Where The Girls Are
As some of you know, I grew up in Western Massachusetts, which is sort of like a breeding ground for lesbians. I'm not sure what it is about the area — a glut of vegetarian restaurants? the fact that you rarely have to dress up for anything? — but everywhere you go, lesbians are there. Contrast this to D.C., where I get abnormally excited if I see one random lesbian walking around my neighborhood, and have to frantically email the TNG list to see if anyone knows her. (Still no answer on who is driving the car decorated with a Hillary sticker and an equality sticker that is often parked in front of my house.)
I went back north this weekend to accompany my parents on a trip to Maine. And there were just as many lesbians there as in Western Massachusetts. There were lesbians helping my mother pick out khaki pants at L.L. Bean. There were lesbians telling me when I could talk through the metal detector at the airport. L.L. Bean does a summer concert series, and the Indigo Girls play all the time. Though they didn't appear this year, lesbian Brandi Carlile is playing this weekend. A perusal of Craigslist showed me that the women advertising in Maine are far more what I'm looking for than the women advertising here.
Though there are scores of lesbians up north, there seem to be a dearth of gay men. Is there something that makes lesbians gravitate towards rural or suburban areas and that makes gay men flock to cities?
Of course, this could just be me falling into the same trap people fall into with me — because I don't look very gay, I feel like I have to go out of my way to let people know that I am. I think that I have a decent gaydar, but maybe D.C. lesbians are generally more on the femme side than New England lesbians.
There was something that brought each of us to D.C., or else we were born here, so an urban blog might not the best place to get an answer to this question. I moved here after graduating from college because I thought there would be something more exciting than Western Massachusetts. I was right — here I found museums I could go to whenever the desire struck, there were so many restaurants that it would be impossible to hit them all, and I could go to bars without worrying who was driving home, since walking or cabs became an option. As much as I love living in a city, and even though I know that I will continue to live in cities for years, someday I want to return north and live in a big old farmhouse, or a small seaside cottage. This has nothing to do with being a lesbian — I don't think — for me the draw is a more relaxed pace of life, a backyard, getting to wear a puffy vest more days of the year, etc.
Since I can see the appeal to living in a more rural area, what makes many gay men avoid doing it? I almost never see gay men when I'm back home, and when I do, it's because they're friends of mine. Is there so great a divide between lesbians and gay men that we don't even like to live in the same places?
Has anyone else noticed this?
5 comments:
While I hate to make generalizations, I do believe that the geographic separation between "gay men" and "lesbians" occurs most often because "lesbians" are women. And women still make less money than men...hourly, salaried, etc. Due to this socioeconomic reality, women can't afford to self-sustain in an expensive urban environment and gravitate to the edges of cities or even farther out to have a seemingly decent quality of life.
I don't understand, though, why you frequently comment on the lack of "lesbians" in DC. I've been here and out for over 7 years and I see so many, meet so many and feel completely grounded in a very large "lesbian" community. Hmmmm.
I think this is less a post about there not being enough lesbians in DC and more of just asking why so many rural lesbots, and city-slicker gay boys.
It might have something to do with campfires. Gay boys, do you even like campfires?
Or maybe it's the lesbian tendency to find a lover and hole up; who needs bright lights, hustle and bustle when you've got a special lady to snuggle with? Are coupled lesbians less social creatures than coupled gay men? Maybe these are just stereotypes, but they provide a tempting explanation.
Homosexuality is much more stigmatized in American rural towns. Everyone knows their neighbor, and is thus more vulnerable to being in the spotlight. In communities that are acceptiong, there are simply just... not that many gay people, or people for that matter. Also, two women living together in a rural town seems to pose less of a "threat" to traditional ideas of masculine roles than two men living together.
Cities have more diversity, more resources, more people, more options.
Meaghan: While women do get paid less than men, the gender-pay gap decreases significanly in large cities. This is mostly because women are moving to cities in large numbers, and many women are getting married later in life (or not at all).
While there have been many posts about the "lack of lesbians" in DC, I think it is less about a "lack of lesbian culture," and more about DC's gay outlets in comparison to other geographical areas. Also the consistency of gay male events/outlets differs in lesbian circles.
I am not sure this is an economic issue...just a DC issue and maybe just your own perception issue. DC without question is a very gay male city, much more than probably any city in America. (If you have been to other cities, the lesbian population is comparatively small considering the size of the area, but I am coming from Chicago, so its an unfair comparison.) But the lesbian population here is rather diverse, more urban, and less waspy than what you would encounter in New England. Basically you are having a hard time seeing through a cultural division, more than one of population of queer people. You are essentially talking about cultural and regional differences within the queer community and presentation differences, which I can tell you from living in small cities, rural, ex-urban, suburban, and two very different big cities, these differences can be huge.
I am originally from Chicago. It has a much larger lesbian population than DC, but it is also a much bigger city. It is also culturally very different lesbian population than DC...Chicago is a fairly butch city to begin with for women, regardless of sexual orientation, but the lesbian population there tends to be blue collar and often butch. Despite the popularity of boystown, it is much easier to find a queer woman in Chicago than gay men, especially on the southwest and south side. The UPS installation seems to be a magnet for some reason. This is not to say gay guys are not around, they are and pretty visible, they just do not seem as common as queer women.
The thing is I had to adjust to the culture of DC quite a bit myself from Chicago. It is very different. Politically, philosophically, and in terms of presentation, Chicago leaned further to the left and radical end of things in the queer community (this does exist in DC, but rad-queer folks are more prolific in Chicago). DC...not so much. I could go on with these differences, but my first year here I was in a bit of culture shock myself.
I also used to live in Vermont. I thought there would be more lesbians, instead bearish gay men proliferated the small towns I was in.
I don't think there is a rural/suburban/urban split with gay men or lesbians. I think it is certain people find certain cities and rural areas attractive. But more than anything certain areas has different cultural presentations and aspects to the queer community. You are used to rural New England, and may have not adjusted completely to dc queer culture.
I think what you are talking about is purely a cultural and regional difference. Yeah you don't find as much of the Waspy LL Bean types in DC, which shouldn't be surprise. There seems to be a pretty good amount of diversity in DC despite being a smaller community than other major cities, I am not sure I can say the same for rural New England, which is not a very diverse part of the country in general.
I think this may be more what you may be talking about is presentation and culture more than anything. You are used to seeing a very narrow band in New England, know what to look for in that narrow band, and now you are presented with something different than what you have encountered in New England. It is having to adjust from a rural New England perspective to one of DC, which is a pretty big jump.
With regards to DC lesbians being more femme. I am not really sure this is the case. I think the city as a whole is rather femme, but queer women here...vary quite a bit. But not as many reflect the type you are used to.
I am not sure if there is any attraction to rural areas with lesbians, than anybody else, and urban areas with gay men. It is more of an adjustment of the culture of a local queer community you are talking about.
I would say even your familiarity with these areas, and seeing the queer people in these areas, speaks more to your own socio-economic, cultural, racial, and educational background, than to your identity as a lesbian. You have narrow expectations of what to expect taking you background, rather than realizing the diversity of the community here in DC. This is not a lesbians prefer rural areas and gay men prefer cities. It is that lesbians in cities are just different than ones in rural areas, especially rural new England. The lesbian community tends to be reflective of the diversity of women you will find in any major city.
Stephanie: I love campfires! If DC offered a choice between a gay campfire/bonfire and the gay bars, I'd choose the campfire any day. The real question is, would lesbians choose a campfire over the UPS Store? (see anon's comment...)
Post a Comment