A Decade of Power: RFD in the 70’s Regina Futcher

A Decade of Power: RFD in the 70’s by Regina Futcher

In my experience, being able to embrace your sexuality and gender identity are largely influenced by the community you are surrounded in. I grew up primarily in suburban areas in Virginia and Maryland where I knew very few out-and-proud queer people. At first, I only understood the term “gay” as a synonym for stupid and not as a sexuality. Much of my expansive political thought and exposure to other gay people were formed through my use of Tumblr, a blog and social media platform popular in the mid 2000’s. Through Tumblr I began to understand the fight for gender, sexual, and racial equality in the United States and it was the medium through which I developed a political consciousness. I realized gay folks could be fired, kicked out of the military, denied housing, or have their children taken away if their sexuality was found out. Despite Tumblr being a platform for virtual interactions, I primarily utilized the site to educate myself and understand my identity. Because of this, I was exposed to queer ideas and philosophy but not the community itself.

Although I have not faced extreme prejudice or hardship for being queer, I never had a queer support network until I came to college at the University of Pittsburgh. My college experience enabled me to engage with the LGBTQ+ community and meet many other like-minded individuals. I am fortunate to have been raised in a white middle-class family that was able to financially provide for my higher education and even more privileged to have attended a college ranked one of the best universities for the LGBTQ+ community. Pitt’s Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies (GSWS) program prioritizes teaching diverse narratives and including feminist and LGBTQ+ pedagogy in their curriculum. My

bachelor’s degree in psychology and GSWS exposed me to a queer history I was completely unaware of and showed me the ways in which folks were able to come together in the face of decades of adversity and oppression.

Throughout my undergraduate career, I enthusiastically received a feminist education and engaged in a multitude of research opportunities. I gravitated towards archival research that involved analyzing gay print because gay press publications uplift LGBTQ+ voices, highlight individual experiences, and provide a glimpse into what life was like at different times and locations in history. Archival research is the examination of primary documents such as manuscripts, publications, photographs, or raw data such as census reports. Archival material preserves the history of individuals, institutions, cultures, and society. Studying the archives allows us to explore the ways communities developed political consciousness in the past by providing information that was necessary for their social and physical survival. Many queer publications valued consciousness raising as it was a central aspect in developing not only the gay identity and self-love, but activism, the production of knowledge, survivability, and fostering a community. Engaging with queer archives has allowed me to forge a deep connection with a community that I was isolated from for most of my life and increase my sense of self and identity as a queer person. This connection and awareness of queer history will enable me to engage with the LGBTQ+ community more effectively as a future social worker.

Over the last two years, I studied local archives containing materials related to the University of Pittsburgh’s first student-led queer advocacy group

Rainbow Alliance and the Pittsburgh underground press publication Gay Life that ran from 1977- 1979. This summer I was a recipient of the Summer Undergraduate Research Award (SURA) at the same institution for submitting a proposal to continue researching gay publications in the 1970’s. The next step was deciding which periodical would be best to investigate in a remote context. When researching the gay liberation movement, I found that perspectives from gay people living in small towns or in the country were often excluded from urban gay press and that queerness was frequently conflated with city life. I wanted to disrupt the narrative that consciousness raising and activist efforts were primarily done by cosmopolitan, urban gay men by bringing a rural gay perspective to the forefront. RFD was the perfect choice as its content was created by gay country folks for gay country folks. The 1970’s was a critical period for the gay community post-Stonewall so I performed a decade analysis of the first 22 issues of RFD published between 1974 and 1979.

RFD was founded by a group of gay rural men in 1974 who sought to connect country men to each other. RFD had a wide distribution as they had subscribers from coast to coast in the United States and around the globe from countries such as Canada, Germany, and Spain. Despite differences in geographical locations, many readers shared similar experiences of loneliness and isolation in rural settings and expressed despair at being unable to connect to other gay people. RFD built a community by providing a platform for readers to share their thoughts, feelings, political ideologies, creative outputs, and experiences as gay country people. My analysis and commentary on RFD refer to the specific issues published in the 70’s, but I want to acknowledge that many of the crucial features and hallmarks of the publication that I discuss, such as community building and political resistance, continue into present issues.

Similar to the current layout of RFD, older issues also had a central theme that dictated what articles, graphics, and reader submissions were included. The magazine served as a means of contact that allowed for the exchange of knowledge and resources. RFD is a rich archive filled with evidence of critical debates within the gay community that addressed a multitude of social issues with deep explorations into gay and queer men’s sexual and gender identities. The first twenty-two issues touched upon subjects such as age, class, environmental concerns, the differences in rural and urban living, and the difference in experiences for “butch” men versus “faeries”

and “sissys.” For example, gay elders expressed that they felt alienated by the younger gay community and cut off from social events because they were not viewed as sexually desirable. Self-identified blue collar and working-class gay men felt that the gay liberation movement prioritized the narrative of middle- and upper-class gay people. Environmentalists informed the public about various dangers to people and the environment such as the proliferation of nuclear power plants, the mining of uranium, and the improper disposal of nuclear waste. No matter what the issue’s theme was, the publication was grounded in its connection to nature and spirituality as many articles and advertisements involved gay communes, farming, and living off the land. RFD’s focus on the intersections of farming, country lifestyles, and the gay identity was unique because it created a platform for rural gays who were not connected to the gay political landscape that was prominent in cities to voice their opinions, concerns, and experiences. This was crucial as it fostered political networks and awareness during a time when we were not so easily connected and informed by the digital.

Early issues of RFD had forums that allowed readers to discuss their takes on user submitted articles or social issues. Both praise and opposing views were included to offer multiple perspectives that sometimes produced a back-and-forth dialogue over the course of several issues. The section “Contact Letters” was the heart of RFD as it directly linked individuals to each other and created support networks. Readers wrote to the magazine looking for a relationship, friendship, a gay-friendly home to temporarily stay in, to hire workers on a farming collective, to start a commune, to meet other gay people in their area, or to discuss a certain topic like gay tarot readings, spirituality, or vegetarianism. The reader’s full name and address were included at the end of each letter so other subscribers could correspond if interested. Although community building was not explicitly addressed as political by RFD, the very idea of communing together in world that has alienated, and marginalized gay people is an act of political resistance. For many living in small oppressive towns, it was difficult to be open about their sexuality let alone meet other gay people nearby. RFD provided a space to make connections that could not be made elsewhere and facilitated social interactions via letter exchanges. Against all odds, the queer community found a way to come together.

A unique aspect of RFD is that the publication was free for incarcerated individuals and they had a separate section dedicated to showcasing prisoners’ creative works, experiences in prison, and letters seeking correspondence. RFD was particularly invested in helping gay prisoners because they shared similar experiences to gay men in the country like physical isolation and being left out of the gay political narrative. By making the magazine free, they were able to ensure that that even the most marginalized of readers had access to resources and tools for liberation. As a result, inmates were able to share their perspectives with and connect to the outside world. RFD had a deep political commitment to creating an inclusive gay community by advancing the social justice of those who had less resources.

Additionally, the publication included helpful tips on how to correspond with prisoners. For example, RFD urged correspondents to censor content to ensure that the inmates were not outed to the prison staff and to not ask why they were incarcerated. Each issue reserved space, at least 3-4 pages, for gay prisoners to speak to each other or other readers because they faced a unique oppression as gay felons and were often ignored by prison reform movements. They frequently advertised different bail funds or organizations to donate to that would pay for prisoners’ legal fees, combat injustices and harassment faced by gay prisoners, or provide legal counseling to appeal their case. This section of RFD is important as it sheds light on the atrocities faced by gay prisoners in the 70’s. RFD is an archive of political resistance as it gives gay prisoners a voice, critiques the poor conditions of prisons, and reveals the mistreatment of prisoners.

RFD carved out space for both practical and creative information covering the politics of everyday life. This included survival tips and instructions for building living quarters as many folks in the country lived off the land. The advice ranged from what plants, flowers, or herbs are poisonous, edible, or have healing properties to building a forest shelter, dome hut, or range boiler for natural heating of the home. Most of the tips were centered around forests, farmland, and nature making it especially pertinent information for rural readers. This way of living resisted the “norms” of an American consumerist society as many rural gay folks provided for themselves through natural means and secondarily relied on purchasing goods and services. Gay people who were abandoned or shunned by their families after revealing their sexuality may have missed out on receiving generations of familial knowledge on country living. By including practical information in the magazine, RFD gave its readers tools necessary for survival.

RFD also covered artful means of selfcare and ways to get in touch with one’s creative side to destress. Regardless of the issue’s theme, the publication included articles on artistic expressions such as scores and lyrics for rurally produced music, instructions for country dance steps, coloring pages of nature scenery or animals, tutorials on different methods of braiding hair, and cooking directions in their “Kitchen Queen” segment that highlighted tasty seasonal recipes. The inclusion of practical and self-care related information displays RFD’s capabilities of covering a wide range of relevant topics and expertise. Engaging in any of these activities, whether that is dancing around the fire or building a dome hut, was an act of political resistance against a society that did not care about the health or well-being of gay people. By choosing to prioritize themselves and engage in hobbies that ensured their physical survival and/or bring them happiness, the gay community contin-

ued to fight and live on. The staff of RFD prioritized transparency and communication with their readers informing them of their precarious financial position and the arduous process they went through to produce each issue. This transparency extended to acknowledging negative feedback from readers. Letters that criticized or critiqued the magazine were published and the staff took these suggestions into consideration as they continued to restructure their format from issue to issue. The RFD collective held themselves publicly accountable to their readership. By owning their mistakes, they fostered an open and honest model of communication and transparency in newsprint that made readers feel that their opinions were valued. The RFD collective was not a neutral third-party staff, but rather engaged with their readers as members of the rural gay community. Although they contributed some of their own works to the publication, majority of the content was usersubmitted. Much of the gay print being published in the 70’s had a staff that was solely responsible for creating content. This model tended to place the publication’s workforce in a position of privilege as they had a platform to speak on behalf of the gay community. As a result, they often excluded information that deviated from their own perspectives and experiences. RFD, on the other hand, attempted to give all voices a space in their magazine in a nonhierarchical structure, as long as the content was not homophobic or sexist in nature. This encouraged an open dialogue between readers and staff and created a nonjudgmental space for learning, understanding, and growth.

By investigating gay print produced in the 1970’s, I can begin to bridge the gap of inter-generational knowledge by learning from the experiences of queer elders. The suppression of this very knowledge is political as queer elders have been deliberately removed from history because they disrupt the narrative of the white, heterosexual, hard-working, middle-class American that was prioritized in the 70’s. Many queer archives are examples of old school consciousness raising that question systems of power and teach that the personal, waking up and living every day as a gay person, is political. Archival research reclaims this history by bringing perspectives of marginalized communities to the forefront of modern political conversations allowing the general public to be more educated on the LGBTQ+ community’s past.

I urge current subscribers of RFD to read older issues and see how gay folks were able to shed their fears and break isolation despite the homophobic and oppressive political climate, to build a strong and engaging community. RFD provided a support network that was essential for gay men, especially for those who lived in an area where they did not know any other queer folks. Readers loved RFD not only because it facilitated social interaction but because it also addressed issues that were not included in other gay periodicals. The publication balanced political awareness, creative expression, practical information, and exploring alternative country lifestyles that embodied gay liberation. This form of social networking ensured the survival of gay folks through RFD’s reader-driven platform and connections to resources. The magazine was a labor of community love and its very existence was an act of political resistance and defiance for any gay person who needed (and still needs) it.

We are fortunate to be living in a time where access to communication and knowledge is at an alltime high with technology and the internet. Social media has replaced the need for forums and contact letters in print and is fundamental in facilitating social interaction, especially during a pandemic where many people are self-isolating for safety concerns. We don’t need to anxiously await weeks for a response from a friend, lover, or confidant in the form of a letter or wait every three months to receive information relevant to the gay community like the readers of RFD had to do in the 70’s. Subscribing to queer-related groups on social media platforms are the best option for communication and spreading awareness and knowledge right now. Twitter, Facebook groups, Tumblr, Discord groups, and Subreddit threads that are LGBTQ+ focused are a few examples of sites that build and sustain a strong community virtually. We are engaging in the same community building efforts as our queer elders did in the 70’s but we are doing so through different mediums.

It might be helpful for RFD to resurrect their forum and contact letter section in the form of virtual communication on their website or Facebook group in order to facilitate discussions and forge new connections. This tactic can blend older and newer mediums used for interaction to create even greater forms of connectivity. Regardless of whatever political climate the future has in store for us, the queer community is more than well-equipped to handle it. As long as we continue engaging with each other, whether that is virtually or in person, and share our thoughts, opinions, and vulnerabilities, we will stand strong in support of one another.