This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]

On: 10 January 2015, At: 16:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Women & Aging

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwa20

Older Lesbians: Experiences of Aging,

Discrimination and Resilience
a a a
Paige Averett , Intae Yoon & Carol L. Jenkins
a
School of Social Work, East Carolina University , Greenville, NC
Published online: 18 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Paige Averett , Intae Yoon & Carol L. Jenkins (2011) Older Lesbians:
Experiences of Aging, Discrimination and Resilience, Journal of Women & Aging, 23:3, 216-232, DOI:
10.1080/08952841.2011.587742

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2011.587742

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Women & Aging, 23:216–232, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0895-2841 print/1540-7322 online
DOI: 10.1080/08952841.2011.587742

Older Lesbians: Experiences of Aging,

Discrimination and Resilience

PAIGE AVERETT, INTAE YOON, and CAROL L. JENKINS

School of Social Work, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

Older lesbians are, at minimum, a triple threat of marginalization

due to ageism, heterosexism, and sexism. A national survey specific
to this often-invisible population has not occurred in over 25 years.
The present study was completed to reveal the needs, strengths,
and experiences of the current cohort of older lesbians. Four hun-
dred fifty-six older lesbians responded to an online survey on topics
including sociodemographics, social activity, health, sexual iden-
tity, family relationships, romantic relationships, service/program
use, mental health, end-of-life care, and discrimination. The
results and implications are included as well as a comparison to
the last studied cohort.

KEYWORDS lesbian, older, discrimination, resilience

INTRODUCTION

Though the number of lesbian women in the older population is growing, it

is very difficult to document (Lowell, 2000). For example, the Administration
on Aging roughly estimated there were between 454,000 and 1,396,000 les-
bians over the age of 55 in 2001 (as cited in Richard & Brown, 2006).
Yet, an advocacy group claims that an estimated 2.8 million Americans
age 65 years and older are gay or lesbian (Brambilar, 2009). It is pro-
jected that by 2030 these numbers will double (Grant, 2000). Yet older
lesbians are a near-invisible group in current American society (Bayliss, 2000;
Fullmer, Shenk, & Eastland, 1999; Grant, 2000; Healey, 1994; Healy, 2002;
Jacobson & Samdal, 1998; Shenk & Fullmer, 1996; Wojciechowski, 1998).
This invisibility is due to the heterosexism and ageism that are normalized in

Address correspondence to Paige Averett, PhD, Mail Stop 505, 222 Rivers
Building, School of Social Work, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858. E-mail:
averettp@ecu.edu

216
 Older Lesbian Survey 217

American culture. As well, this marginalization of older lesbians also occurs

within the academic community (Averett & Jenkins, in press; Goldberg,
Sickler & Dibble, 2005; Grant, 2000). Despite the at-minimum triple threat
of oppression from being older, women, and lesbian, older lesbians are
an often-neglected population in research studies. A recent 13-year review
of the literature found that of the 28 articles focused exclusively on older
lesbians, only 14 articles were based on empirical studies, with several
of the studies containing two or three participants (Averett & Jenkins, in
press). The last national survey (Kehoe, 1989) of specifically older lesbians
was completed over 25 years ago (Averett & Jenkins, in press; Gabbay &
Wahler, 2002).
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

Within the limited literature, a common challenge for researchers is

the difficulty in identifying a diverse population of older lesbians: The
vast majority of study participants are White, well educated, and young-
old (Averett & Jenkins, in press; Jacobson, 1995). It is important also to note
the wide discrepancies within the studies in the use of terminology. Both the
language and the numerical definition of being older varied by study. The
articles reviewed by Averett and Jenkins (in press) used a variety of terms to
describe old age. For example, Gabbay and Wahler (2002) used both of the
terms “aging” and “older,” while others followed the belief of Healey (1994)
and the Old Lesbians Organizing for Change (OLOC) that it is important to
use the word “old” as a political statement. However, Hall and Fine (2005),
among several others, used “older.” In total, of the 28 articles reviewed, half
(n = 14) used the terminology of “older” (Averett & Jenkins, in press). For
the purposes of the current article we followed this frequency and used
the term of “older” throughout. There was also discrepancy in the numeri-
cal definition of being older as seen in the varying age minimums used for
recruiting participants (Averett & Jenkins, in press; Jacobson, 1995). A quick
analysis of the empirical articles of the review found that the participants’
youngest age ranged from 49 to 60. Thus the chronological definition of
being older varied among studies.
Most of the published studies of the past 10 years used qualitative meth-
ods (e.g., in-depth interviews) with small samples. The largest study found
was based on survey data gathered from 100 lesbian women over age 60 by
Kehoe (1989) in 1984. The survey was republished 15 years later (Goldberg
et al., 2005) to compare it to the findings of more recent studies. Thus,
much of what we have learned about older lesbians is based on data col-
lected over 25 years ago. Older lesbians who participated in the 1989 study
spent their formative years and much of their adult lives before attitudes
about homosexuality became more positive following the Stonewall riots
in 1969.
Despite these challenges and limitations, the existing research demon-
strates consistent results. The following summarizes those findings (see
Averett & Jenkins, in press, for a fuller review). Female friends, particularly
 218 P. Averett et al.

other lesbians, and female family members are the foundation of social
support networks (Butler & Hope, 1999; Comerford, Henson-Stroud,
Sionainn, & Wheeler, 2004; Goldberg et al., 2005; Richard & Brown, 2006).
Most older lesbians have proved resilient in the face of a lifetime of marginal-
ization and discrimination, “converting obstacles into opportunities” (Hall &
Fine, 2005, p. 182). Noting the frequent need for self-reliance, especially in
rural geographic locations, many have intentionally formed informal support
networks, finding instrumental support from heterosexual friends and neigh-
bors and emotional support from other lesbians (Comerford et al., 2004;
Richard & Brown, 2006). The majority of older lesbians report good health
and high levels of education (Butler & Hope, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2005).
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

Challenges were associated with accessing health care and social services,
often due to perceived discrimination (Butler & Hope, 1999; Goldberg et al.,
2005; Pettinato, 2008; Phillips & Marks, 2008; Richard & Brown, 2006). As
well, discrimination was experienced in work, familial, and social settings
(Goldberg et al., 2005; Jacobson & Samdahl, 1998).
The current study extends earlier research by providing information
about a current cohort of older lesbian women who responded to an online
survey based largely on one developed by Kehoe (1989) and comparing
findings from the two cohorts on a variety of topics, including sociodemo-
graphics, social activity, health, sexual identity, family relationships, romantic
relationships, service/program use, emotional health, end-of-life care, and
experiences with discrimination. As well, the current study fills the extant
gap in the literature, bringing attention to an oft-ignored population and
providing practitioners and policy makers with information about this cur-
rent group of older women with whom they are regularly interacting, albeit
with limited knowledge.

METHODS

The Institutional Review Board at East Carolina University approved

the study protocol (IRB# 08-0601), which used an online survey to
gather descriptive data from a national sample of lesbian women. Using
Kehoe’s (1989) survey and S. Dibble’s survey (personal communication,
September 19, 2008), we attempted to update the language, developed the
survey, and posted it on SurveyMonkey.com. The survey “Lesbians 55+”
included 115 questions on sociodemographics, social activity, health, sexual
identity, family relationships, romantic relationships, service/program use,
mental health, end-of-life care, and experiences with discrimination. The
survey contained both categorical and open-ended questions.
The survey was pilot tested by first a former student who is
a middle-aged lesbian and then by a self-proclaimed “old dyke” col-
league. Both provided feedback on language use and question order.
 Older Lesbian Survey 219

Next the survey was thoroughly reviewed and edited by Sharon Raphael,
PhD, and “Research Gatekeeper” for the Old Lesbians Organizing for
Change organization (www.oloc.org). This process provided invaluable
insight about word choices and solidified the survey questions (see
http://www.oloc.org/researchrules.php for the description of the process).
Convenience sampling methods were used as the survey was then
posted on the OLOC Web site and was sent through to a variety of
online media, including but not limited to the following: the Women’s
Studies (WMST-L) and the LGBT Studies LISTSERVs, Discussion Boards such
as the National Women’s Studies Association Aging and Ageism Caucus,
Modern Language Arts Age Studies Discussion Group, the LGBT Aging
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

Network, PlanetOut, Gay and Lesbian Association of Retiring Persons Inc.

(GLARP), The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, ClassicDykes, Service
and Advocacy for LGBT Elders (SAGE), QWorld, ZAMI for Lesbians of
African Descent, and a variety of LGBT newsletters. Snowball sampling
then occurred as we were made aware that the survey link was spread via
word of mouth and posted (as we had hoped and requested) in a variety
of locations, for example, in LGBT-affirming church newsletters, on LGBT
bookstore cork boards, and via individual e-mails, and was passed around
in small social groups. Data were collected for a 6-month period of time and
then were analyzed for descriptive statistics. Sharon Raphael, PhD, Research
Gatekeeper for OLOC, was also asked to review and provide feedback on
this manuscript.

RESULTS
Demographics
There were 456 participants in the survey, with 394 (86.4%) completing the
entire questionnaire. The average age of the participants was 62.9, ranging
from 51 to 86 (mdn = 62, mode = 55, sd = 6.91). When using Neugarten’s
(1974) widely referenced aging categories, a majority of the respondents
(63.4%) were at the middle-adult stage (64 years or younger), followed by
31% in the young-old stage (65 to 74 years), and 5.6% in the middle-old and
old-old stage (76 years or older).
The majority of participants (86.9%, n = 338) were Caucasian with-
out any Hispanic or Latina origin. Bi- or multiracial participants formed
the second-largest category (5.1%), followed by African American respon-
dents without any Hispanic or Latina origin (3.3%). The rest consisted of
Hispanic/Latina (1.5%), Asian or Pacific Islanders (.5%), and Native American
(.5%) participants. Two percent of the participants did not identify or refused
to identify their racial/ethnic identity.
In terms of educational attainment, the vast majority of participants
had attended college. Specifically 8.4% had some college education, 6.6%
 220 P. Averett et al.

had earned an associates degree, and 20.4% a bachelor’s degree, with over
half (58.7%) having graduate school education. These high levels of edu-
cation were reflected in relatively high incomes: 16% had annual incomes
less than $20,000; 40.4% earned between $20,000 and $50,000 annually;
33.4% earned between $50,000 and $100,000 annually; and just over 10%
had annual incomes above $100,000. Over one third of respondents (37.1%)
were still employed full time, while 37.6% were retired.
Geographic representation was widespread as participants were located
in 41 of the United States and the District of Columbia. In terms of residence
areas, 40.4% reside in urban, 23% in a rural, and 28% in suburban set-
tings. Most respondents reported living in a single-dwelling house (70.8%),
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

followed by 19.5% living in an apartment complex, a condo, or a town-

house. Similarly 77.9% of the respondents owned their residence. Only two
participants claimed a nursing home as their residence.
In response to an open-ended question about religion and spirituality,
26% of the respondents indicated that they do not identify with a religious
or spiritual group, although several of them did state that they considered
themselves spiritual, though not attached to organized religion. The remain-
der of the participants were scattered among various religions including
Buddhist, Catholic, Jewish, New Age, Pagan/Wiccan, Protestant Christian,
and Unitarian Universalist. Many of the participants noted that they had
been raised as Christian and had transitioned into another line of belief. For
example, one participant stated she was “brought up Protestant—in adult-
hood pursued education in chaplaincy but because of discrimination left
seminary—now, just well-intentioned, good-hearted cynic.” Another referred
to herself as a “recovering Catholic” who now practiced earth religion.
Of those who identified a religious affiliation, few reported attending ser-
vices regularly: 22.8% stated that they attend religious services a few times
a year, 15% reported they attend “about once a week,” and 42.6% of
respondents reported they did not participate in any religious or spiritual
services.

Identity and Sexual Orientation

In terms of gender identity, 98% of all respondents indicated female as their
gender, and 91.3% identified themselves as lesbians, while 3.7% stated they
were bisexual, 2.2% identified as gay, and 2.7% responded to the “other”
category with self-definitions that included labels such as queer, butch, and
homosexual. While only 1.2% indicated that they were either somewhat
or very negative about having a lesbian sexual orientation, more than 4
out 5 felt very positive about being a lesbian. On average, the participants
began to recognize their emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to women
at 18 years of age. Their first emotional, physical, or sexual relationship with
a woman happened approximately 6.5 years later.
 Older Lesbian Survey 221

Relationships
At the time of the survey, three out of five respondents (60.5%) were
involved in an emotional, physical, or sexual relationship with a woman
lasting 15.4 years on average, and 93% of those defined that relationship
as a life-time partnership. The majority of the respondents (69.2%) reported
preferring to be in an emotional, physical, or sexual relationship with a
woman who is within 10 years of their age, while 23.2% did not have any
age preference. The greatest age difference that the respondents reported
having with a partner was 11.4 years on average.
Of all the participants, 50.1% reported being married to a man at some
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

point in their life. When married, the marriage officially lasted 12.5 years
on average, with many stating in the open-ended portion of the question
that the marriage had officially/legally lasted longer than it had in terms
of emotion, physical location, or “realistically.” Several participants reported
that they had been married to several men, with two to four marriages
occurring over their lifetime. Four of the women were still legally married
to men, including one in a marriage to a gay man. In fact, seven of the
participants stated that they had married a gay man for “cover,” to adopt
children, to appease family, or for health-care benefits. Slightly fewer than
half of the respondents who had been married to men reported that they
never contacted their ex-husbands (49%), while 23.5% still contact their ex-
husbands either regularly or occasionally.
Slightly fewer than one half (45.3%) of participants reported having a
child or children. Among those participants who never had any children,
more than half reported feeling very positive (39.6%) or somewhat positive
(16.1%) about it, while 28.6% were neutral. The majority of participants with
children reported they were in regular contact: 77.1% with sons and 77.6%
with daughters. Most of the participant’s parents were deceased, specifi-
cally 68.3% of mothers and 79.2% of fathers. However of those with living
mothers, fathers, or sisters, the majority were regularly in touch with family
members with the exception of brothers.
The vast majority of participants (91.5%) indicated they were “out” to
their family members. Slightly more than a third (35.8%) of the participants
reported having other family members who were lesbian or gay. A vast
majority of the respondents (66.3%) have generally positive relationships
with family members who know about their sexual orientation, but many
(20.7%) report a more ambivalent situation of “some positive and some
negative” relationships.
A small number of participants (13.5%) reported experiencing the death
of a life partner. Most of these women experienced obstacles in deal-
ing with either legal, financial, social, or emotional issues. The financial
difficulties described included not having access to Social Security, pen-
sions, stocks, health insurance, and co-owned houses. Many of the women
 222 P. Averett et al.

mentioned difficulty stemming from the biological family of the lost partner.
For example, one participant shared “It was especially difficult dealing with
her biological family in spite of all of the legal papers and arrangements
we made in advance. Her increasing dementia and lack of consciousness
made it difficult to honor her wishes, care for her dignity, and deal with
her father especially.” This sentiment was echoed by other participants who
attempted to use legal means for protection but were stopped by biological
family members or lost emotional connection to the family members: “The
worst emotional toll was that her family pulled away and I don’t get to see
the grandkids I helped raise.” And as one participant stated, “Many people
did not acknowledge or generally take my loss to be as significant as it
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

was—they basically ignored her death.”

Social Life
A vast majority of the participants reported that their closest friends were
other lesbians (59.6%) or heterosexual women (23.9%). Most of these friends
(79.2%) were within 10 years of their age, a preference that repeats respon-
dents’ preferred age of their emotional, physical, or sexual relationship
partner. Two thirds of all participants communicated with their closest
friends either “once a day or more” (30.4%) or “one to two times per
week” (36%).
The most common way for the participants to meet other lesbians was
through other friends (68.9%). A majority of the participants reported that
they never or seldom go to a lesbian-only bar (55.8% and 30.6% respec-
tively). In terms of recreational activities, reading was the most preferred
form of recreation among the participants (75.2%), followed by using a
computer or the Internet (71.7%).

Health and Mental Health

Three quarters of all respondents rated their physical health either excellent
(25.2%) or good (49.8%). Contrary to the overall positively perceived health
condition, arthritis was a commonly reported health problem among the
respondents (41.7%), followed by high blood pressure (27.6%). Eighteen
percent of the respondents reported having at least three self-identified
health issues. Approximately 70% of the respondents believed that they
are either overweight or a little overweight (39.1% and 31.3% respectively),
while slightly fewer than a quarter of all respondents believed that they were
of average weight (23.9%).
When asked about their exercise habits, the most common response
was an exercise frequency of “2–3 times a week” (35.8%), with 23.5% exer-
cising daily. More than a quarter of the respondents drink alcohol daily
(7.7%) or a couple of times a week (19.6%), while cigarettes are regularly
 Older Lesbian Survey 223

(6.2%) or occasionally (3.5%) used by less than 10% of all respondents. One
out of five respondents indicated that they had a problem with alcohol use
at some point in their life (18.9%).
Like the perceived physical health condition, a vast majority rated their
“emotional health” as either excellent or good (35.7% and 46.1%). When
asked to whom they turn for help with their emotional health problems, the
most common response was mental health professionals (68.9%), followed
by friends (50.7%), and partners (32.7%). Yet, fewer participants indicated
that they do not have any mental health issues (43.2%). Depression and
anxiety were reported among 29.4% and 18% of all participants respectively.
When using their health-care providers to address health issues, 48.5%
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

of the participants shared their sexual orientation to all of their providers,

while 12.3% revealed their orientation to none of their health-care providers.
More than four out of five respondents (81.6%) reported having been in
therapy at some point in their lives, and 98% of them revealed their sexual
identity to their therapist.
Survey participants also identified their partners and family members
as the most common caregivers if they were very sick or disabled (47.1%
and 41.7% respectively). Eighteen percent of the respondents believe that a
social or health service agency will take care of them, while a similar percent
(17.8) do not know who will take care of them should they become ill and
need care.

Service/Program Use
In terms of the frequency of attending a “lesbian-only” social group,
responses were almost equally spread among the survey participants, with
participation in “lesbian-only social groups” of “regularly,” “occasionally,”
“seldom,” and “never” at 25% each. Less than 10% of all participants “reg-
ularly” participate in a lesbian/gay (LG) social group (9.5%), an LG social
service organization (5%), an LG political organization (5.3%), an LG reli-
gious organization (5.3%), or social services organization that serves older
lesbians (3.7%). Less than half of the participants never use an LG ser-
vice program or organization (47.2% percent), and slightly more than a
quarter of the participants (25.7%) are unaware of this type of service in
their area.
According to the survey, the participants underutilize not only
LG-focused services and programs, but also other services available for
older adults regardless of sexual identity. For example, only 3.7% of all
participants use a senior center program for the general population. In
addition, almost 9 out 10 participants never use various community long-
term care services for seniors, such as home-delivered meals, home health
services, homemaker services, or transportation services. This may be due
to the relatively young ages of many of the participants. For example, we
 224 P. Averett et al.

found statistically significant age differences in using in-home health services

(F[4,368] = 3.576, p = .007). The average age of those who occasionally use
this service is 72 years, while those who never used it is 62.5 years old
on average. Yet, it should be noted that mental health counseling services
are regularly or occasionally used by slightly more participants (11.5% and
11.7% respectively).
In terms of their opinions about participating in a social organization
“only for old lesbians,” 50.2% of the participants think very positively about
the idea, followed by a somewhat positive feeling among 32.7% of the par-
ticipants. However, only 5.6% of participants expressed very positive feeling
about participating in a social organization for “both women and men.”
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

This reluctance toward participating in a social organization serving

both genders is also reflected in preferred living arrangements. For instance,
two out of five feel very positive about living in a “lesbian-only” retirement
community (39.1%), and slightly more than one third indicate that they are
somewhat positive about the living arrangement (35.3%). Similar opinions
are expressed about living in an LG-only retirement community, a women-
only community, a lesbian-only nursing home, an LG-only nursing home,
or a women-only nursing home. However, slightly more than half of all
respondents express their somewhat or very negative feeling about living in
a heterosexual retirement community or a nursing home (59.2% and 70.5%
respectively).

Discrimination
Figure 1 shows the participants’ experiences of discrimination and the rate of
those experiences via homophobia or ageism. Respondents reported expe-
riencing discrimination because of being a lesbian in informal settings, such
as within family relationships (35.5%), at social situations (35.7%), and dur-
ing shopping or dining out (20.2%). Respondents also reported that they felt
discrimination in formal settings, such as in employment settings (30.7%).
Beyond the categories provided, the participants also added that they had
been discriminated against as lesbians in terms of their parenting, in church,
by the federal and state governments/policies, and by simply walking down
the street. One participant stated, “I was once attacked on the street by three
boys in their early teens because they thought I looked like a dyke. I did
look like a dyke.” Another participant shared, “I was married to my former
partner, only to have it overturned by voters in Multnomah County. That
is rather massive discrimination.” Of those who felt they had not been dis-
criminated against as lesbians, several stated that they felt it was due to not
“looking gay” and/or to not being “out” in most situations.
In terms of family relationships, 57.2% of the participants perceived
discrimination because of being a lesbian, compared to 11.5% who per-
ceived discrimination because of their age. However, substantial numbers of
 Older Lesbian Survey 225
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

FIGURE 1 Perceived discrimination comparison graph.

participants did report experiencing discrimination because of their age in

social situations (28.3%) and employment (25.9%). In the open-ended por-
tion of the question, several of the women noted feeling less discriminated
against now that they were older due to not having to deal with sexism
and objectification as women. As well, several stated that they were now
“invisible.”

DISCUSSION

Research supports the notion that older lesbians are resilient (Hall & Fine,
2005; Jones & Nystrom, 2002) and have much strength in the face of both
oppression and the aging process. The current study supported these ideas.
Issues related to health and discrimination provided major challenges for this
group of women. This study has implications for service providers, espe-
cially those in the medical field, since health-care providers are most likely
unaware that their patients could be lesbian. As a result the providers may be
engaging in heterosexist behaviors and attitudes that further distance older
lesbians from seeking health services and forming trusting relationships with
health-care providers.
Despite ongoing improvements both in public attitudes toward homo-
sexuality (Hicks & Lee, 2006) and in support of legal rights (Brewer,
2003), older lesbians continue to experience discrimination and hostility
in a variety of settings and on numerous levels of interaction. Older les-
bians contend with ageism in their work settings and in social settings,
as many older individuals do (Palmore, 2001). As lesbians, however, they
 226 P. Averett et al.

also face intolerance and homophobia from family, the public, walking
down the street, and while going about their daily lives. They also must
struggle with federal and state policies that disregard their life-time roman-
tic partnerships, denying them end-of-life decision making, as well as
access to Social Security and retirement benefits and forcing them into
legal battles with family members, hospitals, and employers. Many les-
bians in this sample faced discrimination in their employment settings,
and currently many lesbians can be fired for their identity, as it is
still legal in 30 states to fire an employee based on sexual orientation
(http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/workplace_laws.asp?listpage=5).
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

Changes for the Older Lesbian Population

There are several differences between the current cohort of older lesbians
and those studied by Kehoe (1989). Table 1 demonstrates many of these,
as well as some similarities. Several of the differences seem to follow
national trends and are not unexpected, including higher proportions report-
ing bi- or multiracial identity, having a gay or lesbian relative, and increased
homeownership. These differences are less likely a result of the specific
experience of being lesbian and/or older and are more likely reflections
of changes in our nation within the last two decades. At the same time,
similar income composition between the two cohorts, except for the high-
est income category, mirrors the stagnant income growth among low- and
middle-income Americans in the last three decades (Mishel, Bernstein, &
Shierholz, 2009).
Several of the differences between the current sample and Kehoe’s
(1989) sample are surprising. Our participants reported an increased ratio
between those who married a man versus those who were never married
to a man. This is surprising given that as beneficiaries of the Stonewall riots
and increasing public acceptance (Hicks & Lee, 2006), some of the current
cohort of lesbians not only continued to marry men for cover, but those
who married for any reason slightly increased in numbers. This points to the
continued pressure that lesbians feel to hide and to the power of hetero-
sexism that continues within our culture. Despite improvements in cultural
tolerance, there was still a perception among many of our participants that
society has not become accepting enough. Some of the increase may be
explained by their own admission of marrying gay men for the legal and
financial benefits. Thus decrease in the number of lesbians who marry men
may very well occur once legal and financial benefits are extended to gay
and lesbian couples. Further study is needed on this topic in order to bet-
ter understand the reasoning behind the choice to marry men, despite their
awareness of being lesbians. As well, this finding supports the need for pol-
icy makers to extend legal and financial rights to gay and lesbian couples in
order to provide fairly for and protect all citizens.
 Older Lesbian Survey 227

TABLE 1 Comparison of Key Demographic Characteristics

1984 Study A Current Study B

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Age groups
59 or younger 0 0 121 32.1%
60–64 44 44% 118 31.3%
65–69 32 32% 87 23.1%
70–74 13 13% 30 8%
75–85 9 9% 20 5.3%
86 or older 0 0% 1 .3%
Ethnicity
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

African American 1 1% 13 3.3%

American Indian 1 1% 2 .5%
Asian 2 2% 2 .5%
Bi/Multiracial 0 0% 20 5.1%
Hispanic/Latina 0 0% 6 1.5%
Other 2 2% 0 0%
Unknown 1 1% 0 2.1%
White 93 93% 338 86.9%
Education
High school 13 13% 11 3.05%
Some college or associate degree 16 16% 59 16.3%
College 20 20% 80 22.0%
Graduate school 47 47% 213 58.7%
Other 4 4% 0 0%
Homeownership 64 64% 304 77.9%
Formerly married to a man
Yes 42 42%c 208 50.1%d
No 58 58% 207 49.9%
Have children
Yes 27 27% 188 45.3%
No 73 73% 227 54.7%
1983 Income 2009 Income

Annual personal income Number Percentage Number Percentage

Less than $5,000 (Less 3 3% Less than $10,000 18 4.7%

than $10,770)∗
$5,000–$9,999 14 14% $10,000–$19,999 43 11.2%
($10,770–$21,538)∗
$10,000–$14,999 20 20% $20,000–$29,999 56 14.6%
($21,540–$32,308)∗
$15,000–$24,999 25 25% $30,000–$49,999 99 25.8%
($32,310–$53,848)∗
$25,000–$49,999 31 31% $50,000–$99,999 128 33.4%
($53,850–$107,697)∗
$50,000 or more 4 4% $100,000 or more 39 10.2%
($107,699 or more)∗
Note. Study A: M = 66.9 years (SD = 5.5), Study B: M = 63.06 years (SD = 6.16).
∗
Numbers in parentheses are 2009 inflation-adjusted monetary values of 1983 income categories (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, n.d.). c : average duration = 5.4 years (SD = 10.6), d : average duration = 12.5 years
(SD = 9.04).
 228 P. Averett et al.

Another surprising difference between our participants and Kehoe’s is

that ours reported slightly higher levels of perceived discrimination in their
employment setting due to being lesbian. This too is considered surprising
for the same reasons given above, including increased public acceptance
(Hicks & Lee, 2006) and increased public support for legal rights for les-
bians, specifically, and most consistently for the right to work regardless
of sexual orientation (Brewer, 2003). However, there are several possible
explanations for this, including the possibility that as today’s lesbians are
more likely out than the last cohort, they are also more easily identified
as targets for discrimination. Also, as the national fight for rights increases,
older lesbians, particularly this cohort who were adults during the second
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

wave of the feminist movement, are more acutely aware of discriminatory

behavior and thus more likely to report it. This finding points to the need
for the remaining 30 states without such legislation to implement anti-sexual-
orientation discrimination policies since most Americans are supportive of
such a policy (Brewer, 2003) and since discrimination continues to be an
issue that must be addressed at the state level in order to effect change.
On a positive note, the current cohort showed an increase in positive
thinking about both being lesbians and aging. These findings are most likely
due to our particular participant pool and the experiences of this group of
women. As mentioned in the Methods section, the OLOC (www.oloc.org)
membership, which is a politically savvy and active organization, was a
source for many of the participants for this study. As a group they promote
positive thinking both about being lesbian and about being old, and this pos-
itive thinking was most likely reflected among the women who completed
our survey. As well, our participants may be reflecting trends of increased
positivity about being lesbian (Friend, 1991) and about aging in America
(Levy, Slade, Kunkel, & Kasl, 2002).
Another difference between the two cohorts is that the current cohort’s
length of lesbian relationship has slightly increased from the last studied
cohort. This finding has meaning for lesbian couples who are fighting for
the right to form families (including marriage, foster parent, adopt, and
parent without prejudice) as many opponents of same-sex parents oppose
their parenting on the basis of relationship instability (among other reasons)
(Marbin Miller, 2008). This finding supports that lesbian couples’ length of
relationships are in fact increasing. We would also surmise that lesbian cou-
ple relationship duration and general stability would only increase with the
right to marry and adopt.
Given the current concerns about obesity and its negative impacts on
health, we found it disturbing that the current cohort of older lesbians is
exercising much less than the last cohort. This may be a result of our par-
ticipants being highly educated and thus interested in intellectual pursuits
over physical ones. However, we are all aware of the national concern
over increasing weight and decreasing activity among the American public
 Older Lesbian Survey 229

(Putnam, 2001), so, while this reflects a national trend, it is still an impor-
tant aspect of the older lesbian experience. There is a need for exercise
programs and health care that is targeted to, sensitive of, and implemented
for older lesbians. Health-care providers have a responsibility to meet the
needs of this specific population, which was once considered an active and
physically engaged population (Kehoe, 1989; Yancey, Cochran, Corliss, &
Mays, 2003).
Although the current sample of older lesbians showed an increase in
their belief that they would have someone there to take care of them when
sick or incapable, we still found that approximately one in five older lesbians
is unsure who will take care of her. While this number seems relatively low,
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

it is still too high given that this population is at higher risk of receiving ser-
vices and interventions that do not respect their sexual identity. It is clear that
there is a need to have aging interventions specifically designed for older
lesbians. This is particularly relevant, since they do not use existing aging
services for both genders, and they prefer services designed specifically for
older lesbians or older women only.
There are some limitations associated with this study, many related
to the use of an online survey. The use of this method of data collec-
tion impacted the composition of our sample as Internet users are more
likely to be middle- and upper-middle-class individuals (Matsuo, McIntyre,
Tomazic, & Katz, 2004). This is likely a partial explanation for the high levels
of both education and income reported by our sample, despite their having
membership in two categories (i.e., women and older individuals) that more
typically have fewer years of education and lower incomes. However, it
should be noted that past research has demonstrated that gays and lesbians
generally have higher educational levels than heterosexuals and that lesbian
women typically earn more income than heterosexual women (Black, Gate,
Sanders, & Taylor, 2000).
Another issue with using an online survey is that validity is impacted
as the chances of false reports are increased (Matsuo et al., 2004). However,
it is important to note that the use of the Internet was likely an important
factor in our ability to collect data from such a large sample size (Matsuo
et al., 2004). In fact, a strength of this study is that we have data from the
largest sample of this specific population in over 25 years (Averett & Jenkins,
in press; Gabbay & Wahler, 2002).
Our study shares the limitations acknowledged by many previous
researchers, as well, which is difficulty in accessing the old-old and racial
minorities (Author & Author, 2010; Jacobsen, 1995). Our sample was pre-
dominately middle-aged and young-old, as well as predominately Caucasian,
although we did show slight improvement in accessing racial minorities
compared to Kehoe (1989). Despite our attempts to specifically reach these
difficult-to-access populations, we were relatively unsuccessful, which limits
the ability to generalize our findings.
 230 P. Averett et al.

Despite being nearly invisible in American society, the current sample

of older lesbians is a strong and engaged group of women. Our findings
support the work of others as we found that they have a strong network of
support that includes their partners, same-aged lesbian friends, heterosexual
women, and biological family members (Butler & Hope, 1999; Comerford
et al., 2004; Goldberg et al., 2005; Richard & Brown, 2006). They have high
education levels, currently earn solid incomes, and enjoy relatively good
health (Butler & Hope, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2005). Challenges for this
group of women include continued perceived discrimination in every level
of interaction (family, work, social, state, and federal) due to their sexual ori-
entation. Health-care providers, aging-services providers, and policy makers
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

face major challenges in ensuring the provision of equitable treatment to this

population. Continued research is needed to examine the reasons behind
the high rates of marriage to men and the decline in exercise activity. Most
importantly, future studies must find a way to identify and access those older
lesbians who have been missed up to now: racial minorities and the old-old.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Paige Averett’s work on this study was funded and supported by East
Carolina University, Division of Research and Graduate Studies research
start-up funds. Earlier versions of this study were presented at the Society for
the Study of Sexuality–Western Region conference and to the Old Lesbians
Organizing for Change Southern Regional Gathering.
The authors would like to thank S. Hope Ascher, MSW, former Research
Assistant, for her help in the process of data collection. As well, the authors
wish to thank Laurie Potter, MSW; Sue Henry, MLS; and Sharon Raphael,
PhD, for piloting and providing feedback on the survey questions. This
manuscript is dedicated to the women of OLOC, who provide a voice and
empowerment for lesbians over the age of 60.

REFERENCES

Averett, P., & Jenkins, C. (in press). Review of the literature on older les-
bians: Implications for education, practice, and research. Journal of Applied
Gerontology.
Bayliss, K. (2000). Social work values, anti-discriminatory practice and working with
older lesbian service users. Social Work Education, 19, 45–53.
Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and
lesbian populations in the United States: Evidence from available systematic
data sources. Demography, 37, 139–154.
Brambilar, N. (2009). Gay seniors lack social safety net. Retrieved from https://www.
sageusa.org/about/news_item.cfm?news=136
 Older Lesbian Survey 231

Brewer, P. (2003). The shifting foundations of public opinion about gay rights. The
Journal of Politics, 65, 1208–1220.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). CPI inflation calculator. Retrieved from http://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
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.
Comerford, S. A., Henson-Stroud, M. M., Sionainn, C., & Wheeler, E. (2004). Crone
songs: Voices of lesbian elders on aging in a rural environment. Affilia, 19,
418–436.
Friend, R. A. (1991). Older lesbian and gay people: A theory of successful aging.
Journal of Homosexuality, 20(3), 99–118.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

Fullmer, E., Shenk, D., & Eastland, L. (1999). Negating identity: A feminist analysis
of the social invisibility of older lesbians. Journal of Women and Aging, 11,
131–148.
Gabbay, S., & Wahler, J. (2002). Lesbian aging: Review of a growing literature.
Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 14(3), 1–21.
Goldberg, S., Sickler, J., & Dibble, S. (2005). Lesbians over sixty: The consistency
of findings from twenty years of survey data. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 9,
195–213.
Grant, J. (2000). Outing age 2010: Public policy issues affecting lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender elders. National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/
reports/reports/outingage_final.pdf
Hall, R., & Fine, M. (2005). The stories we tell: The lives and friendship of two older
black lesbians. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 177–187.
Healey, S. (1994). Diversity with a difference: On being old and lesbian. Journal of
Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1, 109–117.
Healy, T. (2002). Culturally competent practice with elderly lesbians. Geriatric Care
Management Journal, 12(3), 9–13.
Hicks, G., & Lee, T. (2006). Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: Trends and
predictors. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(2), 57–77
Jacobson, S. (1995). Methodological issues in research on older lesbians. Journal of
Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 3, 43–56.
Jacobson, S., & Samdahl, D. (1998). Leisure in the lives of old lesbians: Experiences
with and responses to discrimination. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 233–255.
Jones, T., & Nystrom, N. (2002). Looking back . . . looking forward: Addressing the
lives of lesbians 55 and older. Journal of Women and Aging, 14, 59–76.
Kehoe, M. (1989). Lesbians over 60 speak for themselves. New York, NY: Harrington
Park Press.
Levy, B., Slade, M., Kunkel, S. & Kasl, S. (2002). Longevity increased by positive
self-perceptions of aging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
261–270.
Lowell, T. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United
States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography, 37,
139–154.
Marbin Miller, C. (2008, November 17). Experts clash on gays’ bids to
adopt children. The Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://miamiherald.
typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2008/11/experts-clash-o.html
 232 P. Averett et al.

Matsuo, H., McIntyre, K., Tomazic, T., & Katz, B. (2004). The online survey:
Its contributions and potential problems. Proceedings of the Survey Research
Methods section of the American Statistical Association. Available online at
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2004f.html
Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Shierholz, H. (2009). The state of working America
2008/2009. Ithaca, NY: Economic Policy Institute.
Neugarten, B. (1974). Age groups in American society and the rise of the young old.
Annals of American Academy of Sciences, 415, 187–198.
Palmore, E. (2001). The ageism survey: First findings. The Gerontologist, 41,
572–576.
Pettinato, M. (2008). Nobody was out back then: A grounded theory study of midlife
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 16:43 10 January 2015

and older lesbians with alcohol problems. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 29,
619–638.
Phillips, J., & Marks, G. (2008). Ageing lesbians: Marginalizing discourses and social
exclusions in the aged care industry. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
20, 31–49.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Richard, C., & Brown, A. (2006). Configurations of informal social support among
older lesbians. Journal of Woman and Aging, 18, 49–65.
Shenk, D., & Fullmer, E. (1996). Significant relationships among older women:
Cultural and personal construction of lesbianism. Journal of Women and Aging,
8, 75–89.
Wojciechowski, C. (1998). Issues in caring for older lesbians. Journal of
Gerontological Nursing, 24(7), 28–33.
Yancey, A., Cochran, S., Corliss, H., & Mays, V. (2003). Correlates of overweight and
obesity among lesbian and bisexual women. Preventive Medicine, 36, 676–683.