Compulsory Heterosexuality

"Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence"
- Adrienne Rich




So personally, I found this article to be all sorts of weird.  In what should be an obviously brief summary to anyone who read it, the author's main focus is on 'compulsory heterosexuality', which is the idea that it's "mandatory/required" to be straight, and "lesbian existence", which, as best I can tell, is the author's idea that rather than a woman seriously being attracted to another woman, is a way to handle their problems better.  Now perhaps I misread it, but let's take a look at this quote in particular:

"Lesbians have historically been deprived of a political existence through "inclusion" as female versions of male homosexuality.  To equate lesbian existence with male homosexuality because each is stigmatized is to erase female reality once again."

While I could be looking at this the wrong way, it feels to me like she's essentially saying women use it as an excuse to handle their problems and gain sympathy, or to in some sort have the same political attention that homosexual males do.  This makes absolutely no sense to me. 

First of all, how is this fair? Why is it that men can be gay by choice and it's accepted but for a woman it's just some kind of "excuse" because she doesn't want to be with a man? I'm obviously not a woman, but even I can see that this is a completely ridiculous way to think about things.  There should be equality on both sides and it's a very ignorant point of view in my opinion.  

The quote I included above is really the way I feel about it--be yourself and screw everybody else (not literally, unless you want to, I mean that's your call).  The idea that standards in society should determine how a woman (or man) lives their life and chooses to identify and express his or herself is absolutely ridiculous.

Question: Did anyone else see and interpret this differently? Maybe I misread it or something but that's exactly what I took from it.