UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Valerie Solanas

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 (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 didnt 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 didnt regret what she did and she didnt 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 didnt 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 (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/man hatred) 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

Read More

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 are) much ado about nothing book Sexual Politics, published in 1970; a huge tenet, gospel and BIBLE of Radical Feminism past and present. Millet (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 didnt 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 isnt 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 isnt 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 didnt 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 Lesbian, 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

Read More

What does Radical Feminism Want from Transgenders?

This post is a follow up post to Radical Feminists-Transgender Activists and Speakers Corner-a Reflection of RadFem Impotency. The reason for this post is to address a red herring that has been circulated by RadFems/RadFem supporters. The red herring came AFTER accurate accounts/rightful criticism of the Speakers Corner drama was vomited all over social media. You can read my previous post for a full account of the wasteful drama.

The red herring that I'm speaking of can be seen here in this video.

This isolated clip shows an angry male (Mr Ponytail) transgender/trans supporter intimidatingly staring down a female transgender/trans supporter till she moves off and he is further calmed by another male transgender/trans supporter.

This clip has nothing to do with or reveals anything further over the incident concerning Maria M going over into the trans camp taking pictures at first, then physically violating various transgenders/trans supporters personal space second, then swinging one such transgender/trans supporter around like a rag doll after Maria's camera was snatched at, after which another transgender/trans supporter struck at/swiped at Maria M while trying to rescue their friend from Maria's forceful grip.

The above video is being used as a look-here-not-there ploy/redirect to stir up Radical Feminists and other Women. By focusing on this young man's anger, we can forget all about the woman's actions that lead to his getting angry in the first place!

But even if we allow ourselves to fall for swamp land being sold; males are/commit violence (nothing new or shocking there), with relations to transgender transition, what exactly are Radical Feminists and RadFem supporters saying with this example?

• Anyone with a violent past shouldnt be allowed to transition?
• Anyone who commits a violent act should have their transition revoked?
• Transition is acceptable as long as you show no signs of anger or violence?
• Transition causes violence so it should be banished as a psychiatric treatment?
• Transition is acceptable as long as you show no signs of anger or violence against women?
• Male transition is okay so long as they do nothing to piss off RadFems/RadFem supporters?
• Transitioning children is okay because they're to young to be violent? 
• Only females should be allowed to transition?

As Radical Feminists/RadFem supporters are so adamant about biology having little to do with human behaviour (non-essentialism), are they upset that biological males (trans males) under the guise of woman have made more legal leaps and bounds within a handful of years than Het Women have made in 5,000 years?

Are Radical Feminists/RadFem supporters upset that the majority of transgender action oriented criticism is being directed and lead by biological males (trans males)?

Are Radical Feminists/RadFem supporters upset that despite Het females being the primary caretakers of children/teens and young adults, that after puberty, male successes far out number female successes? (Meaning according to Radical Feminism, Het females are responsible for what they call-Patriarchy and Patriarchy is according to Radical Feminismwhat stops Het females from succeeding, therefore Het females are responsible for males/male violence/male sexuality and female weakness/ineffectiveness.) 

Okay, before letting the point get away from me, once again going back to the menacing looking transgender male/trans supporter, by calling him out for looking angry or even attributing angry/violence to males (trans or not), what has been accomplished by Radical Feminists/RadFem supporters stating the obvious? Nothing. A waste of time and energy for the sole purpose of garnering attention by a handful of attention whores who arent invested in the mental health/health of those who have transitioned or are seeking it.

dirt

Read More

Radical Feminists-Transgender Activists and Speakers Corner-a Reflection of RadFem Impotency

A few days ago an incident (between Transgender activists/supporters and Radical Feminists/supporters) occurred at Speakers Corner where a discussion/debate was to be held regarding the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 called:

At this point, due to said incident, anything and everything else discussed at this function has been made incidental by both sides.

As someone who clearly doesnt favour either side, because lets face it, Transgenderism and Radical Feminism are opposite sides of the same coin, for those interested in an objective view, read on.

If you are not familiar with what happened, the main social media headlines read something like 4 trans activists attack 60 year old woman at Speakers Corner. But what REALLY happened? There are numerous pictures and videos of the attack, some more clear than others. Having at this point I think, seen everything out there, its obvious from the first videos to the latest what happened.

There were groups of people milling around, mostly on one side (Transgender) or the other side (Radical Feminist) with the odd flake flitting to and fro. Both camps were chanting various things, but clearly what Trans Activists/supporters were chanting irked this particular RadFem-(Maria M)  compelling her to walk over to the Trans Camp and record/take direct pictures of them without their consent. Maria you can clearly see on the right taking pics:

Trans Activists/supporters try to place their poster in front of Maria M to no avail, because Maria shoves her camera past and into the Trans crowd:

Personally, if someone shoved an unwanted camera in my face, they better be prepared to get their camera smashed to pieces. Moving on...one Trans Activists/supporters goes after Maria's camera as she smugly walks away:

A scrap ensues between Maria and a Trans Activist/supporter:

Maria yanks the Trans Activist/supporter off the ground and then chokes the shit out of them:

Then Maria shakes the shit of of the Trans Activist/supporter:

During this fight/scuffle over Maria's camera, at varying times another Trans person flitting around, at first trying to stop Maria's picture taking, then full out smacking/punching at Maria in effort to get Maria to release their friend:

Maria loosens her grip, the camera gets tossed to the ground and the two camps disperse. The Twitter attention Maria M went after with her camera erupts in attention over her "attack" by Trans Activists/supporters. Basically, it is what we have seen occur between Transgender and Radical Feminists for the last forty years and what takes place on social media hundreds of times a day. Radfem (girl) baits/hits/goes after Transgender (boy) and Transgender (boy) chases RadFem (girl) then RadFem (girl) runs screaming for help. The story is as old as the Heterosexual hills, that some of these boys claim to be girls, changes nothing-biology will out.

Maria didnt asked to be physically hit, but she most certainly DID trespass personal (physical) boundaries of those already deemed emotionally unstable. If you kick at a rapid dog, there is a good chance you are going to get bit. That doesnt make you a victim, nor does it mean you are asking for it, but it does make you look stupid. Maria and her new found (temporary) mostly Het female fan base however desire her victimhood status. Maria flat out started the incident and predominantly had and maintained control throughout, despite a few swipes and a broken camera.

We have all growing up been in scraps with someone where there is no clear winner and winning a scrap is based on who got the best of who. Clearly Maria got the best of one particular Trans Activist/supporter and fared best throughout the whole incident, yet all we hear from her and her camp is Maria as VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM. Why does Maria and other Radical Feminists so desire her/the status of victim? Is this suppose to suddenly make the Psychiatric community go "hey Trans males are violent and violent against Women, even older Women, we should stop transitioning them, stop letting them use Womens facilities etc?"! Obviously that makes no logical sense, nor is it going to happen and the whole of why anyone was there at Speakers Corner is forgot, eclipsed by needless drama.

Males and Trans Males have and are changing real laws that allow and promote the proliferation of Transgender (self/parental) diagnosis in children as early as months old, while Radical Feminists play Girl/Boy games for attention. Since Homosexuality remains the foundation for public and private Transgender notions, Homosexual adults have been grist for Trans mills and Homosexual children are daily becoming grist. And except for a few of us, this knowledge doesnt warrant a even whisper from Radical Feminist lips let alone a well deserved scream. Not unless that is, dramafied attention seeking RadFems can milk it for personal gain.

dirt

Read More

Boots of Leather Slippers of Gold-Another Chapter in UnSTRAIGHTening Lesbian

This post is meant to serve as a precursor to our (Mrs Dirt and myself) next step in our UnSTRAIGHTening Lesbian series. Mrs Dirt's precursor post can be found here: Why Most Published “Lesbian Research” Is Completely Unrecognizable to Real Lesbians.

The following excepts come from one of the WORST examples of  Lesbian history, particularly Butch/Femme history, that has ever been recorded, bar NONE! In the next UnSTRAIGHTening Lesbian series we will fully dissect Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy's and Madeline D. Davis's inaccurate Hetsplained ideas of Lesbian; their kindergarten research samples coupled with their mentally handicapped abilities to choose Lesbian (Butch/Femme or otherwise) participants for their research for their book Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community. 

Remember, what you will see below doesnt even measure a drop in the bucket of ignorance filling this book cover to cover. According to our STRAIGHTBIAN authors and their male and STRAIGHTBIAN subjects Lesbianism consisted solely of roles such as:

Butches and Femmes (fems according to our derisory duo) specifically modeled their behaviour on:

 For example:

The butches found in this piss poor excuse of Lesbian history also:

While Butch Lesbians were rocking their soft everyday blouses, what were Femmes busy doing according to leather slipper boots?:

Those Femmes knew their places back in the day!

All this ROLE PLAYING though was not for naught, Lesbian ROLE PLAYING was REALLY used according to our Hetsplaining half-wits as a tool of RESISTANCE! HUH?

I'm sure the use of the ineffectual STRAIGHTBIAN better known as Simone de Beauvoir helped to sell you that last bit of swamp land! NOT!

There are several things abundantly clear from these few screencaps; Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy
and Madeline D. Davis are NOT Lesbians themselves. Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy and
Madeline D. Davis had ZERO Lesbian input for their Lesbian history project. And Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy and Madeline D. Davis could not locate Lesbians for their research because by playing at being Lesbians themselves they believe/d Lesbian is something that one does, NOT something one is! These Het Women and their shit book/s are on our shit list and they will be the first subject of our next UnSTRAIGHTening Lesbian series coming soon.

dirt

Read More