Lesbians and Work

The Advantages and Disadvantages of 'Comfortable Shoes'

Pamela Brand

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317992271
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Personal Development
• Subtopic: Careers

What differences and similarities exist at work between lesbian women in various careers around the world? Lesbians and Work: The Advantages and Disadvantages of 'Comfortable Shoes' answers this crucial question, providing respected authorities presenting qualitative research methods to closely examine lesbian women's working lives. This insightful resource discusses the variability among lesbians in their experiences of and responses to workplace heteronormativity and cites the similarities among this population across geographical and national boundaries. Presented in their own words, these women's viewpoints reveal a wide spectrum of experiences—both advantages and disadvantages—of being a lesbian woman in the workplace. This book provides international perspectives on lesbians and work that can help readers making career choices to consider sexual orientation issues in choosing their career path. The book also can be used by human resource professionals as a resource to learn how to better manage sexual diversity in the workplace, provide effective training/development programs to address sexual prejudice, alter benefits requirements for employees, and avoid discrimination lawsuits.

This book is a valuable resource for human resource managers, college professors in women's studies, lesbian studies, psychology and their students, and career counselors.

The book was published as a special issue of the Journal of Lesbian Studies.

Introduction: Lesbians and Work: The Advantages and Disadvantages of “Comfortable Shoes”

Pamela A. Brand

“I know we can’t use the word ‘dyke.’ We can’t even say ‘lesbian.’ It’s ‘women in comfortable shoes.’”¹

Being a lesbian did not influence my occupational decisions until 1991. Before that time, I had jobs–paid work that allowed me to support myself. After coming out at age 24, I was comfortably out to coworkers, including supervisors and subordinates. It was fairly easy for me to be out at work because, by that time, I had developed skills that made me feel secure professionally, and I lived in gay-friendly places– mostly the San Francisco Bay Area and, during graduate school, Burlington, Vermont. But those were just jobs–not careers in which I was personally invested.

In 1991 I was finishing a PhD in psychology and applying for academic positions all over the U.S; I was starting a professional career that I expected would occupy the rest of my working life. My curriculum vitae included several gay-related publications and conference presentations. I wondered if prospective employers would notice the topics and assume (in my case, correctly) that I was a lesbian, and whether that would cost me any job opportunities. I considered–briefly–removing any indications of “queerness” from my vitae but decided–quickly–to leave them in: I didn’t want to work anyplace where sexual prejudice² would influence hiring decisions. I don’t know if that decision was professionally costly, but the alternative would have been much too personally costly. Hiding is too stressful; it takes too much time and energy. And besides, I really like wearing comfortable shoes.

My own experiences, and knowing that many other lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) individuals do not have the freedom to be out at work, has led to this collection of articles and essays that provides a glimpse into the working lives of lesbians. The good news is that being a lesbian appears to be beneficial in some work environments, such as male-dominated careers in which lesbians may be able to fit in as “one of the boys.” The bad news is that being an employed lesbian almost always includes the risk of discrimination and the stress of managing one’s sexual minority status in heteronormative work environments. However, changing social and political climates bode well for the future.

This collection begins with two articles that paint the U.S. legal and economic landscape for LGBT workers. Although noting the dramatic improvements in recent decades, Margaret Ryniker’s review of legal issues reveals workplace heterosexism: Employers who limit health insurance benefits to legally married spouses discriminate against LGBT employees and their same-sex partners. Although legal challenges to these biased practices have been successful, it should not be necessary for LGBT employees to sue their employers in order to receive treatment equal to that of their heterosexual coworkers. Lawsuits alleging sexual orientation harassment, like those alleging sexual harassment, have been largely unsuccessful: The legal “bar” is set high, and the standard of proof is difficult to achieve.

Liz Dunne Schmitt provides a thorough and thoughtful review of the economic literature, untangling the research results that sometimes indicate an “earnings premium” for lesbian workers relative to their heterosexual counterparts. She notes that LGBT individuals are very difficult to identify in large data sets (e.g., the U.S. census data), and thus research based upon these data sets has fundamental flaws. Moreover, any “earnings premium” that lesbians may enjoy is probably offset by discriminatory laws and practices (such as those affecting partner benefits, taxes, and inheritance) that affect economic well-being.

The organizational, social, and political landscape for LGBT individuals has changed, and continues to change, outside the U.S. as well. Fiona Colgan and her colleagues interviewed lesbian workers in the United Kingdom (UK). Their research reveals a wide variety of workplace experiences among lesbians, as well as coping strategies for dealing with heteronormative workplaces. Annett Losert examines heteronormativity and homophobia in German work settings. A central theme in these articles, and others in this collection, is each woman’s decision about whether or not to “come out” to her colleagues. Suzanne Johnson’s essay, “My Revolving Closet Door,” illustrates her experiences in academia, where she is out to her colleagues but (generally) not to her students. Coming out decisions are not made lightly: each woman must decide for herself whether to reveal her sexual orientation to coworkers. Such decisions are not “once and done” phenomena; the decision is made for each coworker in each workplace. If the woman changes jobs, the decision must be made again for each coworker at the new workplace.

Coming out decisions are influenced by the woman’s assessment of each coworker (“how is this person likely to respond?”) as well as the organization (“will I lose my job if I come out?”). This ongoing process contributes significantly to workplace stress, which may influence the woman’s job satisfaction and productivity. Being open about one’s sexual orientation also increases attributional ambiguity: If a lesbian is not hired for a job, or is denied a promotion, should she attribute the outcome to her gender, her sexual orientation, or her abilities and performance?

Adding race to the mix further complicates the attributional process. Lisa Bowleg and her colleagues examine workplace stress due to race, sex/gender, and sexual orientation. Their research indicates that Black lesbians use three types of coping strategies in the workplace: being “out” about their sexual orientation, “covering” their sexual orientation, or confronting and educating their coworkers about sexual prejudice and discrimination.

Because there is the possibility for sexual prejudice in the workplace, Misty Hook and Sharon Bowman adapt two theories of career development to explain lesbians’ vocational needs and occupation choices, and then recommend vocational counseling approaches when working with lesbian clients. However, lesbian women may not always acknowledge that their sexual orientation influenced their career choices, as Jukka Lehtonen’s research in Finland suggests.

Finally, one article and one essay illustrate ways in which lesbians may have an advantage compared with heterosexual women. Tessa Wright interviewed lesbian firefighters in the UK who are able to fit in comfortably with their male colleagues, who are like “brothers” and who treat the women as “one of the blokes.” Laurie Essig’s essay describes her “Peter Pan strategy” (of being a “boyish woman or womanly boy”) with which she was able to avoid much of the sexism that her heterosexual counterparts experienced. Instead, she found that older male mentors treated her like “one of the boys,” bestowing upon her a type of “favored son” status–until she became pregnant and reminded them of her femaleness.

Taken together, the articles and essays in this volume document the similarity as well as the diversity among employed lesbians. We all experience the potential for discrimination any time we engage in paid work outside the home: our sexual orientation may cost us a job or a promotion; our partners may not be eligible for benefits granted to married heterosexual spouses; our levels of workplace stress are exacerbated by our need to “manage” our sexual identities in heteronormative society. However, we cope in individual ways according to our personalities, experiences, and environmental assessments. And we don’t all wear comfortable shoes.

NOTES

1. Robin Williams as Adrian Cronauer in “Good Morning, Vietnam.” Interestingly, a majority of young women in Krakauer and Rose’s (2002) research cut their hair shorter, wore more comfortable shoes, or otherwise adopted a “less traditionally feminine appearance” (p. 31) after they came out as lesbians.

2. I prefer the term “sexual prejudice” to “homophobia” because “it conveys no assumptions about the motivations underlying negative attitudes [toward homosexual behavior or people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation], locates the study of attitudes concerning sexual orientation within the broader context of social psychological research on prejudice, and avoids value judgments about such attitudes” (Herek, 2000, p. 19).

REFERENCES

Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19-22.

Krakauer, I.D., & Rose, S.M. (2002). The impact of group membership on lesbians’ physical appearance. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 31-43.

Lesbians Still Face Job Discrimination

Margaret R. Ryniker

The purpose of this article is to illuminate issues of discrimination against lesbians in the workplace. Two areas of litigation involve cases of same sex partners’ benefits and sexual harassment based on sexual orientation. A number of states have addressed these problems. Generally speaking, the cases seeking to secure healthcare benefits have been successful. Denial of partner coverage economically injures the couple. As marriage is not an available option in most states, same sex partner benefits must be granted to avoid equal protection violations. The cases seeking to protect lesbians from sexual harassment due to sexual orientation have been unsuccessful, like most other sexual harassment lawsuits. Because the standard of proof is difficult to meet, courts appear to be reluctant to grant relief to plaintiffs.

With our current political climate in the United States I become worried about our future and our constitutional rights. As my research for this article progressed, I became more optimistic: Progress is being made. Sometimes it is helpful to step back and review where we were 20 years ago to see how far we have come. For example, in 1985, Bellsouth refused to include the words “gay” and “lesbian” in a phonebook advertisement for a bookstore in Atlanta, Georgia. Bellsouth claimed that the terms might upset customers, although the company conceded it had not received any complaints in the previous three years in which the ad had been printed in the yellow pages. When Gene Loring, the bookstore owner, sued Bellsouth, the phone company won. The court held that the phone company was a private company that could control its advertising as it saw fit. This lawsuit had clear economic ramifications for the storeowner. His ad notified people of his business’ focus: He marketed to gays and lesbians. The phonebook publisher deemed two words, “gay” and “lesbian,” potentially offensive. The mere possibility of offense in 1985 was sufficient for the phone company, a private business, to deny free speech to a business owner, in spite of the fact that the ad had run for three years prior with NO complaints from anyone! Loring v. Bellsouth Advertising and Publishing Corporation, 177 Ga. App. 307, 339 S.E. 2d 372 (Ga. App. 1985).

SAME SEX PARTNERS’ HEALTH CARE BENEFITS

A number of states have addressed the issue of same sex partners’ health benefits. In Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska and City of Anchorage, the court found for the plaintiffs, nine lesbian couples, who were seeking health insurance coverage for their partners. The plaintiffs claimed that restricting coverage to married spouses violated their right to equal protection under the Alaska Constitution. As same-sex couples, state law prevents their marriage.¹. Although they were in intimate, committed, and loving long-term relationships with their samesex domestic partners, they were not eligible for the same employment benefits the defendants provide to married couples, which denied the individual plaintiffs’ right to equal protection. The court ruled that

The plaintiff employees consequently cannot enter into the formal relationship–marriage–that the benefits programs require if the employees are to confer these benefits on their domestic partners…Heterosexual couples…have the opportunity to marry and become eligible for benefits. In comparison, because of the legal definition of “marriage,” the partner of a homosexual employee can never be legally considered as that employee’s “spouse” and, hence, can never become eligible for benefits. We therefore conclude that the benefits programs are facially discriminatory.” Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska and City of Anchorage, 122 P.3d 781 (2005)

The Supreme Court of Alaska clearly supported the lesbians’ right to equal protection under the law: Because lesbians cannot marry one another in Alaska, they should be able to include their partners under their health insurance coverage.

A similar case was decided by the Court of Appeals of Oregon, Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU). The case involved a number of lesbians who worked at an Oregon state hospital, and who wanted to include their partners under their health care benefits. The hospital and the State sought to avoid giving coverage to the lesbians’ partners. The Court stated, in part,

…there can be no question but that the effect of OHSU’s practice of denying insurance benefits to unmarried domestic partners, while facially neutral as to homosexual couples, effectively screens out 100 percent of them from obtaining full coverage for both partners. That is because, under Oregon law, homosexual couples may not marry …

Stated perhaps more plainly, we must determine whether the fact that the domestic partners of homosexual OHSU employees who cannot obtain insurance benefits can be justified by their homosexuality. The parties have suggested no such justification, and we can envision none. OHSU’s defense is that it determined eligibility for insurance benefits on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation … That reasoning misses the point, however. Homosexual couples may not marry. Accordingly, the benefits are not made available on equal terms. They are made available on terms that, for gay and lesbian couples, are a legal impossibility. We conclude that OHSU’s denial of insurance benefits to the unmarried domestic partners of its homosexual employees violated Article I, Section 20, of the Oregon Constitution and that the trial court correctly entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs on that ground. Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Or.App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (Or.App. 1998)

In Tanner the court did not find sex discrimination but the Court did find that the denial of benefits amounted to violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution. Oregon granted the plaintiffs’ request for health care benefits for same sex partners.

The Supreme Court of Montana also ruled in favor of lesbians who sued their employer, the Montana University System, for same sex partners’ health care coverage. In 2004 the Court held that the university’s policy denying insurance coverage to lesbian partners violated equal protection. Snetsinger v. Montana University System, 325 Mont. 148, 104 P.3d 445 (2004).

Each of these cases involve same-sex couples in which one partner’s employer refused to extend benefits to the employee’s partner because the couple was not married. These cases economically discriminated against lesbian and gay couples by denying them benefits that have been taken for granted for years by married heterosexual couples. Thus, the issue of gay marriage is central to each of these cases. Vermont examined this issue in 1999 in the case of Baker v. State of Vermont. The main issue in that case was

[W]hether the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections incident to marriage under Vermont law contravenes Article 7. The first step in our analysis is to identify the nature of the statutory classification. As noted, the marriage statutes apply expressly to opposite-sex couples. Thus, the statutes exclude anyone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex… We hold only that plaintiffs are entitled under Chapter I, Article 7, of the Vermont Constitution to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples …

The past provides many instances where the law refused to see a human being when it should have. See, e.g., Dred Scot, 60 U.S. at 407 (concluding that African slaves and their descendants had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect”). The future may provide instances where the law will be asked to see a ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• CONTENTS
• 1 Introduction: Lesbians and Work: The Advantages and Disadvantages of “Comfortable Shoes”
• 2 Lesbians Still Face Job Discrimination
• 3 Discrimination Versus Specialization: A Survey of Economic Studies on Sexual Orientation, Gender and Earnings in the United States
• 4 Lesbian Workers: Personal Strategies Amid Changing Organisational Responses to ‘Sexual Minorities’ in UK Workplaces
• 5 Coping With Workplace Heteronormativity Among Lesbian Employees: A German Study
• 6 My Revolving Closet Door
• 7 “Bringing Home More Than a Paycheck:” An Exploratory Analysis of Black Lesbians’ Experiences of Stress and Coping in the Workplace
• 8 Working for a Living: The Vocational Decision Making of Lesbians
• 9 Career Choices of Lesbian Women
• 10 Lesbian Firefighters: Shifting the Boundaries Between “Masculinity” and “Femininity”
• 11 Phallus Envy
• Index