Tag Archive | Unstraightening Lesbian

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

“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.

Just Because Something Is Called “Lesbian” Does Not Mean It Is Actually Lesbian

I recently got my knickers in a twist on Twitter when I saw this link to a (so-called) “Lesbian” (NOT!) Oral Testimony website.

You may be asking yourself why I would be so displeased with something that seems to support Lesbians…

Well, the answer is quite simple:

Because I am incredibly sick of our name being used willy-nilly, without the slightest concern for truth, accuracy, or ethics.

Anything that has “Lesbian” as part of their main title should be…hold onto your shorts and get ready for this wild ‘n’ crazy idea…LESBIAN!! 

And this website is a lot of things, but none of them are truly LESBIAN:

Even though the word “Lesbian” is thrown in as an afterthought at best, I am willing to go out on a limb here and wager that these alleged “Lesbians” giving oral testimony aren’t actually Lesbians after all, but rather, they are most likely the dreaded Straightbians who Dirt and I have been writing about.

Personally, I don’t care if all the two-spirit pansexual aromantic non-binary queers who “identify” as the attention-getter-du-jour want to yack it up until the cows come home. Have at it, and have fun being “special”.

BUT DON’T CALL IT “LESBIAN” BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

06/09/2017: EDITED TO ADD: Even the most cursory of searches revealed a lot of MEN being interviewed for a purported LESBIAN website. Sigh. I truly wished I was wrong about this, but clearly I am not.

LotOfMen

Bottom line: This project needs another title to accurately reflect their content. Here are my top 3 suggestions:

Oral History of Every Special Snowflake Available (OHESSA)

Listening Intently To Everybody But Actual Lesbians (LITEBAL)

I Am An Academic With Funding So I Am Making A Faux Lesbian Website: Please Send Cash Now (IAAAWFSIAMAFLWPSCN)

Unstraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: JoAnn Loulan

Note: This is another joint post with my spouse, partner, and all-around sweetiepie, Dirt; originally posted here.

This joint post is yet another in our series about so-called “Lesbian Experts” who are neither Lesbian nor expert.

Today’s offender is JoAnn Loulan, who has been hailed as a “Lesbian sexpert“. Loulan has published the following books: Lesbian Passion: Loving Ourselves and Each Other, The Lesbian Erotic Dance, and Lesbian Sex; which, according to Loulan’s own website, “have together sold over 75,000 copies worldwide“, which amounts to quite a huge chunk of Lesbian change padding Loulan’s heterosexual pockets.

Loulan

In addition, Loulan has served as a so-called “Lesbian expert“, while specifically calling herself a “Lesbian“, on numerous panels, in addition to making appearances on television shows, including Oprah, Phil Donahue, and others, to peddle her phony wares.

However, there is a huge issue with calling JoAnn Loulan a “Lesbian expert“: JoAnn Loulan is straight.

Therefore, she is also, by definition, NOT an expert in Lesbian matters.

After appropriating “Lesbian” for her own purposes, misrepresenting Lesbians, using Lesbians, gaining fame from using the term “Lesbian”, and profiting from Lesbians, JoAnn Loulan finally showed her true colors to the world by marrying a man.

(Or, rather, technically, we should say she married another man, because she had been married previously to a different man, before deciding to hijack Lesbian).

Loulan flippantly wrote off her responsibility to the Lesbian community when confronted about her defaulting to her true Straightbian nature: “I’m proud of myself for telling the truth“, she said…being apparently too self-centered and myopic to realize that she has nothing to be proud of.  Her heterosexual “truth” confession is way too little and way too late.

JoAnn Loulan is much worse than the “sell-out” that she was accused of being at the time of her marriage to a man; rather, she is a shameless charlatan who seemingly does not even have the conscience to examine why what she has done to Lesbians is wrong.

In fact, Loulan has not retracted her “Lesbian” books despite her abandonment of Lesbians; and she happily continues to list them on her website today.

As with our other offenders in this series, Loulan has published so very much erroneous drivel about Lesbians that one post cannot possibly cover it all, so we will have to pick a few choice examples to illustrate Loulan’s ignorance.

All of today’s examples, below, of Loulan’s wisdom horse manure come from the book The Lesbian Erotic Dance.

Let’s start with Loulan’s own story of her “coming out” (deciding to use Lesbians for fame and profit):

As for myself, I am grateful that some lesbians like to bring straight women out...Many lesbians avoid bringing someone out — in part for fear that she might go back to men” (pp. 127-128).

Ummm…HELFUCKINLO!

Well, Loulan’s own wording proves our point. Note that Loulan says “bring straight women out“; her subconscious is peeking through here, because the key word is STRAIGHT (as in straight back to a man!).

Gee, we wonder why Lesbians might worry that STRAIGHT women might go back to men?? Hmmmm…perhaps it is because they are STRAIGHT and that they WILL go back to men.

Thanks for proving our point for us, JoAnn Loulan! Very helpful!

On to the next example of Loulan’s flapdoodle, this time regarding the question of what makes someone a Lesbian:

“...some women choose to be lesbians…It’s a wonderful lifestyle...” (pg. 194)

Again, let’s examine this carefully. Of course, Loulan would say that women “choose to be lesbians“…because, for her, it was indeed a (temporary) choice to pretend to be one. Also her breezy statement (Jimmy Stewart-inspired, no doubt) that “It’s a wonderful lifestyle” is not only naive and incorrect, but also indicates copious amounts of straight privilege.

Being a Lesbian is NOT a choice.  Being a Lesbian is also NOT a “lifestyle“, and it certainly isn’t always a “wonderful” picnic in the park: sadly, even today, Lesbians encounter discrimination, invisibility, oppression, misrepresentation, and violence.

Moving on to another example of Loulanesque truth-twisting and outright stupidity, this time with a quote involving Butches:

Sue Golding discusses the range of butch sexuality. ‘I think a lot of butches actually identify more with hermaphroditism.  They see themselves as being male and female…‘ ” (pg. 126)

Even though Loulan is quoting another idiot (Golding), this quote is significant because Loulan saw fit to publish it. This one quote is so ludicrous that it almost would be laughable, except for the alarming foreshadowing of so many Lesbians transitioning today.

We have Loulan and her pathetic cohorts to thank, at least in part, for destroying so many Lesbian lives with such absurd notions as those voiced in this quote.

In another part of the book, Loulan talks about problems with how Femmes are seen in the Lesbian community. While we agree that there are indeed many misconceptions and problems with how Femmes are viewed/treated in the Lesbian community, we wanted to specifically critique one of Loulan’s statements on the matter:

Some lesbians believe that femmes would be with men, except for some fluke, and that femme lesbians are women who have been lovers with men at different stages of their sexual lives. There is also the belief that these women are likely to go back to men at some point, betraying the lesbian sisterhood.” (pg. 86)

Sadly, Loulan is right about this incorrect perception of Femme Lesbians. Femme Lesbians face widespread lack of acceptance and understanding from both within the Lesbian community and in the general population.

But what Loulan fails to see, understand, and/or address is that obvious fact that she, JoAnn Loulan, and other lying poser Straightbian assholes like her, have directly contributed to the misrepresentation and prejudice Femme Lesbians face.

By perpetrating the outright deceit that she, JoAnn Loulan, herself is a Femme lesbian, many people, apparently blindly and unthinkingly, accepted her word about that.

So then when Loulan (predictably!!) goes back to men, because she NEVER was a Femme Lesbian to begin with, Femme Lesbians then are left to deal with the anger, suspicion, and confusion caused by a Straightbian.

Our next selected Loulan quote is along the same lines, indicating that Loulan is no more a Lesbian than she is a wombat, and interestingly, ties into another offender in our current series, Pat/rick Califia:

“When Pat Califia circulated a survey within the lesbian community in San Francisco…there was a rumor that she was straightI lecture to lesbians throughout the country, have been on television as an out lesbian, write articles and books in which I regularly talk about being a lesbian, and yet there is still a rumor that I am straight.” (pg. 23)

Based on this quote and the surrounding sentences in this passage, Loulan obviously has her panties in a wad in this section, and seems determined to prove she is a “Lesbian” by listing her appearances and publications.

Sorry to burst the delusional little bubble of Loulan and her accomplices, but writing books/articles and appearing on television and lecturing to real Lesbians does not make you a Lesbian, just as obtaining a Ph.D. and writing/lecturing about the strange sexual behaviors of a newly discovered marsupial does not make Dr. Andrew Baker a black-tailed antechinus.

The rumors about Loulan and Califia persisted for one reason: because Lesbian intuition and gaydar trumped their false claims.

In this book, Loulan uses many quotes gathered from her so-called “research” on the topic of Lesbianism in general and Butch/Femme in particular. Of course, what she doesn’t seem to realize is that the “research” is only as good as the “researcher“, methodology, and subjects.

In Loulan’s “research“, questionnaires were distributed at various sites. These questionnaires measure only subjective self-report with absolutely no way to verify the accuracy of the subject’s perceptions (or even whether some people completed the questionnaires with bizarre answers as a complete joke).

To further complicate matters, even the questions being asked were not based on any sort of valid or even objective criteria; for instance, Loulan asked respondents to rate themselves and their lovers on a 9-point “butch/femme scale“.

Another unscientific question on this questionnaire asks subjects to rate themselves and their lovers as which of the following Goddesses: Artemis, Athena, Hestia, Hera, Demeter, Persephone, or Aphrodite. Because, well, apparently Loulan thought that Goddess information is certainly at the very top of the hierarchy of Lesbian concerns.

So, remember, all results should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt shit.

But since these results are considered to be integral in what Loulan is preaching about Lesbianism, let’s glance at a sample of the results:

1). According to Loulan on page 194, one-third of her sample “did choose their lesbianism”.

In other words, at least one-third of her alleged “Lesbian” sample were not really Lesbians.

2). According to Loulan on page 201, one-third of her sample “identified as either butch or femme”.  

Butches/Femmes are incredibly rare in the Lesbian community, so this high percentage automatically raises a huge red flag that these self-reported results are inaccurate.

3). According to Loulan on page 202, “the constructs for a butch lesbian and a femme lesbian are different to the point of being almost as separate as two genders.”

In case Loulan wasn’t aware of this, Butch Lesbians and Femme Lesbians and ALL lesbians are female. We may express female differently than straight females do, and we may be different than straight females, but we are all still female in every way.

4). According to Loulan on page 203:

for three-fourths of the respondents, their ratings” (on the butch/femme scale) “changed according to different situations.

Sighing loudly.  Being Butch or Femme does not change according to an activity or what we are wearing, etc. If Loulan were actually a real Femme Lesbian, or had she even bothered to get to know real Lesbians, she would have known this, and she would have realized her subjects were clueless as well. But since she is not, she blithely spreads misinformation.

5). According to Loulan on page 205:

There is a good deal of speculation about what is a butch, femme or androgynous women. Many will say it is how she is built, how much she weighs. Some will say it has to do with how she walks or dresses. Still others believe that it has to do with an attitude in the world, and especially in lovemaking. When it comes to the sexual aspect of the discussion, there are pretty strong ideas that butches are aggressive and femmes are passive, while androgynous women believe in total equality.”

Again, Loulan is reporting the results of her survey, but these results only show her subjects’ deep ignorance and confusion about the topic, as well as Loulan’s own inability to understand even the basics of Lesbian culture in general and Butch/Femme dynamics specifically.

6). For a final example amongst hundreds of potential examples, once again Loulan demonstrates that both her “research” and her knowledge of Lesbian culture and B/F dynamics is severely impaired as demonstrated by the following quotes:

When I say that there are no differences in this survey between butch, femme, and androgynous women, I mean that:

  • there are no significant differences in bed (though femmes penetrate their lovers more frequently than anyone else!)–not in orgasms, enjoyment, initiation, or other practices;…
  • there are no body types specifically associated with any one identity;

 

  • there’s no correlation between motherhood and identity;…”

The truth about these “results” can be easily summarized as follows:  Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Loulan wouldn’t know a Butch or a Femme if one of us slapped her in the face, which is very tempting, and her subjects apparently are equally uninformed.

In summary, JoAnn Loulan, like our other offenders in this series, is neither a Lesbian nor an expert in Lesbian matters.  She has no right to speak to, for, or about Lesbians. The only place her Lesbian Straightbian books belong is in the garbage, where they can truly fester like the putrid refuse that they are, and the garbage is where both of our copies ended up.

Mrs. Dirt and Dirt

UnStraightening Lesbian-Removing the Heterosexual Lens-Patrick Califia

Another joint post with Dirt originally posted here.

In our second UnStraightening Lesbian piece, we focus our attention on the VERY pedo/misogynistic/sado disturbed and VERY NON lesbian Pat aka Patrick Califia. We begin the sick treacherous road into Califia with a quote from NAMBLA‘s pro-pedophile (YIKES!!) website:

Boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers are the only people offering a hand to help young women and men cross the difficult terrain between straight society and the gay community. They are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them.”  ~ Pat Califia, Lesbian author and activist, in The Advocate, October, 1980.

Pat Califia has LONG been discussed/published/quoted/celebrated and otherwise known (prior to transition) as a LESBIAN writer. Califia is MOST certainly NOT a dyke and as for being a writer (subtracting quality) we may consider her that. I recall in my gay 20’s seeing Califia routinely published in so-called lesbian magazines etc, even then it was obvious from her writing alone she wasn’t a lesbian anymore than her writings were groundbreaking; piss poor poetry coupled with forced fisting fictions (or nonfictions as the case may be).

Before publishing in the lesbian presses Califia. along with warped STRAIGHTBIAN lezzie poser Gayle Rubin, pooled their perversions into Samois, the first lesbian BDSM organization for sexually used/abused STRAIGHTBIANS/bisexuals and the just plain odd to meet/great and get down and dirty. It is through Samois that Califia specifically honed her cunt hating craft.

Califia was first taken up by the Lesbian press when she put out Sapphistry: The Book of Lesbian Sexuality. Again, like Susie (not so) Bright, we have a sexually disturbed/screwed up straight woman, DICKtating lesbian sex to lesbians! While this book didn’t reveal how disturbed Califia was (is), it did reveal she didn’t know the first thing about lesbian relationships nor the sex that occurs between lesbian lovers.

Another of her lesbian successes came in the form of the fictive shorts, Macho Sluts collection. Each short story giving testament to Califia’s pure hatred for the female sex, lesbian or otherwise.

Vaginal rape, anal rape, rape with fists/arms, rape with whips and as it figures in multiple stories her personal favourite enema rapes. Lesbians being beaten, cut, sliced, forced to drink their own piss, bound, gagged, canned and immobilized. Lesbians choked while they have a dildo shoved down their throats. Lesbians begging and pleading to their “daddy” to either stop what they’re doing or to do more of whats being done. Lesbians whose inner dialogue before being raped by several police officers is she really does love cock:

REAL Lesbians do not only NOT figure in anything Califia wrote, REAL lesbians DO NOT WANT TO BE RAPED OR FUCKED BY ANY MALE and, for that matter, we don’t want to be raped by anybody! Califia’s SICKO fiction is just that, SICK! It isn’t feminist, it isn’t lesbian and it isn’t subversive, it is subhuman and it reveals MORE about its writer than it EVER could about the women (lesbians) it claims to represent!

If you arent convinced of Califia’s penchant for the perverted, bear in mind her pedophile predilections that she (in their only female issue) published in the now defunct Paidika-The Journal of Paedophilia, NAMBLA and any other twisted kidster zine. Califia says in her Paidika article regarding child porn:

it would be a mistake to characterize all child porn as “a record of child abuse.” Sometimes it was a record of children’s exhibitionism and free erotic play with one another. Sometimes it was a record of adolescent vanity, pride, and budding sexuality. Sometimes it preserved a moment of exceptional trust and pleasure between partners whose ages would normally have kept them apart.”

 Califia goes on to minimize the number of missing and sexually abused children: (Perhaps we could arrange a sit down between Califia and John Walsh?)

“The campaign against child pornography was fueled by related moral hysteria over missing children. During the early ’80s, the American media was full of melodramatic accounts of the “millions” of children who were kidnapped and then sexually abused by strangers

Califia further enlightens us on what lesbian feminist‘s sexually desire and do with lesbian children/youth:

“American society has become rabidly phobic about any sexual contact between adults and minors. In this social climate, very few lesbians will admit to having cross-generational relationships or defend even the abstract idea of them. Within the lesbian community, other forces exist (spaceships/laser beams?) that prevent girl-lovers and underage lesbians from telling their own stories. We encourage incest survivors to break the silence and tell family secrets about violence and sexual abuse. But this sisterly support turns to outrage and cries for silence if a woman wants to talk about being a sexually active child or even a teenager who was not traumatized by the experience. (Honey, trust me, YOU were/are seriously traumatized) Lesbian-feminism supposedly empowers women, but we are reluctant to see young women’s sexual experiences as anything but victimization.”

Lesbians work constantly to undo their racism, classism, able-bodyism, looksism, coupleism. and all other forms of prejudice. We give lip service to confronting ageism, but we do not really include underage lesbian and bisexual women in our community. The simple truth is that we are afraid to. We are afraid the state will come down on us, brand us as child molesters (NOT US honey, just YOU), and put us in jail.”

 

In conclusion, Califia never was a Lesbian, not before she transitioned (identifying with her abuser/s), nor since. What is painstakingly obvious is Califia was perhaps sexually abused. But rather than work through those horrors, become a healthy woman who managed to survive child sexual abuse, write and maybe reach other women, Califia glamorized and glorified her abuse under Lesbianism! And worse, harmed and tortured other women in the name of Lesbianism!

Her pedestrian pornofied perversions were published in Lesbian presses, taking up money and space where REAL lesbian authors should have been published! What happened to those lesbian writers whose stories and novels got chuffed aside for Califia’s pedophilic pleasure principles?

“At 45, I was terrified of changing my gender, afraid it would mean that I’d no longer be able to make a living, since my income was based on being a lesbian therapist and journalist.”

How many Lesbian owned and operated bookstores closed because lesbians werent interested/could not relate to the filth and garbage published by so-called dyke presses these bookstores felt they should carry? I suspect like so-called lesbian magazines today (Curve/Diva), most were run by warped/damaged STRAIGHTBIANS. Women who have the money/clout and straight privileges to call what they’re doing Lesbian, write about it, publish it and get praised as ground breaking Lesbian works.

We hope LESBIAN readers of this series are starting to notice a pattern of behaviour, some common threads run through each woman featured in this series. We also want to make mention: we’re not prudes, nor do we think or believe any lesbian should be, therefore, we hope we drew a distinct line between playful kink and violent or pedophilic perversions.

Mrs Dirt and Dirt