself not to judge all guys by the ones I know, but what else do . . .” In the next panel, a woman asks whether a group member would like oolong or peppermint tea, while a woman shares, “When I was little, my dad was so proud that I could skeetshoot well. But when I turned 13—wow! All of sudden I’m supposed to be Elizabeth Taylor.” In the next tiny panel, mostly hidden by the prior panel, we just see a snippet of dialogue, “I did it! I stood up and there he.” In the following panel, we see two women’s faces and one of them says, “If I decide something, he says I’m bossy. If I just let him decide, then he says I’m irresponsible . . .” In the next panel, a woman says, “I always wanted to be a boy ’cause they could do things. Girls stayed home.” In the next panel, a woman says in response to another woman, “You always felt scrawny? They useta call me ‘Bones Bess.’” In the next panel, a women says, “Even though we sorta thought we had it all together, I only felt loved when he pushed me around, was tough. Well, then I’d feel needed, but so guilty, and now I really wonder . . .” In the next tiny panel, a partially visible woman’s face laments, “All we talk about is sex!” In the next panel, a teary woman admits, “Every time I try to do anything on my own, I get so scared that I shake all over. My teeth start to chatter. No kidding.” In the next panel, Pudge says, “But it doesn’t seem to have worked out very well. Sure, I’m happier here in San Francisco, but there’s . . . I don’t know . . .” In the next panel, Pudge’s friend who brought her to the meeting says, with a tear in her eye, “We’ve been cheated! They get all the options and we must choose one role—good ole wifeandmother. Sure, the role can have additions: wifeandmother plus typist plus writer, etc. However, all must first . . .” In the next panel, a woman says, “the guys have to fit the stereotypes too. If a man isn’t John Wayne—forget it! Any boy who liked to play the violin . . .” A woman responds, “Look men can be bachelors without having to . . .” In the next panel, a woman says, “I know it isn’t at all ‘in’ but . . . well . . . I like to make beds, goddammit!” In the next panel, Pudge complains, “Gee, I never knew how screwed up everybody is. I’m not the only one! But, if I could just get laid . . .” A woman responds, “Hah! Don’t sweat it, Pudge. My first was at 28 . . .” Pudge exclaims with her mouth open, “28!!” In the next panel, a woman says, “It was hard at first, but he really wants to deal with it and together it’s easier—now that we both know how important it is. I feel like a huge weight is off my neck for the first time. He really cares . . . committed and that makes all the . . .” to which another woman responds, “Wow! Great!” In the next panel, a woman says, “Why should I feel guilty about not having a job? Shit! The point is that I be free to . . .” In the next panel, a woman says, “Every time I do anything wrong, no matter what it is—I feel fat! Not dumb, dense, or silly. Just fat. Bulging, bloated, obese.” Under this panel, there’s text annotating, “the weeks go on . . .” At the bottom of the page, there are three more panels outside the spiral. In the first, a woman preparing the refreshments says to Pudge, “I never knew how alike we all are—but different. Sorta the same but not really . . . similar but varied . . . you know, Pudge, you’re so kind. Always helping with refreshments.” Pudge, eating a few refreshments off a plate, agrees, “Yeah, kind.” In the next panel, a text box says, “Meanwhile, on Mars,” and we see Martians analyzing Pudge’s group and wondering, “What are these new patterns? You recall on Vega 3 when the Eglifs began fromilching? Oh, yes. I understand. Fascinating.” The next and final panel on the page cuts back to the group where someone proclaims to all, “We seem hung up on our bodies—how fat we were/are, how flatchested, hippy, and so on.” Another woman proposes, “Other groups have tried nude session.” The other women respond, “Sounds weird to me . . . ,” “No clothes at all, huh?,” “We’ve rapped about it before, but I don’t know . . . ,” “Our beach house is perfect! An enclosed backyard and . . .”

Return to figure

Figure 2.3. Another spiraled page layout of a consciousness-raising session that Pudge attends where the women discuss their anger. This page’s spiral goes outside inward and starts at the top of the page. The Black woman who introduced Pudge to the group begins, “Sometimes I get so angry over all this I can’t stand it! It’s all so god damn hard!” Another woman, Jane, says, “sometimes, even without my realizing it, I’ve gotten furious, and anger bursts out—surprising even me . . .” Pudge agrees, “Yeah! Yeah!” In the third panel, a cat-eye-glassed woman says, “yeah, just lately I’ve started blowing up! There’s this ‘snap’ in my head and I just go blam! I don’t understand it at all . . .” Pudge imagines a heart with a dagger in it and asks, “Could be a lotta things. When exactly does this ‘snap’ occur?” In the next panel, the woman continues, “. . . So then they kicked me out of Taurus Prod. House!” Pudge responds, “Sounds like you’ve taken enough of being pushed around—finally starting to stand up for yourself.” In the next panel, another woman in a turtleneck says, “Whenever I try to be forceful and stand up for my self, I burst into tears!” Another off-panel woman offers “more tea?” while another responds, “Me too. Then they don’t take you seriously.” In the next panel, two women continue the discussion. One says, “I can never yell or stomp or anything. It just doesn’t occur to me.” The other woman asks her, “But how do you feel after a really bad day?” She responds, “Hmm. My teeth ache.” In the next panel, a woman shakes her fist and says, “Ha! I’ve been blowing my cork all my life! When I was 6 and got into a fight at school and hit this kid who pushed me—they sent me to a psychiatrist!” A woman off-panel asks, “Did ya win the fight?” In the next panel, a woman says, “Well, it’s difficult—if you hold in all the anger, it warps your guts. But if you go around blowing off, then you’re just dismissed as a hysterical bitch, a hothead who can’t . . .” Pudge’s friend replies, “Well, there’s bound to be some place inbetween. After all, you don’t . . .” In the next panel, which is mostly behind the previous panel, a woman says, “But I don’t want to frighten them, yet kids always sense . . .” In the next panel, Jane says, “. . . frustrated at times, with all . . . aw! The brownies are all gone.” She stares at an empty plate. In the next panel, at the very center of the spiral, another woman looks at the plate and asks, “Hey, what happened to the goodies? I didn’t even get one . . .” Pudge looks shifty. An annotation direct us “to bottom of the page,” where the action continues in three panels. The women have discovered that Pudge has been encouraging their anger to distract them as she ate all the cookies. They say, “ppudgee . . .” and “grr” at her while she sheepishly affirms, “Hey, you’re doin’ a good job of looking mad.” In the next panel, a woman says, “After all the trouble I went . . .” while Jane saves her by saying, “Why don’t I give you a ride home? Now!” Pudge says, “golly, I just didn’t notice I . . .” In the final panel, women are shaking their fist and throwing a mug at the departing Volkswagen bug. From inside the car, Pudge says, “Gee, Jane, looks like we’re getting in touch with our anger better . . .” and Jane responds, “You could say that . . .” The bottom of the panel says “End,” denoting the end of this vignette in the comic.

Return to figure

Figure 2.4. In this comics page, Jane gives Pudge an erotic massage, which intensifies until Pudge orgasms, which is represented in psychedelic imagery. In the first panel, Jane tells Pudge, “This is a special type of massage oil—essence of jasmine and rose musk.” Jane is in a massage outfit while Pudge is lying naked face down in her bed. In the next panel, we see Pudge in close-up with Jane’s hands on her shoulders. Pudge says, “Hmmm . . . nice oil. Sniff! Reminds me of . . . popcorn.” She’s feeling pulses and tingles and her eyes are filled with the word bliss. In the next panel, which begins the second row, Jane instructs Pudge, “just roll over,” while Pudge glows and has her tongue out in pleasure. In the next panel, Jane is massaging around Pudge’s breasts, making a kitchy kitchy noise while Pudge glows, throbs, and smiles. In the next row of panels, we watch Pudge’s orgasms, hearing an OOOOOOOOOOHHHHH across the first two panels as we see a tingle that begins in Pudge’s vulva area move as a fire from her loins upward and then in a final panel, Pudge’s hair stands on end and the word tilt fills both her eyes as her tongue hangs out of her mouth. In the last row of panels, Jane asks her, “Well, lil’ dumpling—how do you feel?” Pudge responds, “Absolutely, totally completely and entirely yummy.” In the last panel, Pudge slips off the bed with a splot, saying, “I think I . . . oops!” Jane replies, “Oh . . . I’d better use less oil next time.”

Return to figure

Figure 2.5. On this final page of Pudge #3, Pudge imagines her future on a page titled “After all, tomorrow is another . . .” In the first panel, a housemate comes to check on Pudge who’s tucked into bed with a cat. The housemate asks, “O.k. you skipped supper twice! What’s up, kid?” She replies, “Well . . . uh . . . hanging off the roof got me to wondering . . . I realized how many things I’ve never done . . . I’m just not going anywhere . . . I’m . . . sniff . . . really not much of anyone at all . . . no good . . .” In the second panel, the housemate comes closer to comfort her, saying, “Hey, hey. You just had a lil’ glimpse of eternity, Pudge! Don’t run yo’self down. You’ve come a long way and you’ve got a long way to go.” In the next panel, Pudge puts her glasses back on and looks more hopefully to her housemate, saying, “Well . . . I guess there’s nothing keeping me from trying some new . . . say I can try anything I want! Wow! Anything . . . ya know, I’ve have never even been to Disneyland!” The housemate responds, “No kidding . . .” This revelation sets off a montage imagination sequence of six circular panels labeled “I can be anything at all!!” At the bottom of the page, Pudge is looking up at these possibilities with yin and yang figures in her glasses and saying, “I am gonna get it all together! I can do it!” In the first circle, we see Pudge on a corporate jet, making plans on a phone, writing on a notepad, and having an assistant serve her. She says, “Book the sons of the Grateful Dead Tues.” while her assistant tells her, “Brazil on line 2.” In the second circle, Pudge assists a female president, saying, “. . . And sign here too. You see the king of Wadoogo at 4:30. Then . . .” In the next circle, we see Pudge in an astronaut suit out in space and the Martians respond, “Well, well. Look who’s here!” In the fourth circle, which begins a second row of circles, Pudge looks glamorous as she accepts an Oscar and says, “I’d also like to thank my director, S. Legree.” In the fifth panel, Pudge is a construction worker, blissfully jackhammering away while eating a sandwich while one male coworker says to another, “That’s how she digs twice our daily quota.” In the sixth panel, Pudge negotiates a stock deal on a phone while she holds down one side of the see-saw for her three kids, telling her business partner, “Sell when copper hits 11 ½,” while she tells her kids, “Don’t wiggle, junior!” After she imagines all of these possibilities, she hurries to the fridge and says, “Right after a lil’ ole snack . . .” By her foot, the words “the end” announce the end of the narrative.

Return to figure

Figure 2.7. In this vignette titled “Insomnia I,” Frieda, the protagonist, is suffering from insomnia and searches for something to read to help her sleep before considering the source of her sleeplessness. The first panel is all black but interrupted by a click of switching on the light as Frieda sighs in her thoughts. In the second panel, as the lamp behind her illuminates the room, she thinks, “I just can’t get to sleep—1:30—maybe if I do some reading—” In the next panel, she’s staring at her bookcase and thinking, “This place looks like the warehouse of the amalgamated women’s liberation corporation! I should open my own library!” In the next panel, which begins a new row, she throws a book over her shoulder and thinks, “I don’t want to read any feminist rhetoric right now—don’t I have any novels? (Non feminist ones?) No non-feminist magazines?” In the next panel, she surveys her bookshelf more closely, thinking, “No science fiction? No nature books? No reader’s digest?” In the next panel, she holds a book and thinks, “Ah! A copy of ‘Crime and Punishment’ from high school—I used to really be into long Russian novels—” In the next panel, which begins a new row, Frieda gets back into bed and starts the book, thinking, “I used to be—it’s like reading molasses!” In the next panel, she stares directly at the reader in close-up and thinks, “I used to not have so much trouble sleeping—seems I have so much on my mind—and so many things to do—this book is like a trip to my ‘pre-consciousness’ days—yech!” In the next panel, lying in bed with the book, Frieda thinks, “Nothing like a boring book as a sleep-inducer—cheap—safe—definitely not habit-forming . . . Mmm.” In the next panel, which begins the final row, Frieda is shocked awake by a dream of kissing Doris, which we see visually portrayed as a popped thought bubble. Her heart is thumping, and she is trembling and gasping while she thinks, “Not again! I gotta stop havin’ those dreams!” In the next panel, her mind is full of thoughts that crowd her and fill most of the panel: “Am I O.D.’ing on feminism? Did meeting Doris wake something that was asleep in my psyche . . . well, not totally asleep . . . ! Sigh! I do love women—that’s everything I believe in . . . I thought I was open-minded—why, then, can’t I accept my own feelings? Hell! Am I carrying it to its logical conclusion? I don’t think my restrictive Catholic upbringing can handle this! But, why not—? I wish I had someone to talk to right now . . .” In the final panel, she thinks a sigh as she turns off the light and the room and panel are in darkness once more.

Return to figure

Figure 2.8. In a vignette titled “Insomnia II,” Frieda worried over her tight budget and life choices while she’s unable to fall asleep. In the first panel, while resting her head in her hand, she thinks, “Thank goddess Edie invited me to dinner tonight—I had been planning on a peanut-butter sandwich . . . what happened to my money . . . ?” In the second panel, she’s got her clenched fist supporting her chin as she mentally calculates, “20 hrs/wk. @ $2.10 (not countin’ Uncle Sam’s share) = $42/wk or about $168/month . . .” In the third panel, she sits up in bed and looks at her art on the wall while she continues mentally tabulating, “$90 = rent; garbage/gas/eleck/phone = average $15; food I figured at $45—that’s $150 . . .” In the next panel, which starts a new row, we see the side of her face and her furrowed brow as she thinks, “busfare—$1.25/week to work (Doris brings me home)—and $1-/week for the 2 nights I have my class—times four weeks is $9—” In the next panel, she holds her midsection as she thinks, “—leaves me $9-/month for luxuries—like books, clothes, health care, doin’ the laundry, toilet paper an’ once-a-month-necessities . . . damn cramps!” In the next panel, her face is again in close-up as she wonders, “If I worked full time I’d have to quit workin’ mornings at the women’s center—and’ if I got a night job in addition I’d have to drop my C.R. group, class, an’ women’s center meetings—(No wonder I’m tired all the time) . . . An’ I’m not giving up my weekends—even an activist needs time to rest—time to herself—an’ time to do the laundry (an’ cleaning!)” The next panel, which begins a new row, is just text representing her thoughts, filling the whole panel: “I’d drop that stupid job in a minute—but all my other jobs have been just as dull—at least now I’m getting’ some fresh air—I don’t have time to continue pursuing my degree—I don’t want to, anyhow, besides, I can’t afford it. I really love working at the women’s center—maybe one day it’ll be a civil service job—maybe one day I’ll get paid something for all the time I put in at that place . . .” In the next panel, we see Frieda in bed staring out into the distance as she thinks, “I’m competing for jobs with the high school students—what sort of career am I qualified for after givin’ the best years of my life to my sisters . . .” In the next panel, she is again in close-up as she looks out at the reader with concern while she thinks, “—Open a bookstore? Write another bookful of rhetoric? Wonder if anybody, anywhere, is makin’ any money off of the movement—? The only thing worse than being a burned-out feminist is being a poor one.” In the next panel, which starts the final row on the page, she thinks, “And besides, Carrie Chapman ran away—or something happened to her . . . well, at least I don’t have to buy catfood anymore. Hope she’s okay—” In the next panel, she turns to her side, so we see her from the back as she thinks, “I feel really lousy—hope it’s just anxiety—all I need right now is medical costs . . . wish there was someone here right now . . . it’s almost 3 am . . .” In the final panel, a man at a gas station says to her, “You youngsters don’t know how easy you have it! When I was you age during the Depression . . .” and she responds, “Uh huh . . .”

Return to figure

Figure 2.9. This page is a section of a scene wherein Frieda leads her feminist group in a march, which goes well until anti-feminist women counter protestors start to physically attack them. In the first panel, Frieda is labeled as guileless as she talks to a reporter covering the march who is scribbling down what she says, “A day of unity for all women . . . a chance to get together an’ draw strength an’ support from one another . . .” In the next panel, she’s giving her name to the reporter, “Freida Phelps—P-H-E-L . . .” as a fellow activist alerts her, “Hey, Frieda—trouble!” In the next panel, this woman catches her up on the situation, telling her, “we’re being picketed by protesters—one of those male-supremacy, totalled women groups!” Frieda replies, “So much for being nonpolitical! Look! The TV crews are filming them!” In front of them is a group of women, and you can read two of their signs, which say, “save our men” and “woman’s place is in the home!” In the next panel, which begins a new row, Frieda rallies the troops, saying, “Let’s get marching! They’re not gonna change our minds any!” Her friends agree: “Yea!” “Rite on!” In the next panel, the march is going well, and a text box says, “score one for unity!” as a smiling Frieda says, “It’s beautiful! It’s all beautiful and perfect!” In the next panel, she smiles and says to the crowd, “. . . And we’re sisters now, an’ we gotta help each other grow! Now, let’s hear some fine music from our sisters . . .” In the next panel, which begins a new row, Frieda is floating almost above the crowd, thinking, “Wow, what a trip what a trip what a trip.” The next panel shows the reactions of her fellow activists, who think, “Frieda’s been working so hard lately—I’m . . . glad to see her so happy!” and “Happy? She’s positively orgasmic!” In the next panel, Frieda kneels down to a young girl and says, “Hey, little sister, come listen to the music—” The unfriendly girl replies, “You’re not my sister, you . . . wimmen’s libber!” Off-panel her mother says, “Stay away from my little girl!” In the next panel, which starts the final row of panels on the page, the mother whaps Frieda with her sign, which reads woman’s place is home while Frieda says, “How can you carry that sign? Your daughter’s future is before her—how can you chain her to a kitchen?” In the next panel, Frieda continues, “Sister, has the man made you hate yourself so much that you’d turn against your own sister who loves you and wants . . .” The woman jabs her with the sign and says, “Shudup, bitch!” In the next and final panel on the page, a bruised Frieda grabs the sign and says, “Gimme that before you kill somebody with it—like me!” The counter protestor responds, “Help!” Her friends hear her cry and say, “Hey, Margie’s in trouble!”

Return to figure

Figure 2.10. At the women’s center, two women have locked Doris, a butch lesbian, in a closet, which ultimately results in Frieda, her lover, quitting her job at the center and discussing her sexuality. In the first panel, the two women worry, “Think she got on film?” and “Don’t think so . . . who the hell is she?” while Doris pounds on the closet door and yells, “Hey—where am I?” In the next panel, the women realize, “I don’t think we’re gonna keep her in!” as Doris pounds loudly on the door and yells, “It is a closet! Hey, this isn’t funny! #@#%!?@” In the background, another woman asks, “What’s going on in there?” and another replies, “Nothing!” In the third panel, a woman on the phone says, “Someone named Frieda called—she wants to know ‘did Doris get in okay’ and ‘how come some guy answered the phone?’” The one woman responds, “Tell her to get her ass down here right now!!” while the other says, “They’re recording, y’know . . .” In the next panel, which begins a new row, one woman says, “You must be Doris—” as Doris exits the closet and affirms, “Damn right!” At that moment, Frieda arrives and calls out, “Doris!” from off panel. The next panel has a text box saying “Frieda’s told everything” and under it one woman is explaining, “—And when Doris came in, we sorta freaked . . .” while Doris responds, “—Afraid I’d ruin your image, huh?” In the third panel, another woman says, “Sorry, Frieda—guess we’re not as open-minded as we thought—!” and Frieda responds, “I understand—look I don’t know quite how to say this . . . but I’m gonna have to quit my work here . . . an’ our group—for a while . . .” In the next panel, which begins a new row, Frieda is leaving the women’s center behind and exiting with Doris as she says, “. . . An’ get in touch with where I’m really at—I need a lot of support right now, and . . . well, frankly, my lesbian sisters are more able to give me that. I’ll call you when I’m in a better place—goodbye sisters—” They say, “See you—” In the next panel, Frieda is walking along with Doris, saying, “Coming out was one of the most important things I’ve done—and it could be really beautiful—if it weren’t for all these ugly feelings—you know—directed at me . . . even from my feminist sisters—I just want to live in the way that lets me be—is that too much?” In the background, a woman says, “Look—it’s what’s-er-name the queer—!” and Doris thinks, “What can I say?” In the next panel, we see Doris and Frieda closer up as Doris says, “I know things aren’t easy—but it will be beautiful—believe me!” Frieda replies, “Doris—this might sound—Doris, you’re—the finest thing that has ever happened to me—” In the next panel, which begins the final row on the page, they embrace, as Frieda says, “. . . An’ we’ll come through! All of us—” Doris responds, “I love you—but I know you knew that—” In the background, two people sneer, “Lookit—!” and “Disgustin’!” In the next panel, text along the top lets us know this is “later on,” a friend joins Frieda and Doris and says, “Not too long ago I didn’t think there were this many lesbians in the whole world!” Frieda replies, “Glad we came to this meeting—I’ve gotten so much strength from the support of my sisters . . .” In the final panel on the page, a woman asks, “If you’re really a sister, how come your hair’s so long?” Frieda, looking at her friend, says, “But then most of it’s gonna have to come from . . . me!” to which her friend replies, “That’s where it’s been all along!”

Return to figure

Figure 2.11. In the final page of Lee Marrs’s comic for Gay Comix #1, Susan confesses her love for Carol and is met with equal enthusiasm; the ensuing panels show the women negotiating a happy life together. In the first panel Susan shouts out, “Carol, I-I love you!” and Carol responds in a semi-wordless daze, only saying, “Z-Z . . . Wha?” In the next panel Susan trembles in terror, relief, panic, and hope as Carol looks askance and says, “Oh.” In the first panel of the next row, Carol tackles Susan in a hug, saying, “Gee, I think you’re yummy too! Thought you’d never say something! Boy, I even tried to send you a telegram! Wow! I was so afraid! Thought I’d misread the signs! You mean more to me than any . . .” In the next panel, a text box representing Susan’s voice recounts, “True love at last! Moon, June, spoon! It was wonderful—so, like passion swept fools we dashed romantically into co-habitation . . . bliss.” The two women are standing in front of a sun setting over the water while asking and answering domestic questions of each other with love in their eyes: “Can you repair cars?” “Yes! Can you do tax accounting?” “Yes! Do you like showers?” “No. Baths. Can you cook, babe?” “Yes. Badly. Do you hang clothes up or pile ’em?” “Pile.” In the next panel, which begins a new row, we see the women in shadowy silhouette through the window as the narratorial box continues, “Of course, no life is all peaches and grapenuts. My family disowned me. And we do have our fights . . .” Carol is saying, “On the floor! In the sink! On the stove! Coffee grounds every where but the trash, you slob!” In the next panel, the narratorial box continues, “Delightfully, Carol’s family accepts us and we’re always asked over for the holidays. But, since Carol is so ‘feminine,’ ignorance of gay behavior does cause problems with Uncle Harry . . .” We see Uncle Harry whap Susan on the back as she almost spits out her coffee and he says to her, “Here, have a cigar! Didya catch that Lakers game Saturday?” In the next and final panel, which occupies the whole row, we see the two women knitting while sitting in rocking chairs on their front porch with their cat. The narratorial box says, “Life may not be perfect, but my final breakthrough to assertiveness has made me a part of the crowd at last. A crowd of two.” Susan asks, “Wanna go to Fred’s party Friday or catch the Duck’s Breath Mystery Theater? I wonder if we should use the tax refund for the camping trip or repairing the toilet. That noise . . .” Susan responds, “Oh, I dunno. I like Fred but Lulu is a pain. However, we could see Duck’s Breath on Sat. Oh, let’s go camping! Um . . . naw, all that plumbing will go pretty soon . . . maybe . . .”

Return to figure

Figure 2.12. On the final page of Roberta Gregory’s comic for Gay Comix #1, following an impromptu reunion of three women, each woman thinks about her own life path and improvements she wants to make. In the first panel, Nina arrives and Marta greets her, saying, “Hey, Nina! It looks like the six-year reunion of the ‘Women Today’ class!” Liz asks, “. . . Nina? Oh . . . yeah—” Nina says, “Hi—meet Robyn!” introducing them to her female partner. In the second panel, Liz asks Nina, “You were the one who couldn’t wait to get into the bars! Aren’t you glad there’s some alternatives?” Nina responds, “Oh yeah—I wouldn’t have missed this concert for the world!” In the next panel, which begins a new row, Nina and Robyn embrace. Robyn says, “Well, I let you skip your AA meeting tonight, but you gotta go tomorrow, now! Hear me?” Nina agrees, “Okay, sugar!” In the next panel, we see all of the women as they say their goodbyes to each other. Marta says, “Hey, it was nice seeing you all again . . . call sometime, okay?” Liz says, “You think you’ll never see a sister again, and there she is, one day! That’s sisterhood! . . . Remember that word?” Nina says, “At the risk of sounding P.I. (politically incorrect), I guess we’ve come a long way!” In the next panel, which begins the final row on the page, Marta smiles and looks towards the reader as she navigates the parking lot with her kids. She thinks, “Looks like Liz and Nina are really getting their shit together! Well, it might take me a little longer, but I’m going to be the person I’ve always wanted to be, too! Just wait and see!” In the next panel, Liz puts her motorcycle helmet on and thinks, “Looks like Marta and Nina are really getting their shit together! Well, it might take me a little bit longer, but I’m going to be the person I’ve always wanted to be, too! Just wait and see!” In the final panel, Nina walks alongside Robyn and thinks, “Looks like Marta and Liz are really getting their shit together! Well, it might take me a little bit longer, but I’m going to be the person I’ve always wanted to be, too! Just wait and see!”

Return to figure

Figure 3.1. In March 2006, Alison Bechdel annotates a map of North America, marking the cities where she is publishing her comic (in a circle with a dot) and those where she would like to be publishing (in a yellow highlighted circle). The thirty-five cities where she is currently publishing are noted on the map as Vancouver (Xtra West); Portland, Oregon (Just Out); San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and Northern California (L-Word, Sonoma Cty, Bay Times); Los Angeles (Lesbian News, marked as LN); Boise (Diversity); Las Vegas (Q Vegas); Fort Collins, Colorado (Weird Sisters); Wichita (Liberty Press, marked as LP); Las Cruces (TNH); Dallas (Dallas Voice); Houston (Houston Voice, marked as HoVo); Oklahoma City (Gayly Oklahoman); Waterloo, Iowa (Accessline); Ottawa (Capital Xtra); Chicago (Windy City Times); Detroit (Between the Lines marked as BTL); Toronto (Xtra); Cleveland (Gay People’s Chronicle, marked as GPC and Funny Times); Nashville (Out & About); Ithaca, New York (Buzz); Burlington, Vermont (Seven Days, Out in the Mountains); Boston (Bay Windows); Albany, New York (Inside Out); New York (NY Blade); Philadelphia (Philadelphia Gay News, Bryn Mawr); Washington, DC (Washington Blade); Raleigh, North Carolina (Front Page); Atlanta (Southern Voice); Orlando (Watermark); Miami and Fort Lauderdale (Express). She also notes her national publications: Lesbian Connection, Funny Times, off our backs. The fifteen cities where she wants to be publishing are Seattle, Sacramento, San Diego, Anchorage, Honolulu, Salt Lake City, Phoenix/Tucson, Denver, Albuquerque, Twin Cities, Madison/Milwaukee, St. Louis, Little Rock, Northampton, and Pittsburgh.

Return to figure

Figure 3.2. A newspaper page spread with news briefs on the left page and community announcements and ads, including a cartoon advertisement, on the right page. The cartoon advertisement in the upper right corner, drawn by Alison Bechdel, is for free WomaNews Workshops, where women can “learn practical skills.” All image and text (which is handwritten) is composed by Bechdel. Two workshops are offered. The editing/proofreading workshop takes place on Saturday, March 31, from 12pm to 5pm and the description asks, “Tired of long-winded prose? Learn the fine arts of deletion, insertion and transposition.” The layout/pasteup workshop takes place on Saturday, April 28, from 12pm to 5pm and the description promises, “Pasteup is not as hard as it seems. Learn the fundamentals of wielding an X-acto knife, sizing photographs and using a T-square. No skills needed.” Two cartoon images, described in the chapter, sit alongside the workshop descriptions. General information about location is listed under the workshops: “All women welcome. Call to register—989–7963. 325 Spring St, RM 310. Wheelchair accessible.” The other advertisements arrayed on the right-hand page under the workshops include those for a feminist psychotherapist; the New York Center for Eating Disorders; Superrific Connections Ltd. for “singles of all lifestyles”; the Woman’s Newspaper of Princeton; Connexions for Global Lesbianism 2 issue; Frank C. David, Inc. Funeral Home; massage, shiatsu, energy balancing; Debbie Fier innovative pianist/vocalist and her upcoming shows; W.B.A.I. listener-supported noncommercial radio.

Return to figure

Figure 3.4. Nine panel Dykes to Watch Out For comic titled “Literary Dykes to Watch Out For: A Heloise C. Bland Lecture” where Bechdel catalogs and jokes about six types of lesbians who write, depicting each in hyperbolic drawings and textual description. The first panel includes the title. The second title is textual, introducing the premise of the comic: “The following guide attempts to provide a brief psychological catalogue of the more common types of lesbians who write . . .” In the third panel, we meet “the Tequila Nocturnalia [who] writes only at night . . . ,” who is seen smoking and struggling to write on a desk strewn with alcohol and an ash tray full of cigarette butts in an unkempt room. In the fourth panel, we meet “the Analus Perfectus [who] writes only in the morning.” She’s in overalls with a striped top and diligently types at the typewriter while enjoying non-caffeinated tea as the sun rises outside of her window. In the fifth panel, we see “Floppius Discus [who] is only able to function creatively while using her word processor.” She’s a Black woman listening to a “Walkperson” and leaning forward as she composes on a computer. In the sixth panel, which begins the second row of the comic, we meet “Ingestus Poeticus [who] is chiefly distinguished by her need for a constant flow of inspiration . . .” She’s bespectacled, her one hand grasping a sandwich and the other holding a beverage. We also see an apple, M&Ms, a pie, milk, and takeout strewn across the table and crowding and placed on top of her writing, a dictionary, and a stack of books. In the seventh panel, we meet “Scriptus Interruptus who depends on the chance, erratic flash of illumination.” She’s naked and in bed with her partner who looks annoyed as she furiously scribbles on a notepad rather than attending to her partner. Their black cat is in the background. The eighth panel is again text only: “However, the most prevalent type of lesbian writer bears the curious distinction of miraculously managing to never actually write at all!!!” The ninth and final panel introduces us to “Procrastinatoria Inertia, who frequents a variety of habitats in the evasive pursuit of her muse.” We see her wearing a WomaNews T-shirt and holding a beer as she rambles bar-side to disinterested patrons, “. . . it starts out with my childhood in Connecticut.”

Return to figure

Figure 3.5. Eight streamlined panels of Dykes to Watch Out For “Literary Dykes to Watch Out For: A Heloise C. Bland Lecture” as it appeared in the first DTWOF published by Firebrand Books in 1986. The comic catalogs and jokes about six types of lesbians who write, depicting them in hyperbolic drawings and textual description. The first panel contains the title “Literary Dykes to Watch Out For: A Heloise C. Bland Lecture.” Below this panel, we see “Floppius Discus [who] is able to function creatively only while using her Word Processor.” We see a Black woman wearing headphones and listening to a “Walkperson” while typing on the computer. Above two paired panels, we read, “The following guide attempts to provide a psychological catalogue of the more common types of lesbians who write.” Under this, we are introduced to “the Tequila Nocturnalia [who] writes only at night . . .” and “the Analus Perfectus [who] writes only in the morning.” The two characters are facing each other, and their representations are fairly similar to the earlier version of the comic. Tequila Nocturnalia is still smoking and working on writing at night while crumpled sheets of paper and spilled beverages fill the table in her rundown dwelling. Analus Perfectus is still in overalls but with a polka dot collared shirt and she calmly types at the typewriter with a cup of tea as the sun rises outside of her window. On the next page, we are introduced in the first panel to “Ingestis Poetica [who] is chiefly distinguished by her need for a constant flow of inspiration . . .” She’s eating a piece of pie while composing, and we see M&Ms, milk, and takeout to her right on the table. In the next panel, we meet “Scriptus Interruptus, who depends on the chance, erratic flash of illumination.” We see her sprawled across her lover on the bed and writing, while her ignored lover looks annoyed and the black cat stalks away in the background. In the next panel, which begins the second row on this page, there’s a full-text panel: “However, the most prevalent type of lesbian writer has the curious distinction of miraculously managing to never actually write at all!!” In the last panel, we meet “Procrastinatoria Inertia, who frequents a variety of habitats in the evasive pursuit of her muse.” We see a woman in a white T-shirt clutching a beer and saying, “. . . It starts out with my childhood in Connecticut . . .” as fellow bar patrons ignore or are exasperated by her.

Return to figure

Figure 3.6. Event advertisement that includes a cartoon drawing of five women high-kicking together below stylized text meant to look like an illuminated sign. All image and text (which is handwritten) is composed by Bechdel. The event is the “WomaNews 5^th Anniversary Variety Show!” Variety Show is styled as if it’s surrounded by lights and illuminated. Under that, we see the image of the five women high-kicking together, as described in the chapter. Under the image, “Singers! Dancers! Musicians! Surprises!” describe the event. Then there’s the event information: “Friday, Dec. 14 at 8:00 PM at P.S. 41 11th St. at 6th Ave. $5 more if/less if info: 989–7963. Door prizes! A WomaNews benefit. Performance space wheelchair accessible.” Bechdel’s name marking the ad as hers is written along the side.

Return to figure

Figure 3.7. Advertisement for a WomaNews T-shirt that includes a four-panel comic illustrating four women using their T-shirt in different ways. All image and text (which is handwritten) is composed by Bechdel. At the top, it says, “Get yourself a WomaNews: NYC Feminist Newspaper and Calendar of Events T-shirt!” The full masthead image of WomaNews is included, hence why the subtitle of the paper is included. Under this, we see the four-panel comic Bechdel composed, which is described at length in the chapter. In the first panel, the text underneath says, “Remodel it!” and a woman is shown with a torn T-shirt re-created as a tank top. In the second panel, the text underneath says, “Carry your smokes in it!” and the image shows a close-up of a woman carrying her cigarettes rolled up in her right sleeve. In the third panel, the text underneath says, “Wear it to bed!” and the image shows a woman brushing her teeth while wearing a long T-shirt as a nightie. In the fourth and final panel, the text underneath says, “Don’t wear it to bed!” and we see a woman taking off her T-shirt to join her naked lover in bed. Under this comic, details are shared about the T-shirts and how to order them: “yellow, blue, black, lavender, white; M, L, XL; send $5 + $1 postage and handling to: WomaNews, P.O. Box 220, Village Sta., NYC 10014.” Bechdel’s initials marking the ad as hers are written along the side.

Return to figure

Figure 4.1. A letter-size yellow page of neon pink handwritten notes where a line drawing of a forlorn woman occupies the bottom half of the page. This page is the September 16, 1976, page of notes for Anzaldúa’s teaching of La Mujer Chicana course. Her handwritten notes above her drawing (which is fully described in the chapter) start by describing upcoming cultural events: “Art exhibit: Vicente Rodrigues, Jose Treviño, Santa Barraza, Amado Peña—thru Sept. 21 at Capital Rotunda; Partido: Seguín—at night Sat. & Sun.; Movie: Carmen Tafolla (poet, short story) commenting after film. Meth. Student Center.” Following that, there’s a free-flowing paragraph on the concept of “regeneración”: “cover: scissors: woman desperate frightened. Poem: woman has to liberate herself can’t blame outside force anymore. Can’t be secure, play passive role anymore, Bubbles in cover: veil, being in a bell jar, cutting a new pattern.”

Return to figure

Figure 4.3. Anzaldúa’s March 8, 1977, notes for Dr. Roy E. Teele’s “Gay Fiction: East and West” graduate seminar, which are handwritten on a lined page of yellow notebook paper where a line drawing in blue ink of a woman’s head staked on a box is enclosed by wavy lines. At the top is the date “March 8” as well as the denotation “Mid-term.” Then there are the following notes: “Tucker / Consciousness p. 122 / Language—need for social interaction / Manual labor vs. mental labor / Can ideology be considered a form of alienation? Yes, class consciousness.” Then, there’s the drawing, and a final line of text under it: “Ideas made history. That charismatic person makes history.” Then there’s still about a third of the page that’s left empty.

Return to figure

Figure 4.5. Transparency composed in many colors where a stick figure with several legs is annotated by text on the left, right, and below the figure. To the left of the figure is the annotation discussed in the chapter: “model—just a representation of how I see reality, a reduction of the real. My fantasy.” To the right of the figure, it says “minus” and names two associated elements in a list under it: “—taken over / —unassimable.” Under the figure, it says “plus,” and there’s a list of what “the mestiza nepantlera” is capable of: “—adjusts to cultural changes / —enters other cultures more readily / —crosses cultural boundaries = nos/otras /—shift in sense of self/identities / shift in awareness results in changes in identity.”

Return to figure

Figure 4.6a. Transparency composed in many colors where textual ideas are illustrated by a stick figure with several legs standing in different positions. At the top of the transparency, the concept “nos/otras” in written and retraced in two colors of blue and green marker, emphasizing the concept. The words under describe how “nos/otras” “disrupts” various types of “discourse”: “—Euroamerican feminist / —dominant racial / —Western concepts of: RACE, IDENTITY, REALITY, KNOWLEDGE.” To the right of the drawing, there’s a summation of nos/otras: “disrupts neat categories.”

Return to figure

Figure 4.6b. Transparency in red and purple ink where a simple stick figure stands amid interlocking shapes. This figure is labeled as the “Artista activista” and under this drawing is the phrase “interlocking communities” with an emphasis on the plural nature of the concept. To the right of the figure, there are smaller annotated drawings. There’s a drawing in purple of a page of text and a presentation stand that’s labeled “representations” with an arrow pointing to a drawing of three kinds of dwellings that are labeled “imaginary communities.” In a second row of drawings in red ink, there’s a goblet labeled “language” and “theory” in the cup section of the glass and “ideology” at the base of the glass. Next to that, there are three stick figures labeled “imaginary others” and under that the words “reality” and “experience” are differentiated from “imaginary” with a line drawn between the ideas.

Return to figure

Figure 4.6c. Transparency composed in many colors where a stick figure with several legs stands in many labeled positions and is encircled by drawings and text. In the top left corner, the slide is labeled “Mestizas” in purple text, which is the same color as the base of the stick figure. Under this, qualifying text in green adds “partake of several cultures, languages.” Three more qualifiers in purple are listed below this: “position / voice / mundo.” Near the bottom left, there’s a drawing of lips standing on two legs, and the drawing is contained in a box; all the lines of the drawing are purple with the lips filled in red. Under the figure, there’s the phrase “nacion mestiza,” which is enclosed in a rectangle; all of that is in red. Around the figure are many identity concepts as listed and further analyzed in the chapter: “present class, class of origin, Jew, professional community, of color, academy, home ethnic comm., queer, white ethnicities.” At the top right in purple text, there are the words: “Nationalism New Tribalism.” Under that, also in purple text: “nos/otras / us them / we other / sub/obj.” At the bottom right in green is a simple drawing of a turtle that’s labeled “turtle.”

Return to figure

Figure 4.7a. Transparency composed in many colors where a simple figure encircled by text has six interlocking circles for a head and stands in multiple positions. At the very top of the slide, the concept of “us” is defined in brown text and labeled as number 1: “subj. formerly in position of master in control of the world is implicated in the ‘other.’” There’s a thick brown and red line separating these words from the rest of the slide where “Nos/otras” is written prominently in green ink and then reoutlined in black. Under this, next to the head of the drawing, there’s a list item in black ink labeled 2: “the ‘other’ has been assimilated into an image of commodity.” To the right of the head of the drawing, there’s a phrase in orange: “somos mestizas todos.” Under this, next to the body of the drawing, in black ink, there are the words “proximity and intimacy close the gap between me and you.”

Return to figure

Figure 4.7b. Transparency composed in many colors of a stick figure enclosed in a circle with many labeled identities crowded in her head and a fish next to her. These identities, qualified as “other” at the very top of the headspace, are written and encircled in blue ink: “theorist, Native Am., patlache, feminist, woman, mind, I, body, Jew, activist, artist, poet, academic, Black, Asian, you, tu, mi, yo, queer, political views, lang, Chicana, intellectual, dyke.” Under these identities are the words “cluster/series of identities (keeps shifting) = person.” Drawn pointing at this sentiment are the words “dominant culture monoculture.” Next to the figure there’s a tiny red fish annotated by the phrase “fish in white sea.” The whole drawing is encircled in blue ink and this circle is labeled as “white frame of reference.” Annotating the multicolored blocks that encase the figure’s feet is the word “multiculturas.”

Return to figure

Figure 4.8. Transparency in black, red, and purple ink that shows seven stick figures gathered under an outsized umbrella that protects them from the rain. At the top, there’s the phrase “under the sky of feminism,” which is written in black ink and separated from the rest of the drawing by a squiggly black line. There are five raindrops illustrated as raining down from this “sky.” The umbrella, which is the central image in the drawing, is labeled “mestisaje” on the umbrella itself, which is drawn in red and black ink. The word “NOS/OTRAS” is under the umbrella and above seven purple and red stick figures. Under these figures and right under the umbrella handle are the words “commonalities differences” in purple ink. To the right of the umbrella drawing there’s a drawing in purple of a simple tree with four roots, which are textually annotated “roots / —ethic / —class.”

Return to figure

Figure 4.9. Transparency in purple, red, and green ink that shows a stick figure whose ideas are being received by increasingly larger communities. The transparency is titled in red and purple ink “The Politics of WRITING and READING (To, For, About) The OTHER.” There’s an unordered list of words, mostly in red ink, that qualify that concept: “Responsibility / author-ity / what artist/critic owes communities / what communities owe artist.” The stick figure is thinking “words images theories” as encapsulated in a red thought bubble. The figure is standing in a squiggly red circle that’s labeled “ethnic community” in purple ink. Then there’s a larger squiggly circle in purple ink labeled “academic community.” Then there’s a final larger squiggly circle in purple ink encapsulates most of the drawing and text that’s labeled “greater community” and “critical discourse.” A grouping of eight stick figures holding texts—likely the text of the authorial main stick figure—are at the bottom of the drawing in purple ink, straddling the space between “academic community,” “greater community,” and “critical discourse.”

Return to figure

Figure 5.6. Nan Goldin’s curatorial essay for the Witnesses catalog that is framed by a list of individuals lost to HIV/AIDS and a photograph depicting a woman walking past an open casket at a funeral. The essay is titled “In the Valley of the Shadow,” which is represented in bold text, one word per line, in the left-most column of the left page. Under the title is this dedication: “Against Our Vanishing is dedicated with love to: Kenny Angelico, Keith Davis, Max diCorcia, Peter Hujar, Mark Morrisroe, Vittorio Scarpati, Bibi Smith and everyone else we have lost to AIDS.” The text of the essay reads, “In the summer of 1988 I left New York for the weekend. Now, one and a half years later, I’m on my way home. In the process of withdrawal from addiction I suffered a kind of amnesia, a profound loss of identity. During early recovery I picked up my camera again. Through my work I began to reconstruct myself, to fit back into my own skin. I discovered the light after years in the dark. I wanted to live. Most of all I wanted to reconnect with my family of friends with whom I’d lost contact in my last few years of isolation and destruction. I was full of a new hope that I wanted to share.” The next paragraph continues, “During this period ARTISTS SPACE invited me to curate a show. I wanted to produce an exhibition by, for and about this community of friends, whose lives and work have inspired my life and my work. But when I came back to life, I realized how much had changed, how many of those I most admired were sick or had been killed by AIDS. I have had to face that there could not be all the joyous reunions I’d envisioned when I resurfaced from my own hell. My priority became to formulate an exhibition that would include the whole community, that those who have died would be as much a part of [as] those who still survive, and that would serve to both keep their spirit with us and allow us to formally say goodbye.” The next paragraph continues, “Originally I conceived of a show entitled Sexuality, Spirituality and Recovery in the age of AIDS. Its primary purpose was to celebrate the indomitable spirit of our community; to prove that our way of life still exists, that we are being killed by AIDS but our sensibility could not be killed-off. To show how hard we have been hit and at the same time to affirm all that is left.” The next paragraph continues: “I feel my own recent recovery from addiction, and that of many of my friends, is directly related to AIDS. With the advent of a fatal illness in our midst, the glorification of self destruction wore thin. We were no longer playing with death—it was real and among us, and not at all glamorous. We have been forced to make survival, recovery and healing our priorities as individuals and as a community. We realize that we can live the same lifestyle, but in the light. That we can still live fully in the moment but with an awareness of consequences. That we can take pride in the legacy of our past without contrition, regret, or revision, but with a new belief in the possibility of future.” The next paragraph continues, “I have intended all along to exhibit work that deals explicitly with sex and sexuality. The outbreak of the Helms controversy and the new success of government censorship of art in this country has only strengthened my resolve. The influence of the New Morality and the effective use of AIDS as the most powerful tool for sexual repression makes it even more imperative to continue to create and exhibit art that portrays sexuality as a positive force. To prove that a gay aesthetic continues to flourish. To prove that sex = death is a false equation. To show that homo-eroticism cannot be disappeared. To show that the strictly demarcated lines between homo and heterosexual cultures can be seamlessly crossed. That the public and private manifestations of all forms of sexuality can still be positive and liberating. That the sexual liberation movement need not become extinct but requires a new responsibility.” The next paragraph continues, “Over the past year four more of my most beloved friends have died of AIDS. Two were artists I had selected for this exhibit. One of the writers for this catalogue has become too sick to write. And so the tone of the exhibition has become less theoretical and more personal, from a show about AIDS as an issue to more of a collective memorial.” The next paragraph continues, “I am often filled with rage at my sense of powerlessness in the face of this plague. I want to empower others by providing them a forum to voice their grief and anger in the hope that this public ritual of mourning can be cathartic in the process of recovery, both for those among us who are now ill and those survivors who are left behind.” The next paragraph continues, “I have asked each artist to select work that represents their personal responses to AIDS. Most have created new work especially for this exhibit. The focus of the responses vary: out of loss come memory pieces, tributes to friends and lovers who have died; out of anger come explorations of the political cause and effects of this disease. Some work concentrates on the continuum of daily life, relationships and sexuality under the shadow of AIDS, other on the physicality of the disease through the effects on the body and the individual construction of identity. And some respond with work pertaining to death and reclamation of the spirit.” The next paragraph continues, “This is not a show for or about the art market. I am not at all concerned here with art as a commodity but as an articulation, as an outcry, and as a mechanism for survival. This is not intended to be a definitive statement about the state of art in the era of AIDS but as a vehicle to explore the effects of this plague on one group of artists in a way that hopefully will speak to all survivors of this crisis. By its very existence and its volume, this show proves its own premise—that AIDS has not and will not eliminate our community, or succeed in wiping out our sensibility or silencing our voice.” The next paragraph continues, “I have sometimes experienced survivors in these times criticizing themselves or one another about appropriate or inappropriate ways of mourning. We are all clumsy in dealing with grief. I do not believe we need to develop a correct etiquette. Every one of our responses is valid, passivity and silence are the gravest dangers. It is not the time to distract ourselves with divisiveness.” The final paragraph reads, “I have also witnessed this community take care of its own, nurse its sick, bury its dead, mourn its losses, and continue to fight for each others’ lives. We will not vanish.” The essay is signed “NAN GOLDIN Boston, October 1989.” Under the essay, there’s a small photograph reproduced in black and white of Cookie Mueller passing by the open casket of her spouse, Vittorio Scarpati. The photograph is captioned “Vittorio Scarpati and Cookie Mueller, 1989; photo by Nan Goldin.”

Return to figure

Figure 5.7a. A biographical statement about artist Peter Hujar is paired with a self-portrait photograph of his topless upper half reclining with his hands above his head. To the left of the photograph are the details of the artwork, followed by a biographical statement composed by Nan Goldin. The details read as follows: “peter hujar / 1934–1987 / Died in New York City / Self Portrait Lying Down / black and white photograph / 11 × 17 inches / Courtesy: Vince Aletti / Photo courtesy: The Estate of Peter Hujar.” The biographical statement reads, “Peter Hujar was one of my mentors. He was the quintessential portrait photographer. He made photographs directly from his own life, of the friends he loved and of the objects of his obsessions and erotic desire, with a classical elegance. He photographed the human male body with profound respect for its power and vulnerability. His visual acuity was apparent in his perfectionism about the aesthetic surfaces of his images, his sensitivity was obvious in the depth of his revelations of his subjects. He never mummified his people but he often seemed to hypnotize them. He captured people at their most quiet and introspective, externalizing their internal selves, achieving that rare balance of exposing the beauty of the flesh while making visible the spirit. AIDS robbed us of Peter’s vitality but not of his vision.—Nan Goldin.”

Return to figure

Figure 5.7b. A biographical statement about artist Mark Morrisroe is paired with a hazy self-portrait polaroid of him reclining that is taken from the foot of a bed. To the left of the photograph are the details of the artwork, followed by a biographical statement composed by Morrisroe. The details read: “mark morrisroe / 1959–1989 / Died in Jersey City, NJ / Self-portrait 1989 / Polaroid / 10 × 8 inches / Courtesy: Pat Hearn Gallery.” The biographical statement reads, “They have stopped listening to me, so I wrote everything down in a note; who was trying to murder me and how, and then smashed the vase of flowers Pat Hearn sent me so I would have something to mutilate myself with by carving in my leg, ‘evening nurses murdered me’; and I took the phone receiver and pummeled my face over and over and sprayed blood all over the walls and on this book; and then I took the butter pat from my dinner tray and greased up the note and stuffed it up my asshole so they would find it during my autopsy . . .—Mark Morrisroe January, 1989 (as excerpted from Mark Morrisroe’s biography by Ramsey McPhillips).”

Return to figure

Figure 5.7c. A biographical statement about artist Vittorio Scarpati is paired with his cartoon drawing in a black, thin nib pen of himself lying in bed consulting drawings and wondering over his damaged lungs. The image is annotated in stylized handwriting portrayed on scrolled paper that reads, “What happened to my lungs? I do not know. This is it, they turn in a book. Yes they turn into a book page & page & page & page—page.” The cartoon is drawn in a sketchbook where the paper is perforated at the top margin. Above the drawing are the details of the artwork, followed by a biographical statement composed by Nan Goldin. The details read, “vittorio scarpati / 1955–1989 / Died in New York City / What Happened to My Lungs? / ink on paper / 6 × 8 inches / Courtesy: 56 Bleeker Gallery.” The biographical statement reads, “Vittorio Scarpati made these drawings while living in the hospital for months hooked up to machines to keep breathing after his lungs had collapsed from AIDS-related pneumonia. Drawing became his outlet and his weapon for survival—a way to help bear terrible pain and to sustain his sense of humor. These drawings are a visual diary of his days living in suspension, full of the mundane realities of illness and hospitalization and his memories, fantasies, and dreams. He has left behind an indelible record of his fight for life and given us a gift of wit and wisdom.—Nan Goldin.”

Return to figure