UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Kate Millett

First up in our next (ongoing) series of Unstraightening Lesbian is the recently departed Radical Feminist Kate Millett. Millett is best known for her sex obsessed (all her works aremuch ado about nothing book Sexual Politics, published in 1970; a huge tenet, gospel, and BIBLE of Radical Feminism past and present.

Millett (she was married to a man for 20 years, mind you) is equally known for her tenets on “CHOOSING” Lesbianism for the sake of sisterhood and the destruction of the family, but I digress.

Sexual Politics was the brain child mental diarrhea of Het female excuses blamed for personal failures/unhappinesses in (Het) Women. In Sexual Politics Millett tried to detach biology from males and females by redirecting real and perceived Het female inequalities toward collective (Het) man-Patriarchy, using a warped version of Marxism lite.

The gist going something like this: (Het) females are conditioned by males/male systems of power to act/function in ways approved of by males/male systems of power and there is little (Het) females can do about it. Therefore, if some of the higher thinking (Het) females (like Millet) raise the consciousness of less conscious (Het) females, together they can challenge these male power systems and smash the Patriarchy! Female roles will be cast off and with the removal of socially conditioned roles, so to will fall the inequalities held in place by constructed sex differences; sexual construction being propped up and maintained by Patriarchy.

 

Millet went about dismantling biological sex differences among males/females by primarily utilizing (homophobic) Robert Stoller and (pro-pedophile) John Money’s THEORY that males and females are RAISED (brains are malleable) masculine/boys/men and feminine/girls/women, they are not BORN that way. So, if the next generation of humans can be raised without the sex roles assigned to males/females, the next generation of females would be inclined to be more equal/equal to that of males.

Millet also proves her case for social construction by use of HOMOPHOBICALLY HETSPLAINING French Gay author Jean Genet/his semi auto-bio novel the Thief’s Journal. Millet says in Sexual Politics on Genet’s novel:

I didn’t leave Millett’s quote from Genet in as it served no purpose for her point, yet interestingly Millett quotes “female figure” where no such phrase exists in the Thief’s Journal. Millett being fully ignorant of Gay male culture, filters Genet’s/Genet’s homo character’s homosexual experiences through her own privileged heterocentric lens.

Millett, with Het privilege intact, accuses Genet of grotesquely mimicking the very Heterosexual roles SHE herself despises! Millett cannot see/comprehend Homosexual Genet or his Homosexual characters outside of HER Heterosexual framework! That Sexual Politics was such a huge seller isn’t at all surprising, Millett’s Homophobia runs rampant in this book, a book published at a time when Gays and Lesbians were just beginning to make headlines and headway, and if the world isn’t ready for that today, imagine nearly 50 years ago.

Millett goes on to say that Homosexuality is a:

Painstaking exegesis of the barbarian vassalage of the sexual orders, the power structure of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ as revealed by a homosexual, criminal world that mimics with brutal frankness the bourgeois heterosexual society . . . . In this way, the explication of the homosexual code becomes a satire on the heterosexual one.”

In a NUT shell, Millett is Homophobically saying that through Homosexuality’s mock version of Heterosexual roles, Heterosexuals can better see where Heterosexuality shines and where it needs polishing.

Around the time of Sexual Politics, Kate Millett’s sister visited Kate and her husband Fumio in New York and arrived to this:

Homosexuality to Millett being a role like the masculine and feminine roles assigned to Heterosexuals via Patriarchy; by casting off the role of Heterosexuality Millett and other Feminists could simply put on Homosexuality:

As bizarre as it sounds, and was, Kate Millett/Radical Feminists believed/preached (through a warped/flipped-on-its-head act of sublimation) that by taking up Homosexuality (I know, right!) they could destroy Patriarchy!

In other words, rather than directly confronting the issues they had with males (singular/collective), in typical Het female form, they (and with Het privilege) redefined/used/abused and colonized Homosexuality (Lesbian), through which they could then fuel their collective anger (real or imagined) at men.

And obviously another upshot of gay liberation for Millett and her fuck friends, creating more fuck friends! Because marriage (heterosexuality) according to the married Millett was:

But when Kate Millett embarked on one of her many excursions into her Radical Feminist CONSTRUCTED lesbian relationships, Millett speaks of her female partner not unlike how Radical Feminists squall at men for doing:

Millett also wanted to shout NO when at a conference at Columbia University she was publicly confronted head on about whether or not she was a Lesbian:

Private lezziefied fun fuckfests for Millett was one thing, but publicly calling herself a Lesbian was “unspeakable” (without pressure) and “shameful”:

An orgy with her husband and another Woman, how very NOT Lesbian! In her book Sita, Millett says of her sexual relationship with Sita:

Millett admits she was not sexually fulfilled until/unless a woman dominated her/her pussy in the same way as did a man. But Millett’s sexual relationship with the older, multiple-times-married-with-children Sita didn’t last beyond the sex. Millett’s selfish disdain and jealousy for Sita’s children and her occasional male lovers ended their affair and Sita’s life through suicide.

Between juggling Radical Feminist conscious raising brainwashing sessions, her husband, multiple (Het) Women, teaching and a multitude of mental breakdowns/forced incarcerations, Millett bought a farm she hoped to make into a Radical Feminist utopia. She also carried on with yet another affair with another (Het) Woman (Sophie Keir), whom she purportedly recently married despite saying this about both Sophie and same-sex marriage:

The RadFem all female farm life also proved a bit much for Kate Millett:

Kate Millett was clearly NOT a good person, NOT a Lesbian, NOT Radical, NOT Feminist and, frankly, NOT all there! Millett shows in her earliest writings a deep connection with SEXologist/pedophile and all around pervert John Money, and regardless of my personal anger at Kate Millett for co-opting Lesbian for her own selfish/sick reasons, what I find most fucking abhorrent about Kate Millett is her promoting PEDOPHILIA! Or rather FEMALE PEDOPHILIA:

Millett’s biggest beef with adult/child sex (after removing exploitation) was legal/moral legislation has always been directed at man/boy and not at all toward grown Het Women having sex with little girls! 

Mental illness threads itself through Radical Feminism creating a most ugly, warped, and demented tapestry. And Kate Millet’s morally bankrupt needle pierced more than just the hearts of Lesbians, because, by publicly advocating sex with children, Millett and ANY and ALL proponents of Kate Millett severed the very head of Humanity!

Dirt and Mrs. Dirt

7 thoughts on “UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Kate Millett

  1. This is important work you’re doing. It proves homosexuality itself isn’t what leads to perversion but it’s the perverted who may use homosexuality as a cover or means to justify hatred of men and child rape, etc. These “heroes” of their time are anything but. Thanks for the hard work and research.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Getting caught up after being sick. Thanks so much for your comment, I really appreciate it. Yes, it is perverts like Kate Millett and Pat/rick Califia and Susie Bright (etc.) who have LIED about being Lesbian and LIED to the public about what Lesbian means. We have enough trouble and misconceptions with the general public without outright lies from bozos like these.

      Like

  2. OMG I tried reading this book in 1977 or 78 and thought she was a complete fruitcake. I saw she died recently. Fumio? Why are we talking about Fumio over and over again?? What does this have to do with lesbians? Hope you feel better!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Still coughing but slowly getting better, thanks! Yes, for someone claiming to be a “lesbian” (albeit at first reluctantly and only when confronted) spent a whole lot of time thinking about and pining over her MALE husband. So NOT Lesbian.

      Like

  3. I have to wonder what’s with the writing styles of pretentious academic straightbians (as well as queer theorists and trans trenders). Their writing seems to be as vague and rambley as possible, probably because they don’t have much worthwhile or original to say.

    The statement about homosexuality being invented by straight society to deal with its bisexuality makes zero sense. How is homosexuality or bisexuality invented by straight people? Talk about ass backwards logic. Maybe straight people really don’t exist and they are figments of lesbian’s imaginations! (Just so you know, I was joking with that last sentence.)

    I have to wonder what is up with straightbians who support pedophilia. They remind me of those women who marry incarcerated serial killers.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. sfonn08 – “Maybe straight people really don’t exist and they are figments of lesbian’s imaginations! (Just so you know, I was joking with that last sentence.)”

    It may be a joke, but it’s a chillingly well-aimed and accurate one, which shows you have some insight into Millett’s (and my own) mindset at the time. Millett was a heterosexual woman who regarded her own heterosexuality (and that of all het women) as having been “foisted” on her by patriarchy, a kind of perversion, in the most literal, psychoanalytical understanding of the term.

    To answer joke with joke, gay men had one at the time, along the lines of: apart from flaming faggots like us, there are only two kinds of men in the world, repressed homosexuals and VERY repressed homosexuals; by the latter, we meant simply “straight men”. That kind of thing is OK, and probably necessary, when you’re fighting back from a very tight corner, but once you’ve broken out of that, it’s ludicrous to continue denying the existence of “natural” heterosexuality.

    Millett’s views on “relationships” between adult women and male children are unknown (at least to me), but at the time we were ALL supportive of (or at least paid lip-service to) homosexual pedophilia. We were so focused on (obsessed by?) the oppressive dynamics of male-female relationships that we were blind to other power imbalances.

    “Politicalesbians” have, sadly for them, inflicted minimal damage on straight men (apart from their – often very cute – boyfriends whom they trained, for a brief time, to be pseudolesbians like themselves). They’ve not done much harm to gay men either, most of whom (I’m an exception) simply ignore them. Their most effective viciousness has been deployed against what I hope you will permit me to call “real” lesbians. I think there’s a visceral jealousy at work there against women who can say “Lesbian? Sure, that’s what I’ve always been. I’ve had my own battles to fight, but what’s your beef, exactly?”

    This is a very partial comment, in both senses of the word: incomplete, because I could go on for hours about this stuff, but respect for your attention-span restrains me, and partial because it necessarily reflects the political environment I grew up in. I’m 61, gaymale, raised (more or less) in England. MAYBE I bridge a generation gap between Millett and most other commenters; or maybe not.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s