can be dykish, exude dyke-ness, experiencencfyfa’fy, and even be dyking —npresumably all in one afternoon.nNor do radical lesbians have any usenfor such words as “history,” “English,”n”democracy,” and “ex-husbands.”nThey instead prefer to speak of herstory,nmanglish, phallocracy, andnwushands. Even the seemingly harmlessntrio of “they,” “them,” and “their”napparently harbors linguistically the socialnstructures and power relations ofnAmerican patriarchy. For shem, shey,nand sheh have found their way intonlesbian discourse. And, of course, innthe lexicon of mainline feminists andnradical lesbians alike, the word “gentleman”nremains a contradiction in terms.nRadical lesbians, however, do notnlimit their idiosyncratic approach to thenEnglish language to the spelling ofngender-related words. Quite the contrary:nno aspect of the English languagenis safe in Lesbos. Capitalization,npunctuation, and the spelling of thenmost common of words — all suchnthings are to be exposed and excoriatednas conspirators in the war against womennand womanhood. As a result, journalsnlike Lesbian Ethics are filled withnsuch words and phrases as “the morenessnof life,” “a feminist university hadnoccurred,” “my conclusions and envisionments,”n”I relax into my no-ings,”nand “how much wronger can I be.”nOne can perhaps understand how anradical lesbian in need of making anradical statement might wallow in thenrealm of “transformative languagenforms,” might resort to the eliminationnof the word “man” and the concoctionnof strange cognates — all for the purposenof “consciousness-raising.” Therenis, after all, historical precedent fornsuch actions:,as during the Reign ofnTerror that followed the French Revolutionnwhen Frenchmen were calledneither “citizen” or “citizeness,” or as innthe period after the Bolshevik Revolutionnwhen Russians became “comrades.”nIndeed, linguistic change hasnoften been seen as sine qua non fornsocial change.nBut can occurring universities andnpeople who are wronger and relaxingninto their no-ings really raise socialnconsciousness?nThen there is the section of thenjournal deyoted to artistic expression.nRobespierre had his David, Lenin hisnGorky, and Lesbian Ethics its “creativen58/CHRONICLESnwriting,” a section of the journal fillednwith action-packed dialogue and rivetingnnarration:nOld Separatist and Gypsy Dykenwere sitting around the universe,n”Just how separate are you?”nGypsy Dyke was asking.n”Oh, just as separate as I cannget,” Old Separatist was sayingnback to her.nMoving accounts of conflict and innernturmoil:nii want to grow mii hair andnsometimez ii ahm afraid othurrnseparatists will no longer honournmii knowings/no-ings afraid iinwill feel sohh ashamed ii willnretreat away from mii self . . .nAnd gripping drama:nhow I would love to have thencourage to say to a sister inndistress, “breathe with me,nJoanna.” would she remembernthis from the wanderground andnrespond, “breathe with me,nzana?”nBut the most creative writing is to benfound on the “Notes on Contributors”npage, where the writers have opted fornwinsome pseudonyms. Thus, we findnthat this “forum” for the discussion ofn”ethics and philosophy” (the journal’snproclaimed purpose) pivots on the ruminationsnof such people as DiceynYates, Teena Delfina, Sage Desertdyke,nand Flowing Margaret Johnson. Thencontributors’ hobbies are equally informative.nLori Saxe, for instance, enjoysncultivating “intense bonds withncats,” and she is currently working onn”a Lesbian theory of animal liberation.”nAnd certainly one should mention thenheroic feat of Margaret “Chase” Smith,nwho continues to contribute to thenjournal seemingly against all odds: she’sndead, but a channeler continues to feednus her work.nOccasionally, the essays in LesbiannEthics actually do touch upon thenethics and philosophy of the radicalnlesbian community. Though the degreento which radical lesbians adhere tonthe tenets of their philosophy variesnfrom individual to individual—and, asnis the case among the community ofnradical feminists, there is a great deal ofndebate between Marxian and non-nnnMarxian interpretations of women’snhistory — the basic philosophy and ethicsnof radical lesbianism can be simplynsummarized: hate all men, separatenfrom all men, and kill men, if possible.nIn other words, whereas mainlinenfeminists merely reject the validity ofnthe male point of view, radical lesbiansnand some radical feminists reject thenright of men even to exist. Men are thenSatans of earthly existence — the causenand controllers of all evil in the worldn—and hence they should die. Period.nIndeed, it is not for nothing that manynradical feminists and lesbians still reverenas the quintessential expression ofn”woman’s work” the writings and actionsnof the late-1960’s radical ValerienSolanas — the androcidal zany whonshot pop artist Andy Warhol to drama- _ntize the need for the murder of all”nmen, and who wrote the notoriousn1968 manifesto for SCUM (the Societynfor the Cutting Up of Men).nDicey Yates, in the fall 1988 issue ofnLesbian Ethics, succinctly states thenradical lesbian position:nWe, uniquely, are both willingnand able to oppose men in ansustained way. … It is up tonthe handfirl of us to end thenregime of men. . . .nUnwillingness (includingnambivalence) to do/causenviolence to men has been anbarrier to community—anynwomon community anywherensince patriarchy. . . .nNor does this call for violence againstnmen exclude the sons, brothers, ornfathers of lesbians;-tf”a lesbi^ri’ hasriotnthe courage to kill them, then at leastnshe should sever all ties with them. Innfact, such things as artificial inseminationnand the abortion of male fetuses arennow being discussed in some lesbianncircles. From their skewed perspective,nscience can indeed be their handmaidennto progress by providing them withnthe means for the propagation of morenwomen as well as the means for thenmurder of fiiture men.nBut where would this get them?nAfter all, without men to hate feministsnwould be like vampires without victims,nconservatives without communism.nTheodore Pappas is assistant editor ofnChronicles.n