Joy Novak
Fall 2005
IS – 289: Interpreting Documents
A New Generation of Activism: The Sudden Political Shift in Gay Activism as Seen in Event Announcements from Before and After the Stonewall Riots
In his essay “The Outlaw Sensibility in the Arts From Drag and Leather to Prose, the Mythology of Stonewall, and a Defense of Stereotypes,” John Rechy addresses the symbolic importance that the gay and lesbian community has placed on the Stonewall riots that took place in June of 1969. Regarding the common perception of the riots, he writes “Overnight – or so the myth has come to indicate – gay liberation was born. The next morning, freed, everyone sprang out of closets dank with decades of oppression and proclaimed their proud identity under a showers of light arguing a new day.”[1] However Rechy argues that Stonewall was only one event in the struggle for gay and lesbian rights which he notes had been being fought before the Stonewall riots of 1969. Yet, despite the existence and strives of the gay rights movement before this event, the riots are still considered by many a turning point, if not the beginning, of the gay civil rights movement. Ultimately, the Stonewall riots encouraged homosexuals from the youth generation of late 1960s to fight for gay and lesbian rights. The movement before and after Stonewall show distinct generational differences, as seen in documents such as gay event announcements, which can attribute to the lasting impact of Stonewall on the development of the gay and lesbian collective identity.
The first organizations of the developing gay and lesbian movement began during the 1950s. The earliest organization during this era, The Mattachine Society, was created in 1950 in Los Angeles by men who had been members of the communist party. Their political inclinations allowed them the skills to develop a discrete organization amidst the tension of the McCarthy era in which homosexuals were generally considered a threat to national security and morality second only to communism. Their original objective was to liberate the homosexual minority from social persecution.[2] However, although the Mattachine Society started off radical, the views of the group began to become more moderate in response to the politics of the 1950s. While there was some participation in the organizations by woman, the groups remained predominantly male. In 1952, several of Mattachine Society’s members began a publishing group in Los Angeles called ONE, INC, which produced the first nationally circulating homosexual publication. In 1955, a group of eight lesbians in San Francisco created the first lesbian organization, Daughters of Bilitis (DOB). Like the Mattachine Society, the DOB also used more a moderate and accommodationist approach and tone in their actions. [3] According to D’Emilio, “The accommodationist stance of the Mattachine and DOB was very much suited to the times. It allowed the groups to take root, thus beginning a tradition of formal lesbian and gay organizations that remains continuous to the present day. But the approach of these first activists also did not promise much in the way of change.”[4] This period of activism was coined the homophile movement. Using the word “homophile”, a term derived from the Greek root meaning ‘love,’ the activists of this period attempted to promote a greater understanding of homosexuality by distancing themselves from the eroticism and blatant sexuality associated with the term “homosexuality.”[5] The use of this term as the chosen label of the period seems to further emphasis the moderate and accommodationist politics of the time period. Yet, even if the politics of the groups were not militant or notably extreme, the existence and persistence of these groups at that time period is perhaps their biggest contribution to gay and lesbian history. However, their political approach which was generally non-confrontational kept the organizations from garnering the attention needed to make larger political strives.
The announcement for the 1961 DOB Halloween Masquerade Party seen below illustrates this discrete political approach of the early homophile demonstrates the political agenda and tone of these early groups like the DOB.
Image 1: Invitation to Daughter’s of Bilitis Halloween Party, 1961[6]
The announcement itself appears very discrete. The document was typed, not copied or carbon-copied, suggesting that the distribution of these invitations was limited. This limited distribution would imply that the party was not only private, but that there may have been some attempt to keep the party relatively secret to avoid negative attention or harassment. The full name of the organization is not listed on the flyer, suggesting a level of secrecy despite the fact that the name of the organization, Daughters of Bilities, is not obviously homosexual. Furthermore, there are no individual names listed on the flyer, also emphasizing the anonymity and discretion of the document and event. In addition, the invitation appears very formal. The event requests a reservation which suggests a more organized party. Furthermore, the choice of using the term “Masquerade Party” instead of a “Costume Party” also suggests a more formal event, with masquerade being defined by Webster’s Dictionary as ‘a ball or party at which masks and fancy costumes are worn.” [7] Also, masquerade seems to be a suggestive choice of words for the event in a more socially significant way since the term also means “a guise; pretense” or “a living or acting under a false pretense.”[8] Thus, the use of this term seemingly implies that those invited would be coming under ‘false pretenses’ or can perhaps be read as implying that they are generally living under guises in their everyday lives and can use the opportunity of the party to shed these ‘straight’ pretenses for the night.
The discretion and formality of the Daughters of Bilitis Halloween invitation demonstrate the middle-class values that were intrinsic to the creation and development of the organization. The group originally developed in large response to middle class women’s dissatisfaction with the lesbian bar culture. Despite the prevalence of the bar culture in the post-war period, many lesbians, particularly those in the middle-class, did not feel comfortable participating in this culture or the butch/femme roles which the culture usually promoted. Since the few professional opportunities for middle-class women were government jobs like teaching and social work, many middle-class lesbians risked being fired if they publicly presented roles that would distinguish them as homosexuals.[9] Not only were some middle class women uncomfortable with the butch-femme roles, but many middle-class women were also less likely to participate in the bar culture primarily because of the social stigma associated with taverns.[10] The DOB was founded in San Francisco largely as a social alternative to lesbian bars, predominantly for middle-class women. These middle-class values seem to be seen in this invitation, which clearly promotes a social event that is very distinct from a bar event.
The more moderate political approach of the homophile movement mainly persisted through the 1960s, particularly in the Daughters of Bilitis. In 1962, Barbara Gittings who had started the New York chapter of the DOB in 1958 became the editor of the DOB’s national newsletter, The Ladder. Influenced by more militant civil rights groups of the period, Gittings began to cause controversy within the organanization as she turned the educational and literary newsletter into a more aggressive publication. Not only did she cover more public political events, but she also put the word “lesbian” on the cover of the magazine for the first time in March of 1964.[11] Yet, her perspective did not change those of the governing board of the organization who ultimately removed her from the editor position in 1965.[12] Regarding the moderate political approaches of the organizations of the 1960s, John D’Emilio writes, “Even though the politics of the civil rights movements seemed right to take on anti-gay attack – neither Mattachine nor the DOB seized the opportunity. They were still into their accommodationist position of the 1950s and…detached from the world of the bars, they failed to appreciate the glimmerings of a new outlook that the cultural dissent of the beats were fostering.”[13] The stonewall riots is largely considered the event which turned this seemingly moderate homophile movement into a more militant movement. It noteworthy that this riot that sparked a new generation of activism was a response to an incident involving gay bars, places from which the older generation of activist attempted to distance themselves.
This new generation of activists and activism is clearly seen in the difference in the gay and lesbian event announcements that were produced in the years following the Stonewall riots, such as those below:
Item 2: Gay Liberation Dance ad in Los Angeles Free Press January 8, 1971[14]
Item 3: Gay Liberation Front dance ad in Los Angeles Free Press Jan 29, 1971[15]
Item 4: Gay Women’s Service Center Dance Flyer, ca. 1971[16]
Item 5: Gay Women’s Service Center Dance flyer[17]
The advertisements and flyers such as these above stand in stark contrast to the discreet, formal invitation for the Daughters of Bilitis Halloween party. These advertisements not only demonstrate a new generation of activists with new political agendas which included a more public, direct approach, but a new language used to discuss gay and lesbian issues, as well as a growing sense of a gay and lesbian community.
There generational divide between the activism that began following the Stonewall riots that occurred in June of 1969 appeared very distinct. According to John D’Emilio, those participating in the gay and lesbian movement following the riots were of the same generation and shared much of the same perspective as the hippie youth culture, who were largely against the white middle-class values. Since these middle-class values were generally projected by the organizations in the homophile movement, the youth participating in this new wave of gay activism would naturally be rebelling against the movement that supported these ‘out-dated’ values.[18] Regarding the youth’s perceptions of the earlier generation’s movement, Margaret Cruishank writes, “Another characteristic of the movement in the 1970s is that it took Stonewall as the beginning of liberation. Naturally lesbians and gay men wanted a total break with the past because the past had been so oppressive.”[19] Yet, she also notes that many were completely unaware the homophile movement.[20] In many ways, the background of the youth culture of the late 1969 caused the clear distinction between the two political styles and also attributed to the youth’s lack of understanding for the older generation’s approach. Regarding the lesbians involved in the movement, Lillian Faderman claims, “The new movement lesbians tended to be a different breed from either working-class or middle-class lesbians of the previous generations – young, educated, politically aware despite socioeconomic background….Their militance often outstripped their capacities and understanding of both older working-class and middle-class lesbians and difficulties emerged between the generations.”[21] Thus, the women were often more politically savvy and outspoken, which isolated them from the previous generation of female activists. These flyers and advertisements seem to show none of the middle class values or formalities that had existed on the Daughter’s of Bilitis invitation from ten years earlier. While it can be argued that the Daughters of Bilitis was an organization that had no intention to be so outspoken and are thus not an appropriate comparison, the organization was the only organization at that time that offered lesbians social events outside of the bar. These flyers at least demonstrate that there were increasing social options for gays and lesbians, many of which were specifically for the younger generation of gay and lesbian activist.
A primary reason for the new generation’s more political gay rights activism can also be attributed to political involvement in other civil rights issues before Stonewall. While many gay activists had been working for other issues, Stonewall seemingly motivated many to start advocating for their own rights as gays and lesbians. Regarding the political involvement of the new generation of activist, Yolanda Retter, who has been deeply involved in lesbian politics since 1970, claims “1969 came together as the watershed moment for my generation of baby boomers many of whom had been involved in social movements where people resisted and then being gay they were like, ‘I’m going to resist on my own behalf.’ Just like Rey Rivera [a participant of the Stonewall riots]said, ‘I was fighting for everyone else’s rights, now it’s my turn.’”[22] She later continues, “It’s just that these social movements came together for people who were parts of these various movements and who were also gays and lesbians. That’s why it was so exciting.”[23] Regarding Stonewall’s role in motivating gay and lesbian activists to fight for their own rights, Lillian Faderman writes, “By calling on the dramatic tactic of violent protest that was being used by other oppressed groups, the events at the Stonewall implied that homosexuals had as much reason to be disaffected as they.”[24] The groups that developed soon after the Stonewall riots, most notably the Gay Liberation Front which was started within months of the riots, reflected this activist background. For example, the statement of purpose for the Los Angeles chapter Gay Liberation Front which was created in December of 1969, claims, “We are in total opposition to America’s white racism, to poverty, hunger, the systematic destruction of our patrimony….We support the demands of Blacks, Chicanos….and others demanding their full rights as human beings. We join in their struggle, and shall actively seek coalition to pursue these goals.”[25] These political perspectives were far more progressive than the earlier homophile organizations. As Gay Liberation Front member, Martha Shelley, claims “Those of us in GLF who had come from Mattachine and DOB were to the left of the rest of the members of those organizations. We felt that we were being held back in our politics and our beliefs by the necessity of putting forth the aims of the organizations we belonged to…”[26] Thus, most of the young activists who were coming into the gay and lesbian movement following Stonewall riots were already involved in other political movements such as the civil rights movements which had instilled them with a more direct, militant political perspective which they brought to their gay and lesbian activist work. This outspoken and bold approach is clearly evident in these flyers which clearly lack the discretion that was seen in the earlier example of a lesbian party invitation.
The difference in the distribution of the announcements during the period following the Stonewall riots also illustrates the difference in tone and agenda from the previous homophile movement. While the flyer from the DOB event appeared to be individually typed and limitedly distributed, demonstrating the discretion of the organization and event, many of these events were advertised in both the underground straight and gay presses such as the two advertisements for the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) dances previously discussed (items two and three). This type of advertising demonstrates an attempt to reach a much wider audience. Although gay periodicals had been produced by the homophile organizations, such as ONE Magazine and The Ladder these publications did not have advertising for gay events such as parties or dances. One exception of was the gay newsletter, P.R.I.D.E. which began to be published in Los Angeles in 1966. Yet, this newsletter stood out from many of the other gay publishing in its attempt to be a social guide in addition to an educational tool, demonstrating that it would not distance itself from the bar culture. Yet, the early advertisement in this publication for an event seen below looks very similar to the flyer from the DOB:
Item 6: Announcement in P.R.I.D.E. July 1966[27]
Like the DOB event, this gathering is presented as a more formal a gala event. In addition, the announcement is very discrete having no address for the event, only a P.O. Box number and a number for additional information. Yet, unlike the DOB invitation, this advertisement was distributed anonymously in a newsletter, demonstrating that the invitation was not intended to be distributed as discreetly. This advertisement seems to be in stark contrast to an advertisement that appeared in P.R.I.D.E. newsletter just a year later:
Item 7: Bar Event Announcement in P.R.I.D.E. June 1967[28]
There is little formality in this announcement, and the sexuality is direct and explicit. There is a clear address listed unlike the gala event. While the early date of this flyer may seem surprising considering it appeared over 2 years before Stonewall, and the supposed beginning of ‘Gay Pride,’ the flyer actually appeared months after a similar riot following a bar raid that took place in January of 1971 at the Black Cat Bar in Los Angeles. The lack of discretion in this flyer would indicate that this riot, like Stonewall for New York, encouraged gays and lesbians in Los Angeles to be more blatant in their sexuality and be less discrete in advertising their events. Yet, the agenda of P.R.I.D.E. to act as a social guide for the Los Angeles Gay Community as well as a newsletter demonstrates that this publication shared a political perspective closer to the youth culture of the period as opposed to those of its contemporary homophile organizations. P.R.I.D.E. ultimately disbanded in 1967; however, it lead to the development of The Advocate which continues to be the largest selling gay and lesbian magazine in the United States to this day.[29]
Specifically, the appearance of the announcements (such as items two and three) in the straight underground press, such as the Los Angeles Free Press, demonstrates the gay and lesbian movement’s affiliation or shared perspective with the youth culture of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Los Angeles Free Press started in 1964 and eventually became the biggest underground paper in America, reaching a readership of about 90,000 by 1971.[30] Regarding the significance of the underground press to this youth generation, Abe Peck, writes “The Free Press started in part to fill the gap between the middle class mainstream media and the youth culture.”[31] He later writers, “The Free Press was less a journal than a newspaper about the real political and cultural lives of the people who read it.”[32] Yet, the appearance of gay and lesbian event announcement in underground publications does not imply that the organizations or events were necessarily a part of mainstream consciousness. Regarding the political position of these publications, Yolanda Retter claims, “To what was more mainstream to get into the beginnings of the straight press and the free press was on the first end of the spectrum of what was we considered the mainstream or the non-gay press – but not mainstream by any means.” Thus, while these publications were not mainstream periodicals, the appearance of announcements in them demonstrate the attempt made to advertise in publications that were directed to and produced by the youth culture, indicating a relationship between the movement and the youth generation.
The rhetoric used on these flyers also demonstrates a change in politics of this generation, most notably in their use of the idea of ‘coming out’ which was central to this gay liberation movement. Regarding the change in politics surrounding the concept of ‘coming out,’ John D’Emilio writes,
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, leaders of the homophile cause had in effect extended their coming out toe the public sphere through their work in the movement. But only rarely did they counsel lesbians and homosexuals at large to follow their example….Gay liberationist, on the other hand, recast coming out as a profoundly political act that could offer enormous personal benefits to an individual…To come out of the ‘close’ quintessentially expressed the fusion of the personal and the political that the radicalism of the late 1960s exalted.[33]
Discussing the role of coming out in the movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Yolanda Retter claims, “It kind of feed into itself. The more you came out, the more people in the movement. The more people in the movement, the safer you felt to come out.”[34] This new idea of ‘coming out’ is clearly seen in the documents from this period, many of which seemingly encourage initials to come out. The change in rhetoric is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in item five, reshown below:
Item 5: Gay Women’s Service Center Dance flyer[35]
While this flyers declaration to “Come Out” can be read as an encouragement to come to the event, it is also suggestive to come out politically. In addition, this declaration seemingly implies that coming to a lesbian event such as this would be an act of coming out to the community, which would be one step in the coming out process. Also, as D’Emilio indicated, during this period, coming out was considered an enlightening and positive experience that would provide the individual with personal freedom. This perspective is clearly seen in this document, which offers the ‘service’ of outing guests to their parents. While clearly said in a joking tone, this text illustrates a clear change in the attitude surrounding the idea of ‘coming out’ since it is unlikely that members of the homophile movement would so blatantly joke in this manner. Overall, these documents demonstrate that, unlike the previous generation of activist, the youth generation of gay and lesbian activists considered ‘coming out’ a positive experience which they encouraged more individuals to do so they could join the community.
In addition to the change in rhetoric surrounding the notion of ‘coming out,’ the use of the word ‘gay’ also changed during the period following the Stonewall riots, as evident in the event announcements of the period. In his essay, “The Political Vocabulary of Homosexuality,” Edmund White discusses the change in terminology in the gay and lesbian community beginning in the 1970s, claiming, “homosexual, with its medical textbook ring, was dismissed in favor of the more informal and seemingly more innocuous gay.”[36] He suggests that the appropriation of the term gay was largely attributed to the influence of the civil rights movement on the gay movement. He claims “Because the black movement was highly vocal and visible at the time of Stonewall, slogans such as ‘black is beautiful’ were easily translated into ‘gay is good’ and black power’ became ‘gay power.’”[37] Both of the Gay Women’s Services Center flyers boldly announced their ‘Gay Dances.’ Perhaps more significantly, the Gay Liberation Front advertisement (item 2) actually uses the phrase “Gay is Good” to help promote the event. The blatant use of the word ‘gay’ further demonstrates the lack of discretion used by the young generation of activist as well as suggests the appropriation of the word as a label of pride.
While the documents illustrate the change in rhetoric during following the Stonewall riots, the documents themselves serve as evidence of specific events and organizations that were activities as specific moments in history. This evidential value is perhaps most evident in the flyers for the Gay Women’s Services Center Dances (items four and five) which were produced during a period of intense activity in the lesbian movement. While lesbians worked in coordination with gay men in groups like the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) following the Stonewall riots, issues regarding sexism began to divide many of the co-gendered groups by the summer of 1970 with many women leaving to develop their own organizations. In 1970, Del Whan created the Gay Women’s Services Center (GWSC), the first known lesbian social services center which hosted consciousness-raising meetings, classes, dances and other events. The GWSC discontinued in 1972 due to the lack of volunteers and funds.[38] Another primary lesbian organization that developed in 1970 was the Lesbian Feminist (LF) which was formed by lesbians new to the gay and lesbian movement. Ranging in age from their early twenties to their mid-thirties with various class backgrounds, the Lesbian Feminist had a very different political perspective than the DOB as well as the GLF, with these lesbians being more heavily influenced by feminism.[39] By the summer of 1971, a variety of groups that offered different services and opportunities for lesbians developed in the Los Angeles area alone.[40] Yet, this time of intense interest in lesbian activism was seemingly short-lived with the groups noticing decline in participation by late 1972.[41] Thus, these two documents give evidence to a very distinct time in lesbian history in which the lesbian organizations appeared to be thriving. Specifically, item 5 is noteworthy because it lists other participating organizations which provides a record of what organizations where not only active at that time but also gives evidence that these organizations were sometimes working in co-ordination with each other. In addition, this particular flyer also demonstrate that despite the politics that had encouraged these women to start new, independent organizations, the lesbian organizations still co-operated with co-gendered organizations such as Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) as well as the DOB from whose politics many of these younger women had strayed. Furthermore, the documents also illustrate a time in which the rhetoric involving lesbians was still evolving. In coordination with feminism and the gay liberation movement, lesbians generally began to more increasingly break away from using the label ‘gay’ to describe themselves, choosing instead to refer to themselves as the gender specific, “lesbian.”[42] Yet, while this flyer demonstrates that the women’s groups were still using both labels with the Gay Women’s Services Center as well as the Lesbian Feminist. In addition, item five specifically discussing coming out as ‘gay.’ Thus, the documents illustrate a time during the evolution of the discourse surrounding the self-labeling of homosexual women.
All of these event announcements are significant for being records of gatherings which were crucial to the development of a gay and lesbian collective identity. Regarding the development of a collective identity, Verta Taylor and Nancy E. Whittier claim “Collective identity is the shared definition of a group that derives from members’ common interests, experiences, and solidarity.”[43] Later they claim an initial step in the development of this collective consciousness is for the “individuals [to] see themselves as part of a group when some shared characteristic becomes salient and is defined as important.”[44] Thus, for the gay and lesbian community, being homosexual could be interpreted as the common characteristic that had become defined as positive and significant which allowed for the development of a collective identity. Yet, this identity was only really instigated by coming together as a community to celebrate this trait. Gatherings, such as dances, were opportunities for the development of this collective consciousness. In his article, “Gay Gathering: Reimagining the Counterculture,” Robert McRuer discusses the significance of gatherings such as dances and protests for the gays and lesbians of the early 1970s, claiming, “the gay gatherings in the 1970s…provided spaces where lesbians and gay men learned to reinvent themselves and their communities in opposition to the dominant culture.”[45] Thus, gay events such as dances provided a forum in which to develop a gay and lesbian collective identity distinct from both the dominant culture as well as the youth counterculture.
The Gay Liberation Front dances were perhaps the most famous and popular during this period. Regarding the success of the dances, one organizer, Bob Kohler, claims, “For the first time – hallelujah! – the gay dances would be non-Mafia-run. It would be the first time that it would be gay dances by gay people for gay people, with the money that was handed in at the door going to gay issues and gay causes….I mean what had we had up till that point?...Mafia-run gay establishments where they hated faggots, where you risked your life.”[46] Being organized by gays and lesbians made these dances a community event which allowed a freedom that was not possible when the opportunities for social gatherings had been dominated by the fear of threats from the mafia or the police. This light tone is seen in the Gay Liberation Front dance advertisements in their making fun of social and pop culture figures of dominant such as the Pope (item four) and Doris Day (item five). Thus, these advertisements demonstrates a clear shift in tone and understanding regarding the idea of gay and lesbians gatherings that provided a free and comfortable environment that allowed individuals to come together and develop as a community.
The collection and preservation of these invitations and flyers, which are examples of ephemera, demonstrate the significance of these events to gay and lesbian identity. While there seems to be no singular definition of ephemera, a common understanding of the concept seems to imply that the material was only intended to be short lived.[47] Yet, these flyers, which were undoubtedly intended for short-use, still exist and are available decades after the events they promoted. Individuals actively chose to save, collect and than donate these materials to the archives because they thought these documents were significant. Thus, the continued existence and preservation of these materials demonstrate the significance of these events for gay and lesbian individuals who attended.
Overall, the Stonewall riot ultimately lead to the growing participation of a new generation of gays and lesbians who held different political agendas and perspectives than their predecessors. Regarding the difference in the movement before and after this event, Yolanda Retter claims, “It’s generational. Cause Harry Hay [founder of the Mattachine Society] and Del Martin [founder of the DOB] and those people, they came across their courage some other way. They came across their involvement and their decision to come out publicly and to themselves some historically different way then we did. We were historically different. And the watershed moment for [late 1960s youth] generation, in my opinion, was Stonewall.”[48] These new political tactics ultimately lead to more activities and gatherings which helped to develop a collective gay and lesbian identity. Thus, Stonewall, while not necessarily the most important event in the overall gay and lesbian rights movement, has generally overshadowed other events because it is often considered the most personally significant moment for many of those who helped shaped the public gay and lesbian collective community and identity.
Works Cited
Carter, David. Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004.
Cruikshank, Margaret. The Gay and Liberation Movement New York: Routledge, 1992.
D’Emilio, John. “Cycles of Change, Questions of Strategy: The Gay and Lesbian Movement after Fifty Years” in The Politics of Gay Rights Craig A. Rimmerman, Kenneth D. Wald, Cylde Wilcox, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
D’Emilio, John. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970 Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Faderman, Lillian. Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Hodan, Steve and Hudson, Lee. Completely Queer: The Gay and Lesbian Encyclopedia New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1998.
Leamer, Laurence. The Paper Revolutionaries: The Rise of the Underground Press New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972.
Makepeace, Chris E. Ephemera: A Book on its Collection, Conservation and Use Brokfield, VT: Gower Books, 1985.
Marcus, Eric. Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights: 1945 to 1990 An Oral History New York: Harper Collins, 1992.
McRuer, Robert “Gay Gatherings: Reimagining the Counterculture” in Imagine Nation: The American Counterculture of the 1960s and 70s Peter Braunstein and Michael William Doyle, eds. New York: Routledge, 2002).
Peck, Abe. Uncovering the Sixties: The Life and Times of the Underground Press New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.
Rechy, John. “The Outlaw Sensibility in the Arts: From Drag and Leather to Prose, the Mythology of Stonewall, and a Defense of Stereotypes,” in Queer Frontiers: Millennial Geographies, Genders, and Generations Joseph Boone, ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000.
Retter, Yolanda “Lesbian Activism in Los Angeles 1970-1979” in Queer Frontiers: Millennial Geographies, Genders, and Generations Joseph Boone, ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000.
“Statement of Purpose – Gay Liberation Front, Los Angeles, CA” ca. 1969. From “Gay Liberation Front” Vertical File Folder in ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archive, Lesbian Legacy Collect.
Taylor, Verta and Whittier, Nancy E. “Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities: Lesbian Feminist Mobilization” in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1992.
Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language New York: Collins World, 1975.
Williams, Walter L. and Retter, Yolanda. Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003.
White, Edmund. “The Political Vocabulary of Homosexuality” in The State of Language Leonard Michaels and Christopher Ricks, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
Documents
Item 1: From “Daughters of Bilitis” Vertical file. ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archive, Lesbian Legacy Collection.
Item 2: From Los Angeles Free Press, January 8, 1971
Item 3: Los Angeles Free Press, January 29, 1971
Item 4: From “Gay Women’s Services Center, 1971” Vertical File at ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archive Lesbian Legacy Collection.
Item 5: From “Gay Women’s Services Center, 1971” Vertical File at ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archive Lesbian Legacy Collection.
Item 6: P.R.I.D.E. Vol.1. No.3 July 1966.
Item 7: P.R.I.D.E. June 1967
Interviews
Retter, Yolanda. Interview. December 8, 2005 Los Angeles, California.