Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I would like to ask some question to help myself understand this survey. This is
not intended as an attack on the survey, and I hope that it is not considered
one.  Largely, context/control information is needed to get a prospective
on the infromation in this survey.

"Three out of four respondents had sought mental health counseling to cope with
financial difficulties, discrimination, problems with their relationships and
other stresses connected with their homosexual identity."

How does this 3/4 compare with the amount of problems that hetrosexuals have? 

"One in five respondents reported thinking about suicide and almost as 
many said they had tried to kill themselves."

How does this compare with the overall suicide rate?

"the 130-page survey provides revealing and sometimes troubling insights into
the lives of an estimated 10 million homosexual women. ... was based on
extensive questionnaires from nearly 2,000 homosexual women from all regions of
the country."

How is this extrapolated?

"Another finding, concerning lesbians' history of sexual abuse, may spark
renewed debate on the roots of homosexual behavior among women."

No Statistics, theories or other information is given backing this up.

'Kinsey = 5000 cases vs. 2000 cases'

Seems to be a large enough sample to be valid...

Where can a full copy of the survey be obtained?

Some of the statistics imply bisexuality rather then homosexuality; is there
any distinction made in the survey?

"Eighty-five percent had some college education compared to 67 percent of women
generally.  They were twice as likely to be in professional occupations. ...
Despite their education and job status, however, their incomes were not high.
Only 4 percent made more than $40,000 a year and 64 percent made less than
$20,000."

What does "some college education" mean?  one year, two year, 4 year programs?
How does this compare with the average?

JMB

    Jim, I can answer one of your questions:  "some college education"
    is a standard demographic question that means pretty much what it
    says, unlike some other questions on surveys, which can be more
    than meaningless!  Here, let me recite from Sociology 121,
    or whatever the number was . . . 
    
    In American culture, there is a sharp dividing line of attitude,
    behavior, and income between people who have attended college --
    one class, even one day of class, even the local junior college --
    and people who never attended any college at all.  It shows up in
    choices as diverse as whether you smoke and what cigarette you
    prefer, where you live, and what you furnish your house with. 
    
    There isn't as much difference between people who graduated from
    high school and people who dropped out of high school, or between
    people who dropped out of college and people who went on to
    complete, as there generally is between two women of the same age
    who went to the same high school, got married at the same age,
    make the same amount of money, and had the same number of kids,
    but one went to college and the other didn't.  [That is an
    atrocious sentence.  Quick, somebody, call in the Grammatical
    Purity squads!]

    This is, of course, only a statistical truism.  I can think of
    plenty of other college grads I have nothing in common with, and a
    high-school dropout who's been a good friend for years, and I'm
    sure you can do the same. 
    
    Does this mean anything?   I doubt it. But statisticians like to
    ask it, because they like to have at least one question on their
    survey that coorelates to reality. Even if that reality is no more
    meaningful than if they asked for the number of Harvard graduates
    with red hair . . . 

    --bonnie

    p.s. I read once that "maximum socialization" of the individual
    [in the sociological, not in the Marxist, sense] takes place at
    two years of college -- people who attend for two years but don't
    go on are the most conformist, the least tolerant, the least
    adventurous, etc.  I throw this out only because I feel like
    making a joke and couldn't think of one of my own. 

    RE .1
    
    Jim:
    
    I have no hard data to give you, but I can speak from my experience.
    I was in a Co-Counseling group in which the teacher and the majority
    of the members was lesbian.
    
    I find, in general, that I like lesbian women even more than straight
    women.  Because of the pain they live with, they do investigate
    and explore their own reality through therapy (and co-counseling
    can be one of the best in terms of acceptance).
    
    I once asked a group member if being lesbian caused her pain.  I
    thought that perhaps it didn't because she was out at work, was
    well respected in her job, was beautiful and wonderful.  She replied
    to me that every moment was painful.  When we were counseling once,
    I was telling her why I loved her - among other things for her dignity,
    and she replied "a dignified dike" as if there couldn't be such
    a thing, and she cried.
    
    At least two of the lesbian women in that group had been raped by
    fathers and other male relatives, and I too assumed that this was
    a cause of being lesbian.  But another co-counselor whom I know
    was raped repeatedly by her father, and she is straight.
    
    The "International Reference Person for Gay and Lesbian Liberation"
    gave as an opinion that bisexuals are oppressed as gay people, that
    is they are identified as gay if they say they are bisexual.
    
    Thanks for asking your questions.
    
    Briana

    
>    At least two of the lesbian women in that group had been raped by
>    fathers and other male relatives, and I too assumed that this was
>    a cause of being lesbian.  But another co-counselor whom I know
>    was raped repeatedly by her father, and she is straight.

Studies seem to indicate that approximately 25% - 35% of all women have 
been the victims of sexual abuse by a close male relative during their 
childhood.  These statistics may even low, given the conspiracy of 
silence that seems to surround incest and domestic abuse, and the fact 
that many children completely suppress all memories of traumatic events 
as a survival mechanism.  Many do not recover their memories until well 
into adulthood (if at all).  In recognition of this phenomenon, 
Massachusetts has recently extended the statute of limitations for 
reporting of childhood sexual abuse.  A victim now has 10 years after
turning 18 (the legal age of majority) in which to seek redress from an
abuser. 

It does not seem that lesbians suffer any greater degree of childhood
sexual trauma than heterosexual women.  The high number of lesbians who
seek counselling in order to sort out the many issues raised by their
orientation in this society means that a greater number of them may be
more aware of their pasts and more open about discussing and reporting
their experiences. 

	The main question this survey raises in my mind is whether lesbians
	are depressed because of the way society treats them or are women
	who get depressed more likely to become lesbians? I wonder if the same
	applies to gay men? 

	In many male magazines, ie: playboy et al, there are pictures of
	women making love to women. Somehow because of that I'd thought
	female homosexuality was more accepted than male homosexuality.
	My assumption after that was that it easier to be a lesbian than
	a gay man in our society. Mostly though I don't understand why it
	bothers so many people. It's not like they're forced to participate.

	I also find it interesting that someone mentioned bi-sexuality being
	the same as being a lesbian. It seems to me that it's quite a
	different attitude/life style. liesl

>	The main question this survey raises in my mind is whether lesbians
>	are depressed because of the way society treats them or are women
>	who get depressed more likely to become lesbians? I wonder if the same
>	applies to gay men? 

I sincerely doubt that women who are depressed are more inclined to
become lesbians than any other kind of women. Women in general use
health services, particularly counselling services, more heavily than
men. Lesbians and gay men use counselling services more heavily than
heterosexual women or men. 

>	In many male magazines, ie: playboy et al, there are pictures of
>	women making love to women. Somehow because of that I'd thought
>	female homosexuality was more accepted than male homosexuality.
>	My assumption after that was that it easier to be a lesbian than
>	a gay man in our society. 

These kinds of pictures are pure male fantasy, and have next to nothing 
to do with real lesbians.  I'm not sure exactly why hetero men find this 
kind of thing a turn on -- perhaps some of them in the audience could 
enlighten us.  

As far as real life is concerned, it is not at all easier to be lesbian 
than a gay man.  Gay man are more likely to be the victims of 
"fag-bashing" by other men, but lesbians get their share of physical 
violence (usually from men) and it often includes rape.  Men often seem 
to have this idea that lesbians are women who will fall into line as
"real women" if they only get a taste of a "real man". 

Lesbians have generally grown up feeling "different" -- a difference that 
runs the gamut from not wanting to be a lady-like little girl making nice 
to the boys to being told they are downright sick, bad, and perverted.
The mainstream Western religions do not make any distinction 
between lesbians and gay men in their denounciations of homosexuality.
The American Psychiatric Association, which only recently removed 
homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, made no distinction 
between the "sicknesses" of lesbians or gay men.

Lesbians are rejected by their families and friends, the same as gay men.
They get beaten by their parents, thrown out of their homes, told that 
they are "disappointments".  If they have children, they are more likely 
to be judged "unfit mothers" and lose custody of them.

They are just as afraid of losing their jobs and apartments as gay men.
They will be thrown out of the military and most religious professions if 
their orientation is known.  (This is ironic, since lesbians make up a 
phenomenally high percentage of each of those professions.) Lesbians who 
have visible professions in the arts, media, and sports are no more free 
to be open about themselves than gay men.  There are lots of them, but 
I doubt you could name many.  I'm not sure how many landlords think 
having lesbians in their apartments is better than having gay men.  

Lesbians are likely to make less money than gay men (true of all women
compared to all men, though), and have the problems that go with trying
to make ends meet on an inadequate salary.  In this respect lesbian and
gay male couples represent the two extremes of our society: lesbian
couples are likely to have the lowest incomes, while gay male couples
are likely to have the highest. 

Socially, lesbians' relationships do not exist. They cannot insure their
lovers, or have them recognized as next of kin, or a co-parents for
their children.  They are unlikely to be welcome at high school reunions 
or family holiday dinners.  They cannot hold hands or kiss goodbye on 
the street without risking violence and derision anymore than gay men can.

Lesbians do not have men to make them socially respectable. Straight 
women who live and travel alone may be aware of the assumptions that are 
made about such women.  Lesbians are less likely to dress and behave in 
a way designed to please men.  This has subtle kinds of social effects.
Women who are considered "attractive" are treated differently than women 
who are not.  That is admittedly a double-edged sword, since TOO 
attractive women are assumed to be stupid sex objects.  Still, women who
won't DO something with themselves are often slightly suspect. 

The key thing is that most lesbians deal almost daily with the effects 
of having to hide their true identity to one degree or another.  The 
psychological cost of not being free to express who you are, of living 
with secrets, lies, or just silence, is much more than you might think.

Think of what might happen in your life if you suddenly fell in love 
with the most wonderful man in the world and wanted to marry him.  Would
you tell your family? Your friends? Your co-workers? The seller of the
perfect little condo you plan to buy?  The adoption agency with the
handicapped child you've come to care for as a volunteer and would like
to adopt?  Would you change your name? Invite everyone you both know to
the wedding and share the planning with your mother, your best friend?
Put your husband's picture on your desk? Get pregnant and have your
husband help with the delivery?  Go to parent-teacher conferences with 
your husband?  Relocate when he gets a new job?

Now imagine this perfect mate is another woman.  What are the answers to 
those same questions?

RE: -< it ain't easy being queer >-

Yes, I see your point. As usual we (society) manage to outcast anyone who
does not meet our view of normal (read that as conformed to 'our' standard).

As a side note: In a class I was taking last fall on the communication of
social change we discussed the AIDs epidemic and the standard "GOD is punishing
the homosexuals" argument came up. I rather shocked the class when I commented
that GOD must really love lesbian couples since they had the lowest incidence
of AIDs of any group including heterosexual couples. I was accused of saying
"outrageous" things by 3 different class members. Even with the statistics
right in front of them they couldn't see reality.

liesl

    Well, everything is relative. I would say that lesbians are
    "more acceptable" in our society than gay males, but that
    doesn't mean that the difference between the two is very large.
    Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that they aren't
    quite as *un*acceptable as gay men.
    
    This is based solely upon the observation that society accepts
    open affection, or certain types of interaction, between women
    that is not accepted between men. For instance, women can dance
    with each other in a club, but men cannot. Women can hug or kiss
    each other in public without most people giving it a second
    thought, but men cannot (though I'd say that men hugging other
    men in public isn't as uncommon as it once was). Thus, a sexual
    relationship between two women doesn't seem quite as "outrageous"
    as one between men.
    
    Regarding the sapphic pictorials in mens' magazines: That's a
    good question. I can think of all kinds of possible answers, but
    who knows which is the "real" answer?  I find a certain eroticism
    in such images, but I'll be damned if I can figure out why.
    
    There's an interesting situation that is the reversal of this,
    though. This may be hard to believe, but there is a small sub-group
    amongst hardcore Star Trek fans that write, publish, and read
    Star Trek stories (referred to as "K/S" stories) that involve a
    homosexual relationship between Kirk and Spock (not just an implied
    one, either; some of them get *very* explicit, with equally explicit
    accompanying illustrations). From all that I've heard about these,
    the majority of the folks who both read and write this particular
    brand of story are heterosexual women. Why? Beats the hell out of me!
    
    --- jerry

re:< Note 71.8 by AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "Copyright � 1953" >

<   For instance, women can dance with each other in a club, but men cannot. 

Actually, this is not as true as you might think.  Women can dance maybe ONE
dance together, and then the men come up to ask them to dance, assuming that
they are only dancing together because they have no other choice.  If the 
women refuse the offer, then they suddenly become "unacceptable".

Even in restaurants this can be a problem.  Several years ago Shellie took me
out to dinner on Valentine's Day at La Petite Maison, a very expensive 
restaurant.  The waiter paid us a LOT of unwanted attention, found out where
I worked, and somehow found out my name, and the next day called me at work
and asked for a date!  Can you imagine him doing this to a woman customer who
was there with a man?!

I love Holly Near's song about two women out on a date when a man approaches
them and asks, "Are you alone?" and they reply, "No, we're together!"

              Carol

    re .9 and others:
    
> <   For instance, women can dance with each other in a club, but men cannot. 
>
> Actually, this is not as true as you might think.  Women can dance maybe ONE
> dance together, and then the men come up to ask them to dance, assuming that
> they are only dancing together because they have no other choice.  If the 
> women refuse the offer, then they suddenly become "unacceptable".
  
    I think this is almost exactly the same as the "sapphic pictorials"
    in men's magazines. Presumably the women are "dancing" only because
    there are no men around at the time. The assumption is that were
    a man to suddenly appear, the "girls" would jump all over him.
    Basically it shows the viewer women enjoying sex but without the 
    "rivalry" of another male in the picture.
                                             
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re.9 'if a woman were there with a man'
    
    Men are not a cloak of security.  I've been out with men on several
    occasions where I've heard from other persons later regarding getting
    to know one another a bit better.
    
      AnnieJ
    
    [the perfectly legitimate wedding ring doesn't seem to have an effect
    either]

    RE .10
    
    ...and to take the thought one step further, the man reading the
    magazine can be (in his own fantasy) the man on whom they both jump.
    
    --DE
    

    
    
    	re .9
    
    	Along these lines, did anyone see the "Designing Women" show
    	when the four women are sitting in a restaurant having a drink,
    	and a man comes up and starts chatting and Julia launches into
    	a delighful tirade about men presuming themselves into situations?
   	It was great moment for women, I thought!
    
    	Sharon

    	RE:  .13
    
    	YES!!  That was a wonderful show!
    
    	Did you see the follow-up to that episode (later in the season)
    	where the man that she dressed down turned out to be from the
  	IRS and came to their place of business to discuss their business
    	taxes with them?
    
    	The funny thing about it was that, when the man finally remembered
    	who she was, he ALSO remembered the speech she gave to him word
    	for word!  (It was pretty funny to hear it from him!)  :)
    
    	That is a great show!

    re .5
    
    Although we live in a society where both gay men and lesbians are
    very much oppressed, I think that some of the overt hostility may
    be worse for gay men.  Reason...society perceives gay men as imitating
    WOMEN, a seriously criminal act, and given our misogynist society,
    gay men should be duely punished for 'acting' like women.  Lesbians
    get their share of punishment for not buying into the misogyny game,
    can you imagine the nerve of them in this society.  Women aren't
    supposed to be REALLY loved and valued.  Lesbianism is a societally
    unacceptable form of the affirmation of women.
    
    re .6
    
    Although a woman cannot have, in the marriage-legal sense, her lover
    acknowledged as 'next of kin', there is a legal way to assert the
    powers of next of kin which is called 'power of attorney'.  A lawyer
    can draw up the power of attorney.
    
    With power of attorney, I feel that I have more control of decisions
    that may need to be made on my behalf, mainly because my lover and
    I have discussed our various wishes in the event of life and death
    decisions.  For instance, I certainly wouldn't want to be kept alive
    in a vegetable state on machines for years and years.  My lover
    does have the power to instruct doctors that no heroic measures
    be taken.  My legal family, parents, etc., do not have power in
    this situation.   
    
    As one settles into a long-term relationship, it is advisable to
    protect each other's interests in potential decision-making situations
    and to protect the material assets that accumulate, property,
    furnishings, etc.  If anything were to happen to me, I certainly
    wouldn't want to see my family march in and be able to take everything
    away from my lover that they could 'claim' belonged to me, and
    therefore to them!
    

"society perceives gay men as imitating WOMEN, a seriously criminal act"

I'm not sure I see this... Could you elaborate?

JMB 

    Re: .16
    
    Jim, methinks you've lost your sense of humor....  It's nice to
    see some wit once in a while not explicitly flagged by "smiley faces".
    
    				Steve

    in re .18
    
    it depends on your era
    
    Bonnie

    re .16
    
    I think that straight men, in particular, get totally nuts when
    it comes to the issue of men who exhibit 'feminine' characteristics.
     
    Women are still second-class citizens who are kept in place by fear
    and violence (have you ever heard Holly Near sing "Fight Back"?)
    and I think that there are serious parallels between violence against
    women and gay-bashing.
    
    Gay men will refer to each other as 'girls'.  I'm not sure if I've
    ever heard lesbians refer to each other as 'boys'.  Get the picture?
    
    In general we live in a society that has no tolerance and no sense
    of humor.
    

    There are groups of so-called men who get together for a few
    drinks and go out looking for gay men to beat up on.
    
    They identify the gays they're looking for by how effeminate
    they are.  
    
    Actual sexual orientation doesn't matter.  A schoolmate of mine, a
    musician, was pretty badly beaten and had his head shaved, and the
    closest he'd ever come to being gay was discussing the meaning of
    Hopkins' poetry with the openly gay man in our English lit class.
    
    --bonnie