> There is no gay male equivalent of similar status to Audre Lorde. "Similar status" is frustratingly vague if someone wants to argue this. Fame? Whitman. Cano

> There is no gay male equivalent of similar status to Audre Lorde. "Similar status" is frustratingly vague if someone wants to argue this. Fame? Whitman. Canonical? Wilde. Political? Gunn. > And there is no lesbian equivalent of John Waters. You're implying the difference must be something quite fundamental, but every time I read a statement like this I'm reminded of Gregory Corso's comments when someone asked him why there were so few women among the beat writers. There were women, they were there, I knew them, their families put them in institutions, they were given electric shock. In the 50s if you were male you could be a rebel, but if you were female your families had you locked up. There were cases, I knew them, someday someone will write about them.