Archives

UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Valerie Solanas

Note: This is a joint post with my sweetie Dirt, originally posted here.

The next Het Woman we are emphatically unSTRAIGHTening from Lesbian is the very damaged/demented Valerie Solanas, known as much for shooting pop icon Andy Warhol as for her erratic radical scribblings and all around hatred of men that culminated in her SCUM Manifesto.

 Some general information about her early life as is known/documented:

Valerie was described from an early age as very bright, but very troubled. Valerie was rebellious early on, a frequent shoplifter, school skipper and whom was filled with a level of anger she had difficulty controlling, and of which got her into trouble often at school.

Highly angry and highly sexual Valerie was sent to a Catholic boarding school (widely speculated to be a home for unwed mothers?) around age 14 in 1950 where she claims to have had her first sexual experiences with other girls. She was also pregnant and in 1951 gave birth to a baby girl (Linda, raised by Valerie’s mother as Valerie’s sister). The child’s father according to Valerie was none other than Valerie’s biological father, whom Valerie claimed (along with her step father) to have molested her since about age 6. Claims corroborated by Valerie’s sister later on.

A short time later Valerie dropped out of boarding school, dated a married man whom she became pregnant by, giving birth to a son David in 1953. In exchange for college tuition, Valerie allowed David’s paternal grandparents to raise the child, whom Valerie stayed in contact with till the child was age 4.

 

Valerie attended Uni of Maryland where she did okay academically, but still struggled socially/financially. Valerie regularly depended on a small circle of friends for hand outs but felt slighted/angered if friends could not afford these handouts, once even urinating in a friends orange juice bottle when the friend couldn’t give her any money. Valerie remained angry/violent at Uni and was force by Uni officials to get counseling. Her brightness helped to keep her from being expelled, but her anger got her repeatedly into trouble. While at college Valerie self-IDed as a bisexual. At this time Valerie both waitressed and prostituted herself when she needed money, something Valerie would return to whenever in dire straits. Valerie graduated in 1958 with a degree in Psychology.

After college Valerie drifted/hitchhiked from one end of the country and back to the east coast, living with various boyfriends at that time. In the early 60’s Valerie discovered Greenwich Village in NY and it was there she decided she wanted to become a playwright. The first (only) play (“Up Your Ass”) Valerie completed, was written during the mid 60’s along with an article for the Men’s magazine Cavalier entitled: A Young Girl’s Primer on How to Attain the Leisure Class, about how to prostitute yourself through college.

Valerie’s outrageousness earned her a spot on pre-conservative shock jock’s Alan Burke’s show in 1967.

The scene from the 1996 film I shot Andy Warhol accurately accounts what happened on Burke’s show:

A few years later and while still struggling to get her play produced, Valerie met pop artist Andy Warhol and begged him to read/produce her play. Warhol told Valerie he would read her play and get back to her. After reading the play, despite Warhol’s reputation for producing the avant garde, Valerie’s play was so pornographic Warhol wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole for fear the play was a police set up. A short time later Valerie contacted Warhol about the play, Warhol told her he wasn’t interested in producing it and when Valerie asked for the copy back which she had left Warhol, he claimed to have lost/misplaced it. Valerie began hounding Warhol for her play, so Warhol offered to pay her for being in a few of his short films.

Despite trying to give Valerie paid work in exchange for losing her script, Valerie’s obsession with Warhol grew, grew and was fueled by her deep hatred of men, blaming men/Warhol for her mucked up life. Valerie didn’t have a safe/comfortable home, she had little money, money made usually from prostitution, and she couldn’t become famous because no one (no man) would produce her play. It was at this time Valerie figured out if she wanted to get her play produced, she needed to be famous first:

In June of 1968 Valerie shot Andy Warhol, nearly killing him, wounding another man and only stopped short of shooting another man in the head point blank because her gun jammed.

Highly sexual, highly paranoid, highly disordered and now highly violent! Valerie turned herself in a short time after attempting to murder multiple men. At her arraignment Valerie said she didn’t regret what she did and she didn’t want a lawyer, preferring instead to represent herself. The judge ordered her to be taken to Bellevue Hospital for psychiatric evaluation/observation. When back in court, Valerie was indicted on charges of attempted murder, assault, and illegal possession of a gun, she was declared incompetent and sent back to Bellevue.

An aside, believe it or not some RadFems declared Valerie to be “butch” in this picture! (I kid you not!).

Around Valerie’s time in Bellevue, Radical Feminist and member of NOW lawyer Florynce “Flo” Kennedy along with Radical Feminist and member of NOW Ti-Grace Atkinson contacted Valerie about mounting a defense for her. Ti-Grace Atkinson believed (besides Lesbian being a smart choice for Het Women), that Valerie’s shooting Warhol was the culmination of the Feminism Movement! Betty Friedan. however, didn’t agree: Valerie and Atkinson exchanged a handful of letters about Valerie’s situation and Atkinson’s desire to USE Valerie for NOW’s personal platform:

As was usual for Valerie, she readily and viciously bit the hand that fed her; her anger at Ti-Grace Atkinson remained with Valerie years later:

Valerie served about three years confinement and was released, the short sentence believed because Warhol chose not to attend Valerie’s parole hearing.

After Valerie’s release she spent the remainder of her life drifting around the country, in and out of mental facilities and living in run down quarters. She was found dead at age 52 in a hotel in San Francisco by the superintendent.

Valerie Solanas was a HIGHLY disturbed/mentally ill HETEROSEXUAL female, likely sexually abused from an early age, likely informing her hyper sexuality that led to occasional sex with other disturbed Het females (Direct quote from Valerie: “The girls are okay. They’re willing to help any way they can. Some of them are interested in nothing but sex though. Sex with me, I mean. I can’t be bothered …. I’m no lesbian.”), as well as leading to prostitution. Valerie’s SCUM Manifesto was filled with a combination of sexual obsession and hatred of men (daddy).

And it was precisely THAT combo (sex/hatred of men) that led (and still leads) Radical Feminists to hold Valerie’s rotted corpse/corpus up in effigy. Radical Feminists conclude Valerie was a Lesbian, for two reasons 1) Valerie had sexual experiences with other females and 2) Valerie hated men, neither reason having anything to do with being Lesbian. 

Like ALL female hero’s of Radical Feminism, Valerie Solanas was heterosexual and a victim. Like most Het females, Valerie could never accomplish anything without male assistance, even shooting Warhol was a subservient gesture to find fame through someone else (a man).

Valerie Solanas was no more a Lesbian than she was/is a Hero. And while we can find some sympathy for her tragic life, we cannot maintain the Radical Feminist LIE that Valerie was a Dyke.

Dirt and Mrs. Dirt

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

Why Most Published “Lesbian Research” Is Completely Unrecognizable to Real Lesbians

Dirt and I and I have written before about how most alleged “Lesbian experts” are neither Lesbian nor expert, and we have previously given many specific examples of how what has been published about Lesbians is total and utter nonsense. JoAnn Loulan is just one example of these Straightbian windbag dingbats who we exposed as having spread copious lies about Lesbians. In fact, we did an entire Unstraightening Lesbian series on a dozen of these boneheads.

I wish we could say that we have written about all of the faux “Lesbian experts” who are neither Lesbian nor expert, but sadly, we have barely even scratched the surface.

We focused the first Unstraightening Lesbian series on the more obviously well-known Straightbians such as Susie “I Lied About Being A Lesbian In Order to Sell Kinky Books” Bright and Pat/rick “Pro-Pedophile Pervert” Califia, but the huge underlying problem with Unstraightening Lesbian lies in the continual odious garbage being spewed throughout academia (and beyond) by Straightbian blowhard professors.

Straightbian

Image: Pixabay: Creative Commons CC0

In fact, I will even venture an educated guess that EVERYTHING that has EVER been written by an academic about Lesbians is dead wrong. While I clearly haven’t read every single journal article or book written by academics about Lesbians, I have read AN AWFUL LOT and I have never…I repeat, NEVER…seen anything whatsoever that remotely resembles Lesbian. (If you know of anything about Lesbians written by an academic that is actually and accurately LESBIAN, by all means, please let me know).

The main problem with these faux “Lesbian expert” academics writing about Lesbian lives is that most of the academics who have done so are Straightbians. Straightbians, obviously, are not Lesbian, so they are appropriating what they think Lesbian is, which is grossly inaccurate (as well as arrogant, presumptuous, and just plain wrong).

These academic Heterosexual/Straightbians’ horribly inaccurate perceptions of what Lesbian even means results in faulty hypotheses for research, faulty subject selection, faulty interpretations, and faulty conclusions. Since nothing accurate (that I know of) has EVER been published about Lesbians by these Heterosexual/Straightbian academics, even their citations of others’ research is hideously inaccurate.

So, basically, what has happened is one inaccurate study built upon another, built upon another, built upon another, and so forth and so on, until we now have a heaping pile of stinking excrement disguised as “scholarly research”.

Dirt and I are planning another Unstraightening Lesbian series to tackle some more liars and charlatans, so I won’t give specific examples here…I will save them for our future Unstraightening Lesbian posts.

But, in general, here is a synopsis of what is wrong with all of the “academic research” articles/books published about Lesbians:

  • Research is only as good as the researcher.  If the researcher is Heterosexual/Straightbian, she is basing her research questions/premises/hypotheses/etc. on her own incorrect (hetsplained) presumptions about what Lesbian is…therefore, her research is going to be as flawed as her own hetsplanations.
  • There is nothing accurate (that I know of) in the current academic literature about Lesbians, so any literature review is going to be based on a stack of shameful lies. Furthermore, the Heterosexual/Straightbian academic literally won’t be able to see the flaws in the previous research/literature, because she doesn’t have the basic reasoning skills to see past her own straight-privileged hetsplaining.
  • When the researcher is a Heterosexual/Straightbian, she cannot even accurately define “Lesbian”, much less pick one out of a crowd, so she won’t know that her subjects are also Straightbians.
  • If the Heterosexual/Straightbian researcher herself doesn’t even know what a Lesbian is, much less how Lesbians actually think/act, she will accept whatever bizarre bullshit her Straightbian subjects shovel.
  • The prevailing definition of Lesbian for research (and for everything else, for that matter) is based on ultra-simplistic self-report, which is incredibly flawed. All it takes is for someone to simply claim she is a Lesbian and everybody usually takes her word for it. BUT: that premise is 100 percent wrong. Any woman cannot magically “become a Lesbian”, and all the lies in the world won’t turn her into one. So if a ton of the research subjects are LYING about being a Lesbian, guess what? The data gathered is NOT ABOUT LESBIANS. Duh.
  • Research gathers A LOT of data. It is up to the researcher to determine what data to assemble, how to analyze the data, how to decide what data to even analyze, and how to interpret the data. If the researcher herself is basing the very definition of “Lesbian” on her own skewed perception, while using a faulty hypothesis with a false set of subjects, it is inevitable that the results and implications will be wrong.

The above list is just a basic, general overview of why the information in the academic books/articles about Lesbians which has been written by academic Straightbians is completely unrecognizable to biological Lesbians (which, after all, are the ONLY real Lesbians). Future posts will elaborate on specific Straightbians and the flaws in their thinking, theories, research, and conclusions.

Obviously, Dirt and I cannot stop all Heterosexuals/Straightbians from hetsplaining Lesbian ~ but we can, and will, continue to expose these people for their multitudinous lies, misinformation, perversions, and all-around inaccuracies about Lesbians. We will do our best to OUT them to the Lesbian community. The more information Lesbians have in our arsenal, the better chance we have of fighting the onslaught of lesbophobia harming our lives.

Are Lesbians Ever Attracted To Men?

Recently, I received the following comment on a post:

“I am definitely a lesbian but have been attracted to men.”

So I thought I would do a post addressing this important question:

Question: Are Lesbians Ever Attracted To Men?

Answer: No!

TheEnd

Image: Pixabay: Michitogo: Creative Commons CC0

The Covert Lesbophobe Checklist (CLC)

We all know what an overt lesbophobe is: He/she will just say what they feel very directly: “I hate Lesbians!”; “You’re evil”; “You’re going to HELL!”; “You’re an abomination to the Good Lord Jesus!”; “You need a man!”; “Marriage is for a man and a woman!”; “You need to be TAUGHT A LESSON!”; “No, I won’t rent to/hire you!”; “Your kind isn’t welcome here!” etc. They are obvious. They are obnoxious. They are our visible enemies.

But what about the covert lesbophobes? They are our friends, our acquaintances, our coworkers, our family members, our neighbors. They are subtle. They smile to our faces. They shake our hands. They bake us cookies. They say that they love us, like us, support us, and would fight for us ~ and they probably even truly believe that they mean it.

They say that they would NEVER, EVER tolerate lesbophobia/homophobia.

And we believe them, and will continue to believe them…until one day we find the proverbial knife between the shoulder blades and realize who put it there.

“If only there were a way to know“, you may be thinking.

Well, there is a way to know, but only if we are completely willing to keep our eyes and ears wide open, and only if we are willing to put aside our own wishful thinking long enough to accept the cold hard truth.

So, without further ado, here is a handy-dandy little lesbo checklist to see whether your Aunt Susie, or your neighbor Gladys, or, I don’t know, let’s say, um, the president of an international creative organization is a covert lesbophobe:

Does he/she do any of the following (or anything similar)?:

  • Refer to being a Lesbian as “a lifestyle”;
  • Refer to being a Lesbian as “a sexual preference”;
  • Refer to being a Lesbian as a “choice”;
  • Refer to being a Lesbian as a “behavior”;
  • Refer to your partner as “your friend” or “your roommate“;
  • Say anything like “sexuality is fluid”;
  • Say anything like “sexuality is on a spectrum”;
  • Say anything like “anybody can become/be a Lesbian”;
  • Say anything like “I am all for you people having rights, but why do you have to call it marriage?”;
  • Say anything like “I am fine with you being a Lesbian, but why do you have to TELL everybody?”;
  • Say anything like “Why do you have to put Lesbian on your social media profile?”;
  • Say anything like “I don’t care who you have sex with, I just don’t want to know about it!”;
  • Say anything like  “Who’s the man one?”;
  • Say anything like “Maybe you just haven’t met the right man yet!”;
  • Say anything like “But how do you know you wouldn’t like it if you haven’t tried having sex with a man?”
  • Say anything like “You and your friend can’t share a bedroom in my house!”;
  • Blame you in any way for the lesbophobia you encounter;
  • Punish, shame, or penalize you in any way for the lesbophobia you encounter;
  • Defend, befriend, or take the side of lesbophobes in any way;
  • Support you in private ~ but not in public;
  • Refuse to let you (or in any way support/defend the premise that you shouldn’t be allowed to): get married, adopt an animal, get hired for a job, buy a wedding cake, rent an apartment, patronize a business, buy a house, have benefits, inherit from your partner, file taxes together, travel together, visit your partner in the hospital, etc. etc. etc. etc. (This list would consist of anything and everything that straight people can do without question);
  • Encourage you in any way  to be nice, be quiet, remain silent, be invisible, and/or get along with lesbophobes (or in order to avoid being attacked by lesbophobes);
  • Treat you and your partner differently that they would routinely be treated with their spouse (Examples: when traveling together, walking into your hotel room without knocking; or putting you and your partner in twin beds when you visit their house, while straight couples are given the double, queen, or king beds);
  • Ask that you not tell someone/anyone/everyone you are a Lesbian. (“Granny doesn’t need to know, it will kill her!”);
  • Support and/or vote for a candidate/politician that is known to be against Gay/Lesbian rights;
  • Does not even recognize blatant lesbophobia in others (does not even understand what was wrong with what was said!).
  • (Added because of suggestions from 2 readers — thanks): Minimizes, belittles, and/or denies the existence of lesbophobia itself (and minimizes, belittles, and/or denies the consequences of lesbophobia on Lesbian lives). 

It’s important to note that before jumping to conclusions, it’s always best to verify our perceptions. I believe that some people can be covertly lesbophobic and aren’t even aware of it themselves. So, I always try to explain why _______ was lesbophobic, and then watch to see how the person responds. Does he/she listen and attempt to change the issue? Or does he/she barrel right along and then do something similar immediately afterword?

Well, I think these are the basics; please let me know if I have missed anything in the comments below…

checklist-2277704_640

Image: Pixabay: evondue:  CC0 Creative Commons

Nameless

Believe it or not, I have a life outside this blog (No! Really???LOL!).

This life includes my wife, our cats, my work, our home, family, friends, chores, and errands ~ and, for the last several years, it also included something else that I truly loved: a specific creative practice in connection to an organization in which I’d felt that I was a part of a larger community…but that part of my life ended abruptly earlier today.

Early this morning, I received an email from the official representative of this organization, which I will call “Nameless” (Note: The email has been edited for clarity/brevity; but also to remove any identifying information, of course):

Hi Anna,

I read your blog and support you speaking out and telling your truth, but…my concern is having your “Nameless” credentials listed on the account where a lot of angry postings are might make people feel unsafe to do “Nameless”…I know you said on your blog that “I will continue to speak up, to speak out, and to stand in solidarity with other Lesbians & with gay men, but I plan to try to do so in a way that doesn’t tear others down and create unnecessary angst/division.” and that is great, we support that mission, but the conversations don’t seem to concern “Nameless” per se and it might be better for “Nameless” work…if we could prevent people connecting “Nameless” inadvertently with any of those pretty ugly postings from others. Can you let me know if this makes sense to you?

Warm regards,

(“Nameless” Representative)

So:

Based upon this email, I truly feel it is best for myself, as well as for “Nameless”, to sever my connection with this organization.

Although I seriously doubt that my arguing with lesbophobes (who attacked us first, by the way) on social media would, or even could, make anyone “feel unsafe” to do a nonthreatening creative activity, I nevertheless felt it best to remove myself immediately from an organization which clearly feels that being associated with me is undesirable.

I think I have now removed all traces of my former connection to “Nameless” from this blog and from my other online accounts, including removing old tweets that even tangentially referenced any connection whatsoever to “Nameless”. If I come across any other references in the future that I somehow missed, I will promptly remove those too.

Contrary to my typical first emotional response (anger masking hurt), I am not even angry about it right now; instead, this time, I somehow completely bypassed anger and went straight to hurt.

Although I was confused by the first email, because she mentions my blog, even quotes from my blog, and Twitter, it later seems that she was referring primarily to my Twitter account, and seemingly especially so in regard to the recent lesbophobic brouhahas, which I fought against and documented, in part, here at this blog.

What I do find rather odd and quite ironic, however, is that the very quote she used from my blog was taken from the post where I was specifically denouncing all of the hostility on Twitter and vowing to do my part in ending it ~ despite the entirely justified hurt and anger I felt (and still feel!!) toward those who were/are shockingly lesbophobic (and just plain mean) to me, Dirt, and other Lesbians.

I also find it quite intriguing that somehow suddenly this is an issue, when my connection to “Nameless” had been going on for several years (and I haven’t suddenly changed my topics/style here or elsewhere).

I will likely never know the answer to the question of “why now?”, but my best guess is that someone complained to “Nameless” about me. (If so, I have one word for that person: Karma).

The other major puzzlement I have is: Why am I being called out because of (and I quote) “pretty ugly postings from others“?

As I have always known, but have cruelly been reminded of in recent weeks, lesbophobia is alive and well, and it rears its ugly head on Twitter on a regular basis.

I cannot help that sad fact; nor can I control the postings of others; and my anger and defensiveness at the recent situation were my attempts at fighting the overt and covert lesbophobia that is constantly hurting me and my fellow Lesbians.

It also hurts that this representative showed absolutely ZERO concern/empathy for the horrible lesbophobic treatment I have been subjected to on Twitter…she doesn’t even attempt to pretend that she cares! There was not even a general “I’m sorry that happened”. Instead, she clearly blames & penalizes me for other people’s cruelty.

I can’t help but wonder whether some of this organization’s members’ seeming “acceptance” of me as a Lesbian was conditional/superficial, and I also can’t help but wonder whether there may even be some subconscious, covert lesbophobia lurking behind this person’s emails.

It feels as if I am being told: “It’s ‘fine’ to be a Lesbian, well, as long as you are always super-duper nice at all times, so as not to provoke the hatred/homophobia of others; and then you need to remain super-duper nice, even when under direct attack.”

Plus, what do you think an appropriate response to overt lesbophobic bullying would be?:

A). Come to the defense of a loyal long-term member of your community who is being attacked?

(OR)

B). Blame the loyal long-term community member for being bullied, and demand that she distance herself from your organization on the bizarre and nonsensical premise that some unknown person who may (or may not) want to try your technique in the future might be inexplicably afraid to do so, based on a stranger defending herself in her own Twitter account?

Hmmm. Think about it. Is it lesbophobia or just a supremely insensitive response to a terrible situation?

Who knows?

Regardless, it is all a moot point now.

Life will go on. I will do what I always do when dealing with any sort of hurt/loss: I will think, journal, and do artwork about it, until it feels like I am ready to truly move on.

Until then, I will allow myself to feel sad about the loss of something that has been important to me and that I truly believed in…even though I belatedly realize now that my feeling of community with “Nameless” was always just an illusion.

***(Please also scroll down to see the 8/25 Update, below the picture)***

Image 4

Image: maxpixel.freegreatpicture.com/CC0 Public Domain

August 25, 2017: 9:30 a.m.: Edited to Add:

Subsequent emails have sadly clarified my suspicions about covert lesbophobia lurking beneath the civil surface.

Specifically, later emails from the “Nameless” representative included the following direct quotes (again, note that I am redacting the name of this organization and any other personal information):

“…where you are doing some good activism re helping people understand sexual preference issues, but yet are unfortunately attracting some comments that make the site feel unsafe for prospective _______________(customers of ‘Nameless’)

AND

“I did get an email from (someone) who was worried whether followers to your Twitter account would feel safe re: ‘Nameless’.”

AND

“I am truly sorry you want to sever your connection with “Nameless”. To be clear again, we just wanted to….separate that part of your work from the page where people are responding to your lifestyle with lots of judgments and homophobia.”

So: Let’s sum it up:

The “Nameless” representative is apparently worried about being associated with me because my Twitter account allegedly “attracts” lesbophobic and judgmental comments from others because of my so-called “sexual preference” and “lifestyle”, which then might inexplicably cause my own Twitter followers to be afraid to do “Nameless”. (Huh????)

Ugh!  I think/hope my readers will immediately see the underlying lesbophobia in these quotes, and I trust that you will also see the glaring problems with her  “logic”.

And: to the sniveling, sneaky, lowlife, despicable, immature coward who emailed the “Nameless” representative: I fervently hope that Karma has something very special in mind for you, something you truly deserve.

Also:  Please see Dirt’s post, here, on this situation.

“Not Femme Enough”…?

This is a post I have been slowly working on, a little at a time, because I am finding it quite difficult to process and articulate this topic; also, recently, I have been focused on my beloved sick cat, Ari, so it’s been hard to focus more than a few minutes on anything else.

Before I start trying to explain today’s topic, I wanted to mention that I’ve written before about being a Femme Lesbian, and this post will continue with that topic.

If you are interested in reading those previous posts, which are directly related to this post and which provide some important background to this post, here are the links:

Deciphering Butch/Femme

Femme: Defining Ourselves

Femme: Fact Versus Fiction

Do Femmes Wear Lipstick?

For additional related information, please also refer to Hekate’s blog, Genuine Femme, which addresses similar topics.

Today’s post is about the rampant misconceptions and outright lies about Femmes, and how these misconceptions and lies are prevalent, even within the Lesbian community.

There is a huge gap between what people THINK Femmes are versus what we ACTUALLY are.

Many people incorrectly THINK Femme Lesbians:

  • are hyperfeminine;
  • are obsessed with makeup, clothes, hair, shoes, etc.
  • are overtly seductive and hypersexual
  • are helpless, dependent, clingy, needy, etc.
  • are dumb, flighty, stupid, etc.
  • are Stepford Wives
  • are uninformed, unfeminist, old-fashioned, etc.
  • are “mimicking heterosexuality”
  • are an “identity” that can be chosen by anybody
  • are “performing gender”
  • are “really Straightbians
  • are subservient to Butches
stilettos

Shoes People THINK I Wear: Image: Pixabay: Pexels: CC0

These stereotypes have been perpetuated by a huge number of sources, including, but not limited to, so-called Lesbian experts” who are neither Lesbian nor expert, by purported Femmes who are actually Straightbians, by allegedly  Lesbian magazines/media/blogs/etc. which are decidedly NOT Lesbian, and by websites/forums which falsely proclaim to be for Butch/Femme Lesbians, but instead are just hideous mockeries, chock-full of Straightbians mingling with a few lonely, confused dykes.

Here is the truth about Femme Lesbians ~ we are:

  • REAL LESBIANS;
  • Born this way;
  • Equal partners in our relationships;
  • Independent, capable, strong, practical, etc.;
  • Typically outspoken;
  • Just being ourselves (Meaning: We are NOT mimicking heterosexuality, NOT performing gender, NOT playacting, etc.);
  • NOT obsessed with looks, makeup, hair, nails, clothes, shoes, etc.;
  • Dress appropriately for the task; function is important;
  • Can/do dress up if/when we choose to, but we don’t feel the need to impress the guy bagging our groceries;
  • NOT an “identity” which can just be adopted by anyone; because you either ARE a Femme Lesbian OR you are NOT…period.
Converse

Shoes I ACTUALLY Wear: Image: Pixabay: Wokandapix: CC0

So, you would assume that most actual Lesbians would be free of such misinformed assumptions, but sadly, this is rarely the case.

This widespread ignorance, even within the Lesbian community, results in real Femmes often feeling invisible. Sometimes, this invisibility presents itself in the form of being rejected and/or unrecognized by other Lesbians. At other times, paradoxically, this invisibility presents itself as being thought of as “not Femme enough” to some dykes who have issues of their own which leads them to partner with Straightbians.

Please see Dirt’s companion post, here, about some of the possible issues dykes might have which would lead them to partner with Straightbians. I won’t be covering that in this post.

Instead, I wanted to address the issue of my being perceived as “not Femme enough” by some dykes.

This phenomenon has happened to me, although I didn’t fully understand it until recently.

For instance, I was told repeatedly by 2 previous Butch partners that I was “too athletic”, and I was encouraged incessantly by both of them to dress more provocatively and to wear more makeup, etc.

I didn’t EVER stop working out, nor did I change my appearance/clothes (because I am a particularly stubborn person, LOL!), but I will admit that such comments did bother me and make me feel criticized and unwanted.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, both of these Butches had only dated Straightbians before me, and both went back to dating Straightbians after we broke up.

In other words, both of them were comparing me to Straightbians, and found me lacking in the hyper-femininity department.

Both of them wanted another kind of woman (a Straightbian!) who would meet the male fantasy of a sexy, seductive woman, and that is so NOT me.

Another instance in which this scenario has affected me is when someone Dirt and I know online (from our blogs or Twitter or Facebook) wants to meet us in person. I always worry about what people’s reactions will be when I don’t meet their incorrect Straightbian/sexy/seductive/MALE-fantasy notions of what a Femme “should” be.

Often, it feels that people are expecting me to show up looking/dressed like I plan to be on the cover of Vogue, but when they meet me, I am always dressed as I normally do (which certainly does NOT include high heels, skimpy dresses, or plunging necklines).

It is impossible not to feel that such people are somehow disappointed with me for not being the femme fatale of their imagination.

When I was younger, I was both puzzled and hurt by such situations. Now that I am older (and hopefully at least a little bit wiser), I finally realize that I am fine as I am; heck, I always was. I am proud to be a dyke. If anyone has the nerve to feel like I am doing it wrong, she is the one with the problem, not me.