Pat Anderson
De Paul University, Fall 1996
Inequality in American Society, PSC 324
Stan Howard, Ph.D.
Lesbian Lives: Historical Plight for Inclusion
Other than the occasional sighting of a “stone bull dyke,” the stereotypical lesbian drag king, lesbians have been relatively invisible. Before I came out as a lesbian five years ago I had never knowingly met a lesbian and initially had no idea where I might find “them.” Within the last few years lesbian visibility has become more common. Most heterosexuals could probably actually think of a lesbian they knew by name: Rock star, Melissa Etheridge, recording artist, K.D. Lang and Martina is all you need to say to bring the tennis legend to mind. Of course, this has not been always been the case …
Historians have discovered lesbian ghettos all the way back to the early sixth century BC. Because of the stigma and shame implied, women of past generations rarely admitted their attraction to women. Closeted lifestyles kept them from social critique (Ettorre 248).
According to Arlene Stiebel (1992), historically speaking there was no such thing as a lesbian (154). She has written about the relative ease of lesbian relationships during the Renaissance. Lesbian authors wrote openly about their romantic friendships with each other without fear of discovery. During the Renaissance there was no sex without penetration, thus lesbian relationships could only be viewed as innocent. Queen Victoria once asked, “What could women do” (Stiebel 158)? Phallocentric culture defines sex around the penis, so sex without a male is impossible (Stiebel 158).
The history of the word homosexual is illustrative of society’s abnormal and distorted image of it. When it was first used in the eighteen fifties, homosexual referred to males and females and meant the inability to have a “normal” erection (Unger & Crawford 345). During the nineteenth century, many North American women lived and wrote about their lesbian lives together, yet they were not labeled lesbians (Unger & Crawford 346).
Traditional discourse on homosexuality has revolved around males. Lesbians had little credibility and their social relevance was merely to delight male fantasies. Acceptable sexuality for women always involved male partners (Ettorre 247).
Lesbians were originally excluded from the civil rights, women’s and gay liberation movements of the late nineteen sixties. Many gay men in the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) held the same sexist assumptions about women’s roles as heterosexual men (Marotta 238). They faced sexism within the gay liberation movement itself. Lesbian issues were even excluded within the National Organization for Women (NOW).
According to Toby Marotta (1981) lesbians were forced to begin their own separate lesbian feminist movement outside of NOW. One of the groups formed to work toward lesbian inclusion was the Radicalesbians (Marotta 230). Rita Mae Brown was forced to resign from NOW after failing to obtain NOW’s approval to include lesbian concerns. NOW leaders were uneasy about Brown’s open lesbianism and weren’t willing to officially use their voice to speak for lesbians (Marotta 234). Just the mention of the word lesbian and NOW’s Executive Committee would have a collective heart attack (Marotta 235).
Brown tried to get NOW members to see that by excluding lesbians they were oppressing other women. Brown reminded NOW members that the image they were trying to uphold was male-oriented (Marotta 235). By excluding lesbians, they were being obedient to patriarchy.
The Radicalesbians had to encourage each other to express themselves freely due to the fact that male-identified lesbians had been ostracized for not meeting “female” standards of appearance and behavior (Marotta 314). In the nineteen seventies lesbians weren’t free to be who they really were even among themselves. Just like heterosexual women, lesbians internalize male-defined identities and inferiorities which results in self-hatred and group in-fighting. If feminists and gay men wanted to exclude lesbians, it’s not hard to extrapolate that society wasn’t any where near ready for lesbians to leave their closets.
Historically, due to the denial of lesbian existence, heterosexuals were the ones in the closet. But once society stuck its awareness out of the closet and saw lesbians, it was lesbians who were shoved into the closet.
Origin
Heterosexism and homophobia are two theoretical frameworks that are inseparable in explaining lesbian exclusion. Heterosexism is the institutionalized assumption that everyone is heterosexual and if they’re not, they should be. This assumption then sets the stage for homophobia by assuming that the world is and must be heterosexual (Pharr 16). Heterosexism is also a value that uses religion to enforce homophobia. Heterosexist family values makes women loving males inherently superior and gives it the right of dominance.
Because it’s a value of the ruling class, heterosexism holds enormous power. Pharr explains that its power is in defining norms and standards of righteousness that others are often judged in relation to (53). Norms are empowered through institutionalization, economic power and violence to make them complete. These norms represent the few with power (Pharr 53). Audre Lorde (1992) refers to American norms as “mythical norms”, they include being white, thin, male, heterosexual, Christian and financially secure (Lorde 214).
Homophobia is an irrational fear and hatred of people who love and sexually desire their own sex (Pharr 1). Homophobia acts as a social control because it encourages males to act more masculine just to prove they’re not gay. It also separates masculinity and femininity by discouraging men from exhibiting caring, gentleness or nurturing for fear of being accused of a so-called feminine trait (Anderson 37). Lesbians are threatening because they expose contradictions in our beliefs about biology, culture, sexuality, femininity and women in general (Ettorre 243). Our society is male-oriented and propagates sexual ideas that cater to the interests of the elite males (Ettorre 244).
The power of homophobia and heterosexism is profound because it’s so intricately entrenched in American culture that most heterosexual people don’t see it and the harm it inflicts on lesbians. At a recent Anti-Homophobia workshop at De Paul University, Richard Friend (1996), referred to homophobia and heterosexism as a “loud silence.” Silent unconscious assumptions of heterosexuals that scream at the consciousness of homosexuals.
Heterosexism and homophobia are enforcers of patriarchal power (Pharr 16-17). Together they attempt to control and limit sexuality. Heterosexuality is the only sexuality allowed. Lesbian sexuality excludes men so it’s labeled abnormal, unnatural and is relegated to closet expression.
Persistence
Homophobia and heterosexism maintain, reinforce and are actual off-springs of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethic. This dominant elite morality controls sexuality through heterosexism and homophobia. Because of its enormous power it’s morality is afforded credibility among most traditional religions. Rugged individualism is a value attributed to males. Lesbians are seen as disobedient “Others”, despite the rugged individualism it takes to survive in a hostile heterosexist culture.
Internalized homophobia has worked to keep lesbians isolated from other lesbians and when combined with compulsory heterosexuality makes lesbians feel unacceptable. Without visible role models in society, lesbians feel different, alone and end up blaming themselves (Pharr 71).
Passing, or appearing to be heterosexual, is a tactic that has allowed many lesbians to hide, thus attaining heterosexual privilege. But passing prevents lesbians from meeting and bonding with one another (Pharr 72). This phenomenon has also prevented lesbians from becoming politically and socially active in fighting homophobia (Pharr 73).
Religious words and phrases like “abomination”, “crime against nature”, “sick”, “evil”, “sinful” are used to label homosexuals. When you grow up internalizing these ideas it makes it difficult to accept being a lesbians to one’s self, let alone to develop a political consciousness or more importantly a healthy self-worth (Ettorre 247). This powerful degradation of the self is similar to what blacks have experienced through fallacious claims of inferiority.
The fear of lesbianism is so bad in the black community that it has led Black women into testifying against each other; some have been led into destructive alliances, others into isolation and despair. Black lesbians are viewed as threats to Black nationhood, as enemies and as un-Black. This keeps black women in hiding between homophobia of blacks and racism of white women (Lorde 219-220). Being a lesbian adds an additional cultural layer to one’s identity. Diverse identities among women has separated them from other cultural aspects of themselves and from each other.
Our culture has institutionalized sexuality and uses all its avenues to implant the dominant ideology about sexuality. Social status is granted for obeying the norms (Ettorre 244). Those who don’t fit are viewed as “Other” and labeled abnormal, deviant, inferior and not completely human. Norms don’t understand the “Others”, but “Others” always understand the “Norm” in order to protect themselves. The “Other’s” life is kept invisible, if an oppressed group is not seen it enforces the notion that the “Norm” is the majority – “Others” don’t exist or count (Pharr 58). Unless we demand expansion of the “Norms” to include alternative sexualities, lesbian status as “Other” will be maintained, even among women and lesbians themselves.
“Others” are labeled with negative stereotypes that dehumanize them and serve to allow “Norms” to justify exclusion (Pharr 59). Homophobic labels depict lesbians as child molesters and perverts; they’re threatening to “family values” and they recruit heterosexual women. (One wonders what societal perks are used as sales tactics by recruiters). These labels provide plenty of rationale for discriminating against lesbians. Lesbians internalize these negative stereotypes and images that also blame them for their situation; this leads to low self-esteem and self-blame (Pharr 59). Heterosexist “norms” and values maintain women’s dependence on men, male/female role playing and penile sexuality.
Lesbians share a zero-sum phenomenon similar to what African Americans have experienced – any perceived gains for blacks are seen as losses for whites. Some criticize the feminist movement and assumed that work done on behalf of women is work done against men (Pharr 24). It is assumed that because lesbians have stepped out of sexual and economic dependence on men that they hate and are against men. Lesbians threaten male dominance, control and the nuclear family (Pharr 18). This ideology poses a threat to all women in that any woman who fights for the rights of women or steps out of her prescribed role risks being labeled a lesbian. Once labeled as a lesbian there is no real way to prove one’s sexuality (Pharr 19). This fear prevents many women from joining the feminist movement and decreases the odds that all women’s inclusion will be attained. It is wrongly assumed that most feminists are lesbians and that all lesbians are feminists. Thus many women who believe in feminist ideology deny being a feminist because it means being labeled a man-hater and/or lesbian (Pharr 24). Many heterosexual women see lesbians as standing in contradiction to the sacrifices they make in conforming to mandatory heterosexuality (Pharr 18). These commonly held misperceptions serve to perpetuate the exclusion of lesbians and women in general. The effects of homophobia and heterosexism go hand in hand maintaining lesbian exclusion.
Consequences
Lesbians share economic parity with women in general who make less money than men. The combined income of two lesbians is less than a household with a male and female or two gay men. Sometimes the sheer force of economics encourages lesbians who are dating to move in together before either of them are ready to do so emotionally.
Economics is a weapon used to control women and lesbians. The National Commission on Working Women claims that the average woman earns sixty four per cent of what men earn (Pharr 10). The economic weapon works particularly well to keep lesbians in the closet for fear of loosing their jobs. In order to survive financially they’re sometimes forced to tolerate abuse and isolation at work (Pharr 12-13).
Lesbians loose jobs, fail to get a promotions, face discrimination or can even be seen as a liability in the work place because of their sexuality. It’s as if heterosexuals could be corrupted and contaminated in the presence of a lesbian (Ettorre 246).
Lesbians who develop committed relationships with one another do not enjoy equal status with heterosexual couples. They have not been recognized as a couple so even the idea of domestic partnership benefits, marriage, survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights for partners, adoption of one of the partners children and even maintaining custody of their own children has been a struggle for those who dared to admit being lesbians.
Lesbians risk loosing custody of their children just because they’re lesbians, even if the other parent is a known abuser (Pharr 21). There are written and unwritten laws that prevent lesbians from adopting and fostering children due to an irrational fear that children will be influenced to become homosexual or will be abused. Despite the fact that ninety five percent of child sexual abusers are heterosexual men there are no policies to prevent heterosexual men from teaching or working with children (Pharr 22).
In nineteen ninety six, the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) failed to pass by one vote. This law would have outlawed workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Today lesbians and gays can be fired or not hired merely for being homosexual.
In nineteen ninety six lesbians and gays rights were given another blow when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed. This act truly demonstrated the homophobia of legislators. They pass a bill preventing recognition of gay marriages BEFORE gay marriages are even legal! It was certainly defensive posturing of congressional officials. It’s almost as if the gain of lesbian and gay marriage would somehow mean losses for heterosexual marriages – zero sum thinking again. Homophobia propagates the myth that if lesbians and gays are allowed to marry and gain spousal benefits there won’t be enough for heterosexuals. Wouldn’t marriage actually make lesbians conform? This is an example of wasteful discriminatory energy.
Many lesbians are not accepted by their own family and friends. Many are literally thrown out of their homes when they come out. Inferiority is a powerful control mechanism propagated by homophobia and heterosexism. It takes a profound toll on the self esteem of lesbians. They suffer serious psychological problems accepting themselves because of societal rejection. One young woman described her experience growing up in a homophobic home. It was as if she were a Jewish kid raised in a Nazi home (Friend 1996).
Lesbians and gay men are subjected to being beaten, raped, killed, subjected to aversive therapy and placed in mental hospitals just for being who they are (Pharr 23). Despite the fact that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their list of diagnosis in nineteen seventy three (Unger & Crawford 347), a recent 20\20 show (American Broadcasting 1996) told the story of teenage girl whose mother kidnapped her and brought her to a mental hospital for treatment when she found out she was a lesbian. The girl reported that many of the other teens there were also being treated for being gay.
Depression and suicide can be the results of being subjected to societal hatred (Pharr 23). According to Richard Friend (1996) suicide is epidemic among gay young people and is the leading cause of death in gay teens. Its two to three times higher than the heterosexual rate. The leading indicator of a potential suicide in a gay male teen is effeminacy; they’re most likely to be harassed and to commit suicide. This also reflects the drastic nature of sexism in that a male is most hated for being like a female (Friend 1996).
The right-wing perspective sees women’s self determination and control over their own bodies as threatening to the nuclear family so one of their main focuses has been on homosexuality (Pharr 17). The religious right exhibits it’s heterosexism and homophobia through it’s sin theory that relies upon the bible for evidence. Discrimination against homosexuals is justified through biblical translations, despite the fact that the word homosexual doesn’t appear in the bible. English biblical translations exhibited bias against homosexuals that has served to limit their civil and human rights (Pharr 3). Eight alleged biblical references to homosexuals must be looked at within the context of hundreds of references to the need to justly distribute wealth. Not many people reference the bible to argue for a redistribution of wealth (Pharr 3).
Concerns of the religious-political right are shared even by those who don’t necessarily identify with their view about homosexuality being a prime contributor to America’s spiritual degeneracy (Corbett 187). Surveys have shown that eighty percent of Americans think that homosexuality is nearly or always wrong (Corbett 188). Being labeled immoral is spiritually degrading.
Homosexuals are the most frequent victim of hate crimes. A recent Jenni Jones show demonstrated just how bad people feel about gays. A gay man on the show said that he liked a man who was heterosexual. The heterosexual man shot and killed the gay man simply for saying he liked him. Apparently it’s better to be known as a murderer than to being in any way associated with being gay (Friend 1996).
Last August two anti-gay murders were committed in Oklahoma. Albert Bixler was beaten to death with a tire iron and Charles Meers was beaten, stabbed, shot, doused with gasoline and then lit on fire. Fred Mangione was stabbed to death outside of a bar in Houston. An Oregon lesbian couple, Michelle Abdill and Roxana Kay Ellis, were murdered last September (Outlines 20).
In order to maintain power violence and the threat of violence must be used (Pharr 55). The interplay of institutional and person violence is expressed against gays and lesbians through written and unwritten laws. Whether or not it’s police harassment or lack of police protection gays and lesbians are assaulted (Pharr 56). Lesbians also face rape, battering and abuse, the same as heterosexual women, which is frequently not honored in the courts (Pharr 57).
David Mixner (1993) is an openly gay man and political consultant. He’s also been a close personal friend to Bill Clinton. He receives four to five death threats a week.
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Association asked teachers how their gay and lesbian students were doing. Teachers responded that they had no idea – a telling revelation about the school room climate. Several teachers at the Anti-Homophobia Workshop used the phrase, “hostile hallways” to describe what gay young people face going from class to class.
Lesbians and gays experience systematic exclusion within education because there are no images or role models presented. When “greats,” like Walt Whitman, Gertrude Stein, Virginia Woolf (and many others) are discussed in classrooms there is no mention that they were gay. As a lesbian, if you don’t learn about lesbians who did anything worthwhile you think you’re worthless (Anti-Homophobia Workshop).
School libraries (grammar and secondary) present a catch twenty two to gay students looking for information on homosexuality. Books on gays are in the reference section, kids who are looking for these books don’t want to ask for them. The libraries put the books in reference because the kids are so desperate for information that they’re afraid they’ll steal the books. Another problem is that information on homosexuality is placed with prostitution, pedophilia, deviance and women in prison (Anti-Homophobia Workshop).
Members of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Teachers Association say that schools fail to protect lesbian and gay young people. Teachers fail to intervene when young people talk negatively about gays, they fear that if they speak up about gay bashing someone will think that they’re gay (Anti-Homophobia Workshop).
On July 31, 1996, in the case of Nabozny v. Podlesny a school district in Wisconsin was found guilty for failing to stop anti-gay abuse. The United States Court of Appeals, for the Seventh Circuit, ruled that schools could be held liable under the federal equal protection act. The court covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin and has in effect said that the “boys will be boys” excuse for ignoring gay abuse is illegal (Lambda).
Amelioration… Well Underway
The nineteen eighties was a decade that brought positive media visibility to African Americans. The Bill Crosby show is only one example that attempted to dispel harmful myths and to present positive role models of African Americans. The nineteen nineties media is doing the same for lesbians. An example of one of innumerable television shows about lesbian and gay people was called, “The Gay 90’s: Sex, Power and Influence,” in which Maria Shriver (1993) labeled this decade the “Gay 90’s.” The show featured prominent and ordinary lesbians and gays who were proud of their identity.
Visibility has the power to provide role models, dispel fear and enhance self esteem of lesbians. The willingness to be visible says that you’re not ashamed, that there is nothing to be ashamed of in being different. If lesbians can rise above the societally imposed shame about who they are on an individual level, they can, in turn teach society about the harmful nature of heterosexism and homophobia that we’ve all internalized. Lesbians have to tell the world about their painful subjective experiences – how else could the world know?
One of the cures for phobias used by psychologists and counselors is desensitization. Desensitization provides gradual encounters with the fearful objects or situations allowing people to adjust and see that they can maintain control in the presence of cats or snakes, for instance. As more and more lesbians and gays come out hopefully the general public will become desensitized to homosexuality and overcome their homo “phobia”. People can and will learn that walls don’t crumble in the presence of a lesbian or gay person.
Gay political organizations such as the Log Cabin Republicans, The Human Rights Campaign Fund, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Astraea National Lesbian Action Foundation and The Illinois Federation for Human Rights are a big part of the solution. The Illinois states attorney’s office has lesbian and gay advocates available to assist lesbians and gays facing legal problems. This year the city of Chicago formed a gay chamber of commerce.
Classes at DePaul University such as: Lesbian Studies: Contemporary Fiction, Psychology of Women, and The Social Lesbian are very empowering for lesbian identity. Public radio (WBEZ) has shows discussing lesbians and gays issues almost daily. Prime time situation comedy’s now include gay characters. Almost everyone knows that Ellen’s character on Ellen is about to come out in the script. This show has the potential to use humor to teach precious lessons about understanding and tolerance.
I think amelioration is progressing well. More and more lesbians are coming out in all aspects of their lives. As more and more lesbians come out, it empowers more to come out. David Mixner (1993) said studies reveal that people who actually know a lesbian or gay person believe that they deserve equal rights. When we are invisible it’s easy to criticize and hate us.
Works Cited
American Broadcasting Company. (1996) 20\20. ABC Television. September 27.
Anderson, Margaret L. 1993. Thinking About Women. Third Edition. New York: MacMillan Publishing
Company.
Anti-Homophobia Workshop. DePaul University. October 24, 1996, Room, SAC 254.
Astrachan, Anthony. 1990. “Dividing Lines: Men’s Response to Women’s Demands for Equality and Power”. In Issues in Feminism. Ed. Sheila Ruth. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 72-79.
Corbett, Julia Mitchell. 1994. Religion in America. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ettorre, E. M. 1990. “A New Look at Lesbianism”. In Issues in Feminism. Ed. Sheila Ruth. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 243-251.
Friend, Richard. (1996). “Interrupting Homophobia in the Schools.” Anti-Homophobia Workshop. DePaul University. October 24, 1996, Room, SAC 254.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. 1996. Handout, Victory in the First Case Against a School for Anti-Gay Abuse. “Lambda’s Nabozny Case: A Fact Sheet”.
Lorde, Audre. 1992. “Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference”. In Ethics: A Feminist Reader. Eds. Elizabeth Frazer., Jennifer Hornsby., & Sabina Lovibond. Cambridge USA: Blackwell. 212-222.
Marotta, Toby. 1981. The Politics of Homosexuality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mixner, David. 1993. The Gay 90’s: Sex, Power and Influence. Channel Five, WMAQ – TV: Chicago, IL. The National Broadcasting Network. Television production called “First Person.”
Outlines: The Voice of the Gay and Lesbian Community. 1996. National News Round Up. October, vol 10, no 5: 20.
Pharr, Suzanne. 1988. Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press. Shriver, Maria. 1993. The Gay 90’s: Sex, Power and Influence. Channel Five, WMAQ -TV: Chicago, IL. The National Broadcasting Network. Television production called “First Person.”
Stiebel, Arlene. 1992. “Not Since Sappho: The Erotic Poems of Katherine Philips and Aphra Behn.” Homosexuality in Renaissance and Enlightenment England: Literary Representations in Historical Context. Ed. Claude J. Summers. New York: Harrington Press, 103-134.
Unger, Rhoda and Crawford, Mary. 1992. Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc.
Bibliography
American Broadcasting Company. (1996) 20\20. ABC Television. September 27.
Anderson, Margaret L. 1993. Thinking About Women. Third Edition. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Anti-Homophobia Workshop. DePaul University. October 24, 1996, Room, SAC 254.
Astrachan, Anthony. 1990. “Dividing Lines: Men’s Response to Women’s Demands for Equality and Power”. In Issues in Feminism. Ed. Sheila Ruth. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 72-79.
Corbett, Julia Mitchell. 1994. Religion in America. Second Edition. Englewoon Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ettorre, E. M. 1990. “A New Look at Lesbianism”. In Issues in Feminism. Ed. Sheila Ruth. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 243-251.
Friend, Richard. (1996). “Interrupting Homophobia in the Schools.” Anti-Homophobia Workshop. DePaul University. October 24, 1996, Room, SAC 254.
Freud, Sigmond. “Femininity”. In Issues in Feminism. Ed. Ruth, Sheila. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 97-108.
Hagan Leigh, Kay. 1991. “Orchids in the Arctic: The Predicament of Women Who Love Men.” MS. November/December: 31-33.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. 1996. Handout, Victory in the First Case Against a School for Anti-Gay Abuse. “Lambda’s Nabozny Case: A Fact Sheet”.
Lorde, Audre. 1992. “Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference”. In Ethics: A Feminist Reader. Eds. Elizabeth Frazer., Jennifer Hornsby., & Sabina Lovibond. Cambridge ,USA: Blackwell. 212-222.
Marotta, Toby. 1981. The Politics of Homosexuality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mixner, David. 1993. The Gay 90’s: Sex, Power and Influence. Channel Five, WMAQ – TV: Chicago, IL. The National Broadcasting Network. Television production called “First Person.”
Mueller, Janel. 1992. “Lesbian Erotics: The Utopian Trope of Donne’s `Sapho to Philaenis.'” Homosexuality in Renaissance and Enlightenment England: Literary Representations in Historical Context. Ed. Claude J. Summers. New York: Harrington Press, 103-134.
Outlines: The Voice of the Gay and Lesbian Community. 1996. National News Round Up. October, vol 10, no 5: 20.
Pharr, Suzanne. 1988. Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press.
Pogrebin, Letty Cottin. 1993. “The Secret Fear that keeps Us from Raising Free Children”. In Feminist Frontiers. Eds. L. Richardson and V. Taylor. 110-114.
Sherwin, Susan. 1992. No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics in Health Care.
Shriver, Maria. 1993. The Gay 90’s: Sex, Power and Influence. Channel Five, WMAQ -TV: Chicago, IL. The National Broadcasting Network. Television production called “First Person.”
Stiebel, Arlene. 1992. “Not Since Sappho: The Erotic Poems of Katherine Philips and Aphra Behn.” Homosexuality in Renaissance and Enlightenment England: Literary Representations in Historical Context. Ed. Claude J. Summers. New York: Harrington Press, 103-134.
Unger, Rhoda and Crawford, Mary. 1992. Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc.
Van Gelder, Lindsy. 1991. “The ‘Born That Way’ Trap”. MS. May/June: 86-87.