The article "Not for Lesbians Only", an expanded, revised speech Charlotte Bunch delivered in 1975 at the Socialist-Feminist Conference at Antioch College, was eye-opening, especially if one is not lesbian and has never had to deal with the discrimination lesbians face, such as lack of medical insurance coverage, survivorship, or property benefits married heterosexual couples have, issues surrounding children, and myriad things non-lesbian feminists are not always sensitive to. Bunch starts with a comment about being listed, in the conference program, as Charlotte Bunch-Weeks, "a rather ominous slip-of-the tongue" p. 252). She explains that her feminism, as a married heterosexual woman, was different than it is now, as an unmarried lesbian woman:.

             Five years ago, when I was Charlotte Bunch-Weeks, and straight, and .

             married to a man, I was also a socialist feminist . . . when I left the man and the .

             marriage, I left the b . . . socialist feminist movement . . . my politics then, as.

             now, joined with the way I lived my personal, my daily life. .

             To unify socialist feminism with lesbian-feminism (which Bunch desires) "requires more than token reference to queers" (p. 253). She suggests women interested in "destroying male supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism must, equally with lesbians, fight heterosexual domination" (Bunch). Bunch implies that embedded in the "function of heterosexuality" (p. 253) is male dominance straight women may not even see, though it affects lives of straight women as well as lesbians. .

             Personally, since I am not a lesbian, I do not have much insight into what it is like. I also understand why Bunch"s "take" on heterosexuality among feminists could possibly alienate some straight women. My reaction to her critique of "women remaining tied to men" made me feel defensive. My husband (who is not a sexist, since I would never marry one of those, and who has always encouraged my independence, autonomy, and career, even when I doubted myself) seems to be being described as "the enemy" just because he is male.