Dykes to Watch Out For began in the early 1980s, in the waning days of what many call the second wave of feminism, and thus bears the imprint of the various and overlapping women’s movements.
According to Christine Stansell, “The fireworks of women’s libera-tion spluttered out in the 1970s with the fall of the New Left and the depletion of millennial expectations. But the way of seeing the world bequeathed by radical feminism, the great refusal to proceed with business as usual, endured in the psyche of a generation of daugh-ters” (228). Unfortunately, this waning form of feminism also main-tained a complicated relationship with gay rights. While many early and influential activists in the Women’s Liberation movement, such as Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, and Kate Millett, identified as lesbi-ans, according to Nina Renata Aron, many feminists associated with the Women’s Liberation movement felt that “that a lesbian aesthetic or ‘agenda’ would compromise feminists’ political power or mar their image in the broader culture.” However, “few went so far as to overtly exclude lesbians.” Unfortunately, in 1969 Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique and leader of the National Organiza-tion for Women (NOW), posited that associating with lesbians and lesbian groups would damage the Women’s Liberation movement, labeling the threat, “the lavender menace.” In the First Congress to Unite Women, Friedan excluded lesbian groups from the roster, caus-ing Rita Mae Brown to resign her position with NOW. Later, Susan Brownmiller made light of Friedan’s concerns, arguing lesbianism was not a menace, but rather a “lavender herring.” The tension came to a head at the 1970 Second Congress to Unite Women. Yamissette Westerband explains:
Lesbian activists such as The Radicalesbians chose this conference to educate feminists regarding the political obstacles faced by les-bians. At this event, the “Lavender Menace” attempted to rush the stage to present lesbian issues and distributed copies of “The
Woman Identified Woman.” Although the lights were doused before the stage was rushed, this action led to pro-lesbian resolu-tions being passed at the conference’s final assembly.
Although Aron points out that within a year of the Second Con-gress, “NOW had adopted a resolution recognizing lesbian rights as
‘a legitimate concern of feminism,’” many felt that the public face of feminism, particularly as institutionalized through NOW, failed to include and recognize the LGBTQ+ community.
Over time, as the term “feminist” had fallen out of favor in the general public, what has come to be called the third wave of femi-nism rose up in response to what many perceived as the failures of the earlier approach, including the exclusion of LGBTQ+ concerns.
Third-wave feminism, a term coined by Rebecca Walker in her 1992 article for Ms. magazine titled “Becoming the Third Wave,” promoted a global feminism and endorsed a more inclusive movement that actively embraced people of color as well as the LGBTQ+ commu-nity, responding to criticism that the second wave was heterosexist and largely ignorant of the needs and desires of people of color. R. C.
Snyder remarks:
Third-wave feminism makes three important tactical moves that respond to a series of theoretical problems within the second wave.
First, in response to the collapse of the category of “women,” the third wave foregrounds personal narratives that illustrate an inter-sectional and multiperspectival version of feminism. Second, as a consequence of the rise of postmodernism, third-wavers embrace multivocality over synthesis and action over theoretical justification.
Finally, in response to the divisiveness of the sex wars, third-wave feminism emphasizes an inclusive and nonjudgmental approach that refuses to police the boundaries of the feminist political. In other words, third-wave feminism rejects grand narratives for a feminism that operates as a hermeneutics of critique within a wide array of discursive locations, and replaces attempts at unity with a dynamic and welcoming politics of coalition. (175–76)
In the questions that frame the “Cartoonist’s Introduction” to The Essential Dykes, Bechdel clearly puzzles over the debate between the essential nature of identity as opposed to its socially con-structed nature, and the strip traverses back and forth across the
boundaries of the second and third waves of feminism as they, too, struggle with notions of nature and nurture.
It is clear, however, that DTWOF depicts an intersectional femi-nism that embraces difference and argues for action over theory. In the 1987 strip “Pride & Prejudice,” Mo attends a Pride March with friends Clarice, Toni, and Harriet, and Mo is startled by the many voices and many individuals in attendance, and the groups they rep-resent (see figure 5.1). The first panel features the symbolic triangle with large, chubby letters announcing the title, as if the letters are simply bursting with pride. The second panel establishes the scene, as Toni and Clarice walk amidst a large crowd of people, and call out to Mo. Toni and Clarice hold hands, and they are surrounded by men
<INSERT FIGURE 5.1>
FIGURE 5.1. Alison Bechdel. “Pride and Prejudice.” The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008, p. 10.
walking with their arms around one another, while others hold signs for “Pride ’87” and “We’re Not Going Back!” Balloons drift into the crowded scene, adding a celebratory feeling. In the third panel, in a tight shot of the four women, Mo (clearly recognizable in a striped tank top) is introduced to Harriet (who will later become her lover), and, in the fourth panel, Harriet announces, “Nice to meet you, Mo!
We were just agreeing that gay pride day is our favorite holiday of the year,” as the scene widens slightly to include a very hairy, bare-chested man in the background. Mo, clutching the straps of her back-pack, responds, “Yeah? Me too! But don’t you think the whole thing is getting kind of conservative?”
By the fifth panel the scene has widened a bit more, as Mo con-tinues her rant, “Don’t you see the influence of Reagan and AIDS?
This country is in political retrograde and Gay Pride is going along!”
Toni, positioned next to Clarice behind Mo, whispers, as evidenced by her shaky, intermittent speech balloon, “Uh-Oh . . . Here she goes,” indicating that the couple is well used to Mo’s diatribes. A variety of people appear in the background, wearing dark leather jackets and holding, “Fight Aids Not Gays” signs. In the next sev-eral panels, Mo stands to the side of each panel, gesturing toward the various groups she finds offensive, including the “Gay & Lesbian Catholic Martyrs,” the “Gay Men’s Chorus,” and the “Lesbian Invest-ment Bankers.” Mo gestures at the happy, smiling marchers as they pass, complaining:
“Look at this March! We’ve stopped saying, ‘We’re queer and happy that way, so you’d better get used to it.’ Now it’s more like, ‘See we’re just as patriotic, god-fearing, and red-blooded as the rest of you wholesome Americans. Religion!! Patriotism! Financial Secu-rity! Doesn’t anyone realize? We’re conspiring in our own oppres-sion! Where has our old spirit and consciousness gone?”
In each successive panel as Mo monologues, the scene widens, displaying more and more people, smiling and enjoying the scene.
The groups hold banners before them as they march, full of glee and goodwill. In her ire, Mo represents a feminism that opposed dom-inant forces by reversing traditional binaries, but at times failed to understand the faultiness of the binaries. Clark A. Pomerleau explains:
Oppositional rhetoric meant to create collective feminist identity often used binaries that symbolically reversed normative values, but women disagreed on whether these dichotomies had essen-tial or social constructionist origins. Women transgressed femi-nine passive acceptance of norms by willingly hearing or reading feminist critiques. Feminist consumers of rhetoric, however, might resist one interpretation by privileging their own experience and values over another’s. Women’s actions also signaled the effec-tiveness of rhetoric meant to change behavior. For all the effort to reevaluate dominant views, feminist views on sexuality sometimes blended with societal biases, and radical propositions created in the late 1960s through mid-1970s have remained at odds with neo-liberal values. (188)
For her part, Mo privileges a certain kind of activism, and a certain kind of “queerness,” but succumbs to her own biases in interpreta-tion; she is like the rigid, wooden ruler rather than the “lesbian rule,”
unbending and unwilling to shape her vision to accommodate the diversity of the crowd.
Mo essentializes the LGBTQ+ community, arguing that one can-not simultaneously be gay and be “conservative,” a refrain that resounded many years later with Pete Buttigieg’s run for US Pres-ident in 2020, when he was criticized widely by groups such as
“Queers Against Pete” for being too “straight,” too “conservative,”
and “not gay enough.” Mo complains that the Gay Pride march has evolved from celebrating a distinct LGBTQ+ identity apart from the heteronormative mainstream American culture to rejoicing instead that “we’re just as patriotic, god-fearing, and red-blooded as the rest of you wholesome Americans,” a critique widely lobbed at Buttigieg, a White, upper-class man who identifies as Christian and served in the Army before becoming mayor of South Bend, Indiana, in addition to identifying as gay.
Mo’s friends, however, argue for a more inclusive LGBTQ+ com-munity; one that welcomes everyone. The ninth panel focuses on the four friends to the left of the panel, and two new figures to the right. Mo is pressed against the left side of the panel as Clarice, to her side, argues, “Mo, there’s plenty of spirit and outrageousness here!
Will you lighten up and take a look around? You get so worked up, you only see the things that support your depressing theories!” Mo
is chastened, her face downcast. To their right, a grinning woman leans on a sign reading, “Fuck Gender.” She is bare-chested, wear-ing a tutu, suspenders, biker boots, a hat, a watch, and sunglasses. A man is just to her side, his face and legs visible beneath a large, full-body condom costume. He, too, smiles, his mustache turned up and his eyes crinkled with laughter. Mo’s friends encourage her to look beyond her own prejudices and really see all of the people honor-ing Pride Day, in all of their diversity—from the Lesbian Investment Bankers to the grinning man in the condom costume.
Thus, Mo confronts her own prejudices and preconceived notions of what it is to be gay, prejudices still very much in evidence in 2020.
Feeling chagrined, Mo laments, “Jeez! Maybe you’re right! Maybe I otta just wander off into the crowd and stop ruining the march for you guys.” Harriet leans toward Toni, her jagged speech balloon indicating that she is whispering, “Is she always like this?” to which Toni responds, “You get used to it.” This scene indicates a shift in the LGBTQ+ movement and in third-wave feminism, which both worked to celebrate a diversity of voices within a community, even those voices that might once have seemed contrary to the movements. R. C.
Snyder notes, “By rejecting a unified category of women and embrac-ing the anarchic imperative of direct action, third-wave feminism necessarily embraces a philosophy of nonjudgment” (188). Mo still struggles with nonjudgment, arguing that the pride parade is in “ret-rograde,” but her friends pull her out of her spiral, encouraging to see all that is there, rather than only viewing through her own lens.
Dwelling on judgment and exclusion within her community is a frequent issue for Mo, who often speaks from the perspective of an older, more monolithic strand of feminism, as she did in the 1990 strip “Feelings” (see figure 5.2). In the strip Mo is discussing the coming out of Marvin Liebman, the cofounder of the National Review, although he is not mentioned by name. In the fourth panel of the strip, Mo barges through a doorway, met by Lois and a barking dog. Lois, smiling in the left half of the frame, states, “Mo! Nice ta see ya! Come on in and vent your spleen!” Lois’s smile suggests she is amused by Mo, who has disrupted a gossip session about old loves and new girlfriends. But Mo doesn’t pause to find out what the group is discussing, but rather intones, “I don’t know what this country is coming to! Did you see the paper? The co-founder of the National Review just came out!” In her anger Mo seems to push the happy dog’s paws from her waist, and by the second panel, she is
shak-<INSERT FIGURE 5.2>
ing her fist with rage, despite Lois’s genial comment, “Yeah, great, huh? All this hoopla about outing seems to be having an effect.”
For Lois, this moment of truth from a conservative public figure is good news, evidence that the world is becoming more accepting if a staunch Republican feels comfortable self-identifying as gay. But Mo is having none of it; she does not accept Marvin Liebman’s admis-sion, suggesting that he is the wrong kind of gay, a dangerous exam-ple for others to follow. With the door open behind her and the dog, tongue hanging out, smiling, Mo continues her rant: “But what kind of effect? I mean, what kind of message does an openly gay right-wing conservative send to the youth of America, Lois?” Mo repre-sents an essentialized notion of what it is to be LBGTQ+, suggesting
FIGURE 5.2. Alison Bechdel. “Feelings.” The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008, p. 58.
that an “openly gay right-wing conservative” sends the wrong kind of message to young people. Are LGBTQ+ people only allowed to be Democrats? This challenge to her essentialized notions of sexuality startles and angers Mo.
Mo continues to rant on the subject of acceptable notions of LGBTQ+ behavior in the seventh panel, surrounded by her disinter-ested friends, who are seated at a table, drinking and reading. Mo stands in the center, facing the reader, her expression angry, and lines indicating her hands are gesturing aggressively. She states, “What’ll it be next? Gay C.I.A agents? Lesbian fundamentalist preachers? It’s . . . It’s immoral!” Mo once again struggles to accept the diversity of LGBTQ+ individuals, suggesting that a gay person couldn’t pos-sibly want to work for the government as a C.I.A. agent, nor could any lesbian choose to be a fundamentalist preacher. Comically, she even mimics the arguments hurled at the LGBTQ+ community—“It’s immoral.”
Ginger, however, smiles serenely while sitting at the table, simply stating, “Well . . . like the bumper sticker says, we are everywhere.”
Citing the popular slogan, Ginger points out that, in fact, gay, les-bian, and transgendered people are everywhere and in every occupa-tion, not simply the ones endorsed by “the old guard,” or those that fit within a certain worldview, as held by Mo. Feminism was chang-ing and expandchang-ing, as were LGBTQ+ communities, and, as Mo makes clear, growing pains were inevitable. Yet the strip also suggests that it is equitable and just to adapt to the varied people and perspectives, creating a community comprised of delightfully irregular building materials.