Critic speak is tough, but we've got you covered.
Quote :"Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence"
I have chosen to use the terms lesbian existence and lesbian continuum because the word lesbianism has a clinical and limiting ring. Lesbian existence suggests both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence. I mean the term lesbian continuum to include a range—through each woman's life and throughout history—of woman-identified experience, not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman.
What Rich is telling us in "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" is that "lesbian existence" isn't just about romance, and the "lesbian continuum" includes a whole range of interactions between women: mothers nursing their infant daughters, women working together in an office or a lab, elderly women being cared for by female nurses and hospital staff, you name it. "Lesbian" possibilities are as rich and varied as all of the different ways that women can work with and for one another—instead of against one another, or for men.
Rich's argument challenges any feminist who assumes that heterosexuality is the "natural" state of affairs. Like other social constructionist feminists, Rich asks us to take a look at the social norms that make it seem like heterosexuality is the best option for most men and women. Ultimately, she argues, heterosexuality is a patriarchal tool, because it gives men unlimited access to women. It may aim to teach women to think it's natural to want to be chased, "caught," and controlled by men, but sticking to the continuum is a much richer option, says Rich (get it?).