ANOTHER VOICE
The lesbian challenge: an inquiry into available choices
AUBERON WAUGH
0 ne of the great figures of Irish sporting history was Mr A. M. Kavanagh (1831-1889) — 'the unbelievable Mr Kava- nagh' — who, although born without any arms or legs — or possibly the tiniest stumps — rode to hounds and shot with the best of them, sailed his own yacht, painted, and kept a seat in Parliament (as an Irish Conservative) from 1866 to 1880. As a young man, he even travelled overland to India. One day he arrived to stay with my great-grandmother at Abbey Leix, in County Leix. 'It is a most extraordinary thing,' he said to her, 'I have not been here for 14 years, but, do you know, the station master recognised me?'
My great-grandmother's feelings of embarrassment and confusion were nearly matched by my own when reading an article about that great figure of Czech sporting history, Ms Martina Navratilova, where she was quoted as saying, 'I can't think why the crowds don't love me.'
Perhaps she would have grasped at least part of the reason if she had been able to watch herself play against the deliciously pretty Miss Gabriela Sabatini, from Argen- tina, at Wimbledon on Thursday's televi- sion. The sad and beastly truth, for all to see, is that Ms Navratilova, through no fault of her own, is extremely ugly. This would not prevent the crowds from loving her if she could convince them of her warm-heartedness. It is true that she smiled once on losing a point, but it was not a very convincing smile. Sadly enough, I fear that ugly women have to be really exceptionally pleasant to be loved; it is not enough for them to be fairly pleasant. Poor things, they have to .be bursting with good humour and natural kindness.
This is plainly most unjust. I wonder if it is to be explained by an unspoken but shared experience among the crowd, that ugly women (like very small men) are often bitter, aggressive and chippy. The malevo- lence of sexually rejected womanhood has in fact been accepted in every human society which has left a literature to record itself. We can all think of hundreds of exceptions to the rule. But the fact that so many exceptions come to mind so soon, and that they are advanced so vehemently, may testify to some lingering acceptance of the possibility.
Certainly every small community I have known has had its group of trouble-making women — whether married scolds, mali- cious gossips, or people whose extreme selfishness appears to take some sadistic form. Earlier societies dealt with them by attributing the Evil Eye, or simply burning them as witches. Perhaps they genuinely used to meet after dark to plot their mischief. Nowadays they either form into like-minded committees — Parent-Teacher Associations, Women Against Rape, Prostitutes Collectives — or work their way into positions of power through one or another of the bossy professions as prison warders, welfare workers, teachers, politi- cians, physiotherapists or what you will.
But it would be idle to deny that a significant number of these bitter, malevo- lent women have adopted lesbianism as their cause. That they have given lesbian- ism a bad name, like everything else they touch, goes without saying. I wonder if Ms Navratilova's failure to be loved by the crowds has anything to do with her self- proclaimed lesbianism. If so, it is no less unjust than that she should fail to inspire love because she is ugly. It is also, I would suggest, a fairly recent development that lesbians should be unpopular. Lesbians, at any rate until recently in my experience, were characterised by a certain diffidence. Only a natural sadist or a bully could have been troubled by them, or wished to punish them. If lesbianism and male homosexuality are seen as particular preferences, it makes no more sense to persecute people for them than it did for the Lilliputians to fight a civil war between those who tackled their eggs from the big end, and those who preferred the little end. Personally, I am a big-endian, reckoning that the big end leaves more room for the spoon. But it is a matter of complete indifference to me that others should choose to tackle their eggs from the other end, whether for aesthetic or emotional reasons, or out of stupidity.
The new aggression by militant lesbians against `heterosexualism' — the assump- tion that heterosexuality is natural — does, indeed, seem to have a proselytising ele- ment. This may well explain any concom- itant reaction against lesbians by the heter- osexual majority, although the approach is less crude than earlier Muslim attempts to convert Christians and vice versa. Its appa- rent purpose is not so much to convert womanhood into lesbianism. It is to edu- cate both sexes into an awareness of the choices available. Or so I learn from a long article by Ms Rosalind Stott in last Wednesday's Times. It would not occur to me, as a big-endian, to educate little-endians into an awareness of the choices available. Ms Stott, who is a former acting head, and deputy head, of two inner London comprehensive schools with a progressive reputation finds that the general approach to homosexual education is 'pitiful'. She says that 'only the very best [schools] include homosexuality as part of the range of adult relationships which may prove fruitful' (my italics — her choice of adjective). She asks:'What valid objection can there be to teaching children about homosexuality which is, after all, legal, and about other alternatives to the "family" . . ? At present we are all indoctrinated willy nilly into heterosexuality, and pupils arrive at primary schools with fairly clear ideas about gender roles.'
I suppose that poor Ms Navratilova arrived at her primary school with a fairly clear idea that she was going to play in the women's semi-final at Wimbledon against the delicious Miss Sabatini, rather than in the men's semi-final against the humour- less Lendl or the deplorable Becker. Queue honte!
'What education there is for younger people about alternative sexuality and life styles', drones Ms Stott, 'will be no more than a pious hope while those adults in the school system who are themselves lesbian or gay feel unable to offer children positive examples.'
I wonder what she means by 'positive examples' — physical demonstrations of the various possibilities in homosexual activity? Surely not. I have a cousin in the West Country to whom I am devoted — he is much richer than I — who actually prefers bad wine to good wine. But there is room on earth for both of us. We don't have to give each other positive examples.
Ms Stott's main burden is as positive as anyone could want: 'Our whole western family structure is based on the oppression of women, and it is this which Tory politicians wish us to applaud.' So families are out. One wonders how Ms Stott came into the world and how she was reared. Poor woman. In drawing attention to Ms Stott's viewpoint I am not, of course, suggesting that she should be burned as a witch. My only purpose is to educate the non-Stottites into an awareness of the choices available.
Previous page
