Steering Committee for OLOC & pic of Alix Dobkin, Performer/ Singer

Old Lesbians Organizing for Change Gathering: Leave No Old Lesbian Behind

Old Lesbian Organizing for Change Gathering: Leave No Old Lesbian Behind Conference was held August 17 to 20, 2006
at the Sheraton Imperial Hotel in Durham, North Carolina.

I had an exhilarating and inspiring time meeting 125 other Lesbians over the age of sixty and a few women under that age who accompanied a 60 year old or came for special sessions like the intergenerational session or the banquet/dance we had on Friday evening preceding the opening session of the conference the next morning. The keynote speakers Mandy Carter and Suzanne Pharr started off the first morning with a bang presenting a conversation about race and class. Alix Dobkin singing performances were brilliant, reminiscent of her work in the 70's but even better. Alix is a provisional member of OLOC's Steering Committee. There were sessions on creative writing run by Ida Redd from the Mother Tongue Theatre Group. I participated in that group and we did a live perfromance after writing our thoughts in sessions. Cathy Cade ran a creative session showing her special format on how to do your own memoirs. Mina, my spouse, and I attended the memoir session. There was a session on Disability which focused on dealing with organizations, a major panel on Ageism and Lesbophobia: Look Us in the Eye of which I gave the introduction. You can find my written version of the introduction to that session inserted below this article.

There were great videos shown at the event including Donna Cassyd and Leslie Sloan's video titled High Heels on Wheels which is about roller derby women who were Lesbians in the 50's and sixties and a few who still skated in the nineteen eighties. I bought the video from South Carolina which was created to fight the insidious consitutional amendment petition which plans to do away with the right to ever marry for same sex couples in South Carolina. I showed that video to my class at Cal. State U. Dominguez Hills and it was well received. Cathy Cade's fun and well done video on The Dyke March in SF was also shown. There was also a session on Legal Issues presented by Joyce Pearson, our OLOC paralegal friend who works for the National Center For Lesbian Rights organization and an attorney also came to speak on this panel.


We had a hospitality suite where some women played cards and ate free food and many of us hung around the hotel lobby in between sessions just kibbitzing and having a good old time relaxing. Old Lesbians also enjoyed the hotel pool and spa area in the evenings. There was a silent auction which raised about $1200.00 for the organization. Arden Eversmeyer gave a session on doing oral herstories ( how to interview) which is an important part of the OLOC mission keeping a record of who we were and where we are going now. Arden and Charlotte are a couple from Houston who add style and a touch of Southern class to the Gathering. They have given lots of energy and attention to OLOC over the years. Shaba Barnes gave a moving memorial service for the Lesbians of OLOC who have gone before us. We each dropped a petal from a rose into a vase with water as the names of departed were read. It was a moving service with a slide show presentation of the departed which was created by Mary and Margaret, a couple who also have given much of themselves to making OLOC have a strong and dynamic presence.

Because The Gathering was held in the South the majority of the attendees came from the surrounding areas in North Carolina and other states. I understand there were something like 32 states represented and one person came from Norway. The Southern women seemed especially appreciative of OLOC's efforts. I heard that on the evaluation sheets many said they had never experienced anything like this before and that they really loved being at the event. I ditto their enthusiasm for the event. I always enjoy OLOC happenings and hope I can continue to come to OLOC Gatherings and related meetings in the future.

Sharon Raphael
Long Beach, California

Panel on Ageism and Lesbophobia: Look Us in the Eye

Panel on Ageism and Lesbophobia: Look Us in the Eye

Introduction by Sharon Raphael, Ph.D.



To be Presented Saturday August 19th in Durham, North Carolina
at The Sheraton Imperial Hotel


For Old Lesbians Organizing For Change Conference
“Leave no Old Lesbian Behind”



OLOC is in an unusual position to carry on the tradition of its founders and early pioneers, women like Barbara MacDonald, Baba Copper, and Shevy Healy who saw prejudice toward old people from the unique position of being feminists and lesbians. Standing outside the traditional heterosexist fold, these women were able to see the importance of resisting steroetyped ideas of what old women and in this case what old Lesbians should be and do with their lives in spite of the great obstacles involved in living in an ageist and sexist society. The purpose of this panel is to challenge and encourage all of us to continue to fight lesbophobic, ageist, and sexist thinking and behavior that might get in the way of our leading fulfiling and creative lives.

These are some of the traps we can fall into that can keep us from being the old Lesbians we would like to be, free to make our own choices about our destinies and purpose in life.

One big trap I would like to mention is the Invisibilty Trap. It has been pointed out by observers of aging that old people in general are not seen as sexual beings, the idea of sexuality and oldness does not sit well with younger people because they are under the assumption that oldness and sexuality are mutually exclusive. Women with grey hair and wrinkles tend to all be viewed as helpless grandmotherly figures. Thus it is easy for Lesbians who fit the bill of looking like the stereotype of being seen in the same mold. Of course, looking at women in this sexist way is not good for heterosexual women either but it places a special burden on the old Lesbian. It is the burden of invisibility.

Some old Lesbians use this burden to their advantage avoiding a kind of visibility that might make them in certain situations vulnerable to Lesbophobia. On the other hand, consistently avoiding visibility as Lesbians can work at cross purposes with the identity we have about who we are and how that identity may affect what we want to do with our lives in later life. Each Lesbian must choose for herself how far up the visibility road she wants to go. It is important to be “out” to family and friends for many reasons. The most important reason is integrity, standing up for oneself. Other reasons are more practical and may help simplify our lives in the long run. For example, letting family know it is your significant other or domestic partner or even an ex lover who is next of kin, not them.

Another trap to avoid is confronting the ageism that exists in the
LGBT community itself. Although changes have taken place in part as a result of the work OLOC has done on this isssue, there is a need for old Lesbians to resist and be aware that younger Lesbians and Gay men and others in our community do have prejudices and fears about aging that spill out and sometimes affect our lives in negative ways. Sometimes in group settings we are not treated as equals. Barbara McDonald in her book Look Me in the Eye drew our attention to the practice of younger Lesbians putting us on pedestals and using us as the Mothers they would have wanted, a practice that keeps both young and old from having equal and healthy relationships. There is also the habit of making old Lesbians into “keepers of the wisdom” which in and of itself may not be a bad thing but when emphasized as though as though it is our only saving grace this form of objectification becomes another obstacle to achieving integration and equality in the LGBT community.

The Sexism in our Society is a trap that is hard to overcome but not hard to fight against and be aware of. Women have second class status and Lesbians even less status; therefore if you add the category “old” to that you are talking about triple stigma and then add a few other categories i.e. race, class or disability you can see the stigmatization factor becoming very weighty indeed. One reason we form groups like OLOC is to change the way society sees these stereootypical ways of classifying people. Part of this sexist pattern can be seen within the field of practicing gerontologists whether gay or straight, when they institute program and services which do not fit the profile and needs of strong independent minded old Lesbians and instead relegate old women in general to traditional grandmother roles i.e. taking care of infants in an intergenerational setting or always involving them in food preparation.

Lesbophobia is an ism that affects us most profoundly as we grow older and old. It is the reason many Lesbians avoid institutions that serve older adults out of fear of either being discovered or being mistreated or both. Not having the safeguards of marriage equality affects the security for those of us who have partners. Discrimination against Lesbians in assisted care and nursing facilities has been documented. Although new housing options are available within the LGBT community, many of these new living places are too expensive for low income or low middle class old Lesbians which forces most old Lesbians to think about subsidized housing or Medlcare subsidized nursing or home care where staff is usually not sensitized to the needs of lgbt seniors and if they are this does not mean that the old people in the beds or rooms next door or down the hall are free from homophobic beliefs.

Lesbophobia is a problem that is not only an issue for the outer world but is also an issue that we as old Lesbians must confront in our own internal selves. OLOC has been seen as a visionary group of old Lesbians who fight ageism but I see OLOC as bigger than that and as a group of old


Lesbians who see the connections between Lesbophobia and Ageism and who must fight both isms on the same front. Lesbophobia and Ageism have the same enemy and come from the same diseased root that foments narrow minded ideas about what women and men can do and cannot do. Lesbophobia and Ageism result from anti feminist views that put people in straitjackets and restrict our views of our own humanity. Our job should be and has been to some degree of integrating who we are and what we want.

OLOC is a Lesbian organization that affirms aging and helps us identify in a positive way with the term OLD which is a powerful idea, a very feminist idea, and an idea that is very unpopular out there in the outer I guess we could call it the so called “real world” but that is relative.

OLOC needs to affirm the term LESBIAN in the same way as we affirm and take on the word OLD. Just as it was true that it was Lesbians who gave the much needed woman power to many aspects of the feminist movement, it is OLD Lesbians who are intellectually in the vanguard of not only truly understanding what ageism does to old women but are acting as role models for what to do to avoid the pitfalls of ageism. But the problem is that old women are not listening to us to any large degree in part because of their own Lesbophobia which we must fight not only for our own self interest but also in order to be heard.

OLD Lesbians Organizing for Change has a unique opportunity to share what we have learned with the wider world but the first step must be to educate and change ourselves. That first step should be an acknowlegement that we are fighting two isms Ageism and Lesbophobia on one front. Stepping up to the challenge means not allowing ourselves to fall into the invisibility or ageism trap within our own community, continuing to fight sexism and seeing the connections between feminsim and the fight against ageism. Once we have integrated all these ideas on a personal level, we can then reach out to the wider world and make a big noise collectively and as individuals.

Article on Andrea Yates

Great article!!! Explains the events and distorted thinking and self doubts that let up to the the homicide of the 5 children by Andrea Yates.


Rigid Christian Sex Roles Hurt Andrea Yates

Run Date: 03/20/02

By Anne Eggebroten
WEnews commentator


The author argues that the Christian fundamentalist beliefs that enshrine male control over women played a role in the destruction of the Yates family and that Christian fundamentalist religions should preach a gospel of equality between the sexes.

Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's Enews.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Various players in the Andrea Yates tragedy have attracted national scrutiny: the psychotic mother, her five drowned children, her husband, psychiatrists and family members.


Each one, no doubt, played a role in the ultimate tragedy. However, there's one more character, without which the long, sad story would not have happened: a conservative Christian culture that continues to empower abusive husbands while telling women they belong at home with their children--as many children as God and their own fertility provide.


Before marrying Russell Yates, Andrea Kennedy was a successful young woman working as a post-operative nurse. She enjoyed regular swimming and jogging and was from a Roman Catholic family.


When Yates and Kennedy decided to marry, both felt that contraception was wrong. Accepting "as many children as God sends" is still the ideal being urged upon Christians by the Roman Catholic Church and by many small, independent biblical churches, entrapping women like Andrea Yates, who had five children and one miscarriage during her eight years of marriage.


The Church Dictates a Woman's Place


The church also told Andrea that she belonged at home with her children. She stopped working after the birth of her first child and gave up exercise, according to a January report by Time magazine. When her older sons were of school age, she did not give herself a break; instead she began home-schooling. Conservative churches press mothers to do this because they view public school as lacking in Christian values. Some, and perhaps many women, are being crushed by an increasingly heavy burden.


Another belief in the chain that helped drag Andrea down was that a woman should submit to her husband as decision-maker. As Time reported, Russell Yates was head of the household, and a traveling evangelist taught them that God created man to "dominate."


Feminist scholars of the Bible, however, have been finding a biblical basis for equality in marriage since the early 1970s, in books such as "All We're Meant To Be" by Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (1974), "Women and Men in the Bible" by Virginia Mollenkott (1977), and "Heirs Together" by Pat Gundry (1980). But there are still many women who have not heard the good news.


When Russell wanted to move out of their four-bedroom house into a trailer, and then into a bus-turned-motor-home, Andrea sold the furniture and went along with the plan. By June 1999, she was caring for four children in the bus, which was only 350 square feet. The conditions of her life were unbearable and to challenge them would have been to oppose God's will. A psychiatrist provided medication, but no one was giving her other choices. Finally Andrea's parents convinced Russell to let his family move into a three-bedroom home.


Another sign of Russell's heavy control--dominating just as the traveling evangelist told him was his right--was that he allowed only one friend to visit Andrea, according to the Time report. She was a prisoner in her own home, without even the resources of friends at church because her husband had not found a church he liked.


The traveling evangelist had beaten her with sharp words; Russell belittled her often, according to Time. Andrea was absolutely convinced that she was a lousy mother and had failed her children. When she was interviewed after the murders, an officer asked how long she had considered this act. "Since I realized I have not been a good mother to them," she answered, quoting Matthew 18:6, which states that a person should be flung into the sea rather than cause a child to sin. She felt that drowning her children would guarantee her own execution and also free the children from further pain.


Churches Should Appoint Women in Leadership Roles


The swift, cruel verdict in the Yates trial ignores all these factors that contributed to the tragedy. We may not be able to help Andrea at this point, but we must reach out to other women caught up in similarly desperate circumstances.


Feminists in various Christian churches have been actively pursuing this task for about 30 years, including some working specifically on fundamentalist churches. For example, the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus was founded in 1974 to change the inequality of women within conservative Christianity. Since unsuccessfully lobbying for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the caucus's newsletter and other educational materials have encouraged churches to take on women pastors and appoint women to other leadership roles. The caucus has also worked to ensure that women and men have equal say in decision-making within the family and in their contributions to the upkeep of the household. Another group, Catholics for a Free Choice, is spreading the good news that controlling our fertility is within God's will.


We all need to spread the word. Otherwise more mothers will suffer as did Andrea, who believed she had failed, and inevitably the children will suffer as well at the hands of overwhelmed parents and caregivers.


Anne Eggebroten is the author of the book "Abortion--My Choice, God's Grace."







For more information:


This article is adapted from a longer piece
"A Biblical Feminist Looks at the Andrea Yates Tragedy":
http://www.eewc.com/Update/Winter2001Yates.htm


Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus:
http://www.eewc.com


Catholics for a Free Choice:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org









Send this stor

World News


The Times
July 20, 2006



Britain fears assault on Hezbollah will backfire
By Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor

BRITAIN fears that Israel’s assault on Hezbollah is failing to cripple the guerrilla group and that continued bombardment will bring huge civilian casualties in Lebanon for little military gain.

The rising concern that any further Israeli military action could intensify the crisis, expressed by senior officials yesterday, strikes a much more urgent tone than the American position, which accepts a continued Israeli campaign to crush the Shia militant group.

Yesterday was the heaviest day for civilian casualties since Israel’s bombardment began last week, with at least 63 killed and scores more wounded. A total of 315 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have been killed and hundreds injured since the start of the Israeli offensive.


Last night dozens of planes dropped 23 tonnes of explosives on what the Army said was a bunker in south Beirut used by Hezbollah’s leadership. The group said none of is leaders where killed in the attack.


A senior British official said: “Our concern is that Israeli military action is not having the desired effect. We’re not seeing the level of impact [which Israel and its allies would want].” Hezbollah was “still highprofile in southern Beirut”, even if its claims to have lost only three fighters underplayed the damage done. “We’re not seeing any large-scale destruction of Hezbollah rockets,” the official added, “and we don’t know where they are.”


Israel claimed yesterday to have destroyed half of Hezbollah’s rockets, which the guerrilla group has been firing steadily across the Lebanese border. “We have already destroyed around 50 per cent of the rockets and missiles that Hezbollah had,” General Alon Friedman told army radio.


The Israeli action had “disrupted Hezbollah but there’s not much more they can do with an extensive campaign”, a British official said. “We are concerned that continued military operations by Israel will cause further damage to infrastructure and loss of civilian life which the damage to Hezbollah will not justify.”


But the need for Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, to appear tough at home might tempt him to continue even when the military value was slight, officials suggested.


The Bush Administration, by contrast, has given Israel a green light to continue its attempt to crush Hezbollah.


Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, is now expected to visit the region on Sunday in a sign of greater US engagement, that will be welcomed by European governments. Today, at the UN Security Council in New York, Britain will push for a set of “guidelines for the next phase” which go further than the G8 summit managed last week. “We do need a plan, partly to give Israel a reason to stop its military action,” the official said. Britain and the US also want to show Iran, Hezbollah’s backers, that it cannot ignite such conflicts.


But the meeting will expose differences within the council — and between Britain and the US. There are deep disagreements about how to respond to the crisis, which began nine days ago with Hezbollah’s kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.


The heart of the British plan is the proposal, promoted by Tony Blair at the G8 summit, for an international force in southern Lebanon to allow Lebanese security forces to regain control from Hezbollah. The US has been sceptical of the idea. Britain has also been anxious about the lack of urgency shown by the US, reflected in the nine days that it has taken to assemble the Council.


On Tuesday, Dr Rice said that there should be a ceasefire “as soon as possible when conditions are conducive to do so”, words widely interpreted as licence for Israel to continue.


France, which backs the notion of an international force, also wants the Council to call for a ceasefire, a demand on Israel which the US and Britain are unlikely to accept.


The first sign of British frustration at the US position came during the summit when, in an unguarded conversation with Mr Bush, Mr Blair revealed his anxiety about the need for urgent intervention. The Prime Minister suggested that he could visit the region immediately if a trip by Dr Rice took too long to arrange.

All-Out War in the Middle East

I am reluctant to give any political view on the present Middle East conflict as I am not that educated about the historical detail or political implications for Israel or Palestine or the Middle East in general. As a progressive Jew, up to now I have mostly resisted taking sides and If there has been a side to take I have empathized with the plight of the Palestinians, although with some reservations and concerns that when push comes to shove I realize the Arab world in general would not be at all unhappy if the State of Israel disappeared off the face of the earth.

Keeping the above in mind, I pose the question Has Ehud Olmert gone too far this time? Perhaps, Ohlmert has something to gain from trying to take out the insurgent forces of both Hamas and Hezbollah, although it is doubtful that simply killing some of them will accomplish this. On the other hand, I am very disappointed to know that after Israel in good faith pulled out of Gaza and earlier Lebanon that both places have become the site for militants to send missiles into Israel. I am particularly disturbed that after Israel pulled settlements out of Gaza that instead of the Palestinians replacing the settlements with their own housing they instead allowed Hamas insurgents to set up military type installations so these missiles could be lobbed into Israel causing many casualties and much destruction.

It is obvious that the U.S. has made a major blunder by not even attempting to control the situation. It is possible that the US strategy will be to support Israel from a distance and try to put the brakes on only when the powers that be see danger for our economic or strategic interests ahead. The US's military resources are obviously stretched thin by the Iraq War and also distracted by the Korean "nuclear" missile crises. But there is no excuse really for the shortsightedness involved in the US policy toward the Middle East which leads me to believe that it is not shortsighted but purposeful meaning the US would like to see Israel strengthen its defenses and power in the Middle East. The problem is the opposite may very well happen and things are already spinning way out of control or so it seems. It is a sad day for all concerned. I can only wish and hope for the safety of everyone including my own young relatives who live in Israel knowing full well that innocents will die and be maimed because the first instinct on both sides is revenge and destruction. It is a sad time.

Sharon Raphael