Unstraightening Lesbian: Removing The Heterosexual Lens: Gayle Rubin

This post is the latest in our series of posts regarding so-called “Lesbian Experts” who are neither, and is also published on Dirt’s blog, here.

Next on our Unstraightening Lesbian series is the academic pornified Straightbian Gayle Rubin.

From the U of M‘s website:


In this post we will show readers how Gayle Rubin has made a career out of defining, narrowing, and uglying “Lesbian” by filtering “Lesbian” through a warped, demented, and perverse heterosexual lens; falsely painting Lesbians everywhere as creatures who feed off of gay male pornography, sexual predators of underage youths, and misogynistic sadists of the female population at large.

Rubin’s pedo-inspired, porn-filled pedantics prove problematic for lesbians on a multitude of fronts, beginning in the late 1960’s when Rubin got her first whiff of feminism. Rubin quickly became an active feminist member on the U of M campus, including in 1970 when she helped to found a “Radical Lesbian Feminist” group. This marked the starting point for Rubin’s long career in defiling “Lesbian” for her own warped hetero-privileged sexual self-interests.

But it wasn’t until 1975 when Rubin’s essay “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex” did Rubin garner herself a larger (radical feminist) academic audience and where Rubin (like many heterosexual Radical Feminists)  divided sex and gender in a pedestrian effort to distinguish the unequal power structures between men and women. And whereby she personally helped to usher in Identity Politics (robbing females of being female) with the twisted idea that by placing gender over sex believed(s) that if gender were king, there would be no kings!

Rubin’s Fag Haggian (lusts) fascination, led her to San Fran in 1978. It was during this time that Rubin met/team up with fellow Fag Hag Pat Califia. “I have benefited immensely from innumerable conversations about sex, politics, and s/M with Pat Califia.” Together they started Samois-a Lesbian Sadomasochistic group which ran from 1978 to 1983. Despite neither being lesbians themselves, both Rubin/Califia confused/shared a deep love of harming women/girls.


The depraved duo’s beliefs were:

“…that S/M must be consensual, mutual, and safe. S/M can exist as part of a healthy and positive lifestyle. We believe that sadomasochists are an oppressed sexual minority. Our struggle deserves the recognition and support of other sexual minorities and oppressed groups. We believe that S/M can and should be consistent with the principles of feminism. As feminists, we oppose all forms of social hierarchy based on gender. As radical perverts, we oppose all social hierarchies based on sexual preference. (Samois, 1979, p.2)”

Rubin and Califia outline clearly here that neither believe in Lesbianism beyond some kind of (consensual…???) sexual violence that involves two or more females. In doing so, they (with hetero-privilege) attached their personal sexual depravities to “Lesbian” as the Lesbian Community (in their minds) consisted of an oppressed sexual minority. Neither woman, nor the women who joined their small group, could see past their own perverted pathology to see Lesbian is neither a lifestyle nor a preference, but simply a birth right uninformed by child sexual abuse or the fear of challenging male authority figures.

If effort to further ugly/muddy “Lesbian”, Rubin involved herself with other Straightbians such as Amber Hollibaugh to define/document and archive various “Lesbian” History projects beginning as early as 1978. Rubin stoops so low in her effort to rip off Lesbian Culture/History she employs plagiarizes  George Santayana  “queer life is full of examples of fabulous explosions that left little or no detectable trace … those who fail to secure the transmission of their histories are doomed to forget them“! Honey, you wouldn’t know the first thing about OUR histories!

Rubin is allegedly documenting Lesbian History/Lesbian Lives in this picture, below:


Pain, torture, sex, and men….yep…pretty much sums of every lesbian’s life! NOT!!!!

Let’s check out a little of what Rubin has to say on Butch/Femme:

“I approach butch from the perspective of gender in order to discuss, clarify, and challenge some prevalent lesbian cultural assumptions about what is butch.”

“These roles had two dimensions: First, they constituted a code of personal behavior, particularly in the areas of image and sexuality. Butches affected a masculine style, while fems appeared characteristically female. Butch and fem also complemented one another in an erotic system in which the butch was expected to be both the doer and the giver; the fem’s passion was the butch’s fulfillment. Second, butch-fem roles were what we call a social imperative. They were the organizing principle for this community’s relation to the outside world and for its members’ relationships to one another.”

Among lesbian and bisexual women, as in the general population, there are individuals who strongly identify as masculine or feminine as well as individuals whose gender preferences are more flexible or fluid. Femmes identify predominantly as feminine or prefer behaviors and signals defined as feminine within the larger culture; butches identify primarily as masculine or prefer masculine signals, personal appearance, and styles.”

Many butches have partially male gender identities.

“The erotic dynamics of butch-butch sex sometimes resemble those of gay men, who have developed many patterns for sexual relations between different kinds of men. Gay men also have role models for men who are passive or subordinate in sexual encounters yet retain their masculinity. Many butch-butch couples think of themselves as women doing male homosexual sex with one another. There are ‘catamites’ who are the submissive or passive partners of active ‘sodomites.’ There are ‘daddies’ and ‘daddy’s boys.’ There are bodybuilders who worship one another’s musculature and lick each other’s sweat. There are leather dudes who cruise together for ‘victims‘ to pleasure.

Rubin has obviously never encountered an actual Butch, Femme, or Butch/Femme couple. Her notions of both denote her ignorance, her blatant heterosexuality, and the heterosexual lens with which she filters ALL lesbians through.

Rubin on the Lesbian Community at Large:

“Despite theoretically embracing diversity, contemporary lesbian culture has a deep streak of xenophobia. When confronted with phenomena that do not neatly fit our categories,lesbians have been known to respond with hysteriabigotry, and a desire to stamp out the offending messy realities. A “country club syndrome” sometimes prevails in which the lesbian community is treated as an exclusive enclave from which the riffraff must be systematically expunged. Everyone has a right to emotional responses. But it is imperative to distinguish between emotions and principles.”

Rubin on Lesbians and Trans Females:

A sex change is a transition. A woman does not immediately become physically male as soon as she begins to take hormones. During the initial states of changing sex, many ftMs will not be ready to leave the world of women. There is no good reason to harass them through a transitional period during which they will not quite fit as women or men. Most ftMs who undergo sex reassignment identify as men and are anxious to live as men as soon as possible. They will leave lesbian contexts on their own, when they can, when they are ready, and when those environments are no longer comfortable. It is not necessary for gender vigilantes to drive them out. Some ftMs will experiment with sex change and elect to abandon the effort. They should not be deprived of their lesbian credentials for having explored the option.

Rubin on Lesbians and sex with children (!!!!!?????):

Recently NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, has had the dubious honor of becoming the first gay-civil-rights organization directly attacked by the government in the current wave of repression against dissenting sexuality. Sadly, this community has been treated by the Left and the women’s movement in much the same way that homosexuals were treated by so-called progressives in the 1950s. The gay movement has been repeatedly baited on this issue. When homosexuals are all accused of being “child molesters,” it is legitimate to deny that all, or even a large percentage of, gay people engage in cross-generational sex. But it is crucial to add that not all adults who do have sex with minors are harming them. All too often, homosexuals have defended themselves against the accusation of child stealing by joining with the general condemnation of all adult-youth sex and by perpetuating the myths about it. Many lesbians have been doubly baited, disassociating themselves from the practice but accepting stereotypes not only that all lovers of youth are rapists, but also that gay men tend to be lovers of youth.”

And what lesbians would that be Rubin? “Lesbians” like yourself? Warped pervos who ignorantly/callously use “Lesbian” as their own personal vehicle to mow down the entire population of real lesbians???

The amount of debauched douchery that fills Gayle Rubin’s lesbian lexicon is heterocentric, fallacious, inaccurate, and unsound, but it has not stopped Rubin spreading Lesbian Lies throughout the halls of academia and entering the ears and minds on Lesbian students. Disease that leads to lesbian shame, true lesbian invisibility, lesbian self-hatred and lesbian transition. Gayle Rubin is a dangerous Straightbian whose own sick self-interest dominates her warped sexuality, her bastardized work, and her depraved life.

Dirt and Mrs. Dirt

16 thoughts on “Unstraightening Lesbian: Removing The Heterosexual Lens: Gayle Rubin

  1. Reading the words “country club syndrome” in relation to lesbians makes my blood boil. Zero analysis or acknowledgement of the fact that lesbians are one of the poorest demographics, or that the capital of gay men is part of the reason they have such a huge influence on lesbians, the LGBT political agenda, and on the mainstream. The so-called “riffraff” trying to enter the lesbian “country club” are trans males and bisexuals, a.k.a. people with more privilege. What a complete reversal of the true power dynamic. We have a right to define ourselves and to call out the posers and assholes, just like any other marginalized group!
    The only people who see “lesbian” as some kind of special club with special privileges are fetishists and damaged straight women.

    I’ve been following and learning a lot from this series, and one thing I notice is that these people seem to be early proponents of that holier-than-thou, let-me-lecture-you-about-not-being-a-transphobic-bigot tone that we see so much of today. Apparently, lesbians who think transmen should not be in the community are “gender vigilantes”. Conveniently forgotten are the actual gender-policing vigilantes of trans people and non-conformists…you know, MEN. At least she knows who signs her paychecks.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Yes! Agree totally. Dirt and I are just giving a very small sample of information on each of these posts, and just the tiny bit of information we can squeeze in about each woman is enough to thoroughly piss me off each time we publish one. Each of them is arrogant enough to think they have the right to speak for us, but so hopelessly out-of-touch with the truth about actual lesbians that it boggles the mind!

      Liked by 3 people

  2. It comes as no surprise whatever that so many of the women covered in this series have been associated with “On Our Backs”. The very name of that publication, a crude and childish parody of the title of the feminist magazine “Off Our Backs”, at least has the virtue of clearly announcing its anti-feminist and misogynist ambition.

    Rubin and Califia clearly admire, not to say fetishize, those aspects of gay male culture and practice of which we, as gay men, have LEAST reason to be proud, while Rednour presents us with a heterosexually-inspired vision of ‘masculine’ domination and (manipulative) ‘feminine’ submission, magnified to the point of parody, which our heterosexual grandmothers, possibly even our heterosexual grandfathers, would scarcely have tolerated.

    All these fifth-columnists claim access to scarce lesbian and feminist resources to propagate their poisonous ideas.

    As the expression goes, “I could write a book”. But I will try to discipline myself only to address issues of direct import to gay men, and to which a male gay opinion may (just conceivably) be relevant. “We believe that sadomasochists are an oppressed sexual minority”, opine Rubin and Califia. What nonsense! The desire to be hurt or humiliated is more readily interpreted a a possible EFFECT of oppression; it’s entirely possible that, by a more circuitous route, the desire to hurt and humiliate can be similarly interpreted, I don’t know.

    Rubin also tells us that “many butch-butch couples think of themselves as women doing male homosexual sex with one another.” My boyfriend and I are often seen as a ‘femme-femme’ couple, and I suppose up to a point we accept the description. But we certainly don’t think of each other as “doing female homosexual sex” with each other. Where would we even begin?

    Before leaving Rubin and moving on to the (for me) even more disturbing Shar Rednour, I must cite the only sentence of Rubin’s that you quote and that I can agree with: “Some ftMs [her spelling] will experiment with sex change and elect to abandon the effort. They should not be deprived of their lesbian credentials for having explored the option.” I agree: the crucial difference lies in how we interpret that ‘experiment’ and would have them view it themselves.

    With Rednour, I hardly know where to begin. Taking charge of another person’s cinema or travel ticket is something you do for a person who is physically or mentally discapacitated in some way, not your ‘date’, still less your ‘partner’. If you and Dirt pay me the honour of visiting my little Atlantic island, I’ll certainly be “good for a free meal”, but NOT because I’m handsomer or butcher than either of you. The expression “high femme” is obviously calqued on “high camp”, and Rednour’s description appears to be of a VERY histrionic, not to say hysterical, drag queen.

    As for “refer to breasts as pecs”, that made us laugh, though we knew we should be crying really: even referring to my man-boobs as ‘pecs’ is stretching credibility. I did once have a very brief encounter with a man who wanted me to “plough his cunt” with my cock, which he claimed to be “the biggest he’d ever seen”; hard to say which conceit was the less plausible. It certainly rapidly shrank my modest but real penis, not because an actual cunt would do that, it was the mis-reference that threw me, I hope you understand.

    I won’t continue, because there’s nothing I can add, but I do have a genuine (linguistic?) question. What does the expression “check under the hood” mean? It’s not familiar here.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply (Please Refer to Comment, Privacy, & Cookie Policies first)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.