By: Ramona Faith Oswald, Ph.D., Eileen Gebbie, M.A., Linda Sue Culton, M.S./M.S.W. University of Illinois
Abstract
This community report is based upon survey responses from 527 self-identified GLBT people residing in 38 different non-metropolitan Illinois counties. Respondents were located through GLBT organizations and social networks. Closed-ended survey questions asked about demographics, family relationships, religion, computer usage, residential community, GLBT community, and experiences with discrimination. Open ended questions asked respondents to identify the “best” and “worst” aspects of their lives, as well as to offer suggestions regarding what would improve their lives. Descriptive results are presented, and four action recommendations are made.
Rainbow Illinois: A Survey Of Non-Metropolitan Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And Transgender People
Rural culture has been traditionally organized by kinship systems that link blood lineage, legal marriage, and land ownership (Boswell, 1980). Cultural coherence is bolstered when there is consistency and fluidity between family, community, and religious systems (Salamon, 1992). People whose identities or behavior are perceived as undermining the culture, for example lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) people have been considered threatening to social order, and sanctions have been used to promote expulsion or conformity (Boswell, 1980). Traditional rural culture has been challenged by recent changes such as the increasing concentration of land ownership and farming into a vertical corporate structure (Albrecht, 1986); the expansion of suburban development (Salamon, in press); a trend of reverse migration from urban to rural (Johnson, 1993); and the growing use of Internet technology and daily travel to access resources not otherwise available (Haag & Chang, 1997). These changes have loosened the organization of non-metropolitan society. However, the scant literature suggests that heteronormative social pressures and sanctions remain salient for LGBT people who live in non-metropolitan areas (Bell & Valentine, 1995; Smith & Mancoske, 1997).
Rural LGBT people have been found to create private, even secretive, lives that emphasize relationships within closed support networks (Cody & Welch, 1997; D’Augelli, 1988; Kramer, 1995). Support networks may include biolegal and chosen kin, as well as friends and neighbors (Butler & Hope, 1999; Cody & Welch, 1997). Lesbians may especially define their network as “the lesbian feminist community” (Butler & Hope, 1999; D’Augelli, 1988; Krieger, 1983). The emphasis on privacy is both personal preference (Cody & Welch, 1997) and a strategy for surviving within a hostile climate (D’Augelli, 1988, Kramer, 1995). Those who are unable to create strong private supports may suffer from intense isolation and loneliness, and may use the Internet (Haag & Chang, 1997) or migrate to urban areas in search of resources and support (Kramer, 1995; D’Augelli & Hart, 1987). Returning to non-metropolitan communities and families after migration may be extremely stressful (Oswald, 2002).
The research findings that we have just summarized are based upon small-scale studies (N< 25) that have largely emphasized the negative aspects of rural life for LGBT people. We conducted our survey to collect basic demographic and family data regarding both the positive and negative aspects of rural life from a larger sample covering a wider geographical region.
Our purpose was also to initiate a relationship between LGBT people in central and southern Illinois that is consistent with our University’s land grant mission to link conduct research with community relevance. This version of our report has been revised for an academic audience, though it remains a purely descriptive document. The original report is available by contacting the first author. After describing our methodology, we present descriptive results and implications for practice. We conclude with a statement about the importance of researching the lives of non-metropolitan LGBT people.
Methods
We collected survey data from 527 self-identified LGBT people residing in 38 different central and southern Illinois counties. The participants in this survey are not representative of rural LGBT people. Participants were located through organizations and social networks, and thus this study is biased towards people who belong to LGBT organizations or have other LGBT people in their lives, and who are willing to fill out and return a survey.
Two thousand surveys were distributed through organization mailing lists and personal networks. Organizations and individuals agreed to distribute surveys on the condition that we, the researchers, not have access to actual names and addresses. Sixty-seven surveys were returned due to incorrect addresses, giving a return rate of 27% (527/1933). This rate is probably higher because there was likely some overlap between mailing lists (one respondent called to say that he had received three different packets), but we were unable to determine the exact rate of this overlap because surveys were distributed without our having personal access to the mailing lists. We consider our sample size to be highly successful given the private and decentralized quality of rural LGBT life.
As an incentive, respondents selected to which local LGBT organization they would like one dollar donated in appreciation for their participation. This money was distributed to organizations along with our original community report.
Survey questions emphasized family of origin relationships, but also inquired about numerous other domains. In addition to collecting family data, the goal was to establish base-line demographic information that could be used for both academic and applied pursuits. Questions were developed by the first author, and further modified in conjunction with a LGBT community focus group. The first and second questions asked respondents to briefly describe the best and worst aspects of their lives as LGBT people in central and southern Illinois. They then answered a series of questions about relationships with same-sex, opposite-sex, and trans partners. We then presented a chart with 13 different types of anti-LGBT acts (plus write-in space) and asked them to check if they had feared or actually experienced these acts. If they had experienced one or more acts, we asked them to name (by relationship, e.g. sister rather than Susan) who perpetrated the act, and how often. Respondents then rated on 5-point scales how visible they felt as a GLBT person, how lonely, and how connected they were to residential community, immediate family of origin, extended family of origin, other LGBT individuals, and the LGBT community. We asked respondents about their travel habits, Internet access, and parental status. Separate questions for immediate and extended family were asked, and included questions about amount of contact, degree out, climate, number of LGBT people in family, and rituals. We also asked about religion, residential community, employment, year of birth, race, ethnicity, physical sex, femininity, masculinity, sexual orientation, labeling, education, and income. The survey ended with an open-ended question about what would improve the respondents life as a LBGT person in central and southern Illinois, and space of further comments, and a place to indicate which LGBT organization should receive their dollar donation.
Measurement of specific items is described below when we present our descriptive results. Though the survey used counter-balanced items, all scales have been adjusted for analysis so that a higher score indicates a higher value on that item. Also, all values have been rounded up to whole numbers.
Oswald (in press-b) presents a grounded theory analysis of all open-ended data that is tailored for family practitioners in rural communities, and should be seen as complementary to this report. Quantitative data regarding rituals are presented in Oswald (2001; in press-b).
Top of Page
Demographics
Sexual Orientation
Forty-six percent of respondents identified as gay, 37% lesbian, 10% bisexual, and 6% other (heterosexual, asexual, queer, or other).
Sex
Fifty-two percent of respondents were born biological females and 47% were born biological males. The remaining one percent (3 people) of participants were born trans- or inter-sexual. The term transsexual refers to people who were born one sex but have undergone chemical treatment, surgery or a combination of the two in order to transition from their birth sex to another (e.g. female-to-male and male-to-female). Inter-sex is the preferred term for people previously known as “hermaphrodites.” Inter-sex people have a combination of both male and female genetic and/or physical characteristics. Trans and inter-sex people reported being shunned or otherwise isolated from LGB people, who may share the general societal presumption that people are always either male or female (see “confront our differences” in the action recommendation section).
Age
Participants ranged in age from 17 to 77 years. The average age was 41.
Though older people commented on ageism within the LGBT community, they also marveled at the increased acceptance and visibility of sexual minorities. Also, many participants expressed concerns about LGBT youths’ need for information and support.
“I wish the LGBT community (but especially the gay community) would shift its focus from youth and physical appearance to something more rounded…Looking at the media and the personals (Planet Out and Excite) I feel ancient at 37!”
“Growing up in a small town in the 30-40’s was not oppressive-as long as you kept your nose clean. I marvel at the freedoms and gains made by our tribe in the past 60 years. The young ones should know of the advances we have made-thanks to each generation.”
“Resources down here for teenagers are really poor and they are at risk because of it.”
Race
Respondents were overwhelmingly white. Ninety-three percent reported their race as White, 2% Native American, 3% Hispanic-Latino/a, 2% African/African American, and 2% Asian/Pacific Islander (percentages do not add up to exactly 100% as some people reported more than one race). Assuming that LGBT people exist in every racial/ethnic group in similar numbers, future research should do a much better job at locating LGBT people of color, who may not join the organizations through which many respondents for this survey were located.
Many people of color made reference to racism in their open ended comments. The few white people who mentioned race did so with an awareness of white privilege.
“This ain’ t the place to be Black and gay! There’s a lack of racial diversity within and outside of the LGBT community.”
“A lot of racial discrimination exists from white male gays.”
“There are not many of my ethnicity who are LGBT or that support LGBT.”
“As a LGBT person and a person of color, I feel there needs to be a greater, stronger bridge to link people of color together with queer people.”
“My class and skin privilege have made it easier than others might find it.”
Efforts to confront racism and cultural differences among LGBT people could go a long way towards building a stronger community, and a stronger bridge linking LGBT concerns to other those of other groups that also experience prejudice and inequality.
Parental Status
One hundred seventeen respondents (22%) were parents to a total of 236 children. They parented one to five kids, with an average of two kids per parent. Thirty-one percent of female and 13% of male participants were parents (see below chart). Half of the children were female, half male.
Seventy-eight percent of the children were biologically connected to their LGBT parent. The remaining 22% of children were connected to their LGBT parent through adoption, foster, step-parenting, co-parenting, or other arrangement. Sixty percent of the parents were in at least weekly contact with their children. The age of children ranged from 1 to 50 years, with a mean 20 years, and a mode of 30.
Comments about being parents were varied, with mothers and fathers expressing both the joys of having children and the struggles for support and acceptance that they faced. Several mentioned battling for custody of their children.
“(We need more) support for LGBT folks with children…and awareness in the community, etc. There are plenty of us and it’s very difficult to become visible because of potential threats to children/custody…”
“We are a gay couple … since we have children we have had the BEST of both worlds.”
“…We need a school district that is more concerned about making schools safe for all children including its LGBT students and students of LGBT parents.”
“I am afraid that my relationship with my son and grandchild would be destroyed if they knew I’m a lesbian.”
Income
We asked respondents how much money they made last year. Income ranged from below $10,000 to more than $100,000. The mean and mode both fell within the $31,000 to $40,000 category.
Education
More than one-third of respondents had an advanced degree (34%). This finding was not surprising given that the survey was associated with a University, and many LGBT organizations through which respondents were located had a school connection.
Employment
Seventy-two percent of respondents were employed full-time and 11% part-time. Fifteen percent were students, 4% retired, 3% unemployed, and 2% involved in seasonal work. Eight percent performed some other kind of labor. The percents do not add up to exactly 100 because people could have more than one kind of employment.
Fifty percent of the respondents traveled three miles or less to work. The other half traveled from 4 to 200 miles.
Respondents were concentrated in education and the “helping professions.” As you can see in the following table, 24% worked in education, 16% in social or religious services, 10% law/advocacy, and 10% health care.
Forty eight percent of respondents felt tolerated as a LGBT person in their primary place of employment, 40% felt supported, and 12% felt hostility. It is important to question what “tolerated” means given the level of coworker perpetration of anti-LGBT acts that will be reviewed in the discrimination section of this paper.
Computer Access
Four hundred and forty-one (84%) of respondents had Internet access. More than half of those with access went online at least once per week (66%). The Internet was used it to keep in touch with friends, to access LGBT resources or support, and to meet other LGBT people. The electronic community allows access to information and support that might not otherwise be available outside of major metropolitan areas. This resource allows LGBT people anonymity when needed and addresses problems of physical distance faced by people in rural areas (25% of respondents travel an average of 64 miles per week just to be around other LGBT people or access LGBT resources).
Place Of Residence
Survey data documented that LGBT people resided in almost every county in central Illinois (shaded area on map). However, there is no reason to believe that LGBT people don’t live in every county. The 72 respondents who declined to give their zip code may fear being identified.
Seventy-five percent of respondents lived in large towns/cities, 15% small towns, 8% rural or country areas, and 2% in a suburban area.
“After 20 years living in Chicago & Houston, I needed less stress of a city like Champaign.”
“The best thing about living here is the wide open farmland. I own a farm and love the country. I would hate to be in a more populated area. I have many gay friends here whose company I truly enjoy.”
Only 11% of respondents said that they felt supported as a LGBT person in their residential community. Seventy-two percent felt tolerated as a LGBT person in their community of residence, and 17% hostility.
Feeling supported appeared to be the result of a person creating their own network of friends and family. When asked, “What is the best thing about your life as a LGBT person in central Illinois?” the most common response was “having a terrific partner and/or wonderful friends.”
“I have a very supportive community, both straight and gay, at the U of I and at my church.”
The most common response to the question “What is the worst thing about your life as a LGBT person Central Illinois?” was “the conservative public/religious right.”
We’re so vulnerable when we’re alone. The cops here won’t even file reports of the problems I’ve had with the neighbors. It’s my love of the land, the “family pride” in the farm, the family – my parents and my duty to teach them – that keeps me here in the middle of nowhere.”
“Attitudes toward LGBT people are not as progressive here as in larger cities.”
What these best things/ worst things questions suggest is that central and southern Illinois is not a particularly friendly environment in which to live unless you have the personal/private resources with which to carve out a good life. Thus, social support for LGBT people come from their own tenacity and innovation rather than any effort by the community at large. Given that LGBT people are just as much stakeholders in their communities as any other people, we should strategize ways to increase support for LGBT citizens in their residential communities.
Top of Page
Anti-LGBT Prejudice And Discrimination
In an effort to understand the full experience of LGBT people in central and southern Illinois, respondents were asked if they had experienced mistreatment because they were LGBT. In addition to reporting their experiences, participants told us how often each type of mistreatment had occurred and who had perpetrated it.
In the following table, types of mistreatment are listed in rank order (most commonly reported to least commonly reported).
“As someone over 55, professional, and out in all aspects of my life, I do not generally experience bigotry because of the social circle and business circle in which I participate. However, in spite of my accomplishments and roles in society, I have been, and still fear being, attacked, abused and insulted, simply and exclusively on the basis of my sexual orientation.”
“There is no support when problems and threats come.”
“It’s tiring to hide myself when meeting new people, interacting with business people, some professors, interviewing for jobs. My boyfriend and I can only be open with each other at home, not out in public.”
We also asked who perpetrated the acts that respondents had experienced. Strangers were the most common perpetrators (see column totals at the bottom), and they were more responsible for the more serious acts. It is not a surprise that many respondents felt merely tolerated in their residential communities; the results lend further credence to their perception of non-support.
“Those who know me and my parents are tolerant or supportive, but bigoted strangers still threaten, insult, or even assault.”
** This is a count of the number of times a given type of perpetrator was named for a given act. It is NOT a measure of how many people were perpetrated against.
Work includes both employment and school. The vast majority of reports were for coworkers and students (classmates or those one teaches). Less than five percent named bosses and teachers/advisers. Co-workers were the second most commonly reported perpetrators. We included all reports of teachers and students under “work” as it is a work environment for teachers, and a work-equivalent environment for students. Co-workers were the most commonly named perpetrators of making anti-LGBT remarks, shunning, and treating LGBT people worse than others (and these acts are the ones most frequently experienced by respondents). Thus co-workers contributed significantly to a negative environment for LGBT people.
“I was forced out of a job due to being gay. Sought legal advice from two attorneys who both declined my case stating there is not state or federal law to protect me.
“I would like to see employment non-discrimination laws enacted for sexual orientation and gender identity. I work for a company that has a policy to protect LGBT people but I don’t feel like they are strongly committed to it. I still feel that I would be putting my job at risk if I came out.”
This finding is even more disturbing given the concentration of respondents in education and human services. If coworkers are making life difficult for their LGBT peers, what are they doing to their clients and students? This issue should be studied more carefully as it may have important policy implications (see action recommendations).
Family includes any family or origin or extended relatives (including on partner’s side). Family members were the most likely people to drive respondents out of their homes. Granted, few respondents experienced this, and those that had usually experienced it only once. However, it remains disturbing to us that such a serious life disruption would be most commonly caused by loved ones.
The “service” category included waiters/waitresses, bartenders, lawyers, government agents, police officers, clergy, elected officials, and organization members. Service covers any situation where a LGBT person was trying to access information or resources. That “service” people were the most common perpetrators of refusing to help or asking LGBT people to leave suggests that respondents face opposition trying to do the most mundane errands and activities.
The category of “acquaintance” included those identified more specifically than a stranger (e.g. peer, other men, etc.). “Partners” can be current partners or ex-partners. The fact that friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and partners were not responsible for the majority of any one kind of anti-LGBT act should not erase the fact that they did engage in these behaviors.
A third way that we examined discrimination against LGBT people was by asking respondents what they had feared would happen to them, even if it did not actually occur. Not surprisingly, respondents were most often afraid of violence and isolation.
Top of Page
Positive Aspects Of LGBT Life
Religion/Spirituality
Eighty-nine percent of respondents believed in spiritual being(s) or power(s). We refer to this as “god.” Respondents rated the importance of their beliefs for daily life on a 5-point scale: Religious/spiritual beliefs were either very important or extremely important for 55% of respondents’ daily live, 24% felt their beliefs were important, 18% sort of important, and 3% not at all important for daily life.
The following graph illustrates how respondents replied when asked what best described their beliefs regarding god and sexuality. The majority of religiously identified respondents claimed solely a Protestant or Catholic identity (45% and 20% respectively). However, Pagans, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and others were also included. Respondents could choose identification with more than one religion.
Respondents who worshipped with others were asked to assess their relationship with their religious community and faith structure. Two hundred thirty five respondents (45%) indicated that they were part of a congregation; 62% felt supported as a LGBT person, 32% tolerated, and 6% hostility from their community of worship. Therefore religious community was on average more welcoming than both employment and residential community (see above sections). Welcoming congregations are an important source of support, especially given the conservative Christian climate in this area.
“We’ve been looking for a church that you can be out and not worry.”
“I’m an ‘out lesbian pastor of a Universal Church of Christ congregation. I am out to the church. I don’t have to hide! It’s wonderful!”
Relationships
“I have a very loving and supportive family and the best partner in the world!”
Families of Origin. Ninety-five percent of respondents were in contact with their families of origin, and most kept in touch with weekly phone calls. Ninety percent of respondents were in touch with their extended relatives. For 61% of respondents this contact was monthly or yearly, and most often (43%) in person. This suggests that contact with extended family was primarily for special events such as holidays.
Fifty eight percent of respondents were out as LGBT to their parents and siblings. Slightly more than are out (60%) said that their parents and siblings were supportive of them as LGBT, 35% were tolerated, and 5% treated with hostility. Family of origin was on average slightly less supportive than welcoming congregations, but more supportive than work or residential community. Over half (56%) said that they were the only LGBT person in their family of origin. Given the emphasis on crisis and conflict between LGBT people and their families in both popular and academic literature, this finding is quite hopeful and suggests that we need more careful research about how these relationships unfold over time (Oswald, in press-a).
Respondents named the biggest event in their family of origin in the last year. Eighty-six percent of respondents were invited to attend, and did attend those rituals (the top two events were funerals and weddings). Ten percent were invited but chose not to attend. Just over 3% were not invited and < 1% were not invited but went anyway. Forty-six percent of respondents reported high levels of feeling included during these rituals. Being invited, attending, and feeling part of the ritual all lend further support to the idea that LGBT people value, and are valued by, their families of origin. Oswald (in press-b) provides an analysis of what predicts belonging during these rituals.
Partners. We asked respondents whether or not they were in relationships with same-sex, opposite-sex, or trans/inter-sex partners. Twenty respondents reported having more than one partner. In the below table, more than half were in relationships with same-sex partners. Same-sex relationships were longer lasting and more committed on average than were relationships with opposite-sex or trans partners. Over half (55%) had taken steps to legalize their relationship (for example by purchasing joint property).
Nineteen percent of respondents in same-sex relationships have had a commitment ceremony, and most ceremonies took place in the last decade. Given that more people with same-sex partners have taken steps to legalize their relationship than have had commitment ceremonies suggests that respondents were more concerned with actual legal and material protections than ritual acts. Partners were consistently mentioned as the “best thing” in life.
“The best thing about my life as a gay person is my relationship with my partner of 21 years.”
“I have a good partner who’s honest, loyal, trustworthy, sincere, intelligent, loveable and cute!”
“The best thing of course would be my wonderful partner, and her loving and accepting family, as well as my own.”
Many families of origin also accepted partners. Referring back to the family rituals discussed above, 60% of respondents’ partners were invited to attend and did so. Eighty-two percent of those who brought their partners said that their partner was “included like anyone else’s” (Oswald, in press-b).
LGBT Community. Along with partners, friends and the LGBT community were most commonly cited as “the best things in life in central Illinois.”
“The strong supportive LGBT community that lurks beneath the surface of mundane rural life.”
“We are a small community; it is easy to get a sense of community unlike in larger metropolitan areas.”
“The general supportive atmosphere of the community. The availability of support groups and social groups for people just coming out, like me.”
“Getting to know and getting support from other gay men.”
“I get to spend most of my time with women.”
There were also comments about negative aspects of the community such as racism, transphobia, and ableism (see action recommendations section). And, in response to the question, “What is the worst thing about life in central Illinois?” a number of people wrote about how the LGBT community was too small, divided, inaccessible, or invisible.
“There are very few lesbians to interact with as friends.”
“Not a large LGBT community; hard to find people with similar interests.”
“The relative social isolation. There isn’t a prominent visible gay presence in this town.”
“There aren’t enough LGBT resources or organizations in my area; very little sense of community. People are just scattered.”
It appears that some respondents had a sense of community belonging, and others did not but would like to. What can we do so that more people feel that they have access to resources and support, and are able to find others with whom they feel a personal connection? (See Oswald, in review, and below section on action recommendations)
Top of Page
Action Recommendations
All respondents were asked, “What would improve your life as a LGBT person in central Illinois?” Our suggestions in this section are based on the four most common responses to this question. The descriptive data that we have just presented above are consistent with each of these recommendations.
Support Legislation that Grants Equality for LGBT People and their Families
LGBT people are tax-paying citizens of Illinois, and yet it is legal to discriminate in this state on the basis of sexual orientation. “Equal rights” was the most common answer to the question, “what would improve your life as a LGBT person in central Illinois?” Over and over again, respondents wrote that they were unable to access the same benefits and privileges that heterosexual people take for granted because the law did not recognize their relationships. Respondents wrote about being discriminated against in employment, lending, housing, insurance, taxes, pension benefits, medical care, social security eligibility, and custody decisions.
“I have no health insurance and if there were state recognition of marriage or even civil union statutes that would allow me to be on my partner’s policy, I would be much relieved.”
“I am terrified that I will have a medical emergency and my partner will not be allowed to make decisions on my behalf. She alone understands my beliefs and respects them.”
“I wish people, all people, would realize that we are all basically the same as heterosexual. We want the same things – house, cars, loving relationships, equal rights and opportunities. Not special rights – just equal rights! Legal rights, medical rights, human rights!!”
Educate The Public About The Negative Effects Of Anti-Gay Prejudice
Respondents believed that educating heterosexual people about LGBT people would reduce prejudice and foster understanding across differences. Making the topics of sexuality and cultural differences less taboo would also help LGBT people find information and support. Many described the general atmosphere of central Illinois as anti-LGBT, and attributed this climate to a lack of accurate information and a lack of public support for the discussion of these issues.
“We should be teaching tolerance in schools and churches. My grandson has come home with some really awful stuff from school.”
“Straights need to be more open and understanding. They don’t realize what we go through.”
“The more society learns about us, the less fearful and threatening we will be to each other.”
“I would have loved to have more knowledge of homosexuality in high school and middle school. I knew I was feeling different but didn’t know what to call it or what it was. I wish my parents could have had someone to talk to…”
Increase The Visibility and Interconnection Of LGBT People And Resources
Respondents wanted to be more visible and connected with other LGBT people. Many expressed a desire for alternatives to bars and nightclubs. Suggestions included more LGBT-themed films shown at local theatres, the creation of a café or restaurant that openly welcomes LGBT people, a LGBT bookstore, a resource directory listing all business and services that welcome LGBT customers and clients. Given that some of these resources do exist (for example Prairie Flame newspaper includes a resource directory in every issue), increasing the visibility of, and access to, existing resources may be the best first step. Also, it is important to remember that if one community has a given resource, other LGBT people in central Illinois do not necessarily have easy access to it. Finally, given that the vast majority of respondents do have computer access, any strategies to further build the LGBT community should incorporate the web and Internet.
“A nice coffee shop or café that was identifiably queer would be a cool place to meet people and host events that aren’t structured around alcohol.”
“I would like to see more resources for LGBT individuals, especially teens. I grew up in a very small town and my experiences there scared me for many years. If organizations were more visible to teens, perhaps they would have someone to turn to in their time of need.”
“I would love to see a resource publication of gay-owned or gay-friendly businesses: Attorneys, restaurants, hotels, doctors, etc.”
“I would like to see more speakers, programs, that would address the needs of gay/lesbian people. Entertainment opportunities, coffee houses. It would be nice to go to a restaurant (not a bar) where you could hold your partner’s hand—during dinner– without fear of death or worse!”
“We need services for LGBT people who are abused. When I sought services here I experienced extreme homophobia from some service providers and other victims.”
“A larger umbrella organization or even a larger event to more fully integrate the LGBT community. With a greater network other problems might be more manageable, for example the lack of “out” people might be overcome with more unity.”
Confront Differences
People of color described their difficulties dealing with racism among white LGBT people and homophobia within their ethnic communities. Trans people talked about being shunned by LGB people. Older people described a “youth culture” that they find alienating. People with disabilities wanted to be recognized. In addition, many respondents made disparaging comments about LGBT people whose socio-economic class presumably differs from their own. If the LGBT community is to be more inclusive, then these issues need to be confronted in a productive way.
“More LGBT outreach and dialogue between the LGBT communities including black, white, Asian, etc.”
“Greater awareness of and sensitivity to transgender issues. I no longer feel like part of the queer community because of the ignorance, and just plain hatefulness, of the LGB community.”
“People in the LGBT community accepting my lesbianism AND my cerebral palsy.”
The Importance Of Research
When asked if they had further comments, most respondents expressed their appreciation for this survey, and several were shocked that money was actually available to study LGBT life. Over 300 respondents returned a postcard asking to be included in future research. All these findings suggest that LGBT in central Illinois do not feel acknowledged by the larger public, and would like to be. Further, LGBT people are motivated to provide information as long as they trust that they won’t be harmed in the process. Research may be viewed as one way to garner respect and validity for the LGBT community, which in time may break down barriers and lead to positive social change.
“Glad the survey was given. Maybe we’ll get to know more about how many gay men and women are really out here in Illinois. Not to mention transgender and transvestite.”
“I’m glad you are doing this and I hope some positive social change will result.”
“It’s hard to be heard when you’re different, gay or not. Thanks for the opportunity to participate.”
References
Albrecht, D. (1986). Agricultural dependence and the population turnaround: Evidence from the Great Plains. Journal of the Community Development Society, 7(1), 1-15.
Bell, D., & Valentine, G. (1995). Queer country: Rural lesbian and gay lives. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(2), 113-122.
Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butler, S., & Hope, B. (1999). Health and well being for late middle-aged and old lesbians in a rural area. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 9(4), 27-46.
Cody, P., & Welch, P. (1997). Rural gay men in northern New England: Life experiences and coping styles. Journal of Homosexuality,33(1), 51-67.
D’Augelli, A. (1988). Lesbian women in a rural helping network: Exploring informal helping resources. Women and Therapy, 8(1/2), 119-130.
D’Augelli, A., & Hart, M. (1987). Gay women, men, and families in rural settings: Towards the development of helping communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(1), 79-93.
Haag, A., & Chang, F. (1997). The impact of electronic networking on the lesbian and gay community. In J. Smith & B. Mancoske (Eds.), Rural gays and lesbians: Building on the strengths of communitie. (pp. 83-94). New York: Haworth Press
Johnson, K (1993). Demographic changes in non-metropolitan America. Rural Sociology, 58(3), 347-365.
Kramer, J. (1995). Bachelor farmers and spinsters: Gay and lesbian identities and communities in rural North Dakota. In D. Bell and G. Valentine (Eds.), Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities (pp. 200-213). New York: Routledge.
Krieger, S. (1983). The mirror dance: Identity in a women’s community. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Oswald, R. (2001). Ritual and the site of family integration and disjuncture: A study of non-metropolitan lesbians and gay men. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual conference, San Francisco.
Oswald, R. (2002). “Who am I in relation to them? Gay, lesbian, and queer people leave the city to attend rural family weddings.” Journal of Family Issues, 23, 323-348.
Oswald, R. (2002). Resilience in the family networks of lesbians and gay men: Intentionality and redefinition. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 374-383.
Oswald, R. (in press-a). Inclusion and belonging in the family rituals of lesbian and gay people. Journal of Family Psychology.
Oswald, R. (in press-b). Under the rainbow: Rural gay life and its relevance for family providers. Family Relations.
Salamon, S. (1992). Prairie patrimony: Family, farming, and community in the Midwest. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Salamon, S. (in press). From Hometown to nontown: Suburbanization of the Heartland [working title]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, J., & Mancoske, B. (1997). Rural gays and lesbians: Building on the strengths of communities. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Authors’ Note:
This project went smoothly thanks to the assistance and input of many different people. We would especially like to thank the University of Illinois Research Board, Department of Human and Community Development, and Lab for Community and Economic Development. In addition, we would like to express our appreciation to the following individuals and organizations. Thank you for your support, and/or assistance in locating respondents!
Anonymous, Gregory Beach, Ada Boston, Nicholas Bridgett, Buff Carmichael, Alexis Daniel, Julie Fesenmaier, Rick Garcia, Amy Jo Gladfelter, Greg Gravemier, Grant Haab, Patrick Hagood, Leslie Jones, Larry Lane, Matthew Hesson-McInnis, Bharat Mehra, Reverend J. David Morganseay, C.C. Nance, Esther Patt, James Phillips, Tim Rice, Linda M. Schroeder, Sandy Sexton Allie Shepko, Amy M. Slater, Kathie Spegal, and Steven Wang.
Amasong
BGLA at Western Illinois University
Brother To Brother in Springfield
Central Illinois Friends of People with AIDS
Church of the Good Shepard in Carbondale
Common Ground at Bradley University
Connections Community Center in Bloomington
Faith Eternal Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in Springfield
Gay and Lesbian Association of Decatur (GLAD)
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network (GLSEN) in Champaign-Urbana
Greater Community AIDS Project (GCAP)
Heart of Illinois Lesbians in Friendship Together (HILIFT) in Peoria
Rainbow Pride at Lincoln Land Community College
McLean County AIDS Task Force
Men’s Network of Peoria
New Hope Christian Fellowship in Springfield
Open Door Youth Center in Bloomington
OUTPost Community Center in Champaign-Urbana
OutZone Youth Group at OUTPost
Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) in Bloomington
Prairie Flame newspaper
Rainbow Youth Outreach of Peoria
SafeZone at the University of Illinois
Saint John the Divine Church in Champaign-Urbana
Springfield AIDS Research Association (SARA)
Springfield Area Lesbian Outreach (SALO)
Transgender Outreach Project in Champaign-Urbana
Vermillion County AIDS Task Force
WEFT Radio Station in Champaign-Urbana
Correspondence should be addressed to Ramona Faith Oswald, Ph.D., Department of Human and Community Development, 263 Bevier Hall, University of Illinois, 905 South Goodwin, MC-180, Urbana, IL 61810. Electronic mail: roswald@uiuc.edu
Top of Page
