I I

DE-MYSTIFYING

"THE MENACE":

A N.O.W. Primer On - Baiting

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION

Published by

THE NOW NATIONAL TASK FORCE

ON SEXUALITY & LESBIANISM

Kay Whitlock and Robin Smith

Co-Coordinators

April 1977

Prepared by Kay Whitlock NOW Policy Background

The NOW National Task Force on Sexuality and Lesbianism was established in 19 71, two years after the NOW membership at its national conference in Los Angeles adopted a resolution stating that "a woman's right to her own person includes the right to define and express her own sexuality and to choose her own lifestyle." In 19 71, NOW formally went on record as recognizing "the double oppression of women who are " and stated that a feminist program of action must include action on behalf of lesbian rights. In 197 3, in Washington, D.C., the NOW National Conference approved a resolution committing NOW to work for legislation prohibiting on the basis of sexual orientation. On October 27, 1975, NOW members attending the National Conference in Philadelphia approved a resolution designating the accomplishment of lesbian rights as one of NOW's national priorities. The resolution stated that "abridgement of the basic rights of any woman diminishes the freedom of all of us," and proponents of the resolution argued that too little had been accomplished--by NOW, by the feminist movement in general, and by the various levels of government--with regard to securing such rights for lesbians. Implicit in all of these resolutions was the commitment of NOW as an organization to halt internal discrimination against lesbians. The 19 71 and 19 7 3 resolutions were most explicit in this regard, and the position paper which accompanied the 1971 resolution spoke eloquently to the need to do so.

The NOW Experience

"Lesbian is the word, the label, the condition that holds women in line. When a woman hears this word tossed her way, she knows that she is stepping out of line. She knows that she has crossed the terrible boundary of her sex role. She recoils, she protests, she reshapes her actions to gain approval. Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his pre­ rogatives (including that of all women as part of the exchange medium among men), who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. To have this label applied to people active in the women's liberation is just the most recent instance of a long history ... in this sexist society, for a woman to be independent means she can't be a woman-­ she must be a . That in itself should tell us where women are at. It says clearly as can be said: woman and person are contradictory terms ...

1 "'Lesbian' is one of the sexual categories by which men have divided up humanity .•• Are we going to continue the male classification system of defining all females in sexual relation to some other category of people?

"As long as male acceptability is primary--both to individual women and to the movement as a whole--the term lesbian will be used effectively against women. Insofar as women want only more privileges within the system, they do not want to antagonize male power. They seek instead acceptability for women's liberation, and the most crucial aspect of the acceptability is to deny lesbianism--i.e. , to deny any fundamental challenge to the basis of the female."

--From "The Woman-Identified Woman" by Radicalesbians. Quoted with permission.

There is probably no feminist-identified woman who has not, at some point in her feminist involvement, been overtly or by insinuation called a dyke or a lesbian. There is probably no feminist-identified woman who has not, at some point, felt anxiety or anger when others have attempted to delegitimatize the feminist movement and NOW because of our commitment to lesbian/gay civil rights. As long as the mere mention of the issue of lesbianism calls forth defensive reactions in feminists, the practice of lesbian-baiting will continue to wield power as an effective political tool of intimidation. Years ago, a NOW member charged that our organization was being dis­ rupted by what she termed, in a monumental example of defensiveness, "the lavendt!.r menace." She, and others who shared her views, were reacting to the fact that some lesbians who belonged to NOW decided that they would no longer tolerate a closeted, "stepchild" existence within NOW. There had always been lesbians in NOW, and now, there were lesbians in NOW who were not ashamed and who were vocal and outfront. While much of the NOW membership took this in stride, some NOW officials at various levels were horrified. Caught up in an apparent frenzy of , they spoke out and took action against NOW lesbians. The effect of this was an unofficial "purge." Lesbians began finding themselves targets of whisper campaigns; ways were found to remove some of them from offices they held in NOW; others were targeted by opposition at chapter election times. Some were harrassed; some were threatened with being exposed as lesbians. Pressure was put on others to force resignations from NOW office. Some NOW members who were "suspected lesbians" or who sympathized with lesbians were also targeted during the purge. The intent appeared to be to discredit certain NOW members on the basis of their alleged or confirmed lesbianism. The moral and ethical cost to NOW was immense. Yet, in spite of the scare tactics employed by some who feared their own exaggerated fantasies of "lesbian takeovers," the NOW membership was not quite so easily frightened or intimidated. In 1971, a NOW Position Paper and Resolution on Lesbianism, prepared and submitted by Arlie Scott, was adopted at the NOW National Conference. It articulated the connection between sexism and homophobia, and NOW members were warned to watch for the tactic of lesbian-baiting "by opponents who use the tactic of labelling us the worst thing they can think of, 'lesbians, ' in order to divide and discredit the feminist movement and bring women to heel." Regrettably,

2 ------··--.. ·---· - I ~ the paper pointed out, this tactic within NOW was "employed by some members who conjure up the sexist image of lesbians and shout 'lavendar menace' at anyone who opposes their views." N0\11! members were called upon to "reassess the priorities that sacrifice principle to 'image'" ::md there was a demand that we bring to an end the evasive­ ness on the part of NOW with regard to lesbian visibility in the movement. In blunt, honest language, the position Paper spoke directly to the oppression lesbians faced within our own organization:

"Afraid of alienating public support, we have often treated lesbians as the step-sisters of the movement, allowed to work with us, but then expected to hide in the upstairs closet when company comes. Lesbians are now telling us that this attitude is no longer acceptable. Asking women to disguise their identities so they will not 'embarrass' the group is an intolerable form of oppression, like asking black women to join us in white face. Furthermore, this discrimi­ nation is inconsistent with NOW's stated goal to 'recognize our sisterhood' and to help women 'overcome self-denigration.'"

Sadly enough, in the years since 1971, we have not overcome all the old hassles. There is, certainly, a much more supportive environment for lesbians in NOW. Lesbian invisibility is no longer required {although there are still those fearful people Nho desire it). Civil rights action on behalf of lesbian/gay rights has been undertaken by NOW, notably in the areas of lesbians in the military, lesbian mother child custody, sodomy repeal, and positive legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual/affectional preference at state, local, and national levels. Not all chapters or state organizations, of course, des ire to take action in this regard. It would be a mistake to assume that there is no more "problem" with reg~Hd to lesbians in NOW. While NOW policy reflects positive steps forward, NOW history haunts us because, in subtler forms, some of it is being repeated. Lesbians in NOW still retain painful memories that for years we were expected and encouraged to remain closeted and in the background by sisters who cared more for "public image" than for the manner in which they oppressed other women. There are still times today when lesbians run into the same attitudes within NOW, though their notions do not have the sanction of national officials or of national policy. It is difficult to forget how marginal some tried to keep visible lesbian involvement in NOW. Some still try. It was the lesbian who, years ago in NOW, saw her life and her struggles dismissed as a "political liability." Sometimes, our lives are still dismissed in that way. Given NO\V's history, and given current realities in NOW, the NOW National Task Force on Sexuality & Lesbianism attempted to appeal to the basic goodwill and intelligence of NOW members, and focused almost entirely for a considerable period of time on the personal choice and civil rights aspects of lesbianism. Until now, we have avoided dealing with the deeper, political aspects of lesbianism, fearing that by doing so we would alienate heterosexual support. We tried to make ourselves and our program acceptable to everyone, believing that if we were just

3 r,cdilt· f~n ou g h, everyone would experience a sudden (and possibly mystical) emotional ,_:c.J ,v f: rs io n a nd would decide that lesbians are wonderful; that fears of lesbian ,, i silJili t y and concerted effort for the attainment of lesbian rights would be discarded

, ,,.(!: n i q h l , a nd that hand in hand I all NOW members would move forward as a c oJ :,~ siv e group, totally refusing to be intimidated by those who would try to lesbian­ b•·: j !: u :: . Th a t is an exaggeration, of course, but it is not much of one. The point is i L '; : "'' e. overlooked some very basic dynamics:

1. Lesbian-baiting, though not as marketable within NOW as it once was , still goes on.

2. The problem could not be defined in terms of the traditional gay/ straight split s any more. Some lesbians in NOW argued against concerted lesbian rights action; some took part in lesbian-baiting. The flip side of the coin was that some heterosexual members were among the most ardent supporters of lesbian/gay rights; some were eager to explore the political aspects of lesbian­

. Obviously I the problem was not primarily homophobia.

3. Though nationally , and in some states and local chapters, NOW

policy was being implemented and endorsed I there have been numerous real and present instances of overt/ covert oppression of lesbians in NOW, and too little in the way of internal NOW compliance was being done to correct this.

4. Even in NOW units where positive rhetoric and action were combined

to varying degrees I lesbians felt real pressure to "be reasonable," to "be acceptable," etc. , while we were subtly but definitely encouraged to ignore instances of internal discrimination.

5. The Task Force was deluged with requests from lesbian/ straight NOW activists who supported lesbian rights, requests for materials on consciousness-raising with regard to lesbianism. The requests not infrequently contained agonized accounts of the tremendous fear and resistance encounterd in their particular chapters.

6. The Coordinators of the NOW National Task Force on Sexuality & Lesbianism found ourselves bordering on encouraging lesbian activists in NOW to make sure anything they did could not be construed as "threatening" to other NOW members! It appears that we were in danger of forgetting that our mere existence is threatening to many.

The time that has passed since passage of the 1975 Lesbian Rights Resolution in NOW has been of particular interest. While numbers of NOW members and officials h "l ile d it s passage, there was also a significant body of negative opinion. This c Rm e from not only NOW members, in some cases, but also from much of the " e stablis hment" press. The vehemence of opposition from some within NOW was s urprising .

4 It was charged, in various circles, that giving priority status to lesbian rights meant that NOW would halt its work on many other vital issues, including the ERA, in order to focus almost exclusively on lesbian issues. Fearful members alleged that this focus would scare away housewives and others who might otherwise join NOW. Passage of the resolution was even, in a few instances, cited as proof positive that lesbians were once again trying to "take over" NOW. There were even some cries of outrage over NOW President Karen DeCrow' s brief apology to lesbians and for their treatment in NOW in former years, an apology made in her keynote speech at the 1975 NOW National Conference. Though she also apologized! to others--to minorities, to housewives, etc. --it was her reference to lesbians that was singled out and denounced by some in NOW. Unfortunately, the media played no small role in encouraging this outbreak of anti-lesbianism by printing sensationalized articles that played into lesbian­ baiting when the 197 5 Lesbian Rights Resolution passed. This coverage too, then, was cited as "proof" that excessive attention to lesbian rights was "playing into the hands of the enemy'' by providing them with ammunition with which to challenge NOW credibility or image. While this backlash does not represent prevailing opinion in NOW, it has been significant enough to continue fueling the fires of anti-lesbianism within NOW. A favorite Task Force example of one form of this backlash is a particular letter received by NOW from a Texas woman who was not renewing her dues because of NOW's stand on lesbian rights. She claimed that too much of NOW's resources would be spent on a minority of" O.Ol%"of NOW's membership, while the needs of "99. 9% of NOW's membership" are "being ignored." The statistics may be faulty, but the message is clear: since heterosexual women outnumber lesbians, the issues of concern to heterosexual women should receive all or virtually all of NOW's attention. Obviously, for some NOW members, any action in favor of lesbian visibility or lesbian rights is seen as too much activity. It is apparent that the issue of lesbianism evokes in many a visceral fear that is unmatched by any of the other substantive feminist issues promoted in NOW (though there are, certainly, other issues--i.e., racism and poverty--that suffer from the same benign neglect the lesbian rights issue suffers from at various NOW levels). It is time to confront that fear directly. Trying to evade the issue of lesbianism, of lesbian visibility, won't work. It never did. Those outside the movement who have sensationalized and exploited the issue aren't about to stop now, no matter what we do. We can't halt lesbian-baiting by remaining silent. We can't preserve our feminist integrity by remaining silent. As we analyze the issues involved in lesbian-baiting and its effectiveness further, we shall discover that the perceived "lesbian problem,; was never that at all. It was not lesbians who created any problem. The real problem is tacit acceptance of patriarchal insistence on heterosexuality as the only sexual/lifestyle/ ideological norm in a sexist society. Unless that assumption is challenged and rejected, we may not realistically retain hopes for a truly genderfree society.

Lesbian- Baiting: Dynamics We've all heard the remarks that are obvious manifestations of lesbian-baiting: "The women's movement is nothing but a bunch of dykes!" "Lesbians are ruining the women's movement. They're scaring away all the people who might support us I"

5 These sorts of remarks play into the divide-and-conquer games that our

opponents delight in with tiresome regularity. These I and similar remarks I make it clear that it is not acceptable for "good women" to be associated with lesbian rights--much less with actual lesbians! Those remarks promote the misleading notion that we should tolerate oppression of lesbians if by doing so we "better our public image. "

The baiting comes from many sources 1 in many ways. Not infrequently, the press has baited us: we offer here an excerpt from a particularly offensive editorial

from the Blair Press of Hollidaysburg, PA, in November I 1975:

HOMOS, LESBIANS

The current effort by some groups and politicians to

enact laws in behalf of, and enlist sympathy for I homo­ sexuals and lesbians is misplaced. The effort is almost certainly opposed by most Americans. Women's lib groups, so busy these days, often include lesbian problems in their reform programs. (The National Organization for Women did so at its recent four-day session in Philadelphia.) It is not that males who like other males and females who like other. females should be persecuted. But they certainly should not be encouraged or invisioned (sic) as normal citizens. This is partly because of the future of American society, the nation itself, is involved. The family unit, nature's pattern of man, woman, and children, is the foundation stone on which the country's basic social fabric is built. Encouraging unnatural patterns of sexual behavior, as if normal/ is in effect encouraging the breakdown of the traditional family-unit structure of American life. On that structure hangs the fate of our future, children, society, and government--and national security.

Mixed metaphors and hanging fates as ide, that's a pretty remarkable editorial, and it's a masterful example of overt lesbian-baiting (and homophobia). We particularly love the way anti-gay attitudes are equated with love for family and country. It is no mere coincidence that those who are leaders in the organized anti-ERA movement, many of whom are also noted for their extreme right-wing views, regularly lesbian-bait. Phyllis Schlafly, sweetheart of the anti-ERA forces, gives another obvious example of the tactic in the September, 19 7 4, issue of "The Phyllis Schlafly Report" in which she railed against gay marriages and argued that the ERA would not only legalize them, but that the ERA was in reality a gay rights bill in feminist disguise. To make her point clearly, she included the following cryptic comment:

6 I ~ "It is no accident that the principal organization spear­ heading the push for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is the National Organization for Women-­ known as NOW--an organization whose membership includes admitted lesbians and whose major political objectives include pro-lesbian legislation."

The ominous undertones are obvious: Ms. Schlafly has just served notice to the world that NOW is really a front for militant lesbian proselytizing! NOW historians should be surprised to learn that! Another anti-ERA fanatic, Florida citrus queen Anita Bryant, who apparently uses her vantage point behind the Sunshine Tree to keep an eye on the country' s morality, uses her own fundamentalist religious views to provide the basis for her anti-gay rights crusade. Ms. Bryant, wrapping herself in the sanctity of hetero­ sexual motherhood, warns America that we must save our children from the possibility of their coming into contact with people who provide positive gay role models. In dulcet tones, she warns America that since homosexuals can't reproduce, they must "freshen their ranks" by recruiting innocent young children. Gay people, she says, should repent their evil ways. She will tolerate gays personally only if they are closeted, ashamed gays. Bryant, too, has specifically cited NOW's stand on lesbian rights. Other forms of lesbian-baiting are more subtle, and these kinds can even come from feminists:

"They (lesbians) are too visible, too vocal. They're making it rough on the rest of us."

"Well, I'm all for civil rights. I just don't think we should make a big push in this direction. People are threatened by gays. They're not ready to hear it."

"Lesbian rights isn't a feminist issue, and I wish they'd stop trying to shove it down our throats."

"I think we ought to be working on the real issues in NOW. This lesbian thing is being overemphasized."

"Personally, I'm for lesbian rights, but they've got to realize how divisive this issue is in the women's movement and just cool it."

These kinds of remarks, too, foster anti-lesbian attitudes. They cater to fear, and they scapegoat lesbians. The implied message is: "If it weren't for them everyone would be far more accepting of feminism." In truth, feminism isn't popular in a sexist society. Trying to pretend it is is an exercise in the politics of illusion. That is so with or without the added factor of lesbian visibility in the feminist movement. Not all lesbian-baiting is deliberate, though much of it is. It does, however, whether deliberate or unintentional, reflect fear of association with lesbians or with lesbianism. That fear must be dealt with; if it is not, we shall not effectively diffuse

7 the power of lesbian-baiting. Its power is, after all, psychological. Rather than looking at the motives of those who lesbian-bait, it is more worth­ while to explore the effects of lesbian-baiting. And, the effect is always the same: lesbian-baiting accelerates horizontal hostility by dividing feminists into "us/them" categories--or, more directly, into "good woman/bad woman" dichotomies. Those dichotomies, insofar as they are the product of sexist propaganda and conditioning, must be seen by feminists as false dichotomies. We must analyze the origin of such conditioning so comEletely, so honestly, as to break out of the inclination to be intimidated by them. Such dichotomies must have no personal relevance to us. We did not create the dichotomies, the categories; we must not be forced into granting them validity they sh~uld not have by reacting defensively toward them, as though they were, in fact, real or valid. To break their psychological power over us is the first step towards diffusing the effectiveness of lesbian-baiting. We must stop pretending that the severe punishment of those who do not live in accordance with or give primary value to heterosexuality is the result of simple, honest confusion. The fact is that fear of woman-identification is basic to a patriarchal structure. While not all women-identified women need be or are lesbians, it is clear that lesbianism offers many opportunities for a rather complete woman-identification. Moreover, a patriarchal society benefits from promotion of the message that loving other women, (and patriarchy can only imagine love in sexual terms, of course) and valuing women is synonymous with lesbianism. Patriarchy clearly benefits from promoting the message that lesbianism is anathema in a society that desparately needs to insure its survival by perpetuation of heterosexuality as the only personal/lifestyle/ideological norm. In countless overt and subtle ways, women in our society are cautioned to avoid any statements, actions, or behavior that could conceivably threaten the heterosexist status quo. It should not surprise us that a sexist society not only promotes individual and institutional bigotry against those whose very existence threatens total heterosexual domination, but also finds it advantageous to encourage feminists and other traditional outgroups in society to scapegoat gay people. The hope dangled in front of feminists, whose very .existence as strong, assertive women makes them aliens in their own society, is that by repudiating lesbians and the entire gay issue, feminists can win greater social acceptance. The temptation to do so is strong for many feminists who are understandably desparate for any sort of feminist change to be realized. And that is the crux of the problem for feminists: we are in danger of having the perimeters of our movement defined by the attitudes, the ideologies, the institutions, the people, who are most responsible for our oppression. They condition us to believe that in order to achieve a modicum of freedom and equality, we must be willing to accept that "other" groups are expendable. Lesbians so often seem to be the most expendable of all in many circles. The irony of this situation is immense, for as writer/theoretician Charlotte Bunch has pointed out, " ... no woman is truly free to be anything until she is also free to be a lesbian. "1 Bunch does not mean that women should become lesbians, but that without the freedom to be that which is most feared in a patriarchal society, feminists will have fallen short of dismantling the male supremacist system. Our actual freedom will be only illusory. Why that is so is discussed more completely in the following section. For the moment, consider this: How do you feel when you're lesbian-baited? Have you ever felt evasive? Confused? Apologetic? Embarrassed? Intimidated? Defensive? If you've felt any of these, consider it an indication that patriarchal politics

8 have outposts in your head. Don't feel badly about that--most of us still react to various situations in ways that reflect sexist conditioning from time to time. That conditioning runs deep. As you might expect, those feelings of evasiveness, defensiveness, etc., that arise in reponse to lesbian-baiting are exactly the types of responses those who do the baiting intend to elicit from us. We are supposed to be devestated by this "incisive" challenge to our own credibility and worth. If not that, then we're at least supposed to be intimidated, or we're supposed to turn our anger and resentment away from those who bait us and turn it against lesbians. After all, they are supposed to be "the problem." It was previously mentioned that lesbian-baiting fosters horizontal hostility; that it establishes false dichotomies. We can see these obvious effects, but there are also subtler aspects to these effects that should be mentioned. Many, many feminists, both gay and straight, react with anger and/or defensiveness to lesbian-baiting. Unfortunately, the anger is frequently mis­ directed; the defensiveness should be unnecessary. In many cases, heterosexual women--and even, sometimes, closeted lesbians--believe that the outfront, visible lesbians are to blame. This reaction doesn't mean they think those outfront lesbians are bad because they're gay; rather, it indicates that they are angry because they believe lesbians who are visible have made a definite choice to confront patriarchal attitudes regarding homosexuality. Other women have not yet made that choice, and they often feel it is unfair and unjust that they, too, bear the burden of society's hatred of gays in a direct and personal sense, no matter how much they disagree with society. There is often a feeling that while outfront lesbians have every right to assert their pride; their visibility, it is not only the outfront lesbians who have to deal with the reaction to that visibility. It's other women, too, who feel they should not be forced to answer for someone else's decision. Unlike most other minorities, of course, lesbians are not visible in society unless they choose to be. The heterosexual assumption is so strong that literally everyone in this society is presumed "innocent" (1. e. , heterosexual) until proven "guilty" (1. e. , gay). That assumption infuriates lesbian-feminists who spurn the easy access to invisibility because to opt for it would be to act in a way that gives added credibility to the notion of the heterosexual norm. Many straight women who are feminists have not seen the issue in terms of challenging what hasbeentermed by lesbian-feminists . '~he normative status of heterosexuality." If there is an issue at all, they believe, it is one of civil rights. Whether or not they believe even in the civil rights aspects of the issue, however, many feel resentment when they, as feminists, are labelled "lesbian" when, in fact, they are not. And, of course, the irony of all of that is that lesbian-baiting is not just a reaction against lesbians. It is a tactic employed against any and all women who step free from adherance to rigid gender-based roles; against all who dare to reject in any form patriarchal mandates. One may realize this intellectually, however, and still be unable to cope with the emotional responses one has to being lesbian-baited. At the sarrie time, lesbian-feministswho insist on trying to deal with all.of these factors are frequently labeled "pushy" or "chauvinistic" or "guilt-trippers." Little wonder that impasse after impasse develops. Sometimes we can't even seem to talk honestly with one another; however are we to change society if that is the case?

9

. -- - ·-·------+------It is imperative that we break down the "ghetto-ization" of the lesbianism issue in the feminist movement. By that, we mean, it is necessary for everyone to cease defining lesbian rights, lesbian-feminist politics, etc., as a concern only or even primarily of lesbians. We are all oppressed by heterosexism, and each feminist who has not done so already owes it to herself, at least, to begin learning why it is in her own self-interest to have that understanding.

"The Lesbian Issue" Re-defined: Heterosexlsm

"Lesbian-feminism ..• is far more than civil rights for queers or lesbian communities and culture."

--Charlotte Bunch, writing in Ms. Magazine, November, 19 7 6

In the past decade, many feminists, many NOW members, have confronted their own homophobia, or developed supportive attitudes towards lesbians in the movement. On a personal level, those persons experience a minimum of or no anxiety about accepting and valuing lesbians as colleagues, friends, and sisters. It is fair to say, too, that while there is still considerable resistance to supporting lesbian and lesbian rights visibility in much of the "mainstream" feminist community, most NOW activists, and many in other organizations understand and support, to varying degrees, the need for lesbian/gay civil rights. Many or most grant that everyone has a right to personal choice with regard to sexual/affectional preference. Yet this personal awareness is so frequently not translated into willingness to actively promote action efforts in this regard. Some still believe, even though they are not homophobic, that feminism may be crucified on a lavender cross if we are organizationally perceived as "too vigorous" in our stand on lesbianism. We've talked about some of the reasons why this contradiction can happen: many feminists are not bigots, but do fear having additional bigotry leveled against them and their organizations at a time when the feminist gains that have been made are in continual danger of being taken away. And so, one can understand (even if one doesn't agree with) the contradiction between personal attitudes about and organizational effort with regard to lesbianism that so frequently develops. Our most pressing dilemma is this: how do we go about resolving this contradiction in a way that advances feminism and the concept of a non-sexist, non-heterosexist society so that the interests of no group or class of women is betrayed? It's a difficult question, and the search for answers is frought with difficulties. Earlier, we discussed some possible dynamics that might be involved with defensiveness on the part of heterosexual feminists. Lesbian defensiveness is no less real, although it can take other fonns. Lesbians, for instance, often feel angry at being--or feeling.;....­ compelled to "prove" their feminist credentials. We tire of citing all of the issues we've worked on, in addition to lesbian rights: the ERA, pregnancy disability, full employment, abortion rights, child care, women's health concerns, ad infinitum. We also weary of many assumptions that continue to exist, in varying degrees, at the different levels of the larger feminist organizations. Some of these are:

10 1. Membership figures in organizations such as NOW are adversely affected by strong, active, visible support of lesbian/gay rights.

2. Gay rights efforts should be carried out by gay /lesbian groups, and major feminist organizations damage their credibility by joining the struggle. Moreover, we expend too many energies that are needed for more pressing feminist issues.

3. There is no effective way to counter lesbian-baiting; thus, while we work on such efforts as achieving ratification of the ERA--an issue over which we are continually and effectively lesbian-baited by our opponents--we are better off maintaining a low profile on lesbianism and lesbian rights.

Those assumptions have been refuted time and time again, yet they continue to influence considerable numbers of feminists. To the extent that they do, lesbian­ feminists find it necessary to speak to them again and again; this causes fearful feminists to point fingers and howl "divisive influence" at the lesbians. All feminists would agree, however, that in order for feminists to achieve a non-sexist society, it is first necessary to dismantle the male supremacist system that perpetuates sexist ideologies, attitudes, and institutions. And perhaps that agreement can provide us with a starting point for initiating real, honest, frank discussion about the role lesbian-feminist analysis plays in that effort. It is that analysis that provides us with the ideological tools necessary to bu'ild a non- · heterosexist feminist consciousness. Until we do that, our advances can only be limited ones. One does not achieve a non-heterosexist consciousness simply by shedding personal homophobia, or by supporting "civil rights for queers." We must go much further, for even agreement with merely the personal choice/civil rights aspects of lesbianism and lesbian rights leaves room for belief that heterosexuality is somehow superior, or more normal, etc. It also leaves us vulnerable to the belief that lesbianism and heterosexuality can be defined in purely sexual terms. Such a definition is outrageous, for there are political questions to be dealt with in regard to both heterosexuality and lesbianism. We have, of course, been conditioned as women to be defined in sexual terms; as feminists we have rejected such definitions. In a patriarchal, sexist society, we must question any attempts to categorize us according to our mode of sexuality or sexual expression. And, too, just as lesbianism is far more than sex between women, so is heterosexuality more than sex between a man and a woman. Even the issue of personal choice becomes complicated when we realize that in a sexist society, everyone is conditioned to be heterosexual. Few heterosexuals would say that they had "chosen" to be straight, and indeed, it is unlikely that many did make a conscious choice. That is not to say that had they perceived a choice, they would not have been heterosexual, or that they shouldn't have been; we mention this only because it is important to point out that the heterosexual assumption pervades even the personal choice issue. Understanding heterosexism is crucial to the feminist movement, for as lesbian­ feminists have said in a variety of writings, heterosexuality--as an ideology and an institution, not as an individual preference--is a basic underpinning of patriarchy.

11 Rejection of the normative status of heterosexuality in a society would prove a critical threat to patriarchal control. Initially, this statement may be disturbing or seem threatening to many hetero­ sexual women, for they may feel that it implies a denunciation of them and of their lives. It does no such thing, however, for as we have stated, it is the ideological, institutional nature of heterosexism that we challenge; not individual relationships or preferences. But even if some accept this challenge intellectually, there still may be fears that to do so in an overt way would alienate the mainstream support that we've won and would play into the hands of our opponents who charge that feminists are out to destroy our entire social system, including the nuclear family. To those people, we point out that our opponents charge that, anyway, just because we're feminists. It's hardly a new accusation. Moreover, one hopes that we are out to achieve far-reaching feminist change: a feminist, non-sexist society would be very different from a sexist, patriarchal society. Traditionally, patriarchal definitions of heterosexuality grant power and control to males and demand submissiveness and helplessness from women. Marriage laws are but one example of how these definitions are applied, and though feminists have won some major reforms throughout the past two centuries in this country, we all know that many hideous laws remain on the books in different states and that many judges and other officials charged with administering even reform marriage/divorce codes are still heavily influenced by the patriarchal definitions. Heterosexuality as an ideology and as an institution permeates every facet of our lives; as feminists, we know that sexist attitudes insist that women be tied to and dependent upon men. And that is precisely what we are talking about when we speak of the ideological, institutionalized nature of heterosexuality: woman tied to man; woman belonging to man. Women's bodies, women's self-images, women's property, women's lives have been controlled by men who have internalized and accepted the thousands of years of male supremacist conditioning. We are basically free to choose our own mode of existence only if we make the "correct" choices, and if we choose "traditional" lifestyles. And even when we choose those, we find we are not valued. For instance, women who choose to be housewives suffer severe discrimination with regard to Social Security benefits, etc. The notion that we really have choices in a patriarchal society is chimera. The real message of institutionalized heterosexuality is that women must be tied to men; women have no definition as individuals entitled to human freedoms according to patriarchal mandates. And that is precisely where the political nature of lesbianism comes in. Though patriarchy finds it beneficial to promote the notion that lesbians are deviant sexual creatures (and therefore, not real women), there is no question that the patriarchy is not naive. The real threat of lesbianism is that it is living proof that women need not be tied to men. It is proof that even given the hideous oppressions endured by lesbians, both as women and as gays, lesbians can overcome all of our conditioning to the contrary and that women need not be dependent upon males to define our lives for us. Obviously, lesbians are not the only women to reject dependency upon men. But we are just about the only women who live without heterosexual privilege-­ particularly those who are no longer closeted. It is important to look at the question of heterosexual privilege, for that is the key to maintainance of institutionalized heterosexuality.

12

--~ . ------~------~~------·- --- In a sexist society where heterosexuality is seen as not only normal, but as the only "natural" form of sexual expression, and in a society that confuses sexuality with the concept of individual meaning and self-worth, there must be some method of insuring acceptance of ideological heterosexuality. The method rewards those who act in accordance with the norms or those who do not challenge the norms. Lesbian-feminists call this system of rewards "heterosexual privilege." Straight feminists, for the most part, probably spend little time thinking about this reward system: many may not realize just how operative the reward system is. For them, even though they've experienced discriminatory treatment as women and have had their credibility as women questioned because of their feminism, they've still always had benefits from the system of heterosexual privilege. Though they may not have thought about it consciously, however, it is probable that there is certainly subconscious awareness. It is this subconscious awareness that causes some straight feminists to immediately rush to establish their heterosexual credentials when lesbian-baited. For example, in response to the remark, "If you ask me, all women's libbers are dykes. What are you--some kind of lezzie?" many women might immediately respond by saying something like, "Now, look, I'm married and have two kids, and it's just not fair for you to think we're all man-haters." It is not the mere mention of personal situation that is at question here. It's the perceived need to defend oneself against lesbian-baiting. A defensive response does not question the validity of the lesbian-baiting at all; in fact, it reinforces that validity by indicating that the woman feels the charge is so serious that it must be refuted by a "No, I'm not!" type of response. It leaves all of the assumptions about the superior and normative status of heterosexuality unchallenged. It leaves all of the assumptions about lesbianism (i.e. , equation of lesbianism with man-hating; identification of lesbians as not real women, etc.) unchallenged. Lesbians are probably more consciously aware of what heterosexual privilege is because if we're out, we don't have it, and if we're closeted, we know that we can have some of it only if we continue to hide and invent double lives and pretend to be something we're not. Many of us lived heterosexual lives for some time, and so we know clearly what heterosexual privilege is. While it offers women some relief from further persecution in society, lesbians who are out have decided that the price exacted by efforts to maintain that relief is too high to pay: once we allow patriarchs to control us in this regard, we have given away much of our own power. We _trap ourselves into continual defensive behavior, and we find ourselves less and less willing to antagonize the people and institutions responsible for perpetuating sexism. Charlotte Bunch has suggested that straight women who want to really know what heterosexual privilege is and how it works to keep male supremacy functional can find out by living their lives for one week as a lesbian. She speaks of coming out to family, friends, employers, colleagues, everyone. She suggests imagining one's entire personal and economic existence in relation to women rather than men. Other useful endeavors might be these: open a joint checking account with another woman; apply to rent a one-bedroom apartment with another woman; name an unrelated woman as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. Wear a lesbian rights button everywhere: to the supermarket, to church, on the job; tQ visit friends who have small children. Apply for a job while wearing that button. Most straight women would not do this in order to fully experience, if only for a single week, what it means to have heterosexual privilege revoked. Perhaps, too, it is not absolutely necessary that they do so. Merely thinking about what

13 1

would happen if they did can be almost as instructive. Anyone who tried this experiment, though, would see that the revocation of heterosexual privilege would happen not because anything about the individual had actually changed, but because her behavior and actions would defy the heterosexist norm, and she would be perceived to be guilty of crossing the final demarcation zone which separates acceptable womanly behavior from intolerable womanly behavior. The difference is not established just because of personal bigotry or homophobia. Bigotry must always evolved in response to a specific fear, and it should be obvious by now that the primary fear is of women loving women, whether it is ever expressed physically or not. And for women to love and value other women, we must first have come to terms with loving ourselves, for society has said that not only are women an inferior group of people, but that individually, we have no meaning since we can only be defined by our relationship with men. That is as true in the workplace as it is at home. Thus, heterosexism is one of the single most powerful forces that acts to prohibit women from finding and exercising the fullest meaning of the concepts of self-love and independence, regardless of who we are or are not relating to personally. When Bunch says, then, that lesbian-feminism is more than just civil rights for queers, she is absolutely correct. While civil rights reforms are desparately needed in order to allow lesbians a bit more breathing space, economically and personally, we must not lose sight of the necessity to understand why civil rights efforts in this regard are so vitally important to each one of us. We must understand fully why the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1976 regarding a Virginia sodomy law (Doe v. Commonwealth) diminishes 'the rights of all of us, not just of gays. Feminists should not be working for lesbian rights in addition to other vital feminist concerns only because they think lesbians are basically nice folks or because they can't think of good enough reasons to oppose our civil rights, but rather out of a sense of self­ interest., and a realization that to do less would ultimately betray the interests of all women. The status of lesbians in our society can serve as something of a barometer for feminist change. We provide the focal point for challenging the cherished heterosexist traditions of male supremacist systems; our visibility serves notice that conditioning can be overcome. It can be rejected.

Oddly enough, straight feminists, even those who cringe when the lesbian issue is raised, have always worked on issues which do, if one considers them carefully enough, also serve to challenge heterosexist norms: the feminist approach to domestic violence and wife-battering challenges the notion that women are the property of men; feminist perspectives on reproduction, abortion, etc., challenge the concept of defining and controlling women in relation to their reproductive capacity. There are many other examples. And while not all feminists may have seen the threat their work poses to heterosexist ideology and institutions (though they do see the threat to sexism in general), the male supremacists see that threat

clearly. It is no coincidence, then 1 that they hurl the word "lesbian" at all feminists. And when that word is hurled, it's not meant just to accuse a feminist of sleeping with another woman; it's used to warn the feminist against seeking anything more than minimal reform within the context of a patriarchy. It is tragic that feminists

do not see this more clearly, because as long as that awareness is lacking 1 lesbians will continue to be scapegoated by other feminists.

14

- ·------·-··------I • ~ More and more straight feminists, however, do have that awareness, and for them, the question becomes one of finding ways to fight heterosexism in their own lives and in the larger context of the feminist movement. There are many ways, none of which demands that the feminist become a lesbian. Feminists can, for example, become as conscious of heterosexism as they have become about sexism in general; they can begin noticing the patterns that reinforce heterosexism. Take a heterosexist inventory of things. Notice how couple-oriented society is, but this time, notice all of the little heterosexist aspects to couple­ orientation. As Bunch remarks, you might begin correcting behavior at parties where the seating patterns are invariably man-woman-man-woman-man. Begin confronting people who tell "queer" jokes, or who make disparaging remarks about gays. Initiate conversations about lesbian/gay rights. If the local NOW chapter is preparing to initiate a challenge to license renewal of a radio station, try to involve the chapter in including the gay issue as part of the challenge. If the local lesbian rights task force is catching flak from some chapter members who are worried that the TF' s "women only" dances are tarnishing the chapter's public image, speak out to support the TF efforts. If NOW members in another chapter try to put a halt to any women-only TF efforts, saying that such events are discriminatory since they exclude men, and that violates NOW policy, point out that lesbians have existed for a long time within the framework of NOW, and that framework reflects heterosexual reality. Why should we oppose occasional efforts that reflect lesbian reality? Just as lesbians understand that our rights are in danger, as women, if those issues traditionally--and incorrectly--perceived of as non-lesbian issues in

the feminist movement (i.e. I reproduction 1 abortion, birth control, child care, poverty, employment, education, etc.) do not receive the full support of feminists, so must straight feminists understand that their rights can ultimately be compromised if we do not have freedom for all women, including lesbians. Thus, straight feminists can fight heterosexism directly by actively working for lesbian rights efforts. And, straight women can refuse to play into lesbian-baiting; they can stop reacting defensively to it once they realize that lesbians may be the focal point of the tactic, verbally, but the target is any woman who steps outside of sexist definitions of who and what she should be.

Conclusion

Assuming that, by this point, we're all agreeing that it would be nice to assertively confront lesbian-baiting without being intimidated by it, it's time to consider how to handle it the next time it happens. We know how lesbian-baiting usually works; how it's meant to work. Why not change the rules of the game a little bit. Instead of being defensive, evasive, apologetic, etc. (all of which are v·ictim-type responses), begin posing questions of your own. Give assertive responses. Use humor when it seems like a good thing to do. Use the opportunity to raise consciousness. If you get angry, direct that anger toward an appropriate target. People who lesbian-bait don't expect those kinds of responses. The rules become confused, and you're asserting power and control tb_~. t is unexpected. , Two :examples follow, giving first a lesbian-baiting remark, and a possible feminist way of dealing with it.

15 - PERSON WHO LESBIAN-BAITS CREATIVE NOW MEMBER

"I think lesbian visibility is "I think that misconceptions 1 mis­ damaging ratification efforts information and fear tactics promoted for the ERA. Don't you?" by Phyllis Schlafly and other anti­ ERA people are hurting ratification of the ERA. They're using the lesbian

issue I just like they've used and

exploited fears of unisex toilets 1

forced abortion 1 and pregnant women in the foxholes to rouse anti-ERA sentiment. Lesbian visibility isn't the problem: the marketing of homophobic fears is • "

"What group in its right mind "If what you're getting at in your would come out in support of own inarticulate way is: what

rights for queers, faggots, and organizations support gay rights 1 dykes?" the answer is: The National Organization for Women; the Washington, D.C. Board of Education; the Unitarian Universalist Association; the American Civil Liberties Union; the National Education Association; the American Psychological Association; the Council for Christian Social Action of the United Church for Christ; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Personnel and Guidance Association; the Episcopal Diocese of New York; as well as many others. All of these groups have passed some sort of resolution or statement supportive of prohibition of discrimi­ nation against gays in such areas as (*List of organizations compiled employment, housing, public from materials published by the accommodations, etc. Next question?* National Gay Task Force)

We could continue with many more examples, but no useful purpose would be served by doing so. The task now really rests with individuals and organizations which have a unique opportunity to confront heterosexist conditioning and to reject

it. As long as the heteros exist norm persists 1 women cannot speak realistically of having freedom of choice to determine our lives; that is as true for heterosexual women as it is for lesbians.

16 r

FOOTNOTES

1Charlotte Bunch, "Forum: Learning From Lesbian Separatism," Ms. (Vol. V No. 5), November, 1976. P. 100

Note:

Many of the concepts discussed in this paper are the result of analysis developed by various women in lesbian-feminist groups, including the early Furies collective and a group from Holland who put out a newspaper called Purple September. Acknowledgement of their important work is given here; we have learned from it.

17