Chapter Six: Motherhood: The Ultimate Feminine Role

Chapter Six: 

Motherhood: The Ultimate Feminine Role

Bev Jo
Linda Strega

(Originally published in 1990, I, Bev, have updated this to share online.)

Radical Feminism is about questioning everything we are taught is sacred and unquestionable in patriarchy, from male religion to every other male dictate for females. Radical Feminism means understanding all male cons in both the political and personal, exploring the political effects of each personal decision, and knowing what choices are possible. Motherhood is one of the most important foundations of patriarchy, yet we are taught that choosing it means becoming woman supreme.

Any time we find ourselves being expected to genuflect to and pay homage to any particular group of people, which means valuing ourselves less, we need to deeply think about why we are expected to do that – especially when they are often our oppressors.

This is not about criticizing women who are mothers, but about exploring the institution of motherhood and how it keeps patriarchy going, because women claiming to be Feminists are still choosing motherhood.

Please have no illusions: If you choose to reproduce, you are being incredibly selfish and keeping patriarchy going. Patriarchy and the daily extinction of species would stop very soon if women just stopped reproducing. This is the one thing where each woman’s decision has a massive effect on the future.

Motherhood is one of the biggest cons and cults of patriarchy. Women complain endlessly about how terrible their lives are as mothers, even though most choose it (yes, most women know that if they choose to let men fuck them, pregnancy is likely). At the same time, mothers brag endlessly about being mothers and about their children, particularly sons. They openly pity women who can’t have children. Most participate wholeheartedly in the destructive myth that they are doing something wonderful for society and the earth, when the reality is that they are giving the earth a death sentence. At the very least, mothers do not have to add to the propaganda of motherhood pushed onto all girls and women, yet, in spite of their bitter complaining, most wholeheartedly pressure other females to also reproduce. Why?

One of the dilemmas of talking about the privilege of motherhood is that motherhood is presented by reformist/right wing/liberal feminists as being the most oppressed condition women can experience. What is ignored in this is the power that motherhood has as an institution, how it is promoted with endless media propaganda, and how women who say no are punished. (If you dare say this on most “radfem” sites, you will be banned for telling the truth.)  Like most kinds of privilege you can often only see it when you’re not experiencing it.

Acting out of heterosexuality, reformist feminists focus primarily on men, ignoring Lesbians and women who say no to breeding. (We are an unpleasant reminder that women can and do choose. They would rather we don’t exist.)  Most women are promised much more than they ever get for reproducing the next men and the next women to breed more men, so they are bitter and angry. They make demands on men to help with their children, and then, without any thought about the privilege they have that is directly gotten at the expense of non-mothers, they expect Lesbians and women without children to help take care of those children, as if they have done us all a favor by reproducing and as if we somehow owe them. They also take out their anger at men onto us.

In reality, reproducing is one of the most selfish things a woman can do. The world is horrifically over-populated and adding more humans is killing the planet. If you dare to say this, the most common response is a crazed “But all humans will die out!” as if that is likely at eight billion and growing. These children, who we never had a say about being made, are our direct competition for future survival resources.

The happiest Lesbians seem to be those who came out late, in their forties or fifties, after having husbands, careers, houses, lots of money, and far better health with which to enjoy life. Of course, most wish they had never chosen men to begin with, but they have gotten substantial rewards for reproducing and choosing men, with a far more secure future than most Lifelong Lesbians.

Meanwhile, het Feminists set on keeping this mess going are unwilling to look at their own complicity, and will do anything to avoid taking responsibility for their past choices to be het, or even their current choice of having a man — so they start talking about girls in far-away countries chained to walls, being raped and forced to reproduce, as if that was their own situation, which is designed to shame us into silence. How dare we even question motherhood, enshrined as a cult along with religion and patriotism?

                            The Myths and Mania of Motherhood

To understand why some Lesbians want to be mothers, we need to understand what the mother role has to offer. There are strong Dyke-identified Dykes who are mothers and who don’t expect to be revered for it. But many Lesbians, both mothers and non-mothers, revere the institution of motherhood in the same ways that patriarchy does. They envision matriarchy is as the ideal alternative to patriarchy, but Mother Rule, especially Het Mother Rule, wouldn’t be much of an improvement over Father Rule. What we need is equality between Lesbians, with no one ruling. The way to create that equality is to question and challenge every “truth,” especially sacred “truths,” that we’re taught. That also means questioning much of feminist analysis, especially the parts that reflect het feminists’ heterosexism.

Very few Lesbians question the sacredness of motherhood and the demand that mothers be treated as superior beings in relation to non-mothers. The few who do are  attacked in print, censored, or banned from online groups. The insults are similar to what men and het women call any female who refuses to support the institution of motherhood. That tells us we must continue exploring why patriarchy and feminists so love motherhood. (Amazones d’Hier, Lesbiennes d”Aujourd’hui of Montréal, Québec, Canada, was a wonderful exception to this.)1

There’s a feminist myth that motherhood is the most deeply oppressed, suffering, and hardworking of female conditions, and that, in comparison, non-mothers’ lives are full of fun, irresponsibility, and freedom. Meanwhile, patriarchal propaganda says that motherhood is the only true fulfillment and happiness a female can have, and that childless females (especially Dykes) live pathetic, empty, meaningless, neurotic, lonely, unnatural, and barren lives.

Both of these myths are lies, based on a distortion of truth. The feminist lie is based on the fact that men oppress women and therefore mothers are oppressed by men. Mothers create and raise children for men — boys are future men, and girls are meant to be future creators and incubators of men, as well as servants and fuck objects. Poor mothers who don’t have men supporting them in their mother role have a hard time making enough money to live while also caring for their children. We agree that mothers’ lives can be hard. It’s expensive and time-consuming to raise children. But that hardship is chosen for the privilege involved, and pain and hardship aren’t always the same as oppression. It’s painful to be het, but het women have tremendous social power over Lesbians and oppress us.

Hetness and, in most cases, motherhood, are choices, and both choices come from a commitment to men first. Even when women don’t decide specifically to get pregnant, if they choose to be fucked by men, then they know what the risks are. Women who choose pregnancy gain the particular privilege and respect that only mothers are allowed. (Women often just continue doing what they are told they are supposed to do and follow what “everyone else is doing,” which means choosing men, making babies, etc.  But clearly not every women does that, and trying to fit in and be considered normal is going for privilege. Some women are more calculating and aim to get a man with substantial privilege so they can have security, status, and money, while providing heirs, as well as sexual services as their part of the bargain — higher class monogamous prostitution.)

The feminist lie that defines mothers as oppressed victims ignores the privilege which comes from men declaring that mothers are the women who everyone must love, praise, and admire. It ignores the existence and deeper oppression of Lesbians who aren’t mothers, especially those who’ve always been Lesbians. The patriarchal lie that defines mothers as supremely fulfilled is based on the false “fulfillment” that privilege gives them – only mothers, enacting the most het of roles, are allowed to represent the radiant epitome of womanliness. The rest of us are treated with various levels of contempt, because men consider our lives as barren as they consider our bodies. Many Lesbians ignore the social power that mothers have, like they ignore the power het women have relative to Lesbians. That power is given to mothers and het women by men because men need them. Men couldn’t exist without mothers.

Patriarchy makes a fuss over the physical aspects of how women become mothers, from the het acts of fucking and pregnancy to having a “fertile” body. In patriarchal minds, giving birth makes a Mature Woman out of a girl. Otherwise, all ages of females are just “girls” to men. The baby is the female body’s badge of completeness. As one mother said, “I feel I would be hollow now if I had not been a mother.”2 This glorification is particularly oppressive to females who are physically unable to get pregnant.

The propaganda is that being pregnant is natural and even needed, not just by humans, but by other animals. Some women even force their pets to get pregnant because they think it’s good for them, though for many species, this means being raped. Many female animals are left scarred and injured, and some die as they fight to defend themselves from being raped. In zoos, when they want a species to reproduce, they often shackle the female to be raped because some will fight to the death against the rapists. Being pregnant also sucks the life force from the mother animal. Female bodies respond as though it’s a parasitic invasion and try to kill the fetus. And many women still become permanently disabled or die from pregnancy and childbirth, which is rarely publicized.

Then there’s the social aspect. In every culture we know of, mothers receive far more respect and status than any other group of females, which is why so many women choose to have children. Even patriarchal religions demand, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Mothers are given their own day — “Mother’s Day.” Businesses praise mothers and give them special discounts — not surprising, since mothers create more consumers. Cards and gifts are sent in their honor, and both the patriarchal and feminist media laud mothers.

Feminist and Lesbian stars do special concerts and events for mothers. One of the largest annual gatherings of Lesbians in the world, the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, has been called “a gathering of mothers and daughters,” with mothers therefore doubly welcomed. That means females who are and were het were publicly more welcomed than Lifelong Lesbians and Lesbians who’ve never been het. It also means non-mothers were automatically put in the inferior position of daughters. What other female or Lesbian group is as regularly and institutionally acknowledged and praised as are mothers? No wonder most Lesbian mothers identify first as “mothers” and second as “Lesbians.”

Many employers give special benefits to mothers, and many pay for extensive maternity leave. Some employers and governments provide free childcare. Non-mother Lesbians pay taxes to support those benefits without getting similar benefits when we’re ill or having to look after our lovers and friends who need care. Many feminist groups also provide childcare or money for childcare. (Bev: I taught self-defense classes for girls and women for ten years for Bay Area Women Against Rape. After administrative changes in the group, my $100 a month salary was eliminated, while office staff members received full salary plus $400 a month extra for childcare. Self defense classes are among the most important support that such groups can give to girls and women. I was committed to never being able to leave the area for more than a week for most of ten years since I taught each week, but mothers had priority.)

In Lesbian communities, more Lesbian money has been donated to Lesbian mothers than any other group, particularly for custody cases, while most other Lesbians’ needs are largely ignored. Since the new A.I. (“artificially inseminated”) mothers became the majority of mothers in Lesbian communities, that means they’re likely to get the majority of funding. There’s usually little or no organized financial support for Lesbians who have other responsibilities, such as caring for ill or dying friends and lovers. How much money and support has been raised for homeless, hungry, terminally ill, disabled, and/or imprisoned Dykes compared to money raised for childcare and custody cases? How many Lesbian events welcome children free (including boys), even if the mothers are rich, and then refuse to let in poor Dykes who can’t pay? Lesbians are simply valued less. Why give the most help to those who provide a future for the patriarchy? Children are future men and potentially future het women, while Lesbians merely stay Lesbians. The richly funded “Lesbian Rights” project in San Francisco is almost completely devoted to Lesbian mothers’ and even Gay fathers’ custody cases. “Lesbian Rights” has become synonymous with “Mothers’ Rights”!  (Meanwhile, the “National Center for Lesbian Rights,” with their enormous budget, primarily works for men, including the very men who are destroying our last female only spaces.)

Lesbians who get pregnant assume they can demand support. (Bev: A few years ago, I organized meetings for Lesbians to discuss Lesbian Separatism. One of the Lesbians who sounded very anti-male and agreed that males were inherently dangerous, was pregnant with a boy. I didn’t know her well, but she actually announced she would have me “on diaper duty” for her baby boy. I told her it’s the last thing I would do. A couple of years later, she confided that her still young son is proof of how boys just throw rocks and there is nothing she can do to stop him.)

Motherhood gives an aura of respectability to a Lesbian that nothing else does except going het. The next best thing to being a wife and mother is to at least be a mother. That’s half of the male definition of “woman.” Motherhood gives surrogate wife status. It’s as close as a Lesbian can come to being heterosexual.14 Lesbians have been considered immature by patriarchy and its psychologists, but becoming a mother means becoming a full adult. Mothers of boys get even more privilege, because males are more valued. This increased privilege for Lesbian mothers is gained at the expense of Lesbian non-mothers.

Too many times we’ve heard Lesbians say that mothers should be particularly respected. The prominence of Lesbian mothers in the Lesbian media is an effort to prove that we’re acceptable by het standards — that we’re not alien, inexplicable, Dykey monsters and that we’re family, feminine, wifely, domestic, motherly, and normal. When mothers and ex-het Lesbians are focused on in this way, it’s at the expense of Butch, Never-het, and Life-long Lesbians. In effect, they’re saying, “We’re not perverts like them. Some Lesbians (us!) are real women.”

One of the highest compliments many Lesbians think they can make is to call someone a mother, even if she isn’t. A Dyke who’d never been het worked many years to help create female-only land. The Lesbians who admired her called her a “founding mother.” A well-meaning Dyke bestowed the term “mothers” on us because our political work meant so much to her. She intended it as warm praise, and we appreciated that, but it was actually a negation of all non-mothers. It’s a male lie that females’ potential ability to breed is the well-spring of our energy, spirituality, inventiveness, protectiveness, and kindness. All these qualities stem from our Dykeness. They’re female, not motherly, qualities.  It hurts us a people and culture when Lesbians continue male propaganda among ourselves by saying that non-biological mothers can become mothers through our creativity.

Part of mothers’ power comes from the myth of their being more wise, responsible, caring, loving, and unselfish than anyone else. “Only a mother knows.” The propaganda is everywhere. Try keeping a list of how many times you see motherhood promoted in the media. A newspaper ad showed a mother and baby with the caption “One of the most important jobs in the world ….” A survey of 1000 U.S. women found that 60% said motherhood is the best thing about being a woman.3 A magazine ad described the reverence given to pregnant women:

I felt this incredible sense of well being. There is really nothing like it. People beam at you. They offer you their seats on the bus. Total strangers walk up to you in the supermarket and ask you if they can touch your stomach. Everywhere you go, you feel like your stomach is announcing: “Here I am! I’m making a baby!” Your parents look at you differently, too. My mother was glad I was finally doing something constructive.

In an interview, one woman said, “Everyone pampers you — sometimes even complete strangers. Also, I felt more womanly while pregnant.”

Another said, “…when I was pregnant, I felt that it was acceptable to be ‘fat.’ For the first time, I really liked my body and that was truly liberating.”4

In another article, titled “Battle of the Bulge — When Pregnancy Feels Like an Enemy Invasion,” a woman says:

 “…the first time I ventured onto a bus with my infant son … a young man whom I would have gone out of my way to avoid on a dark street offered me his seat.”5 In another article, a woman who already has six adopted children says, “Actually making a baby is something very important to me. It makes me feel whole.” The writers go on to say, “The need to be fruitful and multiply is a thing of beauty, an impulse to be adored and respected.”6

These aren’t exaggerations. Motherhood is the primary way females are allowed to feel like someone important. In some cultures, like Nazi Germany, mothers are or were given medals by their governments when they produce a large number of children. In others, they’re given honorific titles as part of their names. In the US, a fundamentalist Euro-descent couple is repeatedly put on the cover of national magazines as they have yet another baby. At last count, they’d reached twenty. It’s obscene.

We know Lesbians who say their lives dramatically changed when they became mothers. As Cheryl Jones wrote about being pregnant:

“Strangers on the street talked to me for the first time in years. They were friendly … the difference was that because I’m a lesbian, no one had talked to me on the street for years!  What a strange experience to go from being ‘persona non grata’ to womanhood’s prime exemplar!”7

Those who have sons, especially, are treated with a deference they’d never experienced before, by men, het women, and Lesbians. They finally felt accepted by their families. Even those who identified openly as Lesbians said their neighbors became warmer and more welcoming. The ways they were treated by strangers were also dramatically different when they had children with them.

An acquaintance who became lovers with the mother of a five-year-old boy told us they took him apartment-hunting because landlords were so much more friendly when they presented themselves as mother, son, and friend. Whenever they went without him, they were treated with wariness and hostility.

We knew two Lesbians in a couple, a mother and a non-mother, who were treated very differently by the same food stamp worker, although they were equally qualified for assistance, came from similar backgrounds, and weren’t very different in appearance and behavior. The mother, who brought her daughter to the interview, was treated in a friendly way and assured that she would receive her food stamps as quickly as possible. The non-mother was treated harshly and got her food stamps only after obstacles and delays.

Non-mother Lesbians who are with children are usually assumed to be mothers and also get preferential treatment. Whenever one of us accompanied friends’ young daughters in public, we were astounded at how much better we were treated than when alone or with adult Lesbians. Women smiled benignly and acted comfortable with us, instead of being hostile. It made going out in public immeasurably easier. Even the most obvious-looking Lesbian becomes more acceptable if she’s with a child. As one Lesbian we know said, ”When I walk down the street with a friend’s baby, I’m no longer the fat Butchy Dyke I’ve been all my life.”

A Radical Feminist in one of our online groups wrote:

Mothers are privileged and I am forever frustrated at how other women who aren’t feminists are sucked into wishing for motherhood to obtain that privilege and attention. Last night, there was a whole group of what appeared to be coworkers at a restaurant I was at. They were celebrating a baby shower and everyone was excited and praising this woman for her pregnancy. Even the males present were excited and lavishing attention on her. There were children attending also and all I could think about was how every little girl at that table was seeing the admiration and attention that the pregnant woman was receiving, and how even the strangers at another table offered congratulations to her. It was one of those moments where discussions on this thread were playing themselves out right in front of me. This was all brought to a head by another female friend at the table looking adoringly at her boyfriend/husband and saying “I can’t wait to be able to be a mother.” It was horrifying, like some kind of love fest for this pregnant woman. It’s no wonder that women think they want to have kids. Look at the importance placed on it! It was ridiculous!

Mothers in public places frequently demand attention from everyone around them. It’s not unusual to see a mother in a store talking very loudly to her child while she looks around expectantly for compliments. Mothers of boys are more likely to act this way, but mothers of daughters sometimes do too. It’s a way of showing off to the world that they’re mothers. They take up a great deal of physical and psychic space with their demands for attention, expecting everyone, particularly other females, to pay homage to them. One example: In a doctor’s office, there was a mother with a young boy who was running around the waiting room, yelling. His mother commented loudly on his every move, announcing that he was going to be a doctor because he picked up a toy stethoscope. She could care less that people in a doctors’ office might be sick or in pain and needing quiet.

Another example: We were in a park, sitting by a pond with fish, celebrating one of our birthdays. Other women were drawing and talking quietly in this peaceful space, with plenty of room for everyone. Then a class-privileged-looking mother of a very young boy came up and sat so close that she touched one of us, even though there were other empty seats near the pond. She held her son out in front of her, literally pushing him in our faces, saying loudly, “Look at the fish, dear!” The boy looked completely bored. She repeatedly told him to notice the fish, while looking expectantly at us. We ignored her, which wasn’t easy, considering the noise she was making and the fact that she was brushing against one of us. Then she asked if she was bothering us. When we said yes, we’d rather not be shoved, she began yelling at us. We reminded her, quietly and politely, that she had asked us and we were only responding. She continued yelling, so we told her that we just wanted to be left in the peace that was there before she came. She walked away, screaming, “You must be Lesbians! You must be Lesbian Separatists! Well, I fuck men!” (The other women at the pond looked at her like she was crazy.) We’d said nothing to her about men, boys, het women, heterosexuality, or being Lesbians. We simply had refused to smile at her and her boy.

                                 “Don’t You Dare Talk Back!”

The pain a mother suffers is considered more important and serious than any other female pain. A ludicrous example is when a Lesbian we knew said that she was in emotional agony because “A mother’s pain is the greatest pain. No one else feels as much as a mother.” She wasn’t even a mother, but imagined she was because she had been trying to adopt a girl. Even after being denied the adoption, she was already identifying with the mother role and being oppressive to non-mothers. Mothers are also considered more important, as shown throughout the media, when it’s mentioned that a mother has been injured. Clearly the constant message is that non-mothers being hurt or killed matter less.

The main reason Lesbians believe mothers are more oppressed than non-mothers is because mothers use their privilege to demand special treatment. Their demands have quite an impact when they’re delivered in the authoritarian, shocked tones that mothers use for “naughty” children. It is, after all, the mother’s role to be obeyed without question. They use the same controlling behavior towards non-mothers as they use on their daughters. As the old saying goes, “God created mothers because he couldn’t be everywhere at once.” Lesbians who challenge mothers’ privilege are likely to be treated as if we were “disobeying” them, even when we’re a great deal older than the mothers. Mothers expect Lesbians, as well as their children, to treat them with the same reverence.

Few non-mothers have had the experience of talking to others in quite such condescending ways. As a US bumpersticker says, “I’m the Mom, that’s why!” Mothers have the authority that comes only from having total control and ownership of someone else, including literally having the power of life and death over their children. One mother we knew said she was exhilarated by the power she had over her daughter, joking that it would be easy to foul up her daughter’s life by teaching the wrong words for everything.

The powerlessness of young girls is one key to understanding the power of mothers. Motherhood also gives females power over males that non-mothers rarely have. A friend of ours said that raising sons made it possible for her to know about how to talk to adult male strangers as if they were little boys, and sometimes they would just respond without question as if they were obeying their mother. Knowing the power of mothers’ disapproval, the US Postal Service had an ad for “Mother’s Day” that said “It’s not too late to win Mother’s approval.”

It’s particularly unfair when mothers use the political language of oppression to manipulate non-mothers into treating them with deference. Caring, responsible Dykes often believe someone who claims to be oppressed, especially if they are accused of not understanding, because “you don’t know what it’s like to be a mother.” That is as outrageous as the class-privileged saying that poor and working class Dykes have no right to talk about class privilege because we’ve never experienced it. Some Lesbian mothers may be angry at the privilege they lost when they became Lesbians, and expect non-mothers to make up for it. But men are responsible for their Lesbian oppression, not Lesbians.

 Some Mothers Betray Their Daughters and Other Females for Males

Considering the amount of nuclear and other toxins, as well as imperialist racist oppression that European-descent christian men have spread across the earth, European-descent gentile females have a specific responsibility to not create more males. No matter how many horror stories that the mainstream media reports about the destruction of the earth, they rarely say to stop breeding. Even environmentalists keep churning out the babies. Most of the world’s forests are cut down, most water is contaminated, and entire species of animals destroyed forever. It’s happening now. How can anyone but the most selfish (unless they are from a people endangered by genocide), keep reproducing?

For those who say it’s natural to reproduce, disease and parasites are also “natural.” The crazed obsession that men and het women have with fucking and making horrible over-populated replicas of themselves is not natural, but is a sign of humans being way out of control in nature. Animals, including people, do not overpopulate unless the natural balance is very disturbed, and no one has disturbed nature more than men.  No other animal has created such an artificial environment all over the earth. Very little in hetero-patriarchy is natural. They even buy and cover themselves in stinking toxic chemicals because they believe it makes them more appealing.

Het women’s obsession with reproduction is so extreme that some women get pregnant even when they know for certain that their child will inherit an excruciating, fatal disease. That’s “love”?

Wanting the attention mothers get motivates women who clearly should not be having babies. One of us was put in touch with a “Radical Feminist” new in town, who turned out to be a pregnant homeless woman who refused to get an abortion because she compared it to killing people. This woman knew about overpopulation and so made up a story about being “Indigenous,” saying she was Irish-descent, but a little later admitted that she was genetically English. She wanted help to find a dry doorway in the rain to sleep and ended up going back to a railway car to join the homeless man who had gotten her pregnant. It never seemed to occur to her that any baby she had would be in danger and have a hellish life. It was all about her.

In order to keep their het and mother privilege, some het mothers selfishly collude in the rape of their daughters. There’s an excellent film about Canadian Shirley Turcotte’s journey to talk with her family about her father orally and vaginally raping her and her sister from the ages of five. Shirley’s sister said, “I was five when I first tasted his semen….dad went all the way with me when I was five. I remember that and mom came home and I was bleeding down there…. I keep wondering, well, why didn’t she take me to a doctor and get me checked up. Why?”  When she was in her teens, she became pregnant. “I tried to tell a priest that it was my dads’ baby…. The priest said, ‘No, no that’s not right. Don’t accuse your dad, you’re supposed to respect him: Honor thy father, honor thy mother.’” Shirley’s mother said about their father, “He could be very loving.” Shirley asked, “He was loving? When did he change?” Her mother answered, “ When you were babies. He didn’t like the crying.”8

Katinka, a Swedish Dyke Separatist said that in the Swedish Women’s Bulletin, a socialist-feminist mother said, “If we want men to share in taking care of girls, we can’t go around accusing them of incest.” She heard another mother say that her greatest fear about her daughter being raped is that it might cause her to become a Lesbian.

                             “Lesbians” Getting Pregnant???

How would you like to live in a world of 85% men?  (That’s what A.I. usually produces because the XX sperm are heavier, with more genetic material.)

Het baby booms often follow right wing reactionary trends. Political pressure is put on women to return to or stay in traditional male-defined feminine roles and accept male supremacy. “The lower the status of females in a culture, the higher the birthrate; the higher the status of females, the lower the birthrate.”Women who call themselves “Lesbians” started getting pregnant in the early Eighties.

Patriarchy and nationalism are intertwined, and motherhood is a key part of both. Right wing national trends were partly a reaction to the growing Lesbian and feminist movements, just as they were in 1930’s Nazi Germany. In an effort to destroy the growing German Feminist and Lesbian movements, the Nazis proclaimed women’s role to be “Kinder, Kirche, Küche” – “children, church and kitchen.” (US nationalism is epitomized by “mom, the flag, and apple pie.”) This pressure to reproduce was directed at so-called “Aryan” women, while Jewish, Roma/Gypsy, Slavic, and disabled females were killed or sterilized by the Nazis. In the US, females oppressed by racism and classism have been victims of enforced sterilization. Harry Laughlin, the “father” of US eugenics inspired the Nazis and they awarded him honorary degrees. (Bev: My poverty class aunt was sterilized against her will at sixteen by the US government, for being a “criminal.”)

As gentile Lesbians of primarily European descent, we recognize that Lesbians whose cultures have suffered genocide are under different pressures to get pregnant than more privileged Lesbians. But still, those who do choose pregnancy are oppressing all Lesbian non-mothers, particularly those who never got heterosexual privilege.

Like Lesbianism, resistance to motherhood exists in all cultures and is a powerful threat to patriarchy. This revolutionary resistance has been carried out in isolation and in small groups everywhere, in spite of punishment, including death. It’s sometimes been done with full awareness of its political female-loving significance, and sometimes out of intuitive self-love, in spite of feeling guilty for disobeying. In every case, it represents saying no to men and male rule. It is the stubborn survival of Lesbians’ love for ourselves and each other, against all odds.

This beautiful Lesbian determination deserves recognition, support, and respect from all Lesbians. Understanding the significance means understanding that Lesbian self-love and self-respect is the opposite of the male-defined femininity of wifehood and motherhood. The revolutionary quality of this resistance is often not noticed or appreciated because actions that do not benefit men and their het women agents are not honored. We need to recognize that men hate Lesbians not only because we say no to them and dare to love our own kind, but because we refuse to breed and make more men and more het women to produce men.

Many Lesbians had children when they were het, and some didn’t want to be mothers. Some women were raped and were not able to have abortions. A few women have given up their children. Some of the Lesbian mothers who gave up sons clearly did it to protect our Lesbian culture. (Ruston: I recall that almost every politically active Lesbian mother I met in Women’s Liberation and the Lesbian community in Aotearoa in the 1970’s had left her children, particularly sons.) In patriarchy, where women are considered to be of little value except as wives and mothers, this is a courageous act. Some Lesbians who gave up their children have been abused by both the het world and het-identified Lesbians. There are also Lesbian mothers who haven’t tried to bully non-mothers into taking care of their children and have done their best to reject mother privilege.

Many Lesbians’ reasons for getting pregnant mirror het women’s — it’s trendy and “everyone is doing it” – which are the same reasons for going het and marrying men. It’s a selfish, personal attempt to feel less powerless, as opposed to a political solution that might actually give us real power in our lives. Men are destroying the earth, raping and killing girls and women, while het women continue fucking and making more men. Then “Lesbians” in Lesbian communities started following. Very soon, the Lesbian media was making “Lesbian” pregnancy look fun and attractive. A Lesbian cartoonist even showed a “Lesbian” couple’s baby boy pissing on Lesbians as cute. (This same lauded cartoonist who was printed in many publications and published cartoon books over years, also drew semen dripping from a condom, but never once drew a Butch.)

Some of the Lesbian pro-pregnancy propaganda portray it as if it’s courageous, creative and revolutionary, but, like het motherhood, it’s the same boring, confining, reactionary, traditional, and right wing role for women, like all aspects of heterosexuality.

Motherhood has never caused great change and instead keeps women “in their place.” Yet non-mothers are pressured to feel guilty by their families and patriarchy. When Ellen DeGeneres first came out, she was asked if she was going to have babies and she said, “No, I’m too selfish.” What on earth is selfless about reproducing?  It’s the ultimate patriarchal mind-fuck. One Lesbian we know said apologetically that her reasons for not getting pregnant were “just personal, not political” since she hadn’t realized her own courage and the political nature of her resistance. Even popular het women stars are pressured relentlessly in the media to reproduce.

And then there is breeding as proof of a happy relationship, just like with het women. We heard a Lesbian actually say about her ex-lover, “I loved her so much and was so committed to her that we were going to have children, though I hate children.”

Lesbians aren’t voluntarily sexual in any way with men. The acts of welcoming semen into one’s body, being pregnant, giving birth, and breastfeeding are specifically heterosexual acts. Women who choose pregnancy are simply not Lesbians. They may yet become Lesbians or they may have been Lesbians in the past, but they’re not Lesbians while participating in the most heterosexual of acts. If they’re being sexual with Lesbians, then they’re bisexual. This isn’t a question of semantics, but of Lesbian survival.

Women who inject semen into themselves are subjecting their Lesbian lovers to the same dangers that other bisexuals subject Lesbians to, such as STDs, including AIDS.10 Lesbians are the least likely people to get AIDS from sexual contact, but “artificial insemination” does cause a risk and some “Lesbians” have been infected. Because many of these women used semen from Gay men, they’re likely to have a higher than usual rate of AIDS. The Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia Burgdorferi, has also been found in semen, and most Lyme is not diagnosed and is almost impossible to cure, so that means many men are carrying it. Semen itself is an immune depressant. Female bodies react to sperm as an invasion of foreign cells and send antibodies to kill them.11 There are other dangers as well. Sperm donors, including Gay men, have sued for “paternal rights” when they’ve found out that their sperm has impregnated women. Some have even become physically threatening out of possessive jealousy for “their” children. In most men’s minds, the bearer of “his” child is “his” woman.

Over 85% of A.I. babies are male.12 Women who become pregnant with male fetuses are doubly heterosexual. They live for nine months in more intimate contact with a male than het women experience when being fucked. They share blood, and the baby’s male hormones flow through the mother’s blood, affecting her mind and body. There is no act more heterosexual than creating men.13

Some mothers speak openly about their heterosexual bonds with their sons.  As one mother said, in a U.S. survey of how women feel about motherhood, “There is a romance between mother and son that doesn’t exist between mother and daughter. You can love your daughter, but you both love and are in love with your son.”14 In an interview, another mother said of her new son, “I don’t feel like I’m all alone any more. I have a significant other in my life.” Yet another mother said, “A mother wants a son to grow up early in life and be her advisor, escort, and extension of the men in her life. She wants her daughter to always be her little girl, not quite mature enough to make it without Mama’s help.”15

Some Lesbian mothers are also open about their het attitudes. In a poem to her son, one Lesbian mother said, “I see I am in love with you.”16 Another said to a Lesbian she considered hiring, “I want whoever does childcare for my boy to fall in love with him.” One “Lesbian” mother wrote about her sperm donor, “It took me six months to get pregnant. During that time Joe kept track of my cycle, would check to see if I got my period, and would write down in his calendar the days he was coming over to visit and jerk off. We had a corner for his favorite sex magazines. He used my pyrex cup as a receiving vessel. Even now I feel good every time I cook.”17 In an interview on a television news program, another said, “I looked for the right father for my child …. It was like falling in love with him … in a sense it was.” The “Lesbian” mother and sperm donor cuddled together for the television camera.18 Many pseudo-Lesbian mothers have surrogate fathers for their children. Patriarchy is father-rule, but you can’t have fathers or patriarchy without mothers.

Many Lesbians want to believe that women who choose to get pregnant are Lesbians if they say they are. (Many also desperately want to believe the bisexual and het women they love are Lesbians, but that doesn’t make it true.) Thousands of women are choosing to get pregnant, assuming that Lesbians will take care of them and their (majority) sons. As long as we accept these women as Lesbians, we’ll feel a responsibility towards them. Lesbians give them abundant physical and emotional care because they perceive them to be Lesbian mothers.

The role of mother is a heterosexual one. It takes tremendous work and commitment for a mother who becomes a Lesbian to stop identifying as a mother first and acting in a mother role. Even if she does stop, the privilege remains, although Lesbians can choose to not act out of that power and can try to have equal relationships with other Lesbians. For a Lesbian to choose to become a biological mother is to wholeheartedly embrace what motherhood means in patriarchy. Besides the pregnancy itself, the mother is now committed to devoting a major part of her life to nurturing and loving, in most cases, a male or future het woman. Her primary identity becomes that of Mother, as many have proudly said.

The het world has always exerted tremendous pressure on Dykes to become het, to accept fucking, femininity, pregnancy, and motherhood. Of course, hets want us to stop being Lesbians, to stop being a threat to patriarchy. Now het pressure is being exerted from within Lesbian communities as well as from outside. But Lesbians don’t choose to get pregnant any more than we choose to be fucked by men. Calling these women “Lesbians” contributes to defining Lesbians out of existence. Hets would love to believe that all Lesbians are really bisexuals or potential hets, and that Lesbians really need men to fuck them or at least provide sperm to make the babies that all females are supposed to want. That would prove that heterosexuality (submission to men) is the natural state of females. The “Lesbian” baby boom became widely known in the het world, as the headline “Lots of Lesbians Having Babies” announced in a San Francisco newspaper. The article even referred to the fact that some “Lesbians” get pregnant through fucking, not just A.I.19

How many thousands of Dykes feel betrayed by this het activity masquerading as Lesbianism? How many Dykes are finding themselves the only one in their community who objects to friends or lovers becoming pregnant and/or fucking with men, and are made to feel like perverted freaks as a result?

If patriarchy can’t kill us, get us to kill ourselves, lock us up, persuade us to hide who we are, or get us to become het or bisexual, then they try to define us out of existence. If anyone can call herself (or himself) a Lesbian, and if “Lesbians” fuck, have babies, and create and raise men, then what about those of us who are still real Dykes who love each other, love ourselves, and don’t want semen anywhere near us?

We’re saying that true Dykes are not disappearing, and we refuse to be divided and isolated from each other. No matter how men and their women collaborators try to dilute our Lesbian identities and politics, some of us remain Dykes and are working toward truly Dyke-identified communities.

It can be very hard for Lesbians who are alone in being against the “Lesbian” fad of getting pregnant. Often the mothers-to-be and new mothers are surrounded by Lesbians who dote on them, satisfying their every whim. Anyone who dares to question the situation is likely to be insulted and ostracized. We want Dykes in that situation to know that they have support. The following list has been helpful for those who are dealing with a lover or friend who wants to get pregnant.

                         Are You Considering Having a Baby?

Well, your decision affects all of us, and there are some things we’d like to say about it.

Becoming a Mother Does NOT Mean …

  1. … that you are a loving, unselfish individual.
  2. … that you are politically courageous.
  3. … that you will become more oppressed than Lesbian non-mothers.
  4. … that if you have a daughter she will become a Lesbian.
  5. … that if you have a son he will be the exceptional non-sexist male (the messianic mother complex).
  6. … that you aren’t bringing another rapist into the world.
  7. … that you’ll be able to relive your life through your children.
  8. … that you have a right to expect or demand that Lesbians take care of you and your children.
  9. … that you have a right to inflict another male on our Lesbian communities.
    10  … that you have a right to inflict another male on our world.

 But Becoming a Mother DOES Mean …

  1. … that you are treated with more respect and privilege in the world.
  2. … that you are treated with more respect and privilege among Lesbians.
  3. … that this increased privilege is at the expense of Lesbian non-mothers.
  4. … that your privilege is greater if you have a son.
  5. … that you’re fulfilling the male-defined role of femininity and Motherhood.
  6. … that you’re doing what you’ve been ordered to do since you were born. … that you’re participating in a reactionary choice to join the het baby boom which is part of a right-wing backlash against Lesbians.
  7. … that you’re sentencing yourself to at least an 18-year commitment.
  8. … that you have less time and energy to take care of yourself and other Lesbians.
  9. … that you have a primary commitment to your children that will take precedence over close Lesbian friends or lovers
  10. … that you’re contributing to more hardship in all of our lives because your babies will be our future competition for housing, jobs, resources, and possibly food and water.
  11. … that you will replay some of the same destructive roles you experienced with your family.
  12. … that you’ll be caught up in the circular trap of dependent and caretaker
  13. … that it’s likely your children will later hate you because they didn’t grow up with all the privileges of a normal nuclear family.
  14. … that they’re likely to hate you just because of the power you have over them as a mother, whether you wanted that power or not.
  15. … that you will be vulnerable to being institutionalized by them when they grow up.
  16. … that you’re most likely creating more heterosexuals.
  17. … that you’re burdening an already overpopulated world.
  18. that no matter what you do, if you have a boy, he will likely terrorize and assault girls and, later, adult women and Lesbians, and likely will be a rapist.
  19. … that if you have a son and a daughter, it will not be unusual for your son to sexually assault your daughter.
  20. … that it won’t be a rare if you are assaulted by your son when he gets old enough.
  21. … that you’re no longer a Lesbian because playing with semen, being pregnant, and giving birth are heterosexual acts.
  22. … that you risk getting AIDS and other STDs and passing them on to Lesbians.
  23. .… that you’re weakening and permanently altering your body, and shortening your life span, making it more possible to bleed to death, develop high blood pressure, have a stroke or heart attack, or develop diabetes, kidney disease, or cancer.20 (The dangers of pregnancy and childbirth are a well-kept secret.)

                                      Boys Oppress All Females

Het mothers are notorious for worshipping their sons. “I was in awe that I could produce a male human.” When I look at my daughter, I see myself. When I look at my son, I see my son.” I think I will be more a friend to my daughter and be respectful to my son.” “It’s a new world seen through your son’s eyes, and for some reason we let them get by with doing things that we’d never let a girl do.”21

In an anthology, one mother whose adult son was living with her described picking up his shit-filled underwear and smelling it, saying how in love with him she is. With this level of adoration, if such a son raped her daughter or other girls or women, who would she protect?

Considering the amount of energy already poured into men and boys in this male-run world, why would any Lesbian want to give them more, let alone make more of them? The sons of mothers that already exist are enough of a threat to all girls and women.

Boys are voyeuristic and prurient towards girls and women from an early age. Too many mothers make their sons’ right to run around naked take precedence over girls’ and women’s rights to not have to see them, like when mothers bring sons into changing rooms where girls and women are subjected to seeing their erections. Like when adult men are naked, this is a threat of rape. Some mothers even allow their sons to masturbate in front of Lesbians.

Lesbians are sometimes concerned about the power they have as adults over boys, forgetting that boys have power given to them by adult males. In some countries, boys have power over all females, including their mothers. Many Lesbians have internalized the het women’s role to protect all males, even at other females’ and their own expense. When Lesbians have to defend ourselves from attacks by boys, we are vulnerable to reprisals from authorities as well as from Lesbians. Thinking of boys as kids or children denies the fact that boys have the power to threaten girls and anyone else they can physically intimidate. Boys also often have less concern about the consequences of their violence than men do, since they are almost impossible to prosecute for raping, torturing, or even killing, and they know it. They have the law and their families, including their mothers, to protect them.

When feminists proudly proclaim that anyone who bothers their “kids” will have to deal with them, do they include girls or women defending themselves?  One feminist proclaimed on her facebook masthead that “there is no greater warrior than a mother protecting her child” and elsewhere on her page wrote, “You mess with my kids and you mess with their crazy ass Mom…. be warned.”

Teenaged boys are more violent than any other age group of males, and boys in gangs are even more sadistic, which is why some dictatorships prefer having boys as young as twelve recruited into their armies.

Lesbians’ sons have attacked and raped girls, including their sisters and other Lesbians’ daughters. Many adult, able-bodied women aren’t concerned about boys’ attacks on girls because they smugly assume they themselves are safe, but females of all ages have been attacked and killed by boys. Girls and disabled women are more vulnerable to injury, but all females are targeted by males. And being able-bodied is a temporary condition. Sons also assault their mothers and it’s not rare for a boy to rape, beat, or kill his mother or other older female relatives. Some boys kill their entire families. Boys are increasingly becoming mass murderers.

Why do so few Lesbians remember their fear and hatred of boys who attacked and sexually harassed them when they were girls?

It’s dangerous to believe you can raise gentle, non-dangerous males. Socialization is not the problem since male violence extends across species. From an early age, boys exhibit a sadism, cruelty, and violence that is extremely different from girls’ behavior. (Girls who do attack others are often joining with boys.) Some boys may be considered well-behaved if compared to more violent boys, but even the gentlest boys show a viciousness when compared to girls. We always say, you never know what males are doing when alone with babies or animals. Yet this violence is considered the norm: “Boys will be boys.” Contrary to myth, serial rapists and killers are not “sick.” They measure on psychological testing as normal males. And girls and women are most likely to be attacked by males that they are close to, including relatives. Woman who think they can control the danger of their boys and men are deluding themselves, and the rest of us pay the cost.

It’s not mothers’ fault that their sons are rapists and murderers. But it is their responsibility to be aware that they might be. All mothers think that their sons will be the exceptional males, but Lesbians’ sons have inside information about our culture and communities, and no matter how catered to and shown that they matter more than any girl, woman, or Lesbian — because of that worshipping — many boys will be resentful that they didn’t get even more privilege or grow up in a “normal” het nuclear family. Some of them, like pornographer Tobi Hill-Meyer, was even brought to the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival as a boy. Now, he damages our community by claiming to be a Lesbian and Butch (though he’s typically male-identified feminine), getting into power positions as so many men who claim they are Lesbians do, such as being on the board of Butch Voices, controlling and censoring our community. And this man who is actually accepted as a Lesbian, has posted photos and videos of his erect prick online.

Every boy and man who has beaten, raped, and killed a girl or woman has had at least one woman (if not many) in his life who loved, protected, and nurtured him, and who tried her best to keep him from being a brutal, dangerous attacker. It isn’t these women’s fault if the boys they loved are rapists and killers, but they do share responsibility if they continue supporting them. Choosing to nurture our attackers means becoming their collaborators. The mother who insists her son is an exception is inflicting her self-righteousness on every female he will attack in his life. She has no right to bring another oppressor into our world, and even less right to bring him into a Lesbian community and demand that we be forced to be around him or look after him.

Even Lesbian Feminists delude themselves. Some years ago, we went to a Lesbian Feminist event in another city that included a short film by a Lesbian that was supposed to be cute, but which was actually showing one Lesbian’s son assaulting another Lesbian’s daughter. They looked to be about eight years old. The girl was dressed only in a full body leotard, while the boy had on trousers, jacket, and cap. When the girl tried to talk, the boy put his hand over the girl’s mouth, punched her, and shoved her out of the view of the camera, which kept its focus on him. He picked up the girl, and when she yelled to be put down, he dropped her. He told her to climb on his back, and then he threw her down on her head. While still lying on the ground, he shoved his face into her crotch and wouldn’t stop, even though she kept yelling “Stop it!”  That was the end of the film. The girl looked increasingly embarrassed and humiliated in the film. It was excruciating to watch, but the audience of about a hundred Lesbians applauded and had laughed throughout, even though what they were lauding was obviously a sexual assault. We were horrified. If this is what a Lesbian’s son does in front of a camera, what does he do with no witnesses? Would the audience have been applauding if the film showed two adults instead?  Clearly, this was a boy much loved and accepted in that community, and would be able to get away with almost anything. Why did the girl not matter at all?

When we talked with Lesbians afterward, they were patronizing: “It’s just kids playing.” “That’s how they learn their roles.” (!!!) “It’s a heterosexual phase all kids go though.” (The “heterosexual phase” didn’t include the girl who did not agree to any of it. And those of us who didn’t like boys sexually assaulting us when we were girls must then be freaks or don’t exist.) We were told we were over-reacting and asked if we’d ever “worked with kids.” So we had to be experts to earn the right to object to girls being assaulted? The fact that we have clear memories of being attacked and injured by boys when we were little didn’t count. We even asked, “But don’t you remember what it was like for you as a girl?” and one of the Lesbians said she’d “learned to roll with the punches” from her bother and that it was “fun.”

The girl was objectified as not possibly feeling the way a woman would in the situation. Calling both the girl and boy “kids” removed the girl from recognition or sympathy she would have gotten as a woman. The boy was also identified as being different from adult men and therefore less dangerous and oppressive, though boys his age do rape and kill. Many of those Lesbians had to have been sexually assaulted as girls, yet they identified with the boy, betraying themselves, the girl, and all of us who are female.

What we learned is that Lesbians who love and protect boys can’t be trusted to care about how dangerous those boys are. Their loyalty is to boys first, just as most het women’s loyalty is. We’ve seen too many instances of Lesbians’ daughters and girls treated with harshness and contempt, while sons are fussed over with a respect that borders on reverence.

Het women are even more likely to delude themselves about their “wonderful” boys. It’s become trendy among the most class-privileged young Euro-descent women to convince everyone how sensitive and gentle their sons are. We met a woman like this who had a five year old boy. As she told us how he loved plants, the little prick was systematically beating her flowers with a stick, shredding the plants to death. She said tenderly, “No don’t do that, dear. You know you love flowers.” He continued killing the plants.

This “progressive” kind of motherly discipline of the past thirty years has produced an even more dangerous male. The mother gives her son the sense that the world revolves around him, and that he is allowed to do whatever he wants. She’s certainly never said no to mother’s little darling or let him know what pain feels like when she’s found him torturing, raping, and killing animals or beating and sexually assaulting girls.

How many girls will be beaten and raped, and adult Lesbians oppressed, before all Lesbians realize that boys raised by Lesbians are no less a threat than other boys?

Boys who rape their sisters and other girls are usually still accepted and loved. If there’s blame, it’s usually put on the girls, no matter her age, who’s accused of “asking for it” – even if she’s too young to walk or talk.

Because girls are growing up in Lesbian communities of 85% boys, the rate of rape and violence to girls has to be much higher. How can Lesbians as individuals and communities tolerate this.

Motherhood Oppresses Girls, but Heterosexual Girls Oppress Lesbians                  

A Lesbian baiting us about being against “Lesbian” pregnancy asked, “Well, where do you think little Lesbians come from?”  The reality is that most Lesbians come from the same place that we always came from: het nuclear families. Whether we are Lesbians or not is simply a choice. Some Lesbians talk about making little Amazons of the future, but no one can make a girl a Lesbian. It’s what we believe all girls would naturally choose if it wasn’t for the rewards or punishments given in patriarchy, but legally owning someone can’t force that decision.

Most daughters of Lesbians choose to be het for the privilege.

Patriarchy puts unrelenting pressure on girls to fit in and be “normal.” It can be horrible to devote twenty years of your life to a girl and then she decides to be fucked by men and be Lesbian-hating. The rewards for selling out are similar to why many Lesbians return to men. Most of the daughters of Lesbians we’ve known chose men. One of these girls would hang around with her men in public places and taunt Lesbians by name (patronizingly patting them on the head), who she knew from growing up in a Lesbian community, to humiliate them for the benefit of her men. The Lesbians who loved and raised this girl went through hell and risked imprisonment to get her away from her abusive father and to give her the best life possible.

We have a friend who almost lost her teaching job because a Lesbian-hating girl circulated a petition saying that our friend had sexually harassed her female students. The girl first got other girls to sign a completely different petition and then attached their names to her lie. When confronted, she admitted it was a lie and said she’d done it so our friend would lose her job. Het girls can be cruel and oppressive to Dykes of all ages, but Dyke girls are even more vulnerable to their Dyke-hating.

If Lesbians are really concerned about girls, why not try to help girls who are already Lesbians who are living on the streets or in shelters?  Many have been disowned by their families or run away from abusive families.

                   Fighting Mother Privilege is Dyke-Loving

If motherhood improved the world, the world would be in a much better state since it’s filled with mothers. Having a baby won’t enable you to relive your life and it won’t cause you to be a better person. It will likely do the opposite since it will give you the power to raise another person as property, to hit and punish and humiliate. And that kind of power corrupts. It’s bad enough that we are all taught to accept inequality and injustice as normal, because of the hierarchical families and cultures we grown up in. It’s hard enough to fight inequalities among Lesbians without choosing such an extremely unequal role. One mother said, ”I used to think a lot about how I would glow when I was pregnant, about how important I would feel to produce a baby that came from my own body. I imagined I would feel like a Madonna, holding a complacent infant in my arms. I loved the idea of having a baby completely dependent on me. That babies grow up never crossed my mind.”

The patriarchal system of family ownership can also be dangerous to mothers. Lesbians are already vulnerable to being institutionalized by Lesbian-hating family, but Lesbian mothers are also vulnerable to being declared incompetent and locked up by adult children and even grandchildren. Mothers legally have power over minors, but as they age, the power shifts to their adult children.

Many Lesbians who support het values do so out of passivity. Since mothers believe we owe them care, attention, money, energy, sympathy, admiration, respect, and even obedience, and then feel justified in demanding that and more. If we don’t refuse those het values, we’re likely to respond out of guilt for not being mothers ourselves, and perhaps with eagerness to prove we’re not too unnatural to have “motherly instincts.” By contrast, Dykes with little or no past het privilege are taught to expect abuse rather than respect. So it’s harder for us to expect help, much less demand it when we really need it, and other Lesbians are less inclined to organize help if we do ask.

We should never be accused of being woman-hating if we refuse to be mothers or refuse to help mothers. Motherhood bleeds our communities dry. Lesbians who choose not to be mothers should never have to pay economically, politically, or emotionally for other women’s choice to reproduce.


  1. Amazones d’Hier, Lesbiennes d”Aujourd’hui (Amazons Yesterday, Lesbians Today) a wonderful Lesbian-only journal from Montréal, Québec, Canada, devoted an entire issue to the politics of motherhood (#20, “Motherhood Reviews and Rejected,” edited by Francine Mayer, June, 1988.) Dykes from several countries were printed and we especially recommend the articles by Katinka from Sweden, Marian Lens from Belgium, Hilary and Ruston from Aotearoa, and Francine from Quebec. This chapter is a revised version of an article that we (Linda and Bev) had printed in that issue, called, “Lesbians Choosing Pregnancy?” We greatly appreciate the courage of the AHLA Lesbians in printing these articles. Hilary’s and Ruston’s article was first printed in Circle, a Lesbian Feminist journal for women only, in Whanganui-a-Tara, 1983. As far as we know, these were the first articles that refuted Lesbian mothers’ claim of being oppressed by non-mother Dykes.2. Lewis Genebie and Eva Margolis, The Motherhood Report: How Women Feel About Being Mothers (New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987). P. 422.

    3. San Francisco Chronicle, 16 Feb 1988.

    4. The Motherhood Report, p.102.

    5. Savvy, Feb 1988, p. 99.

    6. “Miscarriages,” Newsweek, 15 Aug, 1988, p. 49.

    7. Cheryl Jones, Motherlines,” Coming Up, Sept 1986.

    8. To a Safer Place, Frontline #609, originally broadcast on PBS television stations Sept 12, 1988. WGBH Transcripts,125 Western Ave., Boston, MA 12134.9. From an interview with Isaac Asimov on Bill Moyers’ “World of Ideas,” KTEH-TV, San Jose, California, 18 Oct. 1988.

    10. From Hag Rag, Vol. 3, #3, Nov-Dec 9988, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. “In a survey of 388 doctors who do four or more artificial inseminations per year, The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment found that only 44 percent of the doctors checked semen specimens for HIV, 28% checked for syphilis, 27% for gonorrhea, 26% for hepatitis, and 6% for herpes.”

    11. Jacqueline Steincamp, Overload: Beating M.E. (Whatamongo Bay, Queen Charlotte Sound, New Zealand, Cape Catley Ltd, 1988, 154. “Semen itself is an immune suppressant and every new…encounter leads to an exchange of foreign antigens and possibly damaged immune complexes.

    12. Julia Penelope, “The Mystery of Lesbians II,” Gossip #2, p. 35.

    13. As Susan Cavin said in Lesbian Origins, Ism Press Inc. 54: “I suggest that the first enduring heterosexual relation is the mother-son relation.”

    14. As Cheryl Jones said about being pregnant, “I felt the same as other women in a way I hadn’t since coming out at 17. I knew more about what the majority of women in the world were doing.” Motherlines, “Coming Up,” Sept. 1986.

    15. The Motherhood Report, 288.

    16. Sue Silvermarie, “Seven Years Satisfied,” We Are Everywhere, Writings By and About Lesbian Parents, edited by Harriet Alpert, (Freedom, California: The Crossing Press, 1988), p.103.

    17. Lee Swislow, “J.J.”, Ibid, 198.

    18. NBC-TV new, 9 March 1987.

    19.  San Francisco Chronicle, 30 Jan.1989, A9.

    20. V. Beral, “Longterm Effects of Childbearing on Health,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Vol.39, 1985, 343.

    21. The Motherhood Report, 300.



Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments


                                               Chapter Seven


                                                       Bev Jo

                                                 Linda Strega


(I have updated this chapter, first published in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, in 1990. The statistics are from before that time, but the content is as relevant as ever. Because our book was originally for Lesbians only, the focus is on Lesbians, but family is destructive to all females).

Love and loyalty given to family is misplaced, and it weakens our bonds with each other. If our family has been abusive to us and we are still accepting that abuse as the price for contact, inevitably that hurt will be transferred to those we love. Some Lesbians will take out their pain on those Lesbians who are committed to loving them, while others end up damaged and with less love to share.

Family is the basis of patriarchy, where we are taught our first lessons in male domination over females.

Many Radical Lesbian Feminists who otherwise have very clear boundaries around people who hate and oppress us, seem to lose their perspective and politics when it comes to their abusive families. Instead, they allow people who would never otherwise choose to have in their lives or be friends with to have intimate access to themselves and often to their lovers. Even when male family has sexually harassed and assaulted them or female family who they love, too often feminists maintain contact, and sometimes give more commitment than they have even to their most trusted friends. Why?

There are many reasons that women betray themselves by loyalty to abusive family members (besides money and status for the most privileged.) There is the myth of family being more important than anyone else, in spite of the many and perhaps majority of males in families sexually assaulting female family (and all females who have families have been sexually harassed by male family.) There is the intensely propagandized idea of blood being thicker than water, and that only family really loves and cares for you, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Females are taught to betray themselves and all others on behalf of family, no matter how much they have been abused by them.  Even when immediate family is not as abusive, the structure itself is, and is the basis of patriarchy. Many Lesbians who have never felt truly loved by their families, are longing and hoping for their families to finally love and accept them.

This is a damaging trap. The myth of family is harmful and even lethal for females. Even loving female family can mean being locked into relationships with abusive male family. Yet so few women knowing this will say no to family.

Even Dyke Separatists can share one link with male cultures all over the world by being friendly with male and het relatives, and many Separatists do so. Every nation, culture, political ideology, and people we know of in the world reveres the Family. It’s the tie that binds all mankind together. Those who reject Family are outcasts everywhere. The fact that it’s considered sacrilegious in patriarchal cultures to even consider criticizing Family tells us that it’s revolutionary to do so. Only institutions that are vital to patriarchy are protected by such strong sanctions.

Families Are the Cornerstone of Patriarchy

How can we trust, be close with, or even want to be around someone who wishes the death of who we are and would make us het if they had that power? If their acceptance of us consists of saying, “We love you no matter who you are or what you do, whether you’re a Lesbian or a murderer,” then that’s not acceptance. Do they still question “what caused you to be ‘that way'”? Do they still wonder if it was their “fault” — asking were they “too close” with us or too distant,” “too lenient” or too strict” with our not wanting to be feminine, did they “push us towards boys too much” or “not enough”? These Lesbian-hating attitudes aren’t good for us. And what do they feel about males they love who are attackers and rapists — did they care for and protect them? Do they still, as families most often do?

In most cultures, the father and mother legally own their children. The father and other male relatives often terrorize, beat, and rape the little girls in the family. Those who don’t physically assault “their” girls still abuse them emotionally and psychically, and profit from those males who do rape. Mothers and other female relatives too often contribute to this by choosing to not notice if their daughters and other little girls are assaulted and raped by male relatives. Many refuse to believe their daughters when they tell them. Many don’t want to know, even when the girl suddenly shows clear signs of being extremely upset, terrified, and injured. And many still don’t want to know after their daughters are grown. In every case we know of where an adult Lesbian has told her mother what her father and/or brother did to her, the mother defended her husband and/or son and was verbally abusive to her daughter.

There are mothers who do care and try to protect their daughters, but they are exceptionally rare. In the U.S., women who send daughters who’ve been raped underground to the safe shelter movement are treated as criminals and often imprisoned by the male court system. A woman who spent seven months in prison for hiding her daughter from her ex-husband said that women who do this spend more time in prison than men who have raped children.1 There’s a growing network of females who support these women and their daughters. But the vast majority of women who courageously protect their daughters were already divorced when they discovered that their daughters were being attacked by their fathers. We’ve never heard of a single case where a mother acted to protect her daughter when the attacker was her own son. Women divorce husbands, but rarely choose to separate from sons.

We Are Told the Lie of Family Love, But Most of Us Have Lived the                                          Reality of Family Rape

We’re constantly bombarded with images of happy families in magazines, books, films, plays, etc. We’re told our lives are pathetically meaningless if we’re not part of a family. But families exist in order for males to be served domestically, emotionally, and sexually, and to enforce heterosexuality. Many of the Lesbians who return to men seem to be hoping that finally their hateful families will love and accept them.

Family is a small replica of patriarchy. It’s the basic unit — the single brick that makes up the patriarchal building. Family is based on hierarchy and inequality. The word itself comes from the Latin “famulus,” meaning “servant.”2  Family demands obedience and loyalty to those at the top of the hierarchy first.  A typical nuclear family consists of the Patriarch, second-in­-command Mother, and the sub-hierarchy of the children, with sons given more power than daughters. The oldest children are delegated power to boss and bully the younger ones. There is often an extended family with extended hierarchies. Every family has the “good” person and “bad” person, the in-group and out-group, the favorite and the scapegoat. Those accepted as “good” family members feel superior to the family outcasts and rejects. We get much of our sense of regard or disregard for ourselves and others through our family positions.

Those who don’t grow up in families are made to feel that they don’t really belong in the world. The lie of the “happy family” is particularly cruel to Dykes who grew up in foster homes or institutions. They’re told they’re less “normal” because they’ll “never know what wonderful experiences they’ve missed.” Sometimes even Lesbians spread these lies because they themselves believe them. Not growing up in a nuclear family doesn’t mean escaping the horror that’s common in families, either. It usually means getting all the abuse with none of the social privilege. It also means being abused by a greater number of adults because you aren’t the legal possession of one or two. Those who were adopted, or are from “non-traditional” families having only one parent, unmarried parents, or an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent, are also made to feel inferior.

If we’re “maladjusted” by the standards of the dominant society we live in (all Lesbians and Gay men are considered maladjusted, for instance), then that’s blamed on our family. The big lie is that everyone comes from a happy, wholesome family -­- except for us. The truth is that there are no happy families. Emotional and physical abuse and rape are a normal, commonplace part of family life. Who could expect anything different from living with males? And how can being forced to live intimately with het couples –our parents — for years, make us happy or teach us who we are as females and as Dykes?  Even having only female family, if they’re het, means growing up with emotional and sometimes physical abuse.

Individuals and groups who don’t live as part of families are treated by most patriarchal societies as having far less value than family members. Very often, people who speak out against the increase of poverty in the U.S. say how especially terrible it is that families don’t have homes or enough food, implying that single people or groups of friends aren’t worth caring about. Meanwhile, for those who actively reject their family, abject poverty is portrayed in books and films as a rightful punishment.

From “Family-Size,” “Family Rate,” and “Family-Style,” to insurance benefits, legal rights and neighborhood socializing, family members are told all the time, everywhere, that they belong, while we’re told we don’t. Try counting all the times family is mentioned as propaganda in the media. Even a television show about a disaster has the authorities telling people, “Go home to your families!” Of course that is geared to make those without families feel inadequate and worthless. Lesbians are treated as outsiders when we have jobs with hets, because we don’t talk about husbands or boyfriends — but if we talk about our relatives, we’re suddenly treated with more warmth and acceptance. It makes us seem less alien and more “human.” (This has changed since some Lesbian couples have gotten married and so can refer to their “wives,” which is part of the attraction of marriage, besides the many civil rights not otherwise possible to obtain, such as for immigration.)

Famous Lesbians who come out are bombarded with questions about whether they will reproduce, ignoring that over-population is destroying the earth. (“Zero Population Growth” as an idea and politics has been censored from the US media.)  Having children makes otherwise despised Lesbians appear more “normal,” which is why so many who were closeted have reproduced. Meanwhile, the Lesbians who are choosing to reproduce with “artificial insemination” are making 85% males, a patriarchal dream come true and a nightmare for the 15% girls forced to be around them in shared daycare, etc.

Both the right wing and left wing revere family as the center of their political ideologies. Right wing fascists, euphemistically called “conservatives,” preach for a return to “family values,” while leftists demand that women make babies for the revolution and be part of the larger family of their society. Both oppress Dykes. (Socialism is more economically fair than capitalism, but it’s still patriarchal politics. Radical Feminism encompasses the best parts of socialism.) Family is essential for patriarchal cultures to exist. Dykes are a threat to family because we’re a threat to male rule.

                                          Family Is Dangerous

Family is deadly. Over half the females killed in California in 1987 were killed by a male in their family, and the typical U.S. mass murderer is a man killing his entire family.3 As we’ve said before, the vast majority of physical and sexual attacks in families are by males, particularly adults, against females of all ages. However, physical abuse of children, especially of girls, by their mothers and other older females, is common, and most mothers tolerate and even encourage physical abuse (“punishment”) of their children by their husbands. (We define physical punishment of girls as abuse, from slapping and spanking to the most severe neglect, beatings, and murder.)  A very small number of heterosexual mothers sexually assault their daughters. Of course, this rare situation is unfairly focused on by the male media, obscuring fathers’ massive sexual crime rate. Now, adding to the abusive mix, are an increasing number of fathers who are later in life insisting they are women and even Lesbians. This female-hating mind-fuck increases the suffering of girls and women in families.

Teenage runaways are less likely to be abused by strangers on the streets than by their families at home.Five children are killed in the U.S. each day by their parents.5  These are just the known, proven cases. Many more children go missing and are never found — occasionally it’s discovered that their parents beat them to death and then reported them missing. “Over 80% of the violence in our society [Aotearoa] is committed within the family.”6 “The family is the most dangerous place in the U.S. The most likely place to be murdered is in the family home.”7  Victims are usually the most vulnerable — babies and little girls who can’t escape, and old, ill women. It’s very probable that many old women who die while living with their families have been quietly killed to get rid of them, with the death attributed to natural causes. Even when there aren’t murders, torture, rape, and other abuse are commonplace in families. It’s chilling to think about what goes on day and night right next door in our own neighborhoods.

We’re not just talking about “exceptionally cruel and violent” families. We’re talking about all families as an institution. Family structure and function are intrinsically rotten. Sometimes privileged Lesbians use racism and classism against less privileged Dykes who talk about being raped and/or beaten by their families — implying that more oppressed families are “especially terrible,” in order to protect their own illusions. But violence and rape occur in families of all backgrounds.

                                    God Is the Biggest Daddy of All

Many Lesbians who usually feel quite sane suddenly feel crazy around their families. That’s because families are enough to drive you insane. Brainwashing and cult mind control techniques sound familially familiar:

1) Those in authority control your environment;
2) they manipulate your environment;
3) you’re pressured to feel guilty if you don’t adhere to the values of those in power;
4) your reality is denied if it’s in conflict with the dominant ideology;
5) what you observe greatly contradicts the “truths” you’re told;
6) the explainers of reality constantly contradict themselves;
7) that contradiction is declared to never happen;
8) questioning is silenced by meaningless contradictory platitudes and clichés;
9) obedience is required of all members or else emotional and physical punishment is given.

If these techniques sound similar to male religion, it’s no coincidence. Family is treated as a religion, and belonging to a religion means belonging to a very large family. Family and religion are intertwined as a cornerstone of patriarchy. When someone claims “God made families,” families become even more inevitable and beyond question.

Families are intensive training grounds in accepting injustice and abusive relationships as the norm. Schools do this too, but for less time and in less personal and intense ways. Family life is usually our first experience in humiliation, oppression, rape, pain, and violence. That intimate betrayal from our “loved ones” teaches us self-hatred. “If the very ones who say they love me treat me in these cruel ways, then I must deserve it.” A little girl usually has no one to explain the truth and help her protect herself.

Our ability to know what’s good for us is diminished by these girlhood experiences. Family accustoms us to a sado-masochistic type of inequality in intimate relationships because our first experiences of physical closeness and affection are bonded with humiliation and pain. We often share connections and nostalgia with family members based on shared pain, witnessed pain, and inflicted and received pain mixed with pleasure and “love.” It would be easier in some ways if the people who brutalize you would be consistent. It’s heart-wrenching and confusing when the hands that feed and wash you and sometimes caress you lovingly are the same hands that hit and sexually assault you. There’s comfort with familiarity and then there’s the horror of the familiarity that’s forced on you against your will.

As a girl, you learn to expect inconsistency — kindness/cruelty, love/hate, pleasure/pain, and become addicted to the cycle. You end up believing that you can have love and warmth only if you pay with pain and humiliation. You’re trained to confuse your family with your very self. “We’re in this together.” “I am them, they are me.” How do you escape them when you can’t escape from yourself? How dare you think otherwise? Your survival depends on them. And if you share particular experiences and oppressions with your family that others don’t share with you, then it’s even more difficult and painful to separate and protect yourself. You feel guilt about your parents’ hard lives, but they usually do not want to know how they make your Iife hard.

                                       Ownership Is Not Love      

Children are parents’ proof of normality. Parents are often smug about their reproductive ability and bask in the inflated importance of carrying on the human race and the family name, as if reproduction were some rare talent rather than a physiological function. Inevitably, if you write that patriarchy could end soon, and the earth and countless species would be saved if women just stopped reproducing, the response is usually a horrified “But the human race will die out!” – which is not likely at 8 billion and growing. Humans will die out if they don’t stop reproducing. The illogical terror that some women might actually say no is revealing.

Family is each man’s extension of himself and his marking of territory. Ever notice how much space (and noise is part of space) families take up in neighborhoods compared to households without children? Parents love to advertise that they’re parents.

Parents try to use their children to do what they themselves couldn’t or wouldn’t do. Then parents make their children feel guilty for “having done so much for them.” It’s not the child as an individual person who matters, because the child is treated as a thing, a possession. If you get out of line by trying to be your own person, parents remind you that they created you from their bodies. “You’d better be good and obey your parents.” they tell you, just as many say, “You should obey god because he made you.” Parents saying they “sacrificed themselves” and “worked their fingers to the bone” for their children is outrageous. It’s a major source of Lesbian guilt towards parents, particularly our mothers. People know that if they choose to fuck, they might reproduce and if they do, then the children need to be looked after and provided for. Parents have children for their own benefit, not for the children’s. A little girl shouldn’t be blamed for needing food, clothes, shelter, and schooling. Parents too often emotionally leech off their daughters, using girls’ energy and vitality at the same time as they’re crushing it.

Belonging to family gives the illusion of belonging with them, a very hard feeling for Dykes to let go of, because we don’t belong anywhere in patriarchy. Many Lesbians believe that belonging to family is actually a “real, deep connection” with their family instead of just being a possession. But all feelings that come out of such a forced relationship are unavoidably distorted and deceptive.

Many Lesbians who don’t usually voluntarily relate to men make exceptions for male family members. Dykes who would otherwise never dream of welcoming men or boys into their homes to visit or stay overnight will welcome men from their families or their lovers’ families. Separatists who refuse to relate personally to males or even to het women often make exceptions for their female family members. A courageous few choose to not relate to any males or het women.

Some Dykes keep limited contact with male relatives in order to have access to money and other privileges to share with our communities. As long as these Dykes are able to limit and control the contact, the relationships are more like those they have with male bosses and co-workers. They’re from necessity, and carry no illusions of love or friendship. We support Dykes to not relate to any males when they have the choice, except for those kinds of situations. We also support Dykes who’ve broken off contact with abusive het female family as well, and we encourage all Dykes to limit their contact with het female family and to keep asking themselves if they truly are happy with the amount and kind of contact they do have, and how much is based on guilt or fear. If that sounds extreme, it’s because we’re upset at the damage that family, including female family, has done and is still doing to Dykes we love.

When Lesbians try to reclaim any of the terms relating to family, we’re accepting connections that are based on dominance and submission, where we have power only at another’s expense. Family is always destructive to us because it’s based on objectification, hierarchy, and violence. Apart from anything else, any heterosexual environment is a bad place for Lesbians to be. We’re expected to love our families, not because of who they are, but what they are. It’s not supposed to matter when family members hate us, have been abusive to us, and, in the case of the males, raped us — we must love them because they’re family. Family is the first lesson we learn in how to treat each other as things rather than as individuals we personally care about. Family dynamics train us to want to possess each other as objects because family is based on ownership.

How many Lesbians are still being emotionally or even sexually harassed by the same men who physically and emotionally abused them when they were little girls? (Sexual “jokes” and comments that many fathers and other male relatives make to us as adults is sexual harassment.) How many Lesbians are being emotionally abused by their mothers and sisters because they refuse to relate to rapist male relatives their female relatives still love and protect?  If anyone else urged you to visit and talk or write to someone who had raped and/or beaten you, would you even consider it? You certainly wouldn’t call that kind of pressure “love.” Yet your mother or sisters may insist they “love” you even while they are disregarding your feelings and the harm that’s been done to you. It’s extremely damaging for a victim of rape or any assault to be pressured to be around her attackers, to be told by female family, “He’s your father!” (or brother, uncle, grandfather, cousin, etc.) –“he loves you,” ”why won’t you kiss him?” “why aren’t you being friendlier to him?” For a little girl, her family is often her entire world, the only people she knows, who she should be able to trust and who should love and protect her. It’s an extension of the rape when they betray her. If the courts insisted that rape victims be forced to relate to their non-relative convicted rapists, that would be a recognizable outrage, yet this insidious family pressure is too often accepted. Having different expectations of victims of rape by male family compared to other rape victims implies family rape is less important, less criminal — when in fact it’s a far worse crime because of the vulnerability of the victim and level of betrayal.

The last thing a victim of sexual assault needs when she’s trying to recover is to be told “he didn’t really mean to hurt her/didn’t know what he was doing/did it only because he had a hard life or was very upset at the time or was only a boy/is a sick old man now,” or that she’s being “hurtful” and “selfish” when she refuses to ever see the rapist again. Even when you’re clear about saying no to forced intimacy with these men, it’s much harder to say no to the women in your family who you still love and who you desperately want to believe love you too. They may even love you in the shallow way that many het women allow themselves to love other women, but it is cruel and selfish to pressure you to relate to anyone you don’t want to relate to. We need to be allowed to say no at last. (Many women have not told family members that they were assaulted by a male relative because they know they will be disbelieved and reviled.)

                                         Families Hate Lesbians    

These are just a few experiences of Dykes we’ve personally known in Aotearoa, the U.S., and other countries: After decades of being a Lesbian, a Dyke says her mother is “very supportive,” yet she’s afraid to come out to her. Another Lesbian’s mother ridiculed her because she’s never been heterosexual, and asked, “Don’t people laugh at you?” Another Lesbian’s family had her incarcerated in a mental hospital at age 19, where she was subjected to electroshock “therapy” and has lost part of her memory — yet she still takes care of the mother who did this to her. Another Dyke was disowned by her family at fifteen when they found out she was a Lesbian, yet she is now expected to take care of her aging parents. Another Lesbian’s father slammed her head into a wall when she got a lover, almost killing her. Another Dyke came out when she was seventeen and her parents called the police, forcing her to leave town with no money and nowhere to live. We know many Lesbians who came out in high school who were sent to psychiatrists and forbidden by their parents from ever seeing their lovers again.

We know of a Dyke who was killed in a car accident, whose body was taken far away by her family, and her lover was prevented from ever seeing her again. No respect was shown for their relationship and the family buried her in a christian ceremony against her known wishes. “Loving Daughter” and her name are the only words on the tombstone, even though she had believed her family truly supported their relationship.

A friend of a Dyke we know was murdered by being shot. The official verdict was suicide, although there’s reason to suspect a male acquaintance murdered her. When her lover removed her own possessions from their home, the dead Lesbian’s het sister called the police to charge her with theft and denied her further access to their home.

Typical comments from Lesbian-hating family are: “I accept you, but please don’t tell your mother/father/grandparents/aunt/uncle, etc. because it would kill her/him.”….”What did we do wrong?” ….”You didn’t try hard enough with men.”…. “You’ll die alone and unhappy.”…. “You’re cutting off half the world.”…. “This is against nature and god’s law.” One of the most selfish was “Can’t you at least go and have a one night stand to give me a grandchild?” (meaning, “Can’t you find a strange man and get raped and perhaps STDs, including AIDS, because I’m so selfish?”) Too often, Lesbians are just grateful that the response isn’t worse, no matter how bad it is.

Making excuses like, “How could they know better?” or “They’re just scared,” hurts Lesbians. That’s the kind of excuse that used to be made for European-descent families’ racism. There is even less excuse now, decades after we wrote our book, when beloved Lesbians are daily seen in the media. Some Lesbians say family members are “too old to change,” which is ageist and ridiculous when the Lesbians saying this have mothers way younger than we are. Nor is their health “too fragile to take it” since the truth doesn’t kill, lies do. (It’s interesting that for Meg Christian’s first album — one of the first out Lesbian Feminist singers — she wrote “Song to My Mama,” where she sings how her mother must know that she’s a Lesbian, but “it would kill her if I told her so.” No woman sings that her mother would drop dead if she finds out her daughter is getting fucked by a man, but somehow love between two Lesbians is horrifyingly lethal.)

In our experience, exceptionally “liberal” parents remain obsessed with people’s reactions to their daughters’ Lesbianism. A group in the U.S. called “Parents of Gays” complained on television about the stigma of having a Lesbian or Gay child. Their support was for each other, not their children.

Families’ social function as a patriarchal institution is to enforce heterosexuality and maintain heterosexual supremacy. They’re better suited to do this than other institutions because they raise us. They teach us heterosexuality just as they teach us to talk, walk, and dress. Later, when we come out, families are societies’ first line of defense against Lesbians and Gay men and they’re in a unique position to punish us. It’s been estimated that a third of teenage suicides in the U.S. are because of being oppressed as Lesbian or Gay. In a study of 6,500 teenage suicides in the U.S. approximately 30% were found to possibly be Lesbian or Gay. About 2,000 Lesbian/Gay teenagers kill themselves each year in the U.S.8  

Misplaced Loyalties

Het women’s alliance and loyalty is usually to males first. The Family and patriarchy itself couldn’t exist if women didn’t act as paid agents in policing other females and spreading males’ lies and misogyny.

Our female relatives can choose to change, but there’s no way we can make them choose females over males. What IS in our power though, is to protect ourselves and each other. It’s especially hard to defy our mothers because it’s not just patriarchy that teaches us to revere and obey them – liberal/right wing feminist politics tell us how hard our mothers’ lives are, saying that we as Lesbians are in a privileged position in relation to them. In spite of the truth being the opposite, most Lesbians respect and value mothers far more than they do non-mothers. This is destructive family roles and makes it very hard to deal with betrayal by our mothers. It helps to remember that when we relate to our families in ways that hurt us, the harm will travel through us to our friends and lovers.

Love and loyalty given to family is misplaced, and it weakens our bonds with each other. Most families can never truly accept a Lesbian daughter, because that would challenge all the lies and illusions their lives are based on. It hurts us to love someone who doesn’t even respect us enough to listen to us and who undermines the positive choices we’ve made in our lives. If they say they love us but hate who we are as Lesbians, then they don’t really love us. Most het women don’t really know what love is. They have that mind/body/spirit disconnect that they learned from men. Usually, they explain that they were “born het” or choose to be because they are just not “sexually attracted” to women. Considering how grotesque and pornified “sexual attraction” is throughout patriarchy and especially in the modern media, who but males would feel it?  Being a Lesbian is a decision to be open to loving other women, which naturally leads to passion. But for het women so disconnected even from themselves, too often “love” ends up being a word to use, to justify demands, to manipulate and to explain commitments which don’t make sense.

The myth of “unconditional love” is very seductive, considering how lonely most females are in patriarchy. It’s hard not to lie to ourselves if we desperately want to believe that our families do love us. They insist they understand us better than anyone else, even though they obviously don’t know us at all. It can be easy to build up their few kindnesses in our minds while overlooking the many times they make it clear they hate Lesbians and wish we were someone else. Most assume we still belong to them because we don’t “belong” to anyone else. Only a man in our lives would count as a real relationship — certainly not our Dyke friends and lovers.

Family often don’t take our Lesbian lives seriously. Most hets believe the stereotype of the lonely Lesbian – It helps them feel smug about their dismal, desolate, sordid lives. It’s a projection onto us of their own deep emptiness and loneliness. Dykes are potentially the least alone of people. We may be outcasts, but what we have with our lovers and friends and communities is deep and intense. The stereotype is that old women will be lonely, yet in our Lesbian community, there are hundreds of Old Lesbians who regularly go out to dance and party. Sometimes so many things are happening at the same time that it’s difficult to know which event to go to. Since we don’t have women only spaces left, we usually meet in public venues, where sometimes the older het women see us and have a mixture of horror and envy on their faces, as they cling to their zombie-like men. Yet to our families we’re “just girls” together, no matter how old we are. (Bev: “When my mother looked back on her life, she referred to herself at the age of 45 as an “old lady” to explain why it had been too late for her to make her life better, yet she referred to me at that same age as a “just a young girl.”)  In patriarchy, family is all and friends are nothing. Very good friends are honored by being called “one of the family,” but everyone knows they’re still “just friends.”

Bev: My mother had a very lonely life, with no friends. She lived alone with and looked after a man she hated, who hated her, like her previous two husbands. He called her filthy names, gave her an STD, and was with her only to use her. Her first husband was an alcoholic boxer who beat her regularly. The second was my father, who was cold and distant, and ridiculed her for being uneducated, rural poor (though he also was poverty class). I gave her constant support for years to leave her last husband and make a happier life, including helping her find a place and move. But she went back the next day, continuing saying how she hated him. She’d had a few close female friends, but lost them by putting her men first. It didn’t help that her last husband tried to fuck every woman who visited her (as she told me).

My mother complained about how lonely she was, yet told me how sorry she felt for me because I’d been “all alone” during the “holidays” and on my birthday. She knew I hate nationalistic, racist, and christian holidays and haven’t celebrated them since I lived with my parents. My and my friends’ birthdays are our biggest celebrations, and I’d had a wonderful time on mine,with my favorite Separatist friends and lover. My mother knew this, but “those girls” didn’t count. They’re not real since they’re not men. And though then ages 41 and 31, they would never be adults to her since they were not wives and mothers. And, of course, they’re not family. (Why my mother glorified family is beyond me. Hers was filled with horrific abuse, growing up partly in foster homes and being sexually assaulted and forced to work in fields as a little girl because her mother abandoned her eight kids to run off with a man.) When I confronted her about trying to make me feel like an outcast, she explained that she meant I was alone because I wasn’t with my family. Yet she knew I could see her anytime I wanted and I chose to keep as distance as my only way to stop her constantly harassing me.

Often our female family, like so many het women, spend hours complaining about their husbands, even saying they’re about to leave them. But this is a trap, because they use our support and caring only as a way to release their anger so they can stay with their men. So our energy ultimately benefits those men. Some Lesbians are so intertwined with their families that they say they’re going “home” when they visit their parents. They make endless excuses for the cruel treatment they get from their “beloved family” and then take out their suppressed rage on the Lesbians closest to them.

In order to protect ourselves and Dykes we love, we should be aware of how our “loving” family treats our friends and Dykes in general. We shouldn’t expect less of relatives than we do of other het women, nor should we expect our friends and lovers to relate to or accept our family’s abuse. Dykes need our love and energy more than abusive family, because we have so much less support. When we’re injured from choosing to relate to abusive families, our Lesbian friends are drained by helping us recover.

Lesbians who’ve never felt accepted by their mothers are especially vulnerable to their mothers needing them now, hoping to finally be loved by them. For those who never had a more traditional type of family, this can be very attractive, but it’s like stepping into what seems to be a beautiful pool, only to find quicksand.

Bonding with family often means bonding with privilege. One of the main ways that race and class privileged people keep their power within their own groups is through nepotism. Bosses don’t usually place a “help wanted” ad when a prestigious, high-paying position is available. They use contacts from privileged family or friends, or from that other old-school familial network — the brotherhood and sisterhood of fraternities and sororities) in order to keep power among the select few. Most wealth and positions of power are inherited.

Lesbians who grew up in families where racial, ethnic, and/or class oppression made family solidarity necessary for survival are even more painfully oppressed by the institution of Family than more privileged Lesbians. As is often said, more oppressed Lesbians need the protective, strengthening alliances that family is supposed to provide in the face of a hostile dominant culture, but we do not get it. Rape, cruelty, hierarchies, and the devaluing of Lesbians in families cuts across all races, classes, ethnic groups, and nations.  As class-oppressed Dykes, we (Bev and Linda) know the pain of not “belonging” with family members who were once, by default, our most intimate partners in oppression and sometimes major allies in resisting classism. For Linda, as part of an immigrant Italian­-American family, this is even more true.

Dykes with chronic illness or disabilities also may find it especially hard to distance themselves from families who’ve provided vital assistance. However, it will be easier for them to be independent of family if able-bodied and/or moneyed Dykes provide ongoing, reliable assistance, which is the responsibility of our communities. Instead, many Lesbians who give physical care do so only for Gay men with AIDS, even though that is an STD some men actively seek out. (A Gay man I [Bev] know who has AIDS says he is constantly approached by Gay men who want to get it from him.)  We need to focus our caring ability on our own kind who are disabled and ill, and needing help. (In 2013, the “AIDS Lifecycle Ride” organization got $14.5 million dollars, much of it from Lesbians. Some of the male directors of such “LGTBQWTF” groups make $300,000 a year. This is outrageous. Lesbian energy and money otherwise is devoted to helping het women, as if het women’s issues are our own. Lesbian have the least and get the least.)

The more we try to get support from our families, the more power they have to further injure us. Privileged Lesbians who keep bonds with family may justify themselves by claiming that more oppressed Dykes have no choice but to maintain family bonds, yet the truth is that many racially, ethnically, and class-oppressed Dykes have had the guts to cut off those harmful relationships. For those of us who do keep some contact with het female relatives, we need to maintain control over how we relate to them. The best way we can get true solidarity and support, as many of us have already found, is with Dyke-identified-Dykes who share our oppressions.

Relating to Lesbian family members is more complex. Ideally, it’s wonderful to have someone in your life who knows your family as well as you do, who’s also a Lesbian with the potential for shared support in understanding your family’s dynamics. If your relative is strongly Dyke-identified, then it’s possible to have a true friend who’s also your family. But for some, it’s a constant struggle to not fall into old destructive familial patterns and rivalries, or to avoid pulling lovers and friends into them. It’s also important to resist the pull to automatically put Lesbian relatives before friends and lovers. Some Lesbians still feel trapped in an intolerable hierarchy with Lesbian relatives, including their Lesbian mothers, and decide to break off contact. Just because someone is a Lesbian doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily like her and want to be close. Still, there’s at least the possibility to have a close and trusted friendship with a Lesbian family member that you won’t have with het family.

One of the most forbidden things we can do is to decide to free ourselves from our family. It’s so unthinkable that the possibility never occurs to many Lesbians, including those whose families previously cut them off for years. Many of us have been so grateful our family “accepts” us that we don’t even consider we may not want to accept them.  After all, we had no choice in being owned by them in the first place. Saying “no” to family in any way is considered cruel, even though you’re saying “no” to cruelty. Making the decision to free ourselves from male relatives and abusive female relatives, or even just limiting our contact with the more decent female relatives, takes great courage and determination. It’s especially difficult for those who’ve been caring for a dependent relative, which often seems to be expected of Lesbian family rather than siblings. But that decision enables us to begin healing from the abuse we’ve suffered, including from rape by male family.

Those of us who had regular recent contact with our female relatives found there wasn’t one time when we visited them that they didn’t make critical comments about our Lesbianism or how our bodies and clothes look, and how we live. Freeing ourselves gives us a chance to break old destructive patterns, which also makes it less likely we’ll respond to old or very young Lesbians in ageist ways in the future, and can help Dykes who grew up in families to be less likely to be oppressive to Dykes who’ve never had a family. For many Lesbians, it’s also meant being freed from cycles of depression, suicidal feelings, and self-hatred as well. Freedom from family gives us more physical, psychic, and emotional energy to care for ourselves and other Dykes. Sadly, Lesbians are more likely to provide support and care for ill, abusive parents than they are for ill Dykes. Yet there are often other family members who are willing to help sick relatives, while sick Lesbians are more likely to have no one.

There are some wonderful exceptions, though. In 1987, there was a story in a Berkeley, U.S., newspaper about Ollie’s, a Lesbian bar community that supported a Lesbian named Jean, whose lover had recently died of cancer. “It’s a place where people will back you in any kind of crisis.” When Jean’s lover died, the bar was the second place she called. “Within fifteen minutes, the bar had emptied and several carloads of women arrived at her house. In the weeks that followed, Jean’s friends from the bar organized into shifts, taking time off from work so that someone was always with her.” Jean said, “The people at the hospice told me, ‘Whatever your connection is, I wish everybody had it.’” This kind of support has been traditional in some Lesbian communities.

For ourselves, the changes we’ve made with our families have greatly improved our lives. One of us had letter contact with only her mother and hadn’t seen or talked with her for many years. Another of us related only to her mother, talking with her occasionally on the phone and seeing her several times a year since she lived nearby. Another of us had extensive contact with family members until a few years ago when she began to remember her father had raped her when she was little, so she cut off contact with him. When she tried to talk to her mother about it, her mother was completely protective of her father, and harassed her about “maligning such a wonderful man.” She now refuses to relate to her family until they deal with her in a more fair way, and is amazed to find herself mourning the loss of them only rarely, thinking of them hardly at all. Whether or not she has very limited contact with her female relatives in the future, she’s determined to never be “part of the family” again. And she feels clearer in her friendships with Lesbians than she ever was before.

We were not casual about distancing ourselves from our families, but did not know how to stop being treated badly otherwise. It does help to share support about doing such an unpopular thing. We appreciate the Dykes who’ve written and talked about their experiences with cutting off contact from family members.

One thing we definitely recommend, from experience, is that if you do keep having contact with relatives, visit them only on your terms, deciding how, where, and when you’ll visit, and never stay overnight with them. It’s much easier to stop them from putting you back into your old family position if you don’t live together, however briefly. Never willingly relate to anyone who you don’t want to see or who’s still treating you badly in anyway. Don’t relate to a relative, even one you love, who pressures you to see, talk with, or write to anyone you don’t want contact with. A mother who will see you or be nice to you only if you relate to the father or brother who sexually assaulted you isn’t good for you. Her approval is not more important than your recovery. It’s also damaging to you to censor yourself from talking about the harm your family has done to you. Much of family power and control is based on secrets and lies. It might surprise you how much power you do have when you start to say no.

It’s important to explore the ties that bind you. What does your family want and demand from you? If they could make you become het, would they? That would mean that they want to break up you and your lover, and all your Lesbian friendships. Also, let yourself think about what would happen if you suddenly were living as a dependent (without legal rights) with your family – how much would they restrict your freedom?

What do you want and need from your family? Do you ever get it? What do you get? How much is hurtful to you and how much is good for you? What do you have to pay for the good parts? Can you get those things from the Dykes you love? How do you feel about your friends’ families and how they’re treated by them? Do you think your friends should be treated better?  Are you more willing to accept hurtful treatment from your family than you think your friends should from theirs? Would you protect your friends if you could? Are you more prepared to break off with Lesbians who upset you than with relatives who abuse and oppress you? If you don’t have the sort of close Dyke connections that would sustain you if you left your family, could making family distance create a space for those connections?

Thinking of your parents as a heterosexual couple (if they are) can help you think more clearly about the bond you have with them. Do you ordinarily choose to intensely, intimately socialize with het couples? Why should you think of your parents as any different? If you were raised by a heterosexual couple, you were intimately involved in their relationship and probably still are, if you visit them. Their primary commitment is to each other, no matter how much your mother complains to you about your father or claims you’re closer to her than he is. Would you so easily be manipulated by your het neighbors and co­workers?

Lesbians who’ve been around lovers’ and friends’ families for a long time may be accepted to some extent as “part of the family.” That can feel like an honor, because it’s so easy for us to value men and het women more than we value ourselves. But being part of a family, even one that’s not our own, means being treated in the same possessive way. They speak to you in those familiar, intrusive, critical, and callous ways that they would never use with their own friends. They’re likely to act parental and condescending, putting you in a child role. And it wouldn’t be unusual for your lover’s male relatives to be sexually suggestive towards you, including telling pornographic stories.

Let yourself pay attention to the horrible things your family says, because that lets you know what they really think. Don’t keep making excuses, remembering only the good parts.

                                       Let’s Not “Be A Family”

“Family values” means hating Lesbians. Why do so many Lesbians want to use the term “family” for ourselves? The drive to belong, be “normal,” and be accepted by the male and het world plagues Lesbians, which is why many try to present Lesbian and/or Gay culture as just another kind of family. That’s also why many Lesbians want to try to be part of male religions, and why christian-raised Lesbians celebrate christmas (sometimes in the guise of “Summer Solstice” in the southern hemisphere or “Winter Solstice” in the northern hemisphere — which is still clearly a christmas celebration when they don’t celebrate the opposite Solstice and other more important witch days such as Beltane and Lammas.) This quest for approval undermines us as Lesbians. No amount of proclamations at Gay pride marches about how we’re all “family” will make Gay men become our brothers and why should we want brothers, anyway?

The including of Lesbians into “LGBTQIWTF” against our will is another attempt to include us into a pseudo-family that is using us and is incredibly destructive to us. We’re also trapped by the het mystique of Family if we consider “sisterhood” with other Lesbians a better ideal than friendship. For many Dykes, their biological sisters are het women who’ve been, and still are, cruel and oppressive. There’s a hierarchy among sisters in most families, which means that for many Lesbians, the sisterhood they grew up with was anything but the “sisterly” ideal. Too often that inequality creates patterns that stay with adult Lesbians and interfere with our ability to get along socially or work together politically. We grow up without any model of justice and equality. Our closest female relationships with our mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, and cousins, were usually anything but fair. Many Lesbians who keep close relationships with het sisters find their heterosexuality oppressive and hurtful, including the few who attempt to not be anti-Lesbian. Most heterosexual women are actively hostile to their sisters’ Lesbianism and try, like their mothers, to “turn them straight.” Even if our sisters try to be good to us, the male structure of family inequality is too powerful to not damage our interactions.

Adults often give elder sisters the power to boss, punish, and even hit their younger sisters. Older girls are expected to do some of the parents’ work of taking care of the other children, which should not be their job, but one way for them to rebel is by taking their anger out on the only people in their power — their younger siblings. Since boys are more protected, the youngest girls usually get the most of this unfair treatment. A Lesbian Feminist told one of us she felt badly for her mother when the mother beat the littlest girls, aiming for bare skin so it would hurt more, because “she must have been in such pain to do that.” As an older sister, she chose to identify with the authority figure, her mother, rather than with her younger sisters, the truly powerless ones who needed her support. She’s still doing it as an adult, using feminism to excuse her mother’s cruelty. Some older sisters do use their position to be kind and protective to younger girls, and in rare cases they will expose a male relative who’s raping the younger girls.

It can also be hard for mothers to avoid transferring to other relationships the experience they have had of being able to order and control their children, telling them when they can eat, sleep, etc. That sense of power often continues unconsciously, and mothers will treat other women as if they expect to be obeyed. The Lesbians who have not had the status of being considered “real” adults are particularly targeted and vulnerable to this. Lesbians who grew up having power over younger siblings or as teachers also sometimes continue expecting to have power in relationships, unless they are careful to be aware of that. That attitude of authority can be quite powerful, even if they don’t have that authority now. They may still unconsciously expect other Lesbians to be submissive and it can take constant vigilance to not act out that dominant role in their relationships. Many Lesbians who were older sisters do act in egalitarian ways towards others, but some are reluctant to let go of that past authority. If you were never in such a power position, being an only, youngest, or middle daughter, you may find some Lesbians acting condescending towards you simply because you refuse to use the body language and verbal games that define you as a person who’s been in physical and emotional authority over others. You may find yourself being treated as if you’re younger by someone the same age or younger than you. In many Lesbian groups, battles over dominance and submission go on not only because of differences in acknowledged areas of privilege and oppression, but also because of family positions.

Sometimes the only equal relationships we knew in our early years were with our friends who were also little girls. But too often family inequalities were carried over into our first interactions with non-relatives. Being trained in hierarchies at home encourages us to accept other hierarchies as well, including those based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, ability, size, looks, age,  heterosexism, and male-identified femininity (how “normal” and feminine one girl is as opposed to how Lesbian and Butch another is).

Schools are no places to learn kind, egalitarian, female ways of relating because its structure gives some girls power over the majority of other girls. Most of us know what it’s like to be ostracized and ridiculed by more privileged girls in cliques (often based on classism) at school. Those who are excluded are usually the majority, but as long as the favored few are admired and sought after by the outcasts who hope to join the “in crowd,” the privileged group stays in power. That cruel pattern often divides Lesbian communities even now. Whenever a Dyke is slandered, ridiculed, patronized, or excluded from Lesbian political and friendship groups, the same malicious hierarchies are being played out.

Our yearning for “sisterhood” among Lesbians is a yearning for that true love and caring we should have received from our families but never did. We can’t have it as “sisters” or “family,” but we can have it as Dykes together.

                                   Dykes Are Home

As long as our family comes first in our allegiance, we can’t be truly committed to other Dykes. When Lesbians cut off friendships with other Lesbians over minor conflicts and differences, yet keep contact with family members who are vicious to them, they betray Dykes as a people. They’re literally allied with our enemy. We have only so much room and tolerance in our lives for difficult relationships, so it’s Lesbian friends who are more likely to be abandoned. Sometimes Dykes maintain contact with their families because no one else, friends or lovers, can be relied on to stay in our lives. The family may be brutal and hateful, but at least they’re “family.” If more Dykes put Dykes first in their lives, we will be available as friends and support for each other, and dependence on families will be easier to break.

There would be far more money in our Lesbian communities if most Lesbian money didn’t go to our families when we die. The fact that your family once owned you means they can own you again. They have legal rights to you and your possessions, which you don’t have to them. (Lesbians’ children have those “rights” over their mothers too.) Any of our family members, no matter how they’ve attacked us, can assert their right of access to us if we’re in the hospital. When we die, the family automatically has access to our bodies. If we’re very sick or injured so that we have difficulty communicating, they can take custody of us and imprison us and even deny us proper medical care. Some adult Lesbians have been declared incompetent by law so their parents or other relatives could resume ownership. That’s one way to deal with a “rebellious” daughter.

There are Lesbians still being held against their will, like Sharon Kowalski was, with their families trying to keep them from ever being with their lover and friends again. (Sharon, a U.S. Lesbian, was severely injured in a car accident in 1983. She was improving under the care of her lover, Karen Thompson, until Sharon’s parents took legal possession of her. They denied Karen access to her, and Sharon’s condition deteriorated. Sharon’s mother said, “I hate Karen Thompson like I’ve never hated anyone or anything in my life.”)11  After years of legal battles, they were reunited, but Karen believes Sharon will never recover as much as she would have if her father had not stopped her physical therapy.

It’s extremely important for Lesbians to make legal documents to try to prevent family from using their legal powers to make decisions about our medical treatment when we’re hospitalized or to incarcerate us in mental institutions, and to keep them from taking our property (including journals, letters, and possessions on loan from friends and lovers). Even then, families have been successful in overturning such contracts, but at least it gives us some protection. Lesbians who’ve made legal documents and whose families don’t know where they live are in the safest position. Legal marriages are also stronger protection, as well as giving immigration rights. As much as Separatists might be against marriage, we support it for the equal rights it gives. Of course everyone’s rights’ should be protected, whether married or not, but that is not within reach at this time, while marriage equality is. (For Radical Feminists adamantly against marriage, we question why they first don’t first try to stop het marriages.)

It’s also important to work out how we continue harmful family dynamics with our friends and lovers. Our girlhood is always going to affect us in some way, but we can improve things and try not to set up hierarchical pseudo-families in our own communities and relationships. With strong Dyke politics and support, we can and do recover from girlhood abuse, without resorting to therapists who often provide a hierarchical substitute for parents, continuing our dependence. We are our own and each other’s best healers. We should resist being in or wanting to be in elite groups, with their hierarchies of stars and scapegoats. We shouldn’t think of Lesbians in couples as being superior to single Dykes, whether ourselves or others. (It’s easy to relate to couples as if they were in authority over us, because many Lesbians in couples act parental and condescending towards single Dykes.)

We, as Dykes, have got to be there for each other with that long-lasting commitment that’s usually given only to families, with real love and caring, which means working out occasional difficulties. Then we’ll be better able to survive our families and patriarchy. We will be the enduring Dyke communities we long for.


I.  KGO-TV News, San Francisco, 6 May 1988.

2.  Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. (New York: Bantam/William Morrow and Co., 1972).

3.  KGO-TV News, San Francisco, 31 March 1987.

4. San Francisco Chronicle, 31 August 1988. Mark-David James studied 195 teenagers who left their homes and went to shelters in Toronto, Canada. He found that even the horrors of runaways’ street life –prostitution, hunger, and drugs — don’t outweigh family abuse. 86% had been physically and/or sexually abused at home, while 67% got the same treatment on the street.

5.  Nina Eliasoph, “Why Kidnap Stirred the Bay Area,” San Francisco Chronicle, 2 December 1986, A26.

6.  Information leaflet by Family Violence Prevention Coordinating Committee and Accident Compensation Corporation, New Zealand Listener, 19 November 1988, 61.

7.  The Unquiet Death of Eli Creekmore, KCSM-TV, San Mateo, 3 May 1988.

8.  KRON-TV. San Francisco, 29 March 1988.

9. Angie Cannon, “Reassurance for Gay Kids,” San Francisco Chronicle, 5 March 1988, A2.

10. “Cheers: Gay Days and Nights at Ollie’s, Express, Berkeley, California. 21 August 1987.

11.  Why Can’t Sharon Kowalski Come Home? by Karen Thompson and Julie Andrzejewski (San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute Book Co.,1988).


Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Please, if You Love Lesbians and Other Females, Think About This….

This is an update to previous work at my blog. Part One should fit onto one double-sided leaflet for distributing and sharing. Part Two is an explanation of the brief questions and comments in Part One, with many links to brilliant Gallus Mag’s GenderTrender. Most of the clever comments (in italics) with her posts are hers, and she collected this amazing and horrifying articles with photos, which proves what perhaps words alone cannot.


Please, if You Love Lesbians and Other Females, Think About This….

1. Do you know about the increasing demand to accept men as Lesbians, thereby supporting men in invading our last female only space, driving away women who do not feel safe with them there — women who are perhaps alone and isolated and needing safe women’s community?

2. If you feel angry or upset at being asked this, or unable to think clearly for fear that you are being “transphobic” or “politically incorrect,” can you consider that you are being subjected to cult rules which forbid independent thinking and feeling?

3. Did you know that 80% of the men who claim to be women have had no surgery and are quite capable of raping women, and that the numbers of women raped by these men are increasing?

4. Are you aware that many of these men refer to their “lady penises” or “six inch clitorises?”

5. Did you know that most of these men are obsessed with “Lesbian” porn, made by men, for men?

6. Did you know that 90% of men claiming to be women are “autogynephilic”– meaning they are “aroused” by wearing the exposing clothes, makeup, high heels, etc. that men demand women wear, and many of them masturbate while wearing “women’s” clothing? (Real women do not do this.)

7. Do you know that many of these men demand Lesbians have sex with them and call those of us who refuse “transphobic”?  Do you agree with this?  If not, and if you are outraged and concerned, do you feel pressured to ignore your reasonable feelings?

8. Since when have Lesbians accused other Lesbians of being “bigots” or “phobic” for daring to say no to men?” Have you considered for a moment — beyond the name-calling and guilt-tripping — that these ARE men who have found a clever way to get access to Lesbians?

9. Do you know that most women who have publicly tried to defend women only space get rape, mutilation, and death threats from these men?  Yet we who have tried to protect our Lesbian communities (some of us for more than 40 years) are being asked to pay reparations on behalf of these men, in spite of the fact that they have threatened us and that men make far more money than most Lesbians could ever hope to have.

10. Did you know that many of these men have previously stalked and assaulted women?

11. Do you know that men appropriating female identity are more violent than other men and are changing the statistics on violence by “women?”  Why are Lesbians being asked to be outraged on behalf of the violence that men aim at men claiming to be women, ignoring that those same men are threatening and attacking women? Asking women to be especially concerned about male-on-male violence ignores that women are the primary victims of male violence.

12. Have you witnessed any of these men touching, grabbing, making obscene comments or otherwise doing things to Lesbians against our will, yet felt pressured to ignore those assaults?

13. Do you realize that the “transgender” phenomenon has become big business for psychologists, surgeons, drug companies, etc., and that an increasing number of young children who are not happy with being forced into roles that patriarchy demands children obey (whether it’s little girls being forced into dresses and painful shoes, or little boys forced to fit male roles) are being considered “transgender” and started on irrevocable and dangerous hormones and even surgery before puberty?

14. Do you know that “sex change” surgery and hormones do not begin to approximate a female body or mind or spirit?  Aren’t women far more than castrated men?
15. Do you know that many of the men claiming to be women also claim to be better women than us, and that they refer to us, and demand we identify ourselves with, yet one more “c” word: “cis?”

16. Do you know that adult men claiming to be women have won the right to expose themselves in school girls’ locker rooms and to play on girls’ sports teams?

17. Do you know that some men who have killed women are demanding that the government pay for their “sex change” and transfer them to women’s prisons?

18. We are told that “transgender” politics are progressive, yet they are in actuality right wing, enforcing gender roles that harm girls and women. In fundamentalist Iran, Lesbians and Gay men are executed, but the government pays for “sex changes.”

19. If you feel that no one has the right to tell someone they cannot be who they feel they are, do you agree with the able-bodied man who claims to be a “trans-paraplegic Lesbian?” (This man’s story is classic “trans” cult, including fondling his disabled aunt’s leg braces as a boy.) He goes to his local Dyke March in a wheelchair with a sign saying “Differently-Abled Dyke,” and makes his wheelchair fall over to get attention. He has no intention of truly becoming paraplegic, just as most “transwomen” have no intention of getting surgery.

20. Does believing that people have the right to identify however they want include white men appropriating the identity of people oppressed by racism? (Some of the completely European-descent men identifying as “transwomen” also say they are “trans-racial,” and have tried to get into positions of power in those communities they oppress, just as they have taken over many Lesbian/women’s organizations, including women’s studies classes.)

21. If you are outraged at the idea of “trans-racial” and “trans-disabled” identity appropriation, why would you accept that this should be done to Lesbians and other women?

22. Would you agree that people who have surgery to resemble cats or reptiles should be accepted as those animals? Trans politics and ideology say that you should.

23. Some women claim that these extremes are rare, mentally ill men who are not at all representative of real “transwomen.” Yet if you read any men posing as women online, you will see how they obviously have no idea what a real Lesbian or woman is. If you ever say no to these men, you will quickly find out how very male they are.

24. Why do the lives of Lesbians count for so little that men can claim to be us and then proceed to re-write our Lesbian history, get into power positions in our beleaguered Lesbian communities, and destroy what little we have left?  Why do women feel flattered by or protective of these men instead of being protective of the Lesbians and women they are harming?

25. Do you realize that if you support these men to destroy our last female only spaces, you are simply supporting men against women?

See my blog for links that explain more:

My previous posts about the trans cult: DEFINING LESBIANS OUT OF EXISTENCE — “TRANSWOMEN” ARE STILL MERELY MEN (And over 80% don’t even have surgery)

Bev Jo

Part 2

Please, if You Love Lesbians and Other Females, Think About This….

Bev Jo

Do you agree with small children being diagnosed as “transgender” and started on irreversible “corrective” surgery and hormones, based on the sexist opinions of their parents, doctors, or psychologists? Is the belief of some people that little girls who don’t want to wear dresses and sit primly with their legs together, but would rather play in nature, must be “boys,”’ and that little boys who want to wear dresses and not torture animals must be “girls,” adequate reason to diagnose little children as “transgender,” while making a fortune for the pharmaceutical industry, surgeons, and hospitals, etc.?  Meanwhile, the trans cult, which is pushing for the tiniest children to be called “transgender,” are ignoring the struggle of Intersex people to not have Intersex babies and children given surgery, which is what has been going on for decades, sometimes even without their parents’ consent.

I keep being told that the issue of “transgender” or “transsexuality” is “complicated,” but why?  How is it?  What could be more simple than following your own instinct in knowing that men can’t be women and women can’t be men?

But we are not allowed to say that.  Many Lesbians’ thinking has shut down (including “feminists”) — except for wanting to censor me by yelling “transphobic!”  They are terrified to think more about this issue and so are self-censoring for fear of being labeled “transphobic” themselves.

How can it be that women daring to think against male rules are therefore being “phobic?”

Why are women being told that men can not only be women, but be Lesbians? If you express the completely reasonable feeling/thought/opinion as most of us did on first hearing this, you are likely to be treated in a very similar way to people who say no to religious propaganda: bullied, shamed, name-called, patronized, lectured…that is, oppressed. Trigger words like “transphobia” are used similarly to words used in religious mind control to shut down thinking. How dare you think, question, wonder?  How dare you listen to your own common sense? How dare you say no?

This is why I coined the term “the trans cult,” because it is as much of a cult as any other, except that this one has taken off in Lesbian communities, women’s communities, theoretically “our LGB” communities, Leftist groups, “progressive” groups, mainstream media, etc. It is moving with the speed of religious conversion and invasion, where the plan is to stop all logical thinking. The victims then are trained to act as robots and agents to shame and police other Lesbians and women on behalf of men to continue spreading the cult.

When did saying no to men and male commands become labeled “phobia” or “bigotry” instead of being recognized as women-loving? Men appropriating the identity of Lesbians and of women are using Lesbian Feminist politics and language against us.  We’re not afraid of these men – they are oppressing us.

Why are Lesbians’ and women’s minds supposed to shut down when the subject of men claiming to be Lesbians comes up? Why is the response not outrage at the men, rather than at the women who say no to them?  Why is it that the feelings of the women and Lesbians affected don’t matter as much as the fear of upsetting men?

This is as much of a mindfuck as any other kind of “reverse discrimination.”

I don’t believe in Santa Claus either, but my refusing to believe that does not get the reaction that I, as a Lesbian, get when I refuse to accept that a man who has sexually harassed me is a now a Lesbian. Why?
We have the right to say no to men oppressing us, yet, when we do, they threaten to rape us, cut off our clitorises, and kill us. (All feminists who blog in support of women only space get these threats.)

(Gallus Mag: Finally a response from the Transgender Law Center’s Cecilia Chung after two days of death threats against lesbians and feminists in his twitter timeline. Killing women “is not helpful” at this time, in his estimation.)

Even more proof than death threats that these men are men is their demand that we let them fuck us. Seriously. (If you do not read anything else here, read this: )

(And a woman’s story of being raped by her male friend who played on her sympathy to trans:

The worst part though is that these men have succeeded in getting Lesbians to fight other Lesbians and girls and women on their behalf. One of these misogynist men claiming to be a Lesbian actually made a list online of how ugly women’s vulvas were (a Sharpei dog run over by a car is one example), and women joined him in this.

What was your reaction the very first time you heard a man say he was a Lesbian? Women not immersed in the trans cult ideology usually respond as a friend of mine did when she said “A man calling himself a Lesbian is just plain creepy.”  And so it is.

To shut down your natural reaction and think otherwise (“But he’s a woman now!”) means accepting dogma that is inherently anti-female. (Yes, there are some Intersex people, but they are a tiny percentage and are in no way related to trans, and many are as angry at being used by the trans agenda as women are.)

How can a man be a Lesbian? Well, “he was born in the wrong body.” “He always felt like a woman.” “He, I mean she, is a woman attracted to women.” And if a Lesbian knew him when he didn’t lie about his past and he sexually harassed or assaulted her and she dares the wrath of other women to tell the truth, who is told to shut up and go away?

If you try to talk to trans cult members, they are likely to start yelling their dogma to terrorize and embarrass you into obedience. Being screamed at causes instinctual fear. Caring women are likely to ignore that they are being abused, and instead be distracted by trying to figure out how they could have so upset another woman. The trans cult agent will usually continue yelling their dogma, trying to publicly humiliate the woman they are bullying, and then literally put their hands over their ears for fear they may hear other ideas other than those allowed by the cult. If online, they simply ban you.

Another aspect is the pleasure that many feel at learning in-group and clique tactics and language, the accompanying sense of superiority towards women who do not yet know the religious/cult terms. Because Radical Lesbian Feminism decades ago was clear and strong in recognizing all the cons that men pretending to be Lesbians played, the present cult members often use ageism to shame women into bowing down to cult rules, as if reality has actually changed.

So now, how dare you not genuflect to these men?  After all, they have renamed you a “cis” woman while telling you that they are more real women than you will ever be, as they play out a fetishized caricature of their fantasy of hot womanhood.

The language these men and their women collaborators use is very much based on dominance and submission, with women expected to submit to male supremacy. It’s no coincidence that some of the former Radical Lesbian Feminists, including former Lesbian Separatists, who promoted these men into our last women only spaces, like OLOC (Old Lesbians Organizing for Change), the SF Dyke March, and elsewhere, have a sado-masochist community connection with the trans cult. Of course there is a long history of certain “feminists” and other sado-masochists ignoring consensuality. Some of these women became friends with the trans cult in their dungeons. (This is not a joke. A group of sado-masochists in SF own the “Armory,” which is a city block of multi-million dollar real estate in a city where the average house costs one million. Check the photo of their “Leather community” flag that imitates the US flag with black and blue bruise stripes. In late 2006, The Armory was purchased for $14.5 million by, a San Francisco-based internet pornography producer specializing in BDSM pornography…. La Casa de las Madres, a neighboring women’s shelter, announced in late March 2007 that they would be leaving their location as a result.)

If these men claiming to be women truly acted like they were, wouldn’t they at least try to have the compassion of real women and think what it feels like when the rapist caste intrudes on the last female-only space of the raped and assaulted caste – against our will?  Wouldn’t they care about women and girls, the people who cannot escape seeing ourselves brutally objectified and raped every moment throughout the media? If they sincerely were questioning “gender,” wouldn’t they meet with each other and call themselves by other names in order to not appropriate and oppress Lesbians, girls, and women more than they already have?

Instead, trans and their allies actually protest (with “blood boiling” anger) a workshop for “Female Survivors of Sexual Abuse,” because such a workshop discriminates against those born male, and a “Day of Remembrance” for fourteen women killed by a man who hates feminists:

Most of the women who support men in this oppressive fantasy, as well as the men themselves, are European descent. If you believed you were Euro-descent, but suddenly discovered that you were genetically part of an oppressed race and culture, though you appear completely “white,” would you insist/demand that all people address you as a member of that oppressed group, and demand to be let into their most private and protected spaces? Would you insist on becoming their leader and spokesperson in public and media events representing that culture?

By the way, in my own community, spanning ten counties, all the men I’ve seen who are going to our “Lesbian” events are middle to upper class and are European-descent, which means that the Lesbians oppressed by classism and racism are getting a multiple bombardment of oppression.

Men looking like drag queens are just men looking like how men want women to look in patriarchy. We are not talking about reality here, but fantasy. “Femininity” is male-defined, as is “masculinity.” No man pretending to be a Lesbian looks remotely like a Lesbian. Some even pretend to be Butches, which would be even more laughable if they did not have the power to control Lesbian conferences and censor real Lesbians and Butches (like pornographer Tobi Hill-Meyer who posts videos and photos of his erect prick online, referring to it as his “ladypeen.”)

(This one is beyond infuriating as these effeminate men pose and posture, with not even an idea of what a Butch is, other than the women the furthest from what they could ever be — )

If men can become women, can white men in blackface (not interracial men, but completely, ethnically, culturally, visibly European-descent men) claim to be Indian/Native American or Black or other oppressed races and then insist they not only be allowed into private events and organizations representing those cultures, but be in leadership positions?  Of course that would be an outrage, and in fact some of the same men professing to be Lesbians are doing this.  Some have had surgery and altered their features and hair, but they are still oppressor white men. If the reaction of women/Lesbians/feminist who are anti-racist is outrage, as it should be, but they support men saying they are Lesbians, why the double standard? – except that people oppressed by racism, as bad as their oppression is, are still taken more seriously as a people than Lesbians of any race.

Male surgeons and male pharmaceutical companies cannot begin to approximate female bodies. Women are more than castrated men. No one believes the men who have surgery to look like reptiles or cats are truly those animals, and no one believes that Michael Jackson literally became European-descent as a result of surgery and skin lightening toxic chemicals, so why would anyone believe the medical industry can make women out of men and men out of women?

This entire trans con is outrageous, and if so many women did not participate it would be obvious how ridiculous it is. Basically, trans is a mass delusion, cult, and myth. It is taken seriously only because of male supremacy and female-hating.

Real women do not do what men claiming to be women do, which is be “autogynphilic,” meaning become sexually aroused by dressing the ways that men demand women dress (which has nothing intrinsically to do with women) and masturbate.

How many women are alone in abusive relationships with men who have decided they are Lesbians, being told they are “transphobic” or “homophobic” if they try to get help? More of these stories are surfacing, in spite of the harassment (even while these are added to statistics on “Lesbian domestic abuse):

If men can become women, why can’t a man who has had extensive surgery to look like a reptile or cat be accepted as those animals?

If men can become women, why can’t an able-bodied man truly be the “trans-paraplegic” he claims to be?  “Chloe Jennings-White” is a Narcissistic man who loves being on TV and in magazines and has no intention or desire to truly be paraplegic. His rationale is identical to the classic trans cult story, down to the boyhood desire to be like his disabled aunt, including fetishizing her by fondling her leg braces. (This is similar to so many men’s stories, like the “Sex Change Hospital” television series quote where a man says he first felt he was a woman when he was excited as a boy by his mother’s bra.  All of us women remember that, don’t we?  Bras aren’t even part of a female body, but a sexualized device men demand women to buy and wear.)

The “trans-paraplegic” admits to being jealous of disabled people. He also says he’s a Lesbian and admits going to his local Dyke March with a sign saying “Differently-Abled Dyke” and making his wheelchair fall over to get attention. Sadly for real Lesbians, this scumbag is talked and written about in the media as a woman and often Lesbian.

There is a man pretending to be a woman who chainsawed his legs off —

What about the man who pretends to be a woman adult baby and wears diapers and sleeps in a crib?  Of course, yet another National Geographic television documentary that tells us that this is a woman. Gallus Mag: “And remember, when you hear about a female doing something really wack, or read about it in a newspaper or on a website, and it just “don’t sound right” to you: It’s probably a male transgender.”)

The extreme versions sound ridiculous, but they are just an extension of the trans cult line. No, these are not just mentally ill men any more than any of the trans men are. This is classic trans cult ideology. And if you believe them to be mentally ill, isn’t it kinder and more honest to confront their fantasy than go along with the pretense?

In this era, when women and girls are dying because of being denied decent medical treatment, the trans cult are also demanding and getting narcissistic attention for fantasy health tests on non-existent organs:

(GM: “DENVER — A state-run women’s wellness program now provides breast and cervical cancer screenings for transgender women, announced the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Wednesday.”

If you would say no to some of these men, why not say no to those who want access to Lesbians, to our lives, our bodies, our communities, our last spaces, our organizations?

Who does it serve to make this a complicated issue? — Men, and primarily the MRAs/Men’s Rights Activists. Who most wants to destroy Lesbian community and invade Lesbian space?

                                 Misplaced Sympathy and Pity

Part of the problem is the liberal feminist myth that there is no basic biological difference between females and males. Yet males certainly know that there is and brag about it. Even a christian man who wrote a book about raising boys says it’s not safe to let boys who’ve reached puberty babysit babies and children. Men also clearly know the trans cult is a con, so why don’t women?(from the Little Britain television series: )

The biological difference between males and females can be seen in many males of other species who rape and kill babies and females of their species, and who rape other species as well. Human males’ difference goes way beyond socialization because human males’ raping and murdering is often against their own cultures and religions. As bad as some women are, they just do not do what men do. I know of a Lesbian couple who came home to find their male gardener raping their dog.  If the difference isn’t clear from experience, just read online the comments following any description or video of an animal or woman being raped, otherwise tortured, and killed, and see how very different that men think and write than women. The way that many men make disgusting jokes about the most horrific things is incredibly revealing in comparison to women’s heartache and concern.

Lesbians are women who choose to love other women. Can we really not tell the difference between women and men? Wouldn’t our lives of oppression and marginalization be so much easier if there truly were no difference? Would Lesbians be disowned, hated, attacked, imprisoned, executed and otherwise murdered if there were no difference?

No amount of being told I am “transphobic” or “bigoted” will ever make me consent to letting a man have sexual access to me. How dare these men do this to Lesbians? Men demanding sexual access to women are het men who are refusing to take no for an answer. That is sexual harassment, and when they continue not accepting no, it is rape.

And in spite of the ego-stroking of these men by many Lesbians and other women who assure them that they really are attractive women, they will never, ever, get what they demand, which is sexual access to a Lesbian. Because a woman who would agree to being sexual with one of these female impersonators is, by definition, no longer a Lesbian. It’s that simple.

And how dare these arrogant and entitled het men take over our Lesbian organizations, re-write our history, be our “spokeswomen/leaders” at Dyke Marches and other spaces, which we created in spite of men like them?  These men are destroying our last female only spaces. Yet they would not be able to do this without the help of Lesbians and other women collaborating with them against us. Why are women and Lesbians betraying us to these most male of men?

If you correct a woman with the “Transgender Etiquette” list, you are shaming her, telling her she’s wrong, patronizing her – all for the benefit of men as well as your own sense of superiority. Even if your chastising her is on behalf of a woman pretending to be a man, ultimately, this obsession still benefits men. You are not fighting oppression. You are harming women in order to enable men to harm women. Why?

This is as simple as the issue itself. You cannot both support men demanding to be accepted as Lesbians and support Lesbians and women. It’s like pretending to be against racism, while working with the Nazis and Klan. It’s like pretending to care for the earth, air and water, while supporting Monsanto and the men destroying the earth.

How did this happen, where Lesbians police other women for men to have access to them?  I’m sorry, but it really does remind me of those men who kidnap girls to rape and impregnate, yet who have wife/women accomplices to help them in ensnaring girls and imprisoning them. You must have seen these grotesque men in the media, in court, sometimes after having imprisoned a girl in chains for decades, and we have to know that they could never have gotten the girl in the car or to come home if his woman was not there to reassure the girl. Some of them even hold the girls down while their men rape them. (And please do not start telling us how oppressed these collaborators are.)

Of course, we are not imprisoned. We can just walk away alone from the communities we created. We can decide to not plan any more women’s or Lesbian events for our community if we don’t want to have to deal with men showing up. But why should we? The men have the entire rest of patriarchy worshipping them. (And please do not pull out the con about how these men are in danger and being killed and it’s our responsibility somehow. When they themselves are not raping and killing, it is other men attacking them. But far more Lesbians and women are attacked, so why should we make men a priority over their victims?)

For centuries, men have been perving on women and Lesbians. In our remembered history, men have gone into our few spaces, like Lesbian bars, to perv on us and try to rape us when we left. Police would do raids to rape us.

Then, when we created Lesbian Feminism, we finally had our own female only spaces, and, in a few special parts of the world, like the African-descent Lesbian community in the SF Bay Area and in Aotearoa/New Zealand, there have been Lesbian only events.
When the first men perving on us stalked us into our growing Lesbian communities, they got into positions of power, causing divisions and destruction, but still most Lesbians said no to these men.

So what happened? Men are no more able to become women than people can change race or species, but there is a media bombardment with laws changing so that even public women’s restrooms now are allowing men in. The rate of little girls and women being raped will increase, but because these men are now considered women, they are already adding to statistics on women being violent and dangerous.

Some women, usually those already invested in males, are flattered that men say they want to be women. Some mistakenly believe that these men must love women more than most men to identify as us, and have not seen how these men talk about themselves, with their posing and videos and photos of looking like male porn fantasies.

Some feel sorry for them, and are impressed that they are giving up the most powerful weapon and status symbol in patriarchy (not realized that 80% of “transwomen” never have surgery), and forget about the girls and women they are harming. And some women just feel more comfortable having men around in previously women’s spaces. It’s a combination of misdirected sympathy and being in the female role of wanting to support and help others. An intrinsic part of that is valuing males more. The poor man, to lower himself to our level, give up so much privilege, and to want to join us as a woman!

Some women are shocked at the level of threats, abuse, and name-calling and are terrified, desperate to placate. Some believe that placating men who refuse to take no for an answer will somehow work. They do not understand the analogy and link with rapists. All men who refuse to take no for an answer are on a continuum with rapists. After all, many of the men who insist they are women have already raped women and girls. If they even remotely respected or cared for girls and women, they would not insist that they are us and invade our spaces.

They forget how obsessed men are with Lesbians as a fetish. “Lesbian” porn for men is the most common male porn, which encourages men to try to get sexual access to Lesbians in any way they can. (In 1972, I became lovers with a Lesbian Separatist who had recently came out with the encouragement of her boyfriend, which I didn’t find out until later. He had been in a men’s group with Robin Morgan’s husband, Kenneth Pitchford, and wanted not just to be with a Lesbian, but with a Lesbian Separatist. After she left him, he tried again to get his next girlfriend to look as much like a Lesbian as possible with. Of course, by definition, no Lesbian will be with a man, which is the ongoing dilemma that men who pretend to be Lesbians have. This man didn’t bother with that game, at least at that time. By now, he could very well be saying he’s a Lesbian and be more accepted in our communities than we are.)

As women, we do not focus our lives on sexuality, and especially male sexuality that is often based on porn, sado-masochism, and fantasies of raping women. How many men are playing with other forms of extreme sexual fetish, such as using asphyxiation for stronger orgasms, even though some famous men have died from that sex game (David Carradine)? Fetish has become mainstream sex for men.

Extensive plastic surgery and mutilation for men is another aspect to sexual fetish, from the men who want to look like animals, to the man who chainsawed his legs off while his wife later confronted him with “what about me and the kids?” to the men who just keep disfiguring their faces, like music stars, Michael Jackson and Pete Burns.

Learning the Con

I keep going back to my own experience with men pretending to be women. I remember the first man I knew who decided he wanted to be a Lesbian. I was 17 and it was 1968 and a couple of years before I found feminism of any kind or Lesbian feminists. He had been pressuring me to be het with him and seemed to have no clue what a Lesbian was when I said I was in love with my best friend. He told me about his life, being in a seminary high school, and had never considered himself like a woman. He kept obsessing about Lesbians and was just as repulsive, whether identifying as male or female. He exuded adolescent maleness and prurience, and still does, decades later. He picked a first name as close to mine as he could and dyed his hair a similar color.

By 1970, we weren’t going to the same university any longer and he wasn’t in my life. He just continued being interested in chasing Lesbians and nothing about him seemed any more female, and certainly not Lesbian. I thought of him as a pathetic lonely man and wished him happiness. His not seeming as successfully male as other men somehow made his deciding as an adult that he was a Lesbian made sense only in the context that we could think a nerdy, insensitive, narcissistic, passive-aggressive man was like a woman. But because I was the first Lesbian he fixated on, I felt somehow responsible. I had no idea that he would stalk me into the Lesbian community and I could never escape being forced to be subjected to him. He joined one of the earliest Lesbian organizations (Daughters of Bilitis) and became vice president, causing a split that ended the group. He wrote an article called “Lesbian Sex” that was printed in “off our backs” after he lied to them about being a “womyn-born-womyn.” He also has written publicly racist letters as a “Lesbian” and has harassed African-descent Lesbians with his racist comments. When he was invited in 1973 by Jeanne Cordova to the West Coast Lesbian Conference as a “Lesbian” performer, Robin Morgan, in her keynote speech called him “an opportunist, an infiltrator, and a destroyer — with the mentality of a rapist.” (From Wikipedia.) The last time I had the misfortune to hear him at a women only open mic, a couple of years ago, I was forced to hear his usual bellowing/singing off-key about a woman crawling on the ground, desperate to reach his “kitty cat” (pussy). Yet he is still welcomed at that event.

Yet isn’t this similar to the way many woman are led/tricked into agreeing to obey men as a form of rape? It’s not the direct violent kind of rape — it’s men using guilt and pressure to get a woman to agree to something she does not want. I remember when I was sixteen and visiting a girl I had just met at high school. She took me to a hippie house where a man put his hand on her belly and looked pleadingly at her, so she laid down and let him fuck her, right in front of me. It was cold and horrifying, and all about obeying this disgusting prick. Afterwards, she said how her life would be ruined if she now got pregnant. The man could have cared less.

Women supporting men in their fantasy and insistence of being women are doing a variation of the same thing — laying down for men in order to not hurt their feelings, not daring to say no to them — regardless of how this lie hurts them and other women and girls. It is destructive, self-hating and female-hating. It’s a mass participation in an Emperor’s New Clothes fantasy, with women thinking that it’s more trouble than it’s worth to say no.

But these are not “failed” men. These are very successful men at getting what they want.

Many of the men claiming to be Lesbians do not act on their porn fantasies until getting bored with their families after having full het male privilege. They also do not care what “becoming a woman” will mean to their wives and children. It is always about them. For every one of these men, there is a story of a woman or women and often children horribly affected:

A weak objection that many liberal feminists give to men appropriating our identity is saying that they did not have our experiences growing up – but that is a flimsy argument which does not deal with the few men who have been identifying as Lesbians for decades or who insist they always felt like girls. The truth is simply that these men have never felt like or been girls or women and they never will. Every one of them lies about always feeling like they were girls from childhood. (They don’t even know what that means if you ask them. Their ideas of being women is all about male-defined femininity.)

All you have to do is listen to these men, read them, watch them. It doesn’t take long to see how far from being female they are. Not one has a clue of what it means to be a girl growing up, or a Lesbian, or any other kind of woman as an adult. Their extremely male minds are more male than any other kind of male, because they are in constant rapist mode of refusing to take no for an answer. Their focus is all on themselves and their fantasies of what glory they will get as a woman, imagining an experience no woman has ever lived. Their words and minds are still prurient male. Many of them do not even know enough to stop themselves from grabbing and groping Lesbians in public or making typically obscene male comments. They are male to the core in the worst possible way.

They did not grow up worrying about being sexually harassed and attacked for being girls. (If they did experience sexual assault, it was as a male, knowing they could also rape.) Whatever abuse boys experience is in no way comparable to what girls experience. Boys also do not grow up seeing their own kind obscenely objectified everywhere, being harassed by males constantly, not even being safe in their own families.

Men did not experience the constant humiliation and oppression that girls suffer. They did not experience adult Lesbian or female oppression. They certainly have not experienced having created an oppressed but vibrant culture only to see the oppressor steal it for his own — and then to see the betrayal of Lesbians and women obeying the male rules by calling themselves “cis,” to denote an inferior kind of women to the male “women.” It is still a shock to see how meekly and how obediently even many longtime Radical Lesbian feminists dutifully rename themselves and the rest of us to please these arrogant men. What other oppressed people agrees to taking on an insulting name while not protesting when their oppressor steals their own identity?

If you support these men against women, please know that you are contributing to the new laws which eliminate protection for girls and women in having separate restrooms, girls’ sports locker rooms and teams, etc.

Not Betraying Lesbians and Girls and Other Women for Men

Of all the oppressive forces against Lesbians and women in patriarchy, I believe the trans cult is at the top and is far more dangerous than the rest of the right wing like the Nazis and Klan and christian, muslim, and other religious fanatics, because they want to destroy us from the inside out. They are like the worst form of parasite, who tricks the victim into protecting and fighting for those who are killing them. So we don’t even end up fighting these men directly. We have to first face the women who are standing in front of them, working to destroy all women’s rights, including our right to say no.

It is so hard for Lesbians and other women to say no, especially to men, but it can be done. This reminds me of teaching self defense to women who seemed incapable of allowing themselves to consider hurting a potential attacker. Only when I said that unless they stop the man attacking them, he will continue and will rape and possibly kill other women and girls, did they whole-heartedly fight back. They became impressively ferocious. That is what has to happen for women to not put men first in the trans cult.

Where did the illusion come from that we are part of a movement that included our oppressors?  Those who do not know our history are condemned to repeat it. When we are included with those who either directly oppress us (men, including gay men), or those who choose to ally with our oppressors (bisexual women), we may feel like we are less alone as a people, but we are betraying ourselves to benefit those who harm us.

Were we ever asked to be joined as a people with those who despise us unless they are using us?  I never agreed to be part of “LGBT” and neither did anyone I know. We were added against our will. Gay men still do drag shows ridiculing Lesbians and other women. Until the AIDS epidemic where gay men put ads in papers asking for Lesbian blood because we have the cleanest blood (“Our boys need blood” was a Bay Times ad), gay men openly despised us, calling us “dirty.” They still do, as a group, and don’t even want us going into their precious neighborhoods, though we have nothing of our own. (The few bars and cafes owned by Lesbians wholeheartedly welcome men, both to work there, even though some sexually harass Lesbians, and as customers). Even though AIDS is simply a preventable STD that some gay men actively seek out (a gay man with AIDS told me he’s horrified how often by gay men ask him to give them AIDS) Lesbians still donate time and money. The AIDS “Lifecycle Ride” made 14.5 million dollars in 2013. There is almost nothing for ill or dying or disabled Lesbians. Lesbians who volunteered with AIDS groups said one gay male director makes $300,000 a year, and they have seen gay men walk off with most of the donations.

What is with all the appropriation and ignoring of consensuality by gay men, bisexual women, and the trans cult?

Once we give the men posing as women the smallest bit of what they want (such as referring to them with female pronouns or calling them “women” in any form), then they have won the battle.  This is one of the most important things that we can do for each other and our culture. Please never call a man a “transwoman” or “she” or “her.” Never call a woman a “transman” or “he” or “him.”  Refuse to use “transgender” as a term. It is no more real than trans-species. Seriously. This may seem small, but it is essential. If you would not play along with an able-bodied man pretending to be disabled in a wheelchair by waiting on him, do not enable or give what these most dangerous of men demand of us.
If you are tempted to play along to not hurt his feelings, then know that going along with his male fantasy is hurting women so much more. What if all women and Lesbians just said no to them?

Once you give in and submit, and call them women of any kind, we have lost. It’s like opening the door to the rapist and then begging, cajoling, pleading for him to perhaps just beat you and not rape you, or rape you but not kill you. Once that door is open, they have won and can do whatever they like. You can see it now, everywhere.

Also, never accept any of their misogynist, offensive terms for yourself. No sensible woman or Lesbian ever refers to herself or other women as “cis.” It’s immediately identifies someone as a cult member since no woman who has not been indoctrinated into the trans cult would ever use such ridiculous, creepy, and bizarre terms.

And for F2Ts, women who say they are men — again, the surgery does not come close to approximating a male body. Many of these are male-identified feminine women who want sexual access to gay men. They are being self-hating and female-hating. Many have connections with men in the sado-masochist community, as do many of the women supporting men into our last spaces.

Why don’t these women recognize males as a group as the enemies who assault girls and women and animals, and who are destroying the earth?  Some say that they don’t want to be raped any more or to become an “old woman.” Some say they want “better paying jobs and more chicks.” Then they discover that gay men don’t want to be with women, even in drag. Some men will fuck anything that moves and don’t mind the “bonus hole” (as gay men call vaginas), but that has to lose its charm eventually. When F2Ts find out that the het women they idolize and idealize want real men and all the status and privilege that het women get from men, many want to come back to Lesbians. Some don’t like how quickly they are turning into what looks like old, balding men with acne, cartoon chipmunk voices, and male facial bone structure. Many of these women are angry and aggrieved and expect and demand that Lesbians will cheer to see them return and welcome them with open arms and no questions asked. Sadly, many do exactly that, since, like most oppressed people, Lesbians often value our oppressors more than ourselves. But some Lesbians and other feminists get a bit sick of the returned pretend men lecturing us and telling us what we did wrong since few will accept responsibility for their own female-hating choices. Those who call themselves feminists play on the liberal myth of women who hate other women as victims needing rescuing.

I’m not saying to not support women who change their minds about joining men in the trans cult, but why should they get more support than the Lesbians and women who never left us?

And Now, the Charming Stories By/About  Men Claiming to Be Women

Gallus Mag has compiled an amazing archives of true horror stories at GenderTrender, which every women who supports the trans cult should read. Here are a few of them as well as from other sources.

This is from a study in the British medical journal The Lancet.

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offender….Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

If these are truly women, why would they protest a Day of Remembrance for fourteen women killed by a man who hates feminists?

Vancouver male transgender activists (“Transwomen”) spent today organizing a protest against the scheduled upcoming Day of Remembrance for the fourteen women slaughtered during the horrific 1989 L’Ecole Polytechnique Massacre.

Reed believes that all males can become female if they simply claim to be, and has lobbied for the right to have a state-funded medical procedure to insert a surgical “neo-vagina” near his penis, so that he can have the appearance of having two sets of genitals. Reed and his “transwomen” co-organizers are offended by any feminist or women’s event that addresses the issues that affect women because they feel that such events discriminate against them as males.

Photo of Natalie Reed, the man who organized the protest of the memorial for the women killed by the man who publicly hated feminists:

Another popular image among “transwomen” – what lovely “women” they make, don’t you agree? —


You are such a “transphobe” if you don’t want to let this man have sexual access to you….

hideous trannie

The Cotton Ceiling This Week

March 17, 2013

It’s been a year since I first spotted a small listing for a Planned Parenthood male-only seminar curiously titled “The Cotton Ceiling”. If you’ve never heard of it you can read about it here:

A lot of lesbians were sort of shocked by the Cotton Ceiling- a series of closed-to-females seminars designed for transgender males to tackle the “problem” of lesbian refusal to have sex with males. Lesbians were shocked, but not surprised. Dykes had long been aware of the male takeover of lesbian spaces- it’s been going on for years. Every public womon-space, from book groups to dances to music festivals to record companies to bars has witnessed the “transition” of the same creepy straight dudes who imposed themselves and haunted, sentry-like, the corners of our spaces,  into “transwomen” who now claimed they “were” lesbians…..

It happened incrementally. First some male would show up in women’s space woefully in his earrings and afghan, speaking in his soft falsetto. Lesbians, like most women socialized to be care-taking and non-confrontational, did not have the heart to kick him out. The air in the room changed with his presence. Women did not talk and joke in their usual relaxed manner. He didn’t know the difference. But the women did. They hoped he would not return. But he always did. Of course he did.

Gradually women’s meetings and groups stopped being advertised. They were moved to private homes. Public dances became private house parties. Women’s bars, record companies, spas, festivals, book stores closed. Lesbian websites were taken over until they were all run by “male lesbians”. Inch by inch, yard by yard, real lesbian culture went underground, private, smaller. Cultural pundits speculated this happened because we were integrating into the larger society where homosexuality was no longer taboo. Integrate! Integrate! Integrate! Who needs womon-space anyway? It will always be there if we want it. But inch by inch, yard by yard, men took over. Until it actually wasn’t there if we wanted it. Until we actually weren’t allowed to have lesbian space: women’s space. Malesprotested lesbian space, often physically.

They tried to shut down Michfest Womyn’s Music Festival by setting up an occupation where men (“male lesbians”) slashed tires, cut water lines, terrorized women by stalking the perimeter with illegal weapons, and blanketed the festival with pictures of their dicks inscribed with the phrase “A hot load from my monstrous tranny-cock embodies womanhood more than the pieces of menstral [sic] art your transphobic cunts could ever hope to create”. Transgender “male lesbians” tried to shut down rape crisis services. They tried to shut down the Take Back The Night marches. Male transgender “lesbians”, ten years ahead of the curve of real women in internet access and organizing, formed attack groups against lesbian and feminist websites and news outlets long before most real women even knew how to get online. They attacked lesbians at Dyke Marches carrying banners stating that homosexuality is “wrong”.

Anti-Lesbian Dyke March protest: “Gender is Greater Than Genitals”: Accept the Male Genitals you dumb dykes!!!

A male transgender named Ida (formerly Daniel) Hammer forced his way onto the organizing committee of NYC Dyke March even though he was partnered with another male. He then proceeded to organize a posse of other men and non-lesbians to surround and threaten lesbian feminists who were targeted for their history of advocating for lesbian gatherings and events without men. Hetero male trans successfully had lesbian films removed from film festivals (before they had even viewed them). They wrote to book publishers calling for censorship of lesbian feminist books that had not yet been published- or written. They joined forces with the same anti-woman“Men’s Rights” groups that Anders Behring Breivik was a member of to shut down feminist seminars. They stalked and harassed any women who performed or attended lesbian or women’s festivals or conferences and tried to get them blacklisted from other venues. They tried to destroy vendors servicing lesbian events. And the rape and death threats. Holy shit. The death threats, the stalking.

My first post here at GenderTrender never even mentioned trans but I had my first death threat from a “male lesbian” within 5 minutes of posting. Any post, any gathering, any group, any seminar, for lesbians or from a lesbian or female perspective will be assaulted immediately by heterosexual males that fancy themselves as “lesbian”. The lesbian community is ground zero for the men’s movement we call transgenderism because the number one goal and priority of the gender movement is the elimination of lesbian voices and culture…..

Reinforce the Cotton Ceiling:

“Apparently, there are some “trans women” who feel that they are entitled to sex with natural-born women. It make them very angry, frustrated and…well…angry that lesbians don’t want to have sex with them. This is all rooted in their firmly-held belief that — despite their male bodies, male DNA, male genitalia, etc. — they are REAL women and REAL lesbians. Ergo, any natural-born female who is a lesbian OUGHT to want to have sex with them.

These “trans women” look in their mirror and say, “I’m pretty, I’m a woman, I’m a lesbian, I want to have sex with THEM, why oh why won’t they have sex with me?”

If they bother to ask the question out loud (or on-line) to a natural-born female lesbian, she will say (of course) in so many words: “I’m a lesbian. I don’t have sex with men.”

This (of course) holds a HUGE mirror up in the faces of “trans women”. Simply by saying, “I’m a lesbian. I don’t have sex with men.” lesbians are also saying:

1) I don’t buy in to the myth that you are a REAL woman;

2) I don’t buy in to the myth that you are a REAL lesbian;

3) I don’t find your MALE body sexually attractive — at all — because I’m not sexually attracted to men; and

4) My sexual attraction to women is unassailable. There is nothing you can say, nothing you can do, no amount of surgery, make-up, elocution lessons, hormones, shoes, clothes, electrolysis, whatever that will change you into a person I would consider having sex with because…I’m a lesbian and you’re a man.

Men don’t like unassailable women. Unassailable women piss them off.

So. If you Google “the cotton ceiling” you’ll discover that some “trans women” ignited a storm of criticism directed at the Toronto branch of Planned Parenthood by organizing a workshop designed to teach other “trans women” how to “overcome the cotton ceiling” — with “the cotton ceiling” being lesbian panties (how rape-y is that?) — and the workshop (exclusively for males who identify as “trans women” who want to have sex with real women)  took place anyway, despite quite a bit of feminist objection and the VERY dim view that psychologically healthy women take of Planned Parenthood enabling workshops to teach men strategies for “overcoming” the sexual preference of lesbians.

The usual level of discourse one expects from “trans women” followed (lying about what really happened, death threats, violent hate-speech against feminists, histrionics about being The Most Oppressed Women On Earth, yada-yada) and here we are.

I recommend that every natural-born woman carefully examine the record of this entire debacle. I think any intelligent reader of the public (on-line) record will be left with little doubt that “trans women” as a group have never been and will never be allies, supporters or appropriate bed-partners for women. Whatever in the heck is wrong with these people (!) they are rendered incapable of seeing the truth:

However much they obsess about women, they will never, ever understand women and they will never, ever BE women.”

We’re all familiar with “The Cotton Ceiling” whereby heterosexual male transgenders advocate for the corrective rape of lesbians who “oppress” them by denying them sexual contact. Transgender cotton ceiling rapists hold male-only (Planned Parenthood sponsored) seminars, writebooks, host lecture tours, and endlessly spam lesbian websites and blogs with rape and murder threats over lack of male “inclusion” in lesbian social gatherings, lesbian organizing, lesbian events, lesbian music festivals, and – most importantly- lesbian bedrooms.

We never see homosexual male transgenders (M2T) hold seminars, write books, and spam rape and murder threats towards straight men who prefer not to have sexual contact with other men.

We never see homosexual female transgenders (F2T) hold seminars, write books, and spam rape and death threats towards straight women who prefer not to have sexual contact with other women.

“Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behavior.”

The title “Fuck You, Kill You, Or Be You” is a quote from this man, who is such a woman. He says, about his doctor husband’s 23-year-old daughter:

“I irrationally hate this girl. I mean, not in the way most women hate other women, like admiring her proportions, wishing they were mine, that kind of thing. It’s almost like, “I fucking hate you because you got the life I always wanted.” It’s not a pass/don’t pass thing. She got the life I always wanted. The princess bedroom. The prom dress.

Seeing her is such a trigger for me. Like I said, my physical transformation is done. I’m usually pretty happy. My life is great. But when I see this girl I get so angry, and it’s a mix of what I said above and these overwhelming desires just to have angry, passionate sex with her.

I love football, but I couldn’t even enjoy the game. When I got home, I cried in the shower for about half an hour.God… The “Do I want to fuck you, kill you or be you?” envyragecrush. Yeah, that’s a thing. Not even just a trans thing, though I think we’ve probably got some special self-loathing twists of our own that we can put on it.

The only cure I know of is getting drunk, listening to Bikini Kill at high volume and dancing around in your underwear.

Reality test: Do you feel sorry for him or scared enough to hope you never meet him?

How many women who are trying to support men posing as women are getting raped?

The Gender of Rape

(obvious trigger warning)

Before I went on testosterone, I (thought I) became good friends with a trans woman. We met through the trans activist group on campus, and we started hanging out outside of the group because we seemed to have so much in common, despite the fact that “she” was about 35 and I was 20. I had been socially transitioning for about a year. “She” had been on estrogen for a few months, or something less than a year I think. We talked about trans issues a lot. “She” validated my pain over my parents disowning me and how it felt to be misgendered all the time and listened to me when I was suicidal. I saw us as having mirrored problems even though I realize now that we were in two very different situations. I trusted “her.”

At some point in the friendship, Z (the MTF) started sending me explicit texts letting me know that “she” was interested in me. I had no idea how to deal with that, so I just deflected “her” advances. I assumed “she” would stop after multiple “no”s, excuses, and a complete lack of interest in anything beyond friendship. I was afraid to be too harsh, because I didn’t want to hurt “her” feelings. I didn’t want to ruin our friendship. I couldn’t risk losing my main source of support, the one person who “understood” my problems and treated me like a man. No one else offered the same level of sympathy for my transsexuality, not even my girlfriend. No one else was willing to drive me an hour to the only other trans meeting in the area, or stay with me when my dysphoria got so painful I thought I needed to die. 

I called myself pansexual at the time, because that’s practically mandatory from inside the Gender Fog, and I also had been taught to see Z as nothing other than a woman. I felt guilty for my wary gut feelings about Z’s sex and had to overcompensate by validating “her” identity through trust that wasn’t earned and just giving “her” the benefit of the doubt. Not only did I have to treat “her” as a woman, but I had to navigate the friendship as a man would. There was no room for feeling threatened or listening to my feelings or for risking being transphobic. My subconscious unease about trying to see Z as female was negated by the fact that I thought gender shouldn’t matter and therefore attraction was based on the person, not the genitals. Either way, there was no way to rule Z out of being a potential date without my politics being questioned. If “she” was not at least a potential sexual partner for me, then I was a transmisogynist. Seeing this person as a woman meant not seeing Z as a threat, and even seeing myself as the person in a position of power because I identified as a man.

One night, Z came over after the trans group. My girlfriend was at the library and I was expecting her back sometime soon. Z cornered me multiple times, moving in, trying to kiss me. I kept telling Z that my girlfriend would be back soon and that she would be pissed if Z didn’t back off. I kept washing the dishes, not responding physically, attempting to change the subject. Z kept coming up behind me, putting “her” arms around me, whispering in my ear. I kept trying to move, but Z was much bigger and stronger and I didn’t want to start a physical struggle. I was trying to play calm even though I was very anxious.

At some point I left to go to the bathroom and when I came out Z cornered me further back in the apartment – in the bedroom. I was very uncomfortable, minimally responsive, and I said “no” in every way I could think of, making excuses in-between Z’s creepy advances. Even still, I didn’t want to hurt “her” feelings (cough-female socialization-cough.) Maybe I thought that somehow my identity could still be a shield.

It was all just a game to Z. “She” laughed off my protests. “She” tripped me down onto the mattress on the floor. “She” raped me.

Later, Z wrote an account of the events on “her” blog. Everything was backwards in Z’s version: I, the “man,” was the one making the advances. “She” quoted “her” words as mine. “She” presented “herself” as the passive sexual partner, and me as aggressive and dominant and pushy. Z wrote out the coercive atmosphere as erotica. Even the basic physical logistics were reversed.

The only detail that Z left out of the reversal was the part where the female in the situation fears being pregnant while waiting for her late period for a week.

This was not the only time Z hurt me. I continued to stay “friends” with “her” because I was isolated and I had a lot of needs I couldn’t meet. The mindfuck continued, because I was without language for “her” violence. “She” turned everything inside-out and defined what was real in many ways. When I initially saw Z’s account of the sexual encounter online, I just felt crazy. The violation escalated and went on for months.

For the next couple years, I struggled with this mental knot that could not be straightened out with the politically correct language or ideas. The aftermath was painful and difficult and I tried to find the words for what happened, but I had none within the trans paradigm. I was a “man” and “she” was a “woman.” I kept going around and around, but my brain was just locked in this wordless puzzle. I read online about cis men being “raped” by cis women, but that was not like what Z did to me. I wasn’t able to unravel this or tell anyone what really happened until I started moving out of the trans gender fog.

I have been afraid of saying anything even after finally understanding the reality of being raped by an MTF, because my words and my truth will inevitably be questioned. I wanted to write out part of my experience with this to add to the all-but-non-existent record of MTFs as dangerous men.

I never knew that this was a pattern with MTFs violating FTMs until I started talking to women who had left the trans community. I cannot identify out of rape. I was not a man when I was being fucked by this person using “her” dick as a weapon. I held no power. The trans ideology takes away my only way to portray this situation for what it was: another man hurting a woman. Rape is about power, and men hold power. Gender politics scramble the sexed pattern of violence.

Gender kept me from knowing what I already knew. I was more vulnerable to Z’s assault because defending myself would be twisted around as “male” privilege and transmisogyny, just like being raped was twisted around into being a typical sexually-aggressive “male.”

Gender isn’t some theoretical spectrum. When trans women talk about what it means to feel like a woman, this is what I think of: rape I am not allowed to even speak of. This is what it feels like to be a woman. Being FTM didn’t change the reality of sex-based violence for me, and the MTF who hurt me is no outlier. He is just another rapist.

Olympia WA School Officials: State Gender Identity provision overrides Title IX Equality for Girls Swim Teams

October 7, 2012

Two Washington State high-school Girls Swim Teams were stripped of their Federal Title IX rights by Olympia Washington School officials after the teens and their parents refused to allow the girls to shower with a middle-aged retired military man calling himself Colleen. The man was discovered in the women’s sauna by a high-school teen girls swim team. Parents refused to let their minor girls undress in front of him. As a result, local school officials have forced the girls into a small ancillary locker room space and given use of the women’s locker room to the male….

Francis, a white heterosexual male, compares his right to undress among juvenile girls to the Black Civil Rights Movement:

 “This is not 1959 Alabama. We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain,” said Francis.”

Colleen Francis is a 45 year old man who retired from the US Army after 20 years as a supply sergeant. Married three times, he has three adult children and two daughters aged 7 and 5. His cross-sex hormones are provided by VA Medical, as well as a cocktail of psychiatric meds, lithium and antabuse prescribed for a troubling history that he details at length on a blog at the “Transgender Lesbian Space”of the puddygirl dating site for women. He says he is known as “Fae Raven” (not to be confused with the UK fetish model of the same name) in the “BDSM Community” and describes himself as:

“I am polyamorous, bisexual (I very much favor women though, and my therapist calls me a lesbian…makes me smile) and kinky.”

He describes his VA funded estrogen treatments as making him “tired and very horny”

The VA also funds his education at Olympia WA Evergreen State College. Francis performed in the university presentation of Eve Ensler’s “The Vagina Monologues”, an experience he describes on his wordpress blog thusly:  I suddenly find myself in a community of Cunts.”

 He lists his life interests as: “drawing, cooking, transgender issues,polyamory, witchcraft, nature, fishing, art, poetry, ocean, women, sex, sexuality, emotions, magic, magick, goddess, reading, erotica, pornography, nudity, crafting, leatherwork, firearms, knives, swords, paganism, wicca, LGBT issues, beauty, gender issues, kink, spirituality, guns, makeup, shoes, boots, corsets, selkies” [sic]

and describes himself as at once a teen girl and a woman wise beyond her years.”

He says the first thing people notice about him is “I obviously stand out as the one who is not a genetic female.”

Colleen Francis 2012

“Transwoman” fights for experience of living in all-girls dorm

January 15, 2011


A 51 year old male, medically discharged from the Navy in 2008 “Went over to the female side they kicked me out” has decided to change his legal sex and has applied to live in the only all-girl dorm on the South West Texas Junior College Ulvade campus. John Brigman, now Jennifer Gellar says although he has a home in Ulvade he wants to “experience dorm life” in the only female dorm on campus. Gellar had a harassment complaint filed with police against him last march by one of the female students over an unfinished group project.  According to KSAT news: “Now undergoing counseling, Gellar also said she has not lost her temper since the other student “made me blow up a little bit and I started yelling at her.” Police Chief McDonald said Gellar was not charged because she later avoided that student as instructed by police.”

The teenage girls in the dorm are frightened “You have to kind of trust who your roommate is if you want to stay in that dorm, and I really don’t trust her. It’s not even about gender. She’s built like a man so automatically he’s going to be stronger than any of us.” They cited concerns about Gellar arising from the harassment incident with their friend. “I kind of blew up on her on that, but I never did touch her or anything, it was all words” the 51 year old Navy vet responded.

The girls also question why Gellar would want to live in their dorm when he has a home in Ulvade. “Basically so I can experience dorm life”, he stated.

“I’m just wishing that people would accept me for who I am.”

After deliberation, today Gellar was denied housing in the female dorm, and also limited to use of men’s restroom on campus. According to college spokesman Willie Edwards “Due to privacy concerns, we cannot go into the reasons behind this decision.”

Gellar’s response: ““Who said anything about it being over! Because of these girls, I’m now receiving national coverage. KSAT has done two stories on me, Uvalde Leader News has interviewed me and it should be in the Sunday paper, CNN and ABC is about to do a story on me; so who said it’s over! Those girls are making me famous!”
“I also forgot to mention that KTSA will do a live interview with me on Monday at 12:30″

“I do like attention, even if it is negative”

“Remember I’m now getting national exsposure just because of those sweet girls. Now I will become a household name.”


Wasn’t GLAAD supposed to be an organization that supported Lesbians and Gay men?  Aren’t Lesbians donating to GLAAD?

GLAAD celebrates a new LGBT hero on their website today: a heterosexual 50 year-old, six-foot-eight, 230 lb man embarking on his women’s junior college basketball career after having his California birth certificate changed to “female” on November 30.


ludwig 1

Five days ago Robert Ludwig was just a man with a dream. Since Friday, he has “become female”. Five days ago Robert was a past-his-prime male athlete. Today he is a “female” athlete embarking on a new career.

GLAAD (Gay and LESBIAN Alliance Against Defamation) champions the rights of middle-aged men to compete against 18 year-old female athletes in women’s sports, as long as those men have declared strong internalized beliefs in sex-based stereotypes.

ludwig 2

GLAAD strongly supports the rights of 50 year old heterosexual men to live out their fantasies parlaying male musculature into careers in women’s sports thirty years past their prime: but only if those men voluntarily adopt the sex-based stereotypes that are enforced without consent upon females. This is because GLAAD believes such sex-based stereotypes actually make women female. GLAAD does not support title IX rights for female persons, because GLAAD does not believe the female sex exists. Further, GLAAD does not believe in the worldwide reality of sex-based oppression of females, and actively lobbies against the rights of females to organize, meet, and compete based on sex. Instead, GLAAD believes in sex-roles. Blue is for boys, Pink is for girls.

In the USA Today article that GLAAD applauds, their hero Gabrielle Ludwig refers to the 18 to 20 year-old young women on the Mission College basketball team as “a bunch of dysfunctional lesbians”.

Ludwig goes on in the same article to dismiss a female player’s complaint that it is unfair that he is eligible to compete against her. He states: “They have been in this world 18 measly years. This 18 year old has not the slightest clue what life is about. It’s when they grow up. If that comment came from someone like you [male reporter Eric Prisbell] , that would sting and I would need to find a home for that comment.

The twice divorced father is an 8 year Navy and Desert Storm veteran now working as a Genetic Systems Engineer at Roche Molecular Diagnostics in Silicon Valley. Robert takes 12 credits of online community college coursework in order to qualify for the team. From the Mission College website: “We have excellent transfer programs and general education courses that will promote your journey to four year institutions and prepare you for higher level learning whether it is the California State System, the University System or a Private University. We also have exemplary signature programs that help to prepare you for the work force in many areas: Nursing, Fire Technology, Hospitality Management, and many others. Mission can provide classes that will catch you up in math, English, ESL or other areas that provide foundational skills to serve you in any future courses.”

GLAAD’s hero Gabrielle/ Robert John Ludwig played men’s college basketball 33 years ago. California Community College Athletic Association’s bylaws limit undergraduate athletes to two years of competition, but Robert’s time spent competing as a man was erased because it applied only to his male athletic career, not his “female” one.

What does the team coach think? From the Silicon Valley Mercury News: “In time,” said Corey Cafferata, her coach, “she will be the most dangerous player in the state.” “I think at 6-foot-8, if she does some work,” Cafferata said, “I don’t see why the WNBA wouldn’t draft her and give her a shot.”  

There is no requirement, a league spokesman said, for a WNBA player to be born female.

This Week in Men Shitting All Over Women’s Sports

November 2, 2011

Chris Tina Foxx Bruce is a failed bodybuilder, unable to qualify in male competition. He is also the latest crossdressing dude who thinks a brow-shave and some breast implants entitle him to shit all over female athletes by using forty years of testosteroned musculature and male frame to compete against females in, what else? Musculature. The 6 foot 1 inch father of two had to drop 40 pounds of muscle in order to qualify for entry into the Border States Classic Bodybuilding competition on Oct. 29th. I was too lazy to look for pictures, and as far as I could tell with a cursory search, he didn’t place in his first competition. This contest is a low grade physique competition which is more like a “fitness stripper” sort of display. These contests are highly policed for enforced sexualized femininity, which explains his interest. Nonetheless, this is yet another example of failed male middle aged athletes embarking on late-in-life competitive sports careers courtesy of women’s sports.

Contrary to the claims of Genderist advocacy organizations such as the National Center For Lesbian Rights (a former Lesbian advocacy organization now representing heterosexual males), males who take estrogen for a year or two don’t become female. Which is why we see guys like CTFB launching sports careers in middle age by exploiting female athletes. A legacy started by Renee Richards, who started a professional tennis career in his forties in women’s tennis after failing to qualify for men’s competition. (He now says that he was wrong to do so, and he is against transgender males competing in female sports).


Another real woman:

Reed Barrow: Stop Making Rape and Death Threats Against Lesbians, Feminists and Gays

July 26, 2012

hai, this battery pack leads to something up my ass.

Unbelievably creepy scary dude Reed Barrow aka Forrest Reed Barrow aka SissyKrystalTG, aka Sissy Krystal aka Sissy Reed Barrow aka SissyKrystalHot aka RedheadTransgenderedFox has been sending out threatening rape messages to women on Tumblr ALL NIGHT LONG.

Here is a small sample of his handiwork:

Barrow, 55, of Whitby Island in Clinton WA describes himself thusly:

“I’ve been Transgendered since 3 years old and this uniqueness I’ve been Blessed with has followed me thru my whole life. Most people aren’t sure what to think of Transgendered people or are scared of us, only because they have never been educated to the third gender ( Transgender ). I’m just like you in every since, except I enjoy dressing and being a female as often as i can, and I’m a complete sissy when I’m dressed.”

Under his real name, posting the same phone number that he uses for his business That Handy Man Guy (who the fuck would let this person into their home!) he describes how he trash picks used tampons and menstrual pads, sticks tampons up his ass, and dumpster-dives for soiled baby diapers whichhethen wears for his twisted erotic satisfaction…..

Reed haunting children’s playground.



He posts tons of photos of “the uniqueness he’s been blessed with” wearing pedomorphic female children’s undergarments and clothing and expresses his desire to publicly humiliate himself by adopting the clothing and mannerisms that he imagines young female children might enjoy. He considers himself as something of a minor “transgender celebrity” in the local Everett WA area where he haunts children’s playgrounds seeking attention from horrified young girls. This gives him erections, which he is very proud to discuss at every opportunity, under his real name online, as part of his “transgender rights”.

“..almost every person in the Seattle area knows that I’m a sissy baby and it has even spread to other states. Everyone tells 2 friends etc. etc.

so now every!! place I go people I’ve never met hold there nose when they see me. I never! poop in my diapers and I only pee in them. At first I was very bothered by the pointing and laughing, but as time has gone by I’m glad everyone knows I’m a sissy baby and I now go out in public all the time wearing the cutest sissy dresses you ever saw and I’m always wearing Pampers Cruisers 7t and nursery print plastic pants that you can very clearly see under my very short sissy dresses and petticoats.

No one has ever tried to hurt me yet! but I do get pointed at and laught at everywhere I go ,even in boy mode with no diapers on. And surprisingly very few people call me names, most people just tell me how cute I look and how pretty my dresses are. OK so I personally love the attention now! “

Under his real name, posting the same phone number that he uses for his business That Handy Man Guy (who the fuck would let this person into their home!) he describes how he trash picks used tampons and menstrual pads, sticks tampons up his ass, and dumpster-dives for soiled baby diapers which he then wears for his twisted erotic satisfaction.

Transwoman warrior

A Member of My Family Decided That He Was “Really A Woman”

‘Narcissus’ by Caravaggio 1597-99

A woman’s comment at GenderTrender:

I cannot believe I found this site! I’ve been reading the archives for a day and a half now, practically crying with joy that I’m not the only woman in the world who feels this way.

I’m not actually a radical feminist; I’m kind of not really a feminist at all (nor am I Christian). In fact, it never occurred to me that there was anything radical or “fringe” in, for example, thinking, “How do *you* know what being a woman feels like?” when a man claims he’s “felt like a woman all his life.” I never thought it was somehow radical to look back at my life and be insulted that some man who never dealt with any of the issues or situations in life that I or any/most/all other women dealt with thinks he knows what that was like, or in the idea that a woman is a collection of life experiences, feelings, and thoughts and not some sort of doll that is created out of the air. I was born a female; _growing up_ female made me a woman. When Julie Burchill wrote her column a few years ago I was thrilled, only to see other women–friends, some of whom were feminists, some of whom were lesbians, even–denigrating her. I agreed with every word she said.

I’m going to try to keep this short. I don’t want to drown you in words. But a member of my family–my stepfather-in-law–decided about fifteen years ago that he was “really” a woman. He claimed to have gotten tests that “proved” this. The effect it had on my MIL was devastating, not least because he had for years led her to believe that all of their problems, sexual and otherwise, were HER fault. That she was somehow inadequate as a woman, that she was unexciting, that she was too sensitive, that she just didn’t have the brains and sharp killer instincts of a man. Then he decided to be a “woman,” and fully expected her to stay married to him. He was very angry that she refused; what was wrong with her, that she wasn’t supporting him by remaining his wife and letting him stay in their marital home and teaching him how to apply make-up? Did she think she had a right not to be forced into a lesbian marriage (nothing wrong with lesbian marriage, of course, but it’s not really what most hetero women look for) or something?

All of this was infuriating for my husband and myself, as well as the FIL’s two children–his son moved to another country, he was so devastated by this. My FIL didn’t care. He’d run out and gotten himself hormones and told us how he felt so good all the time, almost high, and it was so amazing–it was less than six months after he made the decision and he’d already had the facial feminization surgery. He also decided that he didn’t feel like waiting the two years for the full reassignment surgery, so went to his elderly mother, convinced her to hand over the money that would be his inheritance (money my MIL was supposed to get an equal share of), and ran off to Prague to become a castrato with boobs. He then changed his name to one of the most stereotypical drag queen names you’ve ever heard (hint: it’s the name of a song mentioned in this thread, with a “St. ___” as the last name) and proceeded to meet up online with a bunch of other unsavory delusionists, with whom he’d go clubbing almost every night in full drag-queen-feminine-caricature regalia.

What’s funny–if by “funny” you mean “disgusting”–is that his behavior hasn’t changed one iota. There is nothing feminine about him, nothing womanly. He mansplains; he interrupts; he corrects; he expects my MIL (they have remained friends, and he goes to her place regularly for dinner) to cook for him and clean up after while he snores on her couch; he thinks everyone admires him. He thinks his mutilation and pseudo-woman persona makes him special and interesting.

(In the last year or two his health has begun to fail, and he at least once told my MIL he regrets the surgery. Well, that’s what happens when you decide indulging a sex fetish is going to fix all the things you don’t like about yourself as a person. It’s called gender reassignment surgery, not create-a-whole-new-person surgery. There’s a reason why a 2011 Swedish study found that 40% of post-op transexuals attempt suicide, and 10% of them succeed. Also, all those studies they like to trot out about the brains of M2T transgenders [did I use the term correctly?] being just like those of real women? Not only is that not completely accurate, but those were cadaver brains, the brains of dead post-op post-hormone transgenders. Who’s to say that years of hormones didn’t create those changes?)

It’s very clear to me and has been for years that this whole “woman trapped in a man’s body” thing is either a fetish or a psychological disorder/problem caused by childhood abuse. And I have more to say on that but this is already way too long, for which I apologize. I’m just so excited to finally be able to say this!

Oh, one last quick thing. Years ago I saw this TV documentary on trans surgery. I was absolutely dumbfounded when the post-op M2T mentions how he won’t know how it all turns out until he “pees out of his new vagina.” (Happens @40 minutes in.)

He’s just had surgery to give him a poor facsimile of ladyparts, and he is so ignorant about them that he thinks women urinate through their vaginas. THIS is how irresponsible and neglectful the doctors who “treat” these people are; they have mutilated his genitals without even once sitting him down with a diagram and showing him what a woman’s vulva actually looks like and what the parts of it do. He wants to be a woman–he claims he *is* a woman “inside”–but has so little curiosity, so little interest in the reality of a woman’s body, that he never bothered to learn for himself, either. It’s not like that information isn’t readily available; he just didn’t care enough, it seems, to take a few minutes to see what those genitals he apparently feels so wrong and sick without actually are. Because yeah, no real woman has any interest in what her genitals do. Roll eyes. Did he think the doctor was just going to fashion his skin into a sexy unicorn?

Anyway. Sorry for the length, and I hope I haven’t offended or upset you or jumped in where I’m not welcome. I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve read here so much. Thank you for letting me comment and for the stand you’re taking here.


Gas Mark Six

Here’s something I wrote when I was asked to speak alongside Sheila Jeffreys, who was speaking about her book “Gender Hurts”, about how transgenderism harms women. In the end, I didn’t say all this, but for those of you who are interested, here it is..

“For the longest of time I told no-one. It is only in the past few years that I have found the words to describe my experience. Thank you, Sheila Jeffreys, and the Radical Feminist community of bloggers for the gift of words.

I used to have an online friend (also a partner of a man who thought he was a woman) who likened the experience of being partnered to a transgender to the frog who is put into the pot of water and the heat gradually turned up till cooked – a deliberate programme of de-sensitisation as each limit is compromised or ignored, and each line in the sand crossed by these men in their “journey”. Another woman once told me that “You give a tranny an inch, he will take a mile”…how true that turned out to be.

When I first met him, he spoke to me about what he called his “strong feminine side”. He confided in me that he was an occasional transvestite and that it had ruined a few relationships where girlfriends had inadvertently “found out”, or had rejected him when he told them. He told me he had a very low sex drive and instead preferred to just cuddle and kiss. That he felt more comfortable around women. He told me that he DIDN’T WANT TO BECOME A WOMAN, that he didn’t know where the urge to “dress” came from, other than a need to express what he felt were his “feminine feelings” and an attraction to pretty things. He told me he had been doing this since he was about 11 or 12….remember that detail.

I felt special that he would confide this in me.

It was only later that I realised that he considered those conversations as “GIRL TALK”. He likes “girl talk”.

I couldn’t really grasp those “feminine feelings” he spoke of, since I had never really experienced my sense of self in that way. I thought women who bought into it were un-informed – certainly none of my friends were like that. I hadn’t worn heels since I was a teenager. I never wore make up. I was a conscientious objector to the femininity game.

But I believed at the time that these guys are living proof that GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. Men and women should be able to wear whatever they want, without the silly distinction of ”male clothes” or “female” clothes. To hell with gender norms….I thought it could be “edgy” and “alternative”.

Within a few weeks of him moving in, I realised that this was much, much more than just an occasional bout of self-expression for him. It was obsessive, and it had an ENORMOUS sexual component. Dressing episodes (which were at least three or four times a week) were invariably followed by “sex” (which consisted of me masturbating him by rubbing his tucked penis as he lay on his back squeezing his fake tits). On top of that, I often walked in on him masturbating. The mirror in my bedroom was moved to his side of the bed…

There wasn’t a time when he “dressed” and didn’t get an erection. Even after he started taking internet bought hormones. If anything, the thought that he was chemically transforming himself into “a woman”, held immense erotic charge for him.

He was a textbook autogynophile.

It transpired that he was also a “submissive” – a very common component of this particular paraphilia – and that nothing got him off more than being “forced” to be “a woman”. Of course “woman” meant submissive, passive, always “willing to please”…..He would work this into our “sex life” either overtly or covertly.

After a time, it was impossible to ignore that I was no more than a prop in this game. I could have been anyone really. I didn’t even have to exist. As significant as a gravy stain on the table. Many of the women I spoke to in what limited support groups I could find complained of the same thing. Not just the sex part, but the entire being invisible part, and a deafness to *OUR* needs, views, or opinions.

I discovered that he was an obsessive user of porn, particularly “shemale” porn, and BDSM fare. I had been very clear with him about my opinions on porn, and was sickened when he tried to get me to participate in looking at these men.

Time and again he would promise to stop, only to be discovered again. He would swing between crying and begging forgiveness and bold-facedly challenging me, saying it was ME that had a problem, that no-body else thought like me, ridiculing my objections and my politics, or telling me that I was paranoid, – even though the evidence was staring me right in the face.

He had no intention of stopping. A lot of his behaviours seemed compulsive, obsessive.

I discovered that he was using dating and sexual hook-up sites, saying that he was a full-time transsexual, going through the Real Life Test, willing to relocate anywhere for the right lady (of any gender – wink, wink). There was no end to his inventiveness when it came to lying about who he really is.

Using his smartphone, he created an online world for himself by inventing a fictitious life. I discovered that he had a secret Facebook profile, and scores of photographs of himself in varying degrees of undress– I am convinced that trannies invented that selfie – and that he had a coterie of dozens and dozens of young women between the ages of 17 and 24 who believed that he was a full-time transsexual, single, and struggling with finding a job in this cruel discriminatory society. He had a fictitious home life, fictitious job or non-job, a fictitious social life and fictitious friends. He even fabricated a “trans bashing” – this, I found particularly repulsive.

He loved sympathy and attention, and “validation” – even if it meant lying and manipulating to get it. The young women were so “Go girl!” and “Awww poor you”, toward him. Some of them called him “big sis” and took their problems to him. Otherwise it was giggly conversations about clothes and what colour to die their hair that week, musings about becoming a stripper or a fetish model, and complaining about getting “slut shamed”.

Oh yes, he liked his women faux feminist to match his faux existence.

I was outraged that he would be so bold-facedly lie to these young women and demanded that he STOP. He cried, saying , “But these are my frieeeends…”. Ignoring the fact who THEY thought was their friend is A WORK OF FICTION.

Then again, it’s not as if women are actually *real* to these men.

Of course he didn’t stop. It carried on as if I hadn’t said anything. Even the several times I asked him to leave were ignored.

He would just get up the next day as if nothing had been said.

I felt I was being driven insane.

My sense of self, and my belief that I was entitled to set limits or boundaries was gradually eroded as the TRANS STUFF came to dominate and shape every corner of my life. I never knew where or when the next assault to my psyche was going to come, and so I existed for a long time in a state of hyper vigilance. That is, until such time as my ability to dissociate kicked in.

I know from observing trans support groups that many of these men say, “My wife is fine with it – she just doesn’t want to talk about it or see it”.

Many women are surviving through disassociation.

Let’s not forget that a well-orchestrated and financed propaganda machine surrounds these men. It has the effect of silencing not just those of us who oppose on ideological principles, but all women who are within these relationships who question the idea that these men are ” women trapped inside men’s bodies “, or who’s lives have been ripped apart by these men.

I know from bitter experience of reaching out, that the primary concern is for the welfare of the trans partner, who must never be questioned as the most oppressed creature to walk this planet.

This is a double whammy to those women experiencing abuse, intensive gaslighting, and erasure of their right to name their reality and to set boundaries. Thee is no such thing as a line in the sand when it comes to trans desire. He gota have what he gotta have.

Even within mainstream services, support for female partners is tempered by the need to be sensitive to the needs of the transgender partner, and to avoid being seen as discriminatory. My doctor was happy to give me anti-depressants, but les happy to countenance the idea that what I was being put through was abuse.

Increasingly, statistics on DV within same sex partnerships count the trans partner as “female”. There is an invisiblising of male violence within these relationships, and women are suffering as a consequence. We are silenced. We are shamed. We are ereased.

A Scottish Government funded survey carried out by the Scottish Transgender Alliance (funded by the Scottish Government since 2007), is often cited as evidence of how very bad it is for trans women, who would appear to experience rates of abuse higher than actual women. Apparently a small, self-selecting sample is no barrier to credibility, nor is the fact that one of the crireria for abuse included “misgendering”. It is of no surprise to me that some women (partnered to a man for some years) might slip up occasionally and forget to call their Steven “Stephanie”, yet this is a heineous act of abuse – apparently. Yet there are no surveys I am aware of, of abuse perpetrated *by* trans “women in relationships. I find this a telling omission.

It often feels like no one want’s to hear the woman’s story.

For example, at one point (as a means to at least get him to LISTEN to my distress) I begged him to seek relationship counselling with me. Apart from the fact that he used the trips to the counsellor as an exciting opportunity to dress in public, and spent more time stressing about what to wear (sometimes even buying entire new outfits), than any time in self-reflection, the counsellor spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on MY inability to “accept” rather than on HIS behaviour .

In one session she grasped on to an incident of “misgendering” that had happened in her presence (I had said something like “Why can’t he understand?”). He had fled from the room in a dramatic tizzy of tears. She stated to me in a firm voice that she is prohibited from working with couples where there is domestic abuse. In other words, I was being accused of being an abuser. This almost drove me mad with pain and self-doubt …what if it really is me? Am *I* an abuser?

I can’t begin to describe the pain this caused me. I carried that comment with me for months.

I refused to go back. He was disappointed that his daylight trips outdoors with his repulsive “cleavage” showing were curtailed. However it did give him an excuse to now appropriate the identity of “abused woman”.    Sickening.

I was started to drop or loose female friends. I would be hesitant about going out with them or inviting them over: particularly with him around. He would laugh and giggle with them and I knew that in his head he was imagining he was having “GIRL TALK” with them, and the fact that *they didn’t know* that they were unwittingly playing a part in his fantasy life made me feel nauseous, and guilty, so I stopped meeting female friends with him around.

Then I pretty much stopped seeing female friends at all, since when I tried to go anywhere without him, (telling him that it was “women friends only ”), he would pout and huff and often cry, “It’s because I have a penis, isn’t it?”. When I was away from him he would text and phone me constantly. When I got in he was nasty to me.

I was growing afraid of him.

It was easier just to forget about having friends.

So my world became smaller and smaller as his “exploration of his feminine side” took up more and more space until there was little room left for anything else. It dominated every conversation and extended to physical space too. By the time he left, my clothes storage was down to half a drawer and a box under the window.

Even everyday purchases were fraught with meaning and reminders of my erasure. I remember having an argument in Superdrug over toothbrushes. There was only one pink toothbrush left, and I don’t know what came over me but I decided that fuck him, I am having the pink toothbrush. He “helpfully” pointed out the purple ones, and the blue ones that matched the bathroom. But no. I was having the pink one and I was going to win this tiny victory even if all the shop assistants were looking at me like I had lost my marbles.

We needed a phone. He said he would take care of it. That he had seen just what we needed. He came home with this….


I couldn’t bear to bring it up to my ear. My flesh crawled very time it rang.

I thought that perhaps if he had an outlet, the lies and stuff would stop. Lots of partners go through a similar “bargaining” phase. The gas under my pot was turned up to full.

So I agreed to escort him to a tranny club.

I secretly wanted to see if there would be other women there. I needed to find out if this behaviour is *normal* for trannies, and if there is anything that women had found that made their lives with these men more bearable.

He would be beside himself with excitement at going out “en-femme”. I could see his hard on starting from the moment he got out of his leisurely bubble bath (my bath’s were always rushed and fitted in around his dressing schedule). Getting ready was a ritual that took at least two hours. Of course, I was expected to “help”. I’m pretty sure now that he was working that into one of his fantasies he had running on loop in his head.

Often trips were abandoned due to some smudged nail polish, or similar “feminine disaster” that would have him stomping around in an agitated state sweating through his make-up, crying and shouting at me. Ordering me around like some demented potentate. Six foot trannies with chipped nail polish can be pretty scary, believe me.

The tranny club comprised of men, in very short, very tight “little black dresses” (had they co-ordinated this? I thought), high heels, a variety of wigs (probably two third of them, long and blonde) and a weird atmosphere I couldn’t quite put my finger on. There were other men there too (not in dresses). They sort of lurked, and leered, most of them not actually talking to the men in dresses, but often sending a drink over for one of them, followed by a raised glass and a wink from their corner – the men in dresses responding with a coquettish smile and a simpered “Thank you”. I found out later that most of the men in dresses were doing each other and calling themselves “lesbians”. I know this, because I found the photographs.

And they had a certain gleam I their eye…

Amy Bloom, in her article from 2002, Conservative Men in Conservative Dresses, wrote :

“The greatest difficulty people have with cross-dressers, I think, is that cross-dressers wear their fetish, and the gleam in their eyes, however muted by time or habit, the unmistakable presence of a lust being satisfied or a desire being fulfilled in that moment, in your presence, even by your presence, is unnerving.”

The penny finally dropped for me about what I was witnessing…

Another boundary being violated – the boundary that says “Don’t make me a part of you sexual kick, buddy”.

The experience of getting out in public seemed to turbo charge the tranny-ing at home.

Give an inch, take a mile.

When the kids weren’t around, his idea of relaxing at home was to potter about in a micro-mini and high heels, affecting a “sexy wiggle” and doing this weird thing with his hands and wrists when he spoke. I told him that women don’t go about dressed like they were about to nip down to a disco *all the time*.

He told me that he had seen “loads” of women that do, and that anyway, he liked the “council house tart” look.

I was always arguing with him about what women *actually* wore, and how sexist his stereotypes of women were, but he would insist that he was dressing like any other “girl” (despite the fact that he is a 47 year old man).

Other looks he liked were -

The “rock chic” look – think Cher in that video on the aircraft carrier. No jeans and band T shirt for this gal!

The “hooker” look – I’ll leave that to your imagination.


The “beauty counter girl” – Extra heavy make-up and an old lab coat worn over a bra, pants, suspender-belt and stockings ensemble. I caught him once, sneaking back into the house like that at 5 in the morning after a “constitutional”. Apparently he had been taking “constitutionals” for months , sneaking out while I was asleep. Trannies are expert ninjas as well as exhibitionists.

For all his faux “girly-ness”, the feminine side never extended to practical, everyday stuff that most adults have to do to get by – like helping with housework. He literally told me “I can’t do housework because I might break a nail – my long nails are important to me”.

Turned out he couldn’t carry heavy bags or lift heavy stuff either, cos he wanted his upper body muscles to wither away so he would be “more like a girl”. I told him lots of women have muscles. He told me that wasn’t “the kind of woman” he wanted to be. Of course not – how nice it must be to get to pick and choose.

He spent thousands and thousands of pounds on clothes, make-up, “beauty products”, laser hair removal and internet hormones. I still can’t see a television ad for make-up without an involuntary shiver down my spine.

He would go months without giving me any contribution to the home. Apparently he had “expenses”, and anyway, I wouldn’t have sex with him, so why should he?

The day came when he told me that he had “done an online test” and that he was “definitely a transsexual”. Self-diagnosis by internet is the tranny stock in trade. I was alarmed because I knew to the core of myself that these men are categorically not women. That I could never accept him as a woman. Like Sheila Jeffreys says, “woman is an honourific term”.

His story began to change in subtle ways – aided by his community of internet advisors. Now he said he had been dressing since three years old. He now had distinct memories of wishing he was a girl from around the age of five.

Many hundreds of pounds in laser hair removal and black market internet hormones later, and I was left struggling with a six foot, 14 stone hulking man with “breasts” , liable to incandescent rages one minute and tears the next. I was terrified. I began to hate him. No way was I going to wipe his arse if he had a stroke.

I was repulsed by him, his insulting attempts to emulate “femininity” and his freakish body. Being touched by him, even by accident, made my skin crawl.

I was disgusted at myself for allowing this to happen to me. I was drowning in shame. I was sinking fast.

I tried finding help online, but nobody wanted to acknowledge that these delusions are harmful. Rather, I was told * I* had to be educated, that *I* was “phobic”, that I should learn to embrace this. Women were telling me this as well as the trans borg.

Had feminism changed so much? What had happened to the idea of women being central to feminism? Why can’t women see that these are men???

I was told  that I was “homophobic” AS WELL AS “transphobic” because I refused to call myself a lesbian. WHAT?? He is a man!! What madness was this???

I went to the doctor and was given anti-depressants. Nobody wanted to hear about my problem with the trans. I was told that “she” must be suffering too.

I went to the LGBT centre and asked if they had a group for partners of transitioning males. The young man looked at me, puzzled, “Um, well we have a group for trans women and their friends and families…isn’t that enough?” he asked. I tried to explain why maybe it wasn’t a good idea for women who were struggling in their relationship with a male partner who was insisting he was now a woman for those women to be discussing their problems with their male partner in* the* same* fuckin* room*…..crickets. Eventually he said he would ask the tranny group what they thought. If they were OK with it, then they would “think about it”. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out their response…. More men telling women what they can and cannot do.

Women are often reluctant to talk about this. Whether from a sense of shame or embarrassment, or because we have seen the harassment and invasion that takes place against women who have spoken out publicly. Most commonly though, because we are GROOMED AND OBLIGATED TO CARE.

One of the saddest things for me, was that when I contacted the few women who I had met along the way (and who I knew to have been put through a variety of torments) to ask them if they would consent to an interview for Gender Hurts, they declined, stating that they didn’t want to be “disloyal”, or for [him] to find out that they had been talking to anyone outside of a tightly proscribed circle. Some didn’t want to risk being ejected from some of the only spaces they have to talk about this – compromised by male oversight though they may be.

It gets to be exhausting, pointless and depressing.

I know that for many, the greatest state of emergency will be what seems to be the almost unstoppable trend of lesbian women who are “transitioning”, and destroying their beautiful, healthy female bodies in the process – as well as erasing their lesbian herstory and identity.

I feel a deep sorrow for this state of affairs, and when I have read descriptions of what women put their bodies through, and the details of the surgeries that some go on to seek, my heart sinks at how self-hating, how female hating this is. It is misogyny written upon the bodies of women, and it is truly terrible.

The trend for “transgender children” is particularly horrifying and is evidence of how damaging the essentialist idea of “gender” that is promulgated by the Transgender cult is.

In speaking about my own experience, I hope that you understand that I don’t wish to minimise those states of emergency, and hope that what I have said will be taken in the context of how male privilege and entitlement in the guise of transgenderism, is driving a movement that has, and will continue to hurt all women as long as our voices are silent, and women remain unsupported to escape from these men, and to make sense of their oppression.

I believe that what women go through in these relationships is a form of emotional violence, and that work needs to be done to raise awareness among not just the wider public about what really goes on within many of these relationships, but also services that support survivors of male violence.

This is not “woman on woman” relationship abuse, and should not be treated or recorded as such. We should not be afraid to see this for what it is – male entitlement. Male violence.

No woman who is being abused needs to be told to have compassion for her abuser.

Women’s enforced compliance with male delusions, needs to recognised for what it is.




I’m standing up and saying ENOUGH. “

Jezebel Headline: “Female Adult Baby Wears Diapers 24/7″ —  Except that once again, this is not a woman, but a particularly repulsive and annoying 25 year-old-man….  Why do these men, like the “trans-paraplegic” keep being called “women” or “female?”


Betrayed by the National Center for Lesbians Rights:

Lesbians Are WOMEN !

January 5, 2011

Some of us have been murmuring for some time about how skewed the priorities of some organizations claiming to represent LESBIAN WOMEN have become….

Is THAT a picture of a lesbian?

THAT is a picture of a mass murderer. His name is Richard Speck. He murdered eight nurses. In prison he claimed he had turned transgender and was “actually” a female. He wanted a “sex change”.

How high on a list of LESBIAN Priorities should Richard Speck’s desire for a taxpayer funded sex change be? How important is it to YOU, as a LESBIAN, that this mass murderer gets a free sex change? Would you donate funds to help him do so? Would you want a major LESBIAN organization to make his desires a PRIORITY? Would you want an organization to do so while claiming to represent LESBIANS?

Well, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) has made it a priority. A LESBIAN priority that criminals like Speck have a CIVIL RIGHT to taxpayer funded gender reassignment, even if they have NEVER expressed a transgender urge prior to their incarceration. And this is a priority for a Lesbian WOMEN’s organization WHY exactly? What ARE the priorities of the National Center for Lesbian Rights?

Here is a list of all active pending cases on the NCLR case docket posted on their website, as I understand them:

-an amicus brief submitted in a lesbian case challenging Florida’s ban on adoption by lesbians and gays. (The case was represented by pro-bono attorneys, not NCLR, so here the NCLR submitted a brief in a case relating to an actual lesbian, not a case they represented however.)

-Lawsuit filed to force prisons to provide incarcerated trans criminals taxpayer funded hormones and surgery. Free sex changes for incarcerated transgender people who “come out” after incarceration. As wards of the state, convicted criminals should be entitled to taxpayer funded hormones and surgeries that are not provided for law abiding citizens.

-Lawsuit filed claiming heterosexuals are being discriminated against, by being excluded from gay men’s softball leagues. Seriously. This is who the NCLR is representing. Can’t make this shit up.

-amicus brief filed in case of Egyptian gay man seeking asylum from anti-gay mistreatment in a country where gay men can be arrested for homosexuality.

-asylum case for Mexican transgender identified person who received alleged harassment because of claiming to be a sex incongruent with that on birth certificate.

-asylum case for gay Pakistani male.

-amicus brief filed in case of Pakistani hetero male who alleges he was detained by the FBI due to religious profiling of muslims in terrorism investigations.

-assisting a pro bono attorney who is representing an asylum case for Bosnian lesbian.

-lawsuit against Cherokee Nation representing lesbian married couple.

-asylum for another Mexican transgender person.

That’s it. As I understand it those are the open pending cases represented by the NCLR.

Well what else do they do?

NCLR Sports Project issued a report in 2010 warning that women’s sports teams discriminate against males and that failure to permit males to compete against females in female sports may result in “costly litigation”. The NCLR press report was issued in October when a 57 year-old male who beat out all the female competitors (average age 30) to win the women’s world championship for long-drive golf sued the LPGA for his “right” to compete against women. The NCLR supported this action and does so by misrepresenting themselves as being a lesbian WOMEN organization. The NCLR appears to believe that women’s sports leagues infringe on the CIVIL RIGHTS of males. The 57 year-old male may be the first competitor in history to embark on a new professional sports career at such an advanced age.

It’s hard to IMAGINE that a lesbian rights organization would make the rights of males to play women’s sports their highest priority, much less the “rights” of male criminals to receive taxpayer funded sex changes, or the “rights” of heterosexuals to play on gay softball leagues, but this is what the NCLR is concerned with. Only three of the ten active pending lawsuits listed on the NCLR website concern lesbians, and two of them are not actually being represented by the NCLR. So, one out of ten.  Three transgender cases (two male one female), two gay male, two hetero male.

It’s time for the National Center for “Lesbian” Rights to change their name to better reflect their priorities. “National Center for MALE Rights”?  “National Center for Queer Rights” perhaps?

After all, the ex-lesbian legal director of NCLR has stated “…there is a community of lesbians and transmen who are just kind of merging into one social group…”. NCLR seems to believe that the concerns and priorities of lesbians (who are women) are indistinct from the concerns and priorities of men (the legal director considers herself a man, so that may explain her male-centrism and misogyny). Like many transgender persons the legal director seems to believe that all discrimination against gays and lesbians is due to their perceived gender-nonconformity, and therefore the concerns of the LGB can be subsumed, borg-like, by the transgender political movement. What such a philosophy fails to take into account is that……wait for it…..Lesbians are WOMEN. Fancy that! Political objectives and legal priorities for WOMEN are entirely different- and often at odds with- those of MEN. Go figure! Who’d a thunk it???

So if anyone wrote out a year-end donation to the NCLR- quick put a stop payment on it. Don’t support an organization that colonizes lesbians and takes our money and works for the “rights” of Richard Speck, and straight men, and males who want to start professional sports careers at the age of 57 in women’s leagues.

And don’t buy the women’s underwear that NCLR sells to raise funds.

And tell ALLLLL your friends and neighbors how the NCLR does NOT represent your LESBIAN interests.


Increasing Numbers of Murders and Assaults Attributed to Women Actually Committed By Men Claiming to be Women –

Then these men want taxpayers to pay for their “sex changes” and be transferred to women’s prisons.


Why Court Ordered Sex-Changes for Prisoners are Bad for Women -September 6, 2012

Robert Kosilek, Wire Killer, Life Without Parole

David E. Megarry Jr. raped female children. He raped lots of them. He started in his teens. He liked to torture them. He was locked up as a teen for multiple violent torture rapes of female children. But he got out. When he was 21 he was apprehended for abducting a ten year old girl, forcing her into his car, abducting and driving her into the woods known as Lombardi’s Grove in Milford, Mass. where he tied her up, gagged her, raped her, and left her for dead. Behind bars for child rape he got 64 infractions on his disciplinary record. He was caught making obscene phone calls to children from prison. He was found hoarding pictures of female children in his cell. At this time he decided he was transgendered. He got extensive prison tats of naked women and began wearing smuggled “female” undergarments. He started calling himself Sandy Jo: Sandy Jo Battista. In 1995 he had his name legally changed to Sandy Jo Battista from his cell at the all male Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons facility where he lives under civil commitment without limit of sentence due to his legal status as a “Sexually Dangerous Person”.

In 2005 “Sandy Jo”, filed suit against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections asserting his “right” for cross-sex hormones that would allow him to grow breasts. Global business law firm McDermott Will and Emory, who represent 50% of global business interests worldwide, decided to devote their required pro-bono hours to him. They brought all their power and interests to bear and devoted years and thousands of hours to representing his interest in medically acquiring superficial female sex characteristics. Last year he won his case which created precedence for the rights of male predators to access feminizing medical treatments funded by taxpayers while serving time.

Strangulation murderer and fellow Massachusetts inmate Robert Kosilek, serving life sentence without possibility of parole, paid close attention to this ruling. Kosilek had been filing multiple cases against the Department of Corrections for over a decade. Since he first murdered his wife. He did not enjoy the prison experience, and with no possibility of parole, filing lawsuits was his passion.

Kosilek in various cases over the last twelve years of his incarceration won access to cross-sex cosmetic medical hormone treatment, the right to wear clothing now legally regarded and classified by federal court as appropriately sex-role stereotypical for females, make-up/face paint now regarded and classified by federal court as female appropriate, electrolysis hair removal, and annual mammograms for the breasts created by his feminizing hormone regime. He has not yet filed cases for breast implants or facial feminization surgery. In 2005 he filed a case claiming that withholding taxpayer funded feminizing cosmetic surgery violated his Eighth Amendment right of protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Yesterday a federal judge, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark Wolf agreed with this premise. And he issued a precedent setting ruling for men like Kosilek and “Sandy Jo” Battista. He issued the first court-ordered tax-payer funded surgical “sex change” for a prisoner in the United States. This precedent setting ruling, while lauded by transgender activists, represents a very unfair discriminatory outcome for females. Especially female prisoners.

“‘The idea that I might be a lesbian because I liked being with, being held by, and kissed and cared for by other girls never even came into my conscious mind until I was 57 years old.’ – Robert Kosilek”    Into the Mind of Kosilek: Grace’s Daughter – a Book Review  — April 9, 2013


Transgender Serial Killer Donna Perry blames murders on former “male identity”

March 20, 2014

Donna Perry Today
Photo credit: Nina Culver

Serial Killer suspect Douglas “Donna” Perry is back in Spokane after completing his Federal sentence on weapons charges. Perry faces triple murder charges for the slayings of Yolanda Sapp, Kathleen Brisbois and Nickie Lowe in 1990. He is still under investigation for other murders. According to court documents filed in January, a cellmate of Perry claimed he confessed to murdering a total of nine women who had been exploited by men into prostitution. He killed them because they had the ability to have children and were “wasting it being pond scum.”

I Am Not A Man- Goodbye Frank Spisak  February 16, 2011

by Miss Frances Anne Spisak

“I am not a man! I reiterate: I am a girl and I want to be recognized as one!! The state of Ohio is FORCING me, against my will, to remain transsexual. Prison officials refuse to provide me with the medical treatment I need to become a woman! Ohio is withholding female hormornes from me, and denying me the surgery needed to correct my disorder. Ohio is forcing me to be masculine in appearance and gender. I am being deprived of autonomy and my rights as a United States citizen! I have first amendment rights to be a woman!….”

[Frank Spisak was a 59 year-old Neo-Nazi Serial Murderer who in 1982, over a period of six months, murdered three Black men in cold blood, shot another 7 times (who survived), tried to shoot a woman in the back after she fought off his assault and attempted rape in a women’s bathroom on a college campus, and tried to kill a man whom he thought to be Jewish.

B,B,But Trans Activists Say This NEVER Happens #86

November 2, 2011

Total fucking scumbag baby rapist Thomas Lee Benson claiming his “internal gender identity” made him dress up like a woman and plonk himself into a hot tub full of little girls in the women’s locker room, even though he is a designated predatory sex offender for raping elementary school girls, and forbidden to be near children. There’s a puke inducing extended interview with the babygirl rapist at the bottom of this link, if you have the stomach for it.

Try this link if you want to see Trans defending him in the comments. Even more puke inducing.

The rapist pedophile goes on in the interview about how he trolls Lesbian bars because he’s obsessed with having sex with women who don’t want to have sex with him. He wants to have sex with Lesbians who don’t know he is male. Guess he trolls elementary school girls for rape and switches it up with targeting some Lesbians.

CCWF: Stop male inmate Richard Masbruch from being housed in a Women’s Facility

July 20, 2012


Who is Richard Masbruch? Masbruch is a career criminal and serial torture-rapist who ties women up at gunpoint and splices together multiple electric cords which he then uses to torture, electrocute and shock his victims before raping and sodomizing them.

This week the family members of women being housed at the Central California Women’s Facility began an urgent campaign for the removal of male serial torture-rapist Richard Masbruch from the female population. Anna Silver of Los Angeles has started a petition upon hearing the news that Masbruch is about to be transferred to her mother’s unit.

From the petition:

Today as I answered my Mothers phone call she spoke to me and sounded slightly more upset than usual, normally she tells me she misses me. Today she told me that Richard Masbruch would be housed at CCWF. He would be the first male to be housed in a womens facility. Not only would he be housed there he would also be housed within her unit 514. Richard Masbruch is a Serial Rapist. During his time in Mens prison after his arrest he cut off his penis, claiming to be transgender. Due to inmates being unable to be interviewed what wasn’t revealed was that Masbruch is in fact still raping women within the facility, just now with foreign objects. He has also brutally injured some of the women within the facility.Please sign my petition against Richard being allowed in a women’s facility of any kind, so that he may return to a male penitentiary. It would not only help me and my mother but any woman in any facility. Thank you for your help and have a wonderful day.


                                                       Anna Silver


Benson Mugshot

From the Toronto Sun:Christopher Hambrook, who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica, is a serial rapist who sexually assaulted and terrorized women after being placed in Toronto area Women’s Shelters. He has attacked four females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

(Dana McCallum considers himself a “male lesbian” and at least one media source has already run the headline “Lesbian Twitter Engineer Charged With Raping Wife”. McCallum has been an outspoken anti-woman activist, referring to feminists as “wackos”, and participating in the transgender “#Fuck Cis People” twitter campaign (“cis” is a transgender community slur for “biological females”).

From a German feminist: In Germany, M-F transgendered go to women prisons. There was a man who killed two women, and when sentenced, “discovered his female side.” He took hormones, and “transitioned,” which cost the tax payer 40.000 Euros, around $60000. He then almost killed a female CO, dragging her into his cell. He is still in a women’s prison. Then he stopped taking hormones, in order to “become a man again,” and is growing a beard. He is still in a women’s prison. The other female inmates are probably all transphobic, because they’re scared to death of him. And this is not the only case. Calling the fears and concerns from women “transphobic,” is a slap in the face. Thirty-seven years ago, when my best friend was thirteen, she was raped in a restaurant restroom. Why doesn’t her fear count? Not all men are rapists, but still they are not allowed to enter women’s toilets for a reason. We don’t know men’s intention since it’s unpredictable. In clubs where alcohol and drugs are used, it’s extremely frightening. I don’t know what’s going on with strangers that have male sexual organs, and I don’t want to sit beside them with my pants down. So please let us have our own space.


“Woman” arrested for bestiality ? News Media fictionalizes sex of crime suspect

April 26, 2014

woman 1


woman 2


Jezebel false report

I’ve said this before: when stories emerge in the media about women who live asfake mountain-climbing paraplegics or live as adult babies in diapers shoving marshmallows up their ass, or who are cited with multiple felony rape charges, or who are accused of multiple sadistic sexual serial murders, or in this case, are arrested for bestiality for fucking horses, there is an EXTREMELY good chance the perpetrator in question is actually a man, who is falsely reported as female on the grounds that said male is a transgenderist. News agencies and incompetent journalists like David Moye at the Huffington Post now falsely report male crimes and male perpetrators as female, if the male in question is a member of the genderist belief community. From the PhoenixNewTimes:

The ad on Craigslist, which is still active at the time of this post, was listed on April 8, and states:

I am 22 years old and I want to play with a male Horse. simple as that. If you have access to a Male horse, and can allow me access to a male horse, then contact me please  ;) I will do something in return.

Detectives were able to identify the poster as 22-year-old Donald Waelde, according to MCSO.

Another Craigslist visitor, who had a “genuine interest in horses,” contacted the MCSO out of disgust, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

According to an MCSO spokesman, “In the undercover investigation, Sheriff’s deputies contacted the suspect and engaged Waelde in conversation where the suspect stated the sex act he wished to perform on the horse and agreed to meet the undercover detective on Tuesday.”

The detective actually went to the meeting place in Anthem with a horse, borrowing one from the MCSO’s Mounted Posse.

Waelde was immediately arrested after showing up to the meeting place, and the Sheriff’s Office says he admitted to placing the ad and “stated his intentions to consummate the act.”

MCSO deputies also served a search warrant at Waelde’s Phoenix home.


Transgender male "transwoman" Craigslist post pretending to be female

Donald Waelde mugshot


Hey, this is what makes us women, and where is the clitoris?: uk-prisoners/

Crossdressing and Sex Prosthetics Approved for Transgender UK Prisoners

March 16, 2011

A 20 page guidebook on transgender prisoners was issued to wardens across the UK last week. As a result of the UK’s Gender Recognition Act the Ministry of Justice’s guidelines state “An establishment must permit prisoners who consider themselves transsexual and wish to begin gender reassignment to live permanently in their acquired gender.”

Unlike other prisoners who must wear prison uniforms, self-identified transgenders may wear their own clothes, and will be given access to prosthetics, devices, and gendered street clothes used to disguise their physical sex. Males who want to must be referred to as “miss” or “ma’am” and be called by a fake name of their choosing. These new guidelines apply to transgendered who have not been issued a “Gender Recognition Certificate” by the government but to those who remain legally regarded as their actual physical sex. Male murderers and rapists who wish to “become women” are already provided with state paid Gender Reassignment Surgery and then transferred to women’s prisons, regardless of concerns for those women’s safety.


In at least one case, a man in prison for kidnapping and attempted murder of a woman received a taxpayer funded sex change, transferred to a woman’s prison, then after a few years demanded a reverse-sex-change back to male, also taxpayer funded.

A senior citizen confronted with a “trans woman” in a Toronto YMCA women’s locker room who forced her to view his erect penis, and asked her “do you come here often?”- was recently told by authorities that males have an “absolute” legal right to placement in public areas traditionally sex-segregated for female safety, under new legal “Gender Identity” statutes, which override former sex-based protections for women and girls.

The elimination of women-only services and spaces where women are particularly vulnerable, such as homeless shelters, prisons, hospital bed assignment, areas of public nudity (such as locker rooms), is the primary goal of the transgender political rights movement. Also included are women’s sports, women’s colleges, women’s conferences, private women-only music festivals, lesbian events, etc.

Men posing as women in a women’s restroom to video and ridicule a lone woman while one of the men exposes himself to her. Notice how hard she tries to humor them –

Transjacktivists claim that arrest statistics for peeping and perving don’t show a sharp increase in states where men are allowed in women’s spaces. Well of course they don’t!… Making a formerly illegal behavior LEGAL seldom results in more arrests for (now legal) behavior.

The truth is guys do this…all the time. And they’ll do whatever it takes to perv on females. Here are some of the things they’ll do to get into female spaces:

  1. Hide cameras and microphones in female spaces.
  2. Crawl through ventilation ducts to view female spaces.
  3. Install double mirrors to view female spaces.
  4. Drill holes in walls to peep women’s spaces.
  5. Place cameras in shopping bags next to females wearing skirts.
  6. Risking arrest –and repeat arrest- sneaking into women’s restrooms.
  7. Dress up as and try to pass as female.
  8. Claim they are female.
  9. Try to pass laws permitting men who claim they are female to legally enter spaces where females do not want men.
  10. Try to pass laws that state that females don’t actually exist.
  11. Force law enforcement and media outlets to report male crimes against women as woman-on-woman crime, if the male is diagnosed with GID.

Let’s face it, males commit violent and sexual crimes against women. Statistically, it is indisputable. And criminal actions by and arrests of men don’t decrease after SRS (sexual reassignment surgery). In fact post SRS males have higher rates of criminality than the general public. There are voluminous incidents of transgender male violence against women. Murders, rapes, assaults. There are infantesimal reports of crimes against male transgenders committed by female perpetrators. Statistically minute. What does that tell us? It tells us that females should have the right to sex-segregated areas in places where they are especially vulnerable to male crimes against women….

The only “bathroom incidents” involving male transgenders are related to males entering female-designated spaces.

Americans are protected by Title VII against sex discrimination: discrimination against folks who don’t conform to sex role stereotypes. So males who are discriminated against while using male facilities can sue, the same way females can sue for sex discrimination. So where are the cases? Out of millions of transgender people there must be at least a handful of cases of males who have been discriminated against by being prevented from using male facilities because they looked female? No. There are none.

Where is the evidence that there is a statistically significant problem of crossdressed men/transsexual males/other transgender males suffering predation in male restrooms/male spaces? It doesn’t exist.

There is no demonstrable need for male-bodied people to use female facilities, regardless of how well they conform – or not- to gendered sex-roles.


Rape by men claiming to be women can be deadly in more ways than one….

“Transgender women were 49 times more likely to have HIV compared to a reference population, according to a new study on transgender women and HIV”.

Transgender Rights: The Elimination of the Human Rights of Women

July 11, 2013

Removing the legal right of women to organize politically against sex-based oppression by males

Removing the legal right of women to assemble outside the presence of men

Removing the legal right of women to educational programs created for women outside the presence of men

Eliminating data collection of sex-based inequalities in areas where females are underrepresented

Elimination of sex-based crime statistics

Eliminating athletic programs and sports competition for women and girls

Removing the legal right of women to be free from the presence of men in areas of public accommodation where nudity occurs

Elimination of grants, scholarships, board and trustee designations, representative positions, and affirmative programs for women

Removing the legal right of women to create reproductive clinics, rape crisis services, support groups, or any organizations for females

Eliminating media and all public discourse specific to females

Removal of the right of journalists to report the sex, and history, of subjects

Eliminating the legal right of lesbians to congregate publicly

Elimination of lesbian-specific organizations and advocacy groups

Removing the legal right of women to free speech related to sex roles and gender

Elimination of the legal right of women to protection from state-enforced sex-roles (appearance/behavior/thought)

Elimination of the legal right of girls to protection from state-enforced sex-roles in public education

Elimination of the patient right of dependent females to hospital/facility bed assignments separate from males

Elimination of the right of dependent females to prefer female providers for their intimate personal care requirements

Elimination of the human right of female prisoners under state confinement to be housed separately from male prisoners

Unlike any other “social justice” venture in history, Transgender Rights are unique in that they are completely based on eliminating the human rights of women. Transgender Rights are the “right” to eliminate the human rights of women. But how can such a relatively small group eliminate the legal human rights of half of the human race? Because the transgender politic is an anti-female politic, and as such receives blanket support from all male sectors who profit from the elimination of human rights for females: the state, the conservative politic, the liberal politic, the gay politic, the “queer” politic, academia, business, commerce, media.

This Is What Privilege Looks Like   June 23, 2011

howard collage

Male? Check. White? Check. Upper class? Check? Hetero? Check.

Howard is a business development consultant from Phoenix Arizona who flies frequently via US Airways as a high mileage executive preferred customer. For years now he has been entertaining himself by traveling in his tiny underwear and high heels and various sexualized female gender coded crossdresser ensembles. There are whole websites devoted to collecting photos of him in various airports over the years, and many a YouTubes. He has been accorded the nickname “Terminal” by afficianados and is regarded as something of a folk hero.

Well Howard is getting his 15 minutes of fame this week after someone linked Howard’s behavior to the incident of College football player Deshon Marman getting into legal trouble over refusing to pull up his pants that were hanging off his ass and his ejection from a US Airways flight. “Look at the carte blanche the white guy has to run around in sexay underwear while a black guy gets kicked off a plane for having his ass hang out of his pants” is the refrain. “Look at the privilege”….

…Can you imagine the treatment a woman would receive wearing these travel clothes? What about a 65 year old female executive with a droopy flabby gut? Would she be a preferred customer? What about a poor woman?  A Black woman? They would all be frikkin treated like dirt- at the very least. More likely they would be intercepted by law enforcement. Or beaten or raped. Or given a psychiatric evaluation. And would the media withhold their name which is plastered all over the internet at their request? Hell’s to the No.

This is what Privilege LOOKS LIKE. “Terminal” Privilege. I just thought you might want to have a look….


It is possible to de-transition:


88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3)

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behavior.

This is what transgender does:

rape and kill 6 year old girls

are sexual predators and

T. rape women

TW rape women

TW rape women

TW rape women

TW Rape women

TW are rapists

assault and sodomize women

TW expose themselves at parks

TW assault teenagers

TW parade through office buildings,4675,NothingButHeels,00.html

TW steal from their families

TW attack their mothers with baseball bats

TW wear tutus

TW molest children

TW steal shoes

TW stab people

TW expose them selves in public and

TW expose themselves in residential neighborhoods

TW expose themselves at the post office

rob women of their shoes

TW masturbate in public libraries

TW masturbate in public

TW solicit lewd acts from children

TW expose and touch themselves in public

TW grope and grab teenaged girls

TW masturbate in the park

TW sue to wear panties in prison

TW expose themselves in parking lots

TW flash young teens

TW expose themselves at gas stations

TW expose themselves to drivers from the road side

TW hide in cars

TW find sexual pleasure in the park

TW masturbate in front of children

TW flash women at train stations

TW flash and run

TW perform lewd acts in car parks—mans-2396874

TW expose themselves to dog walkers

TW attempt to kidnap children for sex

TW flash women at grocery store

TW force female validation

TW flash dog-walkers

TW expose themselves to construction workers

TW assault women

TW steal

TW piss on neighbors porch

TW stroll the neighborhood in panties

TW steal and wear neighbors clothing

TW Grope women

TW Stand outside in women’s underwear

TW Break into neighbors home

TW Spy on women in bathrooms

TW Peep and video couples, return to steal her clothes

TW Get high and vandalize women’s bathrooms

TW dress in women’s lingerie and rob people

TW wearing black bras flash young women

TW expose themselves to other men

TW expose themselves while riding scooters

TW enter women’s restrooms and locker rooms for sexual gratification

TW filed under “Open and Gross” in police call logs

TW smuggle drugs in their bra and panties

TW attack their ex-wives with a meat cleaver

TW murder women and

TW attack and stab women and

TW steal clothes from Sorority House

TW assault security guards and steal designer dresses!/entry/crossdressing-thief-commits-perfect-crime,51df3e57da27f5d9d0f68f30

TW threaten with knives

TW rape other men

have a fetish for women’s undergarments

T. break-in to homes in the middle of the night

have erections with their coffee

shoot at police

T. work as “Escorts”

T. suffer a phenomenal 19 rapes in just 10 years

T. break-in to neighbors house, bring drugs and porn, borrow panties

alarm customers and create a scene at local Pizza Hut

T half-naked take young daughters on drugged joyride

T assault women and steal underwear

TW love being seen in public

in booty shorts

T. Impersonate police officers

TW Sexually molest teenaged boys

TW creep around rape victims back yard

TW confess to killing little girls and

TW advertise child pornography on Craiglist

rob in taxis at knife point,_a_cab_and_a_knife

violate probation

TW dig tunnels and watch child pornography

TW steal booze and dance

TW steal cars and whore

TW host circle jerk block parties

TW hang out in your garage wearing your panties

TW torture their girlfriends

TW Are convicted pedophiles

T. Threaten to kill state legislators

participate in office sex scandals

wear double the panties

steal from laundry rooms


assault young girls in restrooms

viciously attack their lovers

T. force young boys into prostitution

deal drugs for gangs

get breast implants and go topless to support equal rights

Solicit sex from boys

attack men

rape men

molest children

dress to drown he was a very large man in a very small skirt

attack teenage girls

drive drunk and indecently expose themselves at the park with their family

harass women and

From THIS is Transgender (posted 2013/8/23):

use women’s locker rooms prior sex offender conviction

chase teenaged girls and expose themselves

sneak into women’s locker rooms

make indecent remarks to women in public

visit strip clubs and solicit prostitutes

masturbate in public

expose themselves to teenaged girls

place obscene phone calls

Sunbathe at public beach in frilly knickers

expose themselves to runners at the park

feel excited

go jogging in women’s underwear

wear their daughters’ panties

attack bike messengers“aggressive and dangerous”











































TW Have sex in the park

TW Stalk children, send sexually explicit images and texts

TW expose themselves at Wally World



TW and

























TW grope women in public

TW enjoy being frisked by TSA at airports

TW molest children at knifepoint

TW expose themselves to teenagers at the mall

TW commit lewd acts on children under their supervision

TW Steal and wear children’s underwear

TW sexually molest children

TW commit lewd acts in stolen knickers

TW masturbate in department store bathrooms

TW break-in and commit lewd acts

TW Molest children

TW sexually accost strangers

TW are voyeuristic

TW flash hotel visitors

TW expose themselves in public

TW Transgender on-off switch





From They are Out There (posted 2013/7/9):


TW and

TW (warning: child pornography)



TW and




TW Note that he wears “just panties”.



TW and





TW (Note his 2nd Arrest)


TW (warning: child pornography)














TW (warning: 4 yr old child victim)



TW trans activist hides sexual fetish of above




























TW (wearing a “maid’s dress” with genitals showing)













Panty theft




TW and



TW (warning: indecency with a child)




Pnty theft







TW (warning: child torture)






TW and



Remember that most of these women who identify as “transmen” are Fem and many are het or bisexual, and also identify as gay men and want access to gay men.

“Boxers rock. Guy’s clothes is comfy and cheap. Being ignored more easily. My friends’ parents no longer question my friendships with their sons. That feeling of being a guy. Being treated like one of the guys. More body strength. Men’s underwear ROCKS! Men’s clothes are cheaper and better quality. Not expected to look pretty. Not expected to have babies. Not expected to go gaga over other people’s babies. Boxer briefs are sooo comfy. Muscle mass increase. Not having to shave. BOXERS. I love them. I’ve never, ever worn briefs, haha. Not having to shave. Not being expected to show emotion all the time by the inflection of my voice. My ma never liked it when she couldn’t tell exactly how I felt about something. Now she has realized that it is the words I use that matter. Men’s underwear. I used to assume that it was impossible to design comfortable underwear, and that everyone put up with it. Then I started wearing briefs. Not being expected to care about other people’s babies and young kids. Men’s clothing is more comfortable, and often cheaper and more functional. Not being expected to be able to relate to other girls as a girl/ not being expected to understand the nuances of what’s happening in a social situation/ being ignored more. Feeling safer when I’m by myself at night. Being treated as one of the guys. Feeling normal. Clothes, girl’s clothes are tight and uncomfortable and too flashy, guy’s clothes are comfortable, simple, and convenient. Less head hair (unless u have long hair for a guy) it’s just simpler, plus more fun to style. Bathrooms, guys don’t go in there to put on makeup and giggle, they go in there to shit and piss, I love it, I always felt weird trying to do my business in the girls room, cause it seemed I was the only one in there using it for what it is, a bathroom. No makeup, most girls are expected to wear makeup, sure guy liner is cool sometimes, but I’m so glad I’m not expected to wear it. I don’t have to look good- I can just roll out of bed and go to class, no one cares if I look grungy. No periods/pms (for guys on t). Don’t have to shave your body. Boxers, I had been wearing men’s underwear before I even knew I was trans, panties are uncomfortable and too thin! Higher pay, they say men get more money.. cha ching. More respect. Getting treated as one of the guys by other guys, there seems to be a silent code of respect between guys (for the most part) Being stronger, not being seen as weak, being expected to pull your weight, and not treated like a wimpy girl. Feeling safer when I’m by myself at night-agree. Being called bud, bro or man by peers. Being called son (I love that term of affection. You never hear anyone say “daughter” as a term of affection). I completely agree with the men’s underwear, although I find briefs the most comfortable. Not being given a hard time about not wearing makeup. Not being assumed to be weak or vulnerable. More comfortable clothing. Boxers. Just being ignored instead of looked at like a weird butch chick. Not being stared at weird for acting immature. Feeling normal. Feeling safer when I’m by myself at night. Being treated as one of the guys. Oh and being called boss by a guy the other day. Being more comfortable. Lack of femininity isn’t questioned. Number 1: Straight chicks checking me out. Being my girlfriend’s man. Being one of the guys, without them having to add “without the dick”. Being chivalrous; men have always held doors for me. Not that I don’t appreciate the consideration, but I’m a door-holder, not taker. Now I get to let the ladies and older persons go ahead of me, or hold a door open, and put a smile on their face. Wearing clothes that suit my personality without people glaring at me or shifting uncomfortably when they see a bug dyke [sic] walking their way. Boxers and boxer-briefs. The drive to work out, the desire to have muscles, the lack of shame about having a more muscular body than most other women because, well, I no longer consider myself a woman. I’m a man, I’m strong, I’m proud, and lifting those weights makes me feel even better about my body. Not feeling like I’m putting on a show.  If anyone’s seen Chicago, I used to always think of my interactions with people as starting with “And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, a tap dance.” Having my woman feel safe in my arms, protected. Looking forward to watching my wife walk down to aisle to me. Feeling proud when my gf ask me to help fix something around the house. Smirking when my gf needs me to open a jar.”

[From a popular online forum for “Female-to-Male Transsexuals”]


These men get it, so why can’t women?  from the Little Britain television series:





Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments



Bev Jo

Too many women and girls are put off Radical Feminism because of the bland, vague politics that masquerade as Radical Feminism. Too many have been personally insulted by false “leaders” of a movement that is based on having no leaders. The energy, excitement, and love that can exist among Radical Feminists is being sabotaged by imposters substituting anti-feminist politics.

I object. I object to our Radical Feminist movement and culture being appropriated and parasitized. I object when men do it, claiming to be Radical Feminists and demanding we accept them as women. And I object when women who are not Radical Feminists do it, setting themselves up as the bosses of our movement, misrepresenting our politics, policing women to accept their distorted version of Radical Feminism, and harassing actual Radical Feminists who object. This movement is not theirs to steal.

It’s clear that men can’t ever be women, so they also can’t be Radical Feminists. But a woman who is not yet a Radical Feminist could yet become one, making it more difficult to draw the line about who is or who isn’t a real Radical Feminist. However, just as there is a clear definition of “female,” there is a clear definition of true Radical Feminist politics as developed for over forty years. Still, lies repeated enough begin to be believed, especially when supported by arrogant cliques who use ruthless tactics.

Some present these new anti-feminist politics as the ultimate law of “radfems,” yet no Radical Feminist I know ever voted on it or agrees to it. It’s like a cult where no thinking, or questioning the contradictions with real Radical Feminism, is allowed. Women who dare to object are immediately bombarded with ridicule and hatred to shame them into mindlessly obeying. They then are trained to police other women who step out of line. Some women who want to learn about feminism, and who want and need to share support with other women, instead find this Counterfeit Feminism online and are put off and give up.

This is not about women new to feminism excitedly repeating mainstream ideas they learned from the media or fake women’s studies classes, but about a deliberate weakening and distortion of Radical Feminism.

In many groups now, as soon as Radical Feminists refer to the basic principles of what has been known for decades as Radical Feminism (clearly distinct from anti-feminism, mainstream feminism, or liberal feminism), we are censored, silenced, and even told we are “misogynist” – which are the same tactics the trans cult use with their mock charges of “misogyny” against women who say no to them. This manipulative ploy is being effective in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ takeover of real Radical Feminism because it’s hard to fight such an accusation when you are not allowed to answer at blogs or in facebook “Radical Feminist” groups because you are immediately banned. Then the imposters misrepresent your politics with lies to explain your disappearance. Other women in the group withdraw in terror of being the next to be banished. (By the way, if anyone does hear bizarre misrepresentations of my politics, feel free to ask.)

Many online feminists are well-meaning, but also are isolated and lonely, and fear rejection. It’s in women’s nature to be social and want a community of friends. Yet too often the price of joining the parasitizing cliques is agreeing to abandon common sense. So they learn the new rules and join in the gutting of real Radical Feminism.

This re-defining of Radical Feminism is similar to how the word “Lesbian” has been re-defined to include bisexuals, het women, and even men.

We already know that there are trolls in our online international Radical Feminist movement. Some have been revealed to be MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) but others are women betraying our movement and playing a double game. Too often the women trolls get into positions of power, and even name themselves our leaders. When they are exposed, they just start new pretend Radical Feminists groups to moderate, and real Radical Feminists, not wanting to be left out of the cliques, join, ignoring what these women have done, and so give credibility to the troll groups, draining our movement.

Some feminists talk sadly about how heart-breaking the “infighting” is, but infighting is what happens among members of the same movement. The women dismantling Radical Feminism are NOT part of our movement or culture. It helps protect us as a movement, and protects our hearts individually, to recognize that clearly.

Knowing our history, means knowing that every destructive anti-feminist and anti-female group that infiltrated our culture began by claiming to be feminist and using our language to convince our community they were one of us. (In 1979, the sado-masochists Wikipedia describes as “writer Pat Califia and feminist academic Gayle Rubin,” began Samois, used classic Lesbian Feminist terminology like “womyn” and “womon” in their publication to convince feminists that sado-masochism was feminist. I still hear women repeating some of their stock phrases used to explain the unexplainable. Similarly, many of the men who insist they are women and Lesbians call themselves “feminists” and even “Radical Feminists.” Those two female-hating worlds merged when Pat Califia, the bisexual who also used to appropriate Butch identity now claims to be a “gay man.”)

Our Women’s Liberation movement does not grow if we are forced to re-discuss basic feminist ideas and politics endlessly, which is a classic method of trolling and sabotage. Those who do not know our history keep trying to condemn us to repeat it.

Feminists who have strong politics about some issues suddenly can sound like liberals with no politics when they insist “You can’t define Radical Feminism and tell a woman she isn’t a Radical Feminist.”  Well, why not?  The politics either are or are not Radical Feminism, as opposed to liberal/mainstream/right wing feminism. Any woman who wants to dilute Radical Feminism into a bland, meaningless mess is simply not a Radical Feminist.

So What IS Radical Feminism?

Radical Feminism is liberal feminism taken to its logical extreme. Radical Feminism is where liberal feminists are afraid to explore. Though there are strong het Radical Feminists, It’s important to know that Radical Feminism did come from Lesbian Feminism.

Radical Feminism, which began in the late Sixties and early Seventies, is an international movement of females of all ages who are fighting against patriarchy.  Some Radical Feminists have access to the many books that came later, but other women are just discovering it, as we did, inspired by their own minds and experience, and by talking with other women.

Mainstream, reformist, and liberal feminists support the status quo. They believe everything will be just fine if men as a group would somehow stop raping and killing females, and destroying the earth. Of course they think it’s always up to women to make men change, which means devoting even more time to men and boys. That never works. Reformism does not go past fantasy into reality. Reformists don’t want to face the upsetting truths about patriarchy and males, or female collaborators. As painful as those realizations are, Radical Feminists know that Radical Feminism explains what has gone wrong with mainstream feminism and is the only way to actually change patriarchy and to end male violence towards all females and the earth. It is ultimately extremely freeing.

Liberal/reformist feminism is about pleading with our oppressors and relying on the male system to eventually make things better for women, with women bearing the brunt of the work as usual. Part of the problem is that most women want to just feel comfortable and not be deeply challenged to think or to change their lives. They know that patriarchy is not fair for girls and women. They want a better deal from men. But many do not realize that better deals are limited, as well as subject to removal over time. Those of us who have been watching for decades see the various ways that patriarchy plays games and even uses mainstream feminist slogans for their benefit. Woman wanting freedom from men are turned into “liberated women” who give men exactly what they want, with none of the protections that het women previously expected (like sexually serving men in exchange for marriage, which, while constricting, also means increase in family status and societal status as well as security, money, property, etc. that most women could never hope to get on their own or with other women. Yes, it’s a form of legal prostitution, but with more advantages than servicing men for free. Of course Radical Feminism is against both.)

Women become more bound to men with less safety when they believe the patriarchal version of mainstream MS magazine feminism (with its het porn stories) instead of finding out about real Radical Feminism.

Radical Feminism, and particularly Radical Lesbian Feminism, takes liberal, mainstream feminism past its bland, vague request for equal rights for women into the most courageous and unacceptable extreme of working for true justice for all females. It takes us past where we are forbidden to even think, which is why it’s so threatening. Radical Feminism is about always questioning every single thing that we are told is “reality” or “just the way things are,” etc. Parasitized pretend feminism teaches women to stop questioning and thinking, and to accept lies that can be comfortingly similar to the regular patriarchal cons. Only enough is changed to fit the agendas of the false leaders of this counterfeit feminism.

Radical Feminism is what women discover and invent when all the patriarchal censors on our minds are gone, and the fear of retribution is ignored. Radical is more than the root, it goes beyond all the lies we were taught, recognizing that patriarchy is built on deception. When the lies are exposed, then patriarchal control of girls’ and women’s minds unravels.
Radical Feminism shakes patriarchy to its core because it calls for the very ending of patriarchy. And we believe that that is the only thing that will save the earth from the direction of destruction men have set.

Radical Feminists don’t even pretend to believe that females and males are basically the same, while liberal/mainstream feminists repeat the dangerous myth that male violence is not an innate biological difference, even though male violence can easily be seen and verified in many other animal species. They also push the line that men are somehow victims of “socialization,” and therefore victims too.

The truth is all around us, and even our other animal sisters know better than most women that it’s the norm in males to want to rape and kill.

Male sea otters kidnap baby otters from their mothers, forcing the mothers to bring food to them. They kill ten percent of the females when trying to rape them. They also rape baby seals to death and continue raping the corpse until it rots. Male koalas, attempting to rape the females, often kill the females and their babies. Male lions kill the babies, including their own, and rape the females. In one bug/hemiptera species, the males literally puncture the females’ abdomen to reproduce. In response, some female animals have built female-only societies, and some have almost completely eliminated the males and control the existence of those they choose to create.

This was one of the clear dividing lines in the Seventies, when the women invested in males said we must help them overcome socialization, ignoring that boys raping animals and baby girls were no way shown in the media or approved of in most families, religions, neighborhoods, and cultures. If the boys who do this bring shame to their people, then where does the “socialization” come from?  (There was a video online showing a boy raping a chicken, and then his father hitting him in the head, knocking him down.) Would women really pay to go to brothels where they could sexually assault animals, like men have constructed?

Already for millennia, before there was mass media, males were as dangerous as they are now. Now over forty years after the theory of men as “victims too” was introduced, we see how well the making of new non-misogynist males has worked. Some of the most female-hating men come from women trying their hardest to make decent men out of their boys. It’s not the mother’s fault that their sons absorbed their love and energy to become even more entitled and now have inside information. (One of the worst, pornographer Tobi Hill-Meyer, even while posting online photos of his erect prick, insists he’s a Lesbian and Butch, and is given a power position on the board of Butch Voices to ban real Lesbians and Butches from doing Lesbian workshops.)

The Radical Feminist politics of males and females being biologically different matches common sense and what men themselves admit (just ask them), and is also what most non-feminist women know. If we want a worldwide movement, we must be aware of what aspects of feminism put off most women. The insistence of liberal feminists that there are no brain/mind/spirit differences is one which most women know is not true.

We’ve been saying no to excuses for male violence for decades. (The classic “he’s a serial rapist/murderer because he was abused” would mean that most women would now be serial killers.) Feminists should be questioning all patriarchal propaganda instead of making up a fantasy world which excuses men.

One clue to the pretend “radfem” tactics is to notice how much they attack real Radical Feminist ideas with nonsensical charges. Some of these women actually lecture us that our daring to name the truth about male violence being biologically caused somehow excuses male violence. Of course it doesn’t — they still have free will, and they do control themselves when it suits them, usually when the consequences are higher than they want to risk. Of course they are still accountable for the choices they make to rape, torture, kill, and contaminate the earth with their territorial marking (male nuclear marking is forever, whether from contamination through accidents and storage of radioactive material, or use of nuclear weapons, including “depleted uranium”), which is why men will not give it up in spite of the obvious. As the scientist we quoted in Dykes-Loving-Dykes said, “a male human being loves to see an explosion.”) Men know the truth about themselves, but women are too often willing to sacrifice other women and girls to protect men. That is not Radical Feminism.

Another tactic has been to insist that only men are our enemy, forbidding any mention of women’s crimes because somehow no woman is recognized as having any real power. This tends to come from women whose lives revolve around males, and who ignore that many of us have moved on, knowing we want nothing to do with males and are now focusing on making women’s communities as good and safe as possible. It’s almost as if naming some women’s betrayal will blow apart fragile feminism, but this fantasy works only for the most extremely privileged women who rarely feel oppression from other women, or for those who somehow continue ignoring the world all around them. Radical

Feminism is not a cult that needs institutionalized fantasies and lies to protect it.

Denying the truth weakens Radical Feminism, while daring to say the truth strengthens it. Some newer Radical Feminists despair and quit after seeing how some women participate in the worst of men’s crimes. Insisting that collaborators are mindless victims who can’t choose anything is not the answer. It’s simply not true. Of course some women betray us, and Radical Feminism explains why. Our book focused on explaining the reasons many women collaborate with men, but we still don’t believe that women would be raping and killing and destroying the earth on their own. Yes, some women are our enemy, but as a group, women are never close to being life-hating and female-hating as most males are. (By the way, because many men are now legally accepted as women, the statistics on violence caused by ”women” is increasing.)

Why Are Liberal and Mainstream Feminists Pretending to Be Radical Feminists?

Of course not all women who name themselves “radfems” are parasitizing Radical Feminism, but still, “radfem” is the newer trendy word that some of the cliques opposed to original Radical Feminist politics use. Yes, “radfem” is an abbreviation, but so is RF (Radical Feminist) and so is the trivializing term “women’s lib,” which no feminist would ever use.

Much of what we took for granted as basic feminism is being dismantled and eliminated. We never thought that we would ever again be forced to argue with women claiming to be feminist that of course heterosexism, racism, classism, ableism, ageism, fat oppression, etc. exist among us and have to be fought. Never did we think we’d be lectured about how all money comes from men, so classism doesn’t exist among us (just ignore the rich “radfems” with servants), and then see class appropriated and confused when used unnecessarily in phrases, such as “the class of women.” Nor did we think that even our clear and direct language would be muddied with academic terms that are intentionally substituted to further confuse women. An example is how “intersectionality” is used to discredit early Radical Feminist politics describing the multiple differences and oppressions that we must deal with to avoid having a segregated pretend feminism of only the most privileged. (As soon as the academic term “intersectionality” is used, I know that the writer either does not know Radical Feminist history or that they are deliberately undermining Radical Feminism. I explain at my blog in
Progress Versus Cooptation in the Radical Feminist Movement).

Attempting to erase our Radical Feminist history of fighting all oppression among women so we can have equality is also an attempt at segregation. This is all the more infuriating for those who know that Radical Feminism was created by those very women they want eliminated, such as class-oppressed and race-oppressed Lesbians.

It used to be that misogynist men claiming they were women were supported only by a few women who felt sorry for them or who bonded with them in the “Leather” sado-masochist and porn culture. Most women just said no to the embarrassingly obvious men parading around as their prurient fantasies of women. But that’s all changed — now women who say no to the trans cult are called bigots, are censored, sent death threats, etc. What was once sensible basic feminism now appears radical only because of how bad things have become for women. But hating men who pretend to be women and being targeted by them is not enough to make someone a Radical Feminist – and hating real Radical Feminists is definitely not being Radical Feminist.

It’s easy enough for counterfeit Radical Feminists to read our extensive history. When they say what we’ve done hasn’t worked, telling us to weaken our politics, they are ignoring how governments and media and MRAs have been undermining us for decades, as well as have the majority of women who betray females for males. Many more Radical Feminists are poor and barely surviving now than in 1970, with the worldwide change in economics, and that has made it very hard to organize in the US. (Rooms rented in Radical Feminist group houses were $50 a month, and houses $100. Spaces could be easily rented for women only events where we could do political work and socialize. Since surviving was cheaper, Radical Feminists had more time.)  Nothing was wrong with our movement and politics, considering a handful of women were fighting all of patriarchy and creating an entirely new culture. What Radical Feminists did all over the world was amazing and is still having an effect.

So why don’t the pretend “radfems” just leave Radical Feminism and us alone and start their own movement as a segment of liberal feminism? They won’t though. They want to claim Radical Feminism for their own.

Posturing as radical is trendy, but those who really ARE radical are a constant reminder of the truth, so the counterfeit feminists mindfuck, accusing us of being “liberal, “third wave,” and other projections. They want to erase our existence since we are proof of their lies, similar to how the trans cult wants to erase true female existence.

Also, some women new to feminism believe they are radical because they go further than the vague, meaningless con that is generally presented as feminism. The media made “feminist” stars of privileged liberal women in spite of the basic feminist tenet that feminism has no stars or leaders. Patriarchal spokeswomen’s “feminism” would make almost any woman think she is radical by comparison. Plus, having fleeting fantasies about hating men causes some liberal feminists to be accused of being “sexist man-hating fanatics.”  And of course all women on some level will be drawn to the truth in Radical Feminism. But none of these alone make a woman a Radical Feminist.

Then some women want fame and notoriety, so they started blogs plagiarizing feminists’ writing from decades earlier, forming elitist cliques with their own elitist “radfem” language that automatically excludes true Radical Feminists and requires those wanting to join the cliques to submit to the humiliation of asking what the bizarre terms mean, even if they were the original writers of the plagiarized work. Real Radical Feminism is opposed to hierarchy and inequality, dominance and submission that the cliques thrive on. One of the most quoted of these privileged pretend “radfems” admits she came to feminism as a “funfem” (women who participated in the female-hating pseudo feminism that men push, such as glorifying male-invented “femininity,” porn and sado-masochism.) She also has a history of being a cruel bully who uses ridicule to try to intimidate Radical Feminists. She is heterosexist and particularly targets Lesbians. We have no idea how many girls and women we lost from our movement who were searching for feminism and ended up being her victim. I believe it was her and other bloggers’ het privilege (some still with their “special” men) that gave them more authority and appreciation since het women are generally far more valued by feminists, including Lesbian feminists.

By undermining real Radical Feminism, these “radfems” eliminated any potential questioning of the hypocrisy in their own lives, such as presenting themselves as courageous man-haters while still keeping their own “exceptional” men (as feminists used to sarcastically say). When I saw the online bullies referred to reverentially, I asked what they had said that made them so worshipped and was told in almost hushed tones that they were writing against “PIV” (the new gutted feminism loves elitist, middle class, exclusionary terms — in this case, “penis in vagina” — as if the women who want to be fucked by men must be protected by using a fake, twee euphemism that blunts the shock of the graphic image of that reality) —  as if this issue was something new that hadn’t been extensively and more radically written about as basic feminism in the late Sixties and early Seventies.

No one seemed to even notice that the more radical question of why would feminists even be sexual/intimate with men was completely ignored, since patriarchy literally could not go on without women helping. And that, of course, was because the pretend “radfem” bloggers certainly did not want to lose their het privilege.
Even worse for Radical Feminism, it somehow became a crime to question women’s choices, which had been the basis of even liberal feminism in the Seventies. To further deflect, gaslight, and mind-fuck, the new parasitized feminism’s rules say that not only are women’s choices not to be questioned, but that women have no choices!

So why are these women, who either did not care to learn our history or who are happily plagiarizing parts of it and gutting Radical Feminism in the process, so lauded?

Meanwhile, we are treated as imposters by the imposters. If these women weakening our movement were new and excited and wanting to learn, that would be fine. But just as men say they are better women than we are, these women declare that they and not we are the real Radical Feminists. Both men pretending to be women and women pretending to be Radical Feminists refuse to argue directly and honestly, because they can’t. Instead, they insult, name-call, and use every bit of their privilege, hoping that by oppressing us, they can drive us away. When that doesn’t work, they just lie, censor, and ban.

This is not an issue of Lesbians versus het women because some of the strongest and most courageous Radical Feminists are women who choose to be with men. Yet when they support Radical Lesbian Feminists, they are ridiculed and banned. How dare they break ranks?

The more Radical Feminist a woman becomes, the more she realizes the fact that males (“mankind”) are destroying the earth and raping whatever girls and women they have access to. Those not actively raping (yet) are fantasizing through their beloved porn. It’s over forty years since the massive changes of feminism and yet the rape of girls and women has increased.  “Exceptional” men might exist, but more likely they haven’t been caught or haven’t taken the risk to rape. (Remember how Ted Bundy was considered the ideal man?)  I always say that we never know what a boy or man is doing when he is alone with human babies or animals. There certainly are enough horrific true stories. (I personally know a Lesbian whose friends’ dog was raped by their male gardener. A dear friend was abused by her mother’s boyfriend, who was known to have orally raped his baby daughter to death.) None of this is rare. Almost every woman I know has been sexually assaulted as a girl and/or adult, often multiple times. All have been sexually harassed. This isn’t about “crazy” or “sick” men. These are normal men, who measure “normal” on psychological tests. And even if some men are trustworthy, why do some women who claim to be feminists spend so much energy trying to find them, making them more important than women?

We’ve been seeing the same circular discussions among feminists for the last forty plus years. Clearly we can’t just stop men and patriarchy. But some Radical Feminists suggest that if every woman could deal with the man who had sexually assaulted her, that would not only get rid of most men, there wouldn’t be enough to go around — impossible, though, unless it was done at the same time. So then what?  Well, a simpler, safer method, as some of us said in the Seventies, is that women could end patriarchy by not giving males any more love, attention, support, etc., because men simply could not continue without women supporting them. They would fall apart. And instead of producing the 85% males that Lesbians getting pregnant produce, what about all women saying no to reproducing more males? That would certainly end the problem in a few years and save the earth as well. (A giveaway of right wing mindset is the often frantic response “But the human race will die out!” – as if that’s even a possibility when it’s doubling every few years.)

The most right wing pretend feminists immediately attack these longtime Radical Feminist ideas with their new, dangerous politics that I call “Counterfeit Feminism.” 

Counterfeit Feminism”

I was there when Radical Feminism was created. I saw it and I remember it. I watched the battles between the reactionaries who wanted a segregated feminism where they could get a better deal from their men and patriarchy, as they treated less privileged women like dirt. I saw when most of those women left to return to patriarchy for their careers and/or going back to men. I saw the porn, academia, sado-masochism, genderqueer propaganda, and the heterosexism of the main “sexologists” (who pretended to be Lesbians, while defining us out of existence) come into our community at the end of the Seventies. I also saw the trans cult (and have been fighting it since 1971), though those men did not have widespread liberal/right wing feminist support until decades later.

I like to keep things simple. There are many reasons to do that. Convolution and academic styles of writing confuse things and are methods of establishing class dominance. I want to reach all females, including those who, because of oppression, haven’t had access to patriarchal “higher” education and those whose first language isn’t English. That was why we wrote Dykes-Loving-Dykes in direct, honest, and clear language. As we said, it’s also harder to refute or dismiss something that is direct and clear.

Reformist feminism is about trying to get a better deal from patriarchy while betraying women. It’s about women invested in patriarchy not wanting it to really change because the reformists will lose their privilege. I mean, my god, if patriarchy ends, what good is that law degree, and how will you keep your servants?

Liberal feminism is about wanting to do good, trying to improve patriarchy, but also not wanting to go very deeply into how bad things really are and not wanting to question too much, and, ultimately, not wanting to really change because it will shake up the liberal’s world. It’s about not wanting to take risks, mentally or physically. This is a more comfortable position to be in than Radical Feminism because you can feel part of the mainstream while also feeling superior, and you can still keep your privilege. (This is why “Counterfeit Feminism” religiously forbids the once basic feminist idea that women make choices.)

Counterfeit Feminists say “Women are just too oppressed, too ‘colonized,’ and too uninformed to be able to make real choices….All women participate in patriarchy….No woman escapes male rules, etc.” This ignores reality as well as denies the existence of any of us who have made good choices and who have said no to men and male rules. (And we are not magical mythical privileged freaks. We are among the most oppressed of Lesbians and women in our movement.)

Counterfeit Feminism tells women we are powerless victims, while Radical Feminism is about empowering women. That is partly why the feminist movement seems to have lost much of that incredible sense of excitement and pride in ourselves, as well as hope for the future. Even Sixties and Seventies reformist and liberal feminism was almost completely focused on women thinking, exploring, and making choices to change their lives. Women were sharing skills, going into work previously reserved for men only, forming collectives, etc.

Who wants women to stop thinking and to wallow in feeling helpless in order to not think about past, current, and future choices?  And who then wants such women to police other women to also stop thinking, especially about saying no to men?  The MRAs couldn’t have thought of a better plan than to parasitize women and send them on their way to spread the new gutted feminism.

A question I’ve asked when this topic comes up, but which I haven’t yet seen answered, is how do they reconcile their “radfem” politics with hiring women to clean their toilets? How do they deal with the embarrassment of seeing their Radical Feminist servant at “radfem” events?  (They solve this by making the event unaffordable for anyone but the privileged.)

This is where some reformists and liberals merge into “right wing” feminists. I believe both groups want a segregated movement where more oppressed women are not allowed in or are condemned to “knowing their place.” If they had their way, we would have no feminist movement, because our strongest best writers and theorists were primarily the kind of oppressed Lesbians they want to eliminate. Doesn’t sound too different from how the Male Left treats women, does it?

Another giveaway is how they deal with disagreements and conflict. These colonizers have been very comfortable in feeling superior to other women who refuse to submit to their dominance. They don’t really know how to deal with women who talk back, so they just keep repeating their male tactics. They do not argue with mutual respect about the issues. They can’t really. So they immediately go to name-calling and insults. They use classism and every other possible privilege to win. And yes, the women who parasitize Radical Feminism are primarily very privileged compared to the majority of women. (Again, no excuse since some of the strongest Radical Feminists are also privileged, but the difference is that real Radical Feminists don’t use their privilege to hurt other women.) They patronize and condescend, calling us “stupid” or say we “need educating” or that we are “old fashioned,” as if the reality of patriarchy has changed, meanwhile ignoring the many Radical Feminists with our same politics who are in their twenties. They wildly project what they are doing onto the Radical Feminists they are fighting against, etc. In other words, they imitate male and trans cult methods.

Just look at the issues being discussed and it becomes clear. With this dilution of feminism, women who choose men are presented as somehow victims, denying the significant power they actually have in relation to and over women who have said no to men. How did feminism become “Counterfeit Feminism,” where we are not allowed to talk about the most important choices of our lives without severe punishment?  As soon as Radical Feminists say that most women make choices about whether to be invested in men or not, suddenly we are asked don’t we know there are girls in the world who are literally slaves, chained to the wall in the most oppressive patriarchal countries? The privilege of the woman berating us, and her own choices of men over women, is conveniently ignored.

Instead of harassing us, why don’t these counterfeit feminists confront Gail Dines and other famous feminist activists against porn and prostitution who are married to men and demand that they admit they are mere victims of “Stockholm Syndrome”?

In one Radical Feminist facebook group, I was called “misogynist” and reprimanded for “blaming the victim” because I said that women choose who they love. It was the usual patronizing lecture about how women are with men only out of fear, and Stockholm Syndrome. I had no idea that this bully who professes to be “smashing patriarchy” actually has her own ” unicorn,” as she calls her man (Having such a rare man makes her the exceptional woman, doesn’t it?) So how is she a victim? Interestingly, she, like a number of radfems who constantly talk about how evil men are, never say they are with men, deliberately concealing their hypocrisy and obvious conflict of interest. No talk of her leaving her man.

It seems that the online gang-up attacks on Lesbians and other Radical Feminists who say that het women are choosing to be het are attempts to stop a very obvious contradiction in loyalties, and certainly to prevent mention of what used to be a common Radical Feminist topic: het women as collaborators with men against other women and girls. This has been an ongoing discussion among Radical Feminists in books and articles, at conferences, etc. for over forty years. To bully women into stopping talking about it is to censor Radical Feminism….on behalf of men and patriarchy.

What kind of feminism wants girls and women to not be aware they can make choices away from men and into Radical Feminism?

There is no integrity in the methods used. When het choice is brought up, immediately they deliberately confuse rape with voluntary het sex. One online group was actually called “PIV Is Rape.” That not only trivializes the horror of actual rape, but defines it out of existence. Of course being fucked by men IS horrifying and harmful to women on many levels, but these women have to know that many liberal feminists do brag in pornographic detail about loving it. Some of these women now saying “PIV Is Rape” once bragged about loving it themselves. Meanwhile, they usually avoid mention of the existence of women who have said no to men, but if there is a rare acknowledgement, they use the patronizing term “gold star,” and spread the lie that Lifelong and Never-het Lesbians and celibate women have never been raped.

If you dare to say that women who are invested in males automatically have more societal respect and power and privilege than women who say no to males, suddenly every other issue imaginable is brought up, even though these women previously tried to censor those same topics – like what about poor, disabled women oppressed by racism, etc. – ignoring that more oppressed women are also the women most likely to have said no to men and are still saying no to men.

In the Sixties and Seventies, when feminism meant questioning all of our choices individually and as a community, women’s groups supported each other to go further into feminism, including sharing support to leave their men. NO ONE ordered women to shut up or insisted that women were just complete victims with no choice about the men they were with. That would have been laughed at. Women still with men were quite proud about having gotten a man and made sure everyone heard about it. Women who left men and came out were also proud, but still endlessly bragging or complaining about their ex-husbands and boyfriends, making sure everyone knew it was definitely a choice in order to separate themselves from “perverted” Lifelong Lesbians.

Politics and movements do not always advance over time. In the Seventies, Lesbian Feminists proudly said they chose to love other women, yet liberal feminists don’t seem to know that the “born this way” theory they so vehemently believe actually originated with our enemies. Before feminism, psychiatrists declared most women were born het, but that a few were born Lesbian because of genetic abnormalities or from later damage during development. Girls were expected to go through a phase of being attracted to other girls before they grew out of it to become “normal” women who want to be fucked by men, rather than being pathetic mentally ill “inverts” who continue loving our own kind and refuse boys and men. Another cause was attributed to having been sexually assaulted by males in girlhood – as if almost all girls weren’t). Then as feminism was over-shadowed by the later genderqueer/gay male/trans cult re-write of Lesbian Feminist history, the  “born this way” propaganda was reinstated when gay men pleaded for equal rights from hets who said Lesbians and gay men had the choice to just stop being queer. (Somehow bisexual choice is ignored in the plea for rights based on pity.)

Why on earth would any kind of feminist want to join with medical and genderqueer misogynists in believing the con that Lesbians are an aberration – other than that it releases het women from the responsibility of admitting they are making a choice rather than believing the lie that they are just “normal?” Interestingly, this game is played in reverse when feminists do start questioning why they chose or choose men over women. Suddenly, they insist they had the traumatic childhood as an explanation for choosing men and het privilege. Yet how many of these women once and still do openly ask or secretly wonder if a Lifelong Lesbian is “that way” because of terrible childhood trauma?

These attitudes and politics ignore reality. Some of us do remember watching our friends go from hating the boys who harassed us to making them far more important than us and other girls. I heard the girl I was in love with when we were fifteen describe how she had to get herself to learn to be attracted to boys and to flirt with them if she didn’t want to be an outcast. She was already thinking of Lesbians as freaks. (She asked if I really wanted to use the men’s restroom when I told her I loved her.)  Some of us also remember those friends turning on those of us who refused the rules, name-calling us to cement their new het membership status. It is a denial of truth, as well as insulting, to now lecture those few of us who did not join with males against females,  claiming to be much more oppressed than us.

Since we can’t change boys or men, the main obstruction to ending patriarchy is that het women support and even create it. That is something women can control and change. What keeps patriarchy in place is women believing the misogynist con that, by nature, women somehow belong to men. End that lie, and you have full scale revolution. This self-hating, female-hating myth of heterosexuality as normal is so deep that when recently I explained to a woman that it was wrong to call ants “he,” “guys,” and “little fellows,” etc., because, except for a brief, rare appearance of the few winged males for a day, all the ants we ever see are female who live in a true sisterhood — the “queen,” all the workers and soldier ants, all ants ever seen walking around, are female — she could not get it. Commenting on how hard they work, she tried again to present an ant heterosexual supremacist world of the men ants lazing at home while the women ants worked, probably thinking she’d made quite the feminist statement. No, there are no husband ants at home. Female ants do not belong to male ants. All the ants are female, together, sharing everything, working for each other, willing to die for each other, intimately feeding each other from their mouths, with only one ant out of thousands or millions having been het for just a moment.  Even in mammal animal societies, it’s more common for females to live together away from the dangerous males. And though reproduction is usually rape and the males often will kill the babies and females, in many species, the majority of adult females do not reproduce.

Another con by pretend radfems deeply invested in males is to try to convince women to obey men by spreading the myth that some women must be with men or otherwise men will enslave or kill us all for saying no to them. I thought I’d seen all the excuses women make to stay with their men, but this was a new one, which I never heard or read in over forty decades of Radical Feminist writings and discussion. I say, give it a try and see what happens, but really…. that is not why women stay with men.

Note that as soon as collaboration with the enemy is mentioned, het women invested in men will accuse us of having the secret agenda of wanting them to become Lesbians. Our response is: PLEASE do not flatter yourselves, and please do us the favor of not adding any more female-hating, Lesbian-hating, male-worshipping women to our beleaguered communities where such women already outnumber us. They also tell us that they just don’t feel “sexual” towards women – conveniently ignoring that saying no to their men does not mean they have to become dreaded Lesbians. There IS a third choice between that horror and intimate alliance with our oppressors, but it’s conveniently ignored for a reason — being celibate/single is a significant step down in privilege for het women. Most will make sure everyone knows they did have a man in their past and that they aren’t that most despised of women (constantly joked about in the media, and even among Lesbians, as in discussions about the Michigan Women’s Music Festival) – a virgin. Of course, if virgins are seriously mentioned as more than a joke, the bullying starts with insistence that virgins don’t really exist. Again, erase the lives of actual women in the quest for insisting that all women have to have chosen men.

This derail/diversion away from admitting that choosing men means supporting  patriarchy is relevant in terms of being a Radical Feminist though. But notice the het/male term used about being a Lesbian – “sex.” Well, I’m a Lifelong Lesbian and I don’t feel “sexual” towards women either. That is exactly the heart/mind/body/spirit disconnect that women who choose men have learned from their men. “Sex” is the male term as well as their obsession. It turns Lesbians into a mere “sexual orientation,” the offensive term which of course is never used to refer to “normal” women — anything to avoid the terrifying truth, which is that choosing to be a Lesbian is not about anything as trivial as “sex,” but is choosing to love women. And making that choice in spite of getting severe oppression — not only from men, but also from women allied with men — would literally change everything in patriarchy. At this point in the discussion (if the Radical Feminist hasn’t been banned already), the pretend “radfems” scathingly comment that being a Lesbian doesn’t mean being a feminist, playing on the Lesbian-hating still lurking in most feminists.

Well, yes and no. I have a badge from 1971 that says “Lesbianism Is Revolution.” To actually say no to men and then go further into oppression and risking hatred and rejection from everyone in your life in order to love other women is pretty damned feminist and revolutionary. Yes, there are some Lesbians who do bad things, but using that to vilify Lesbians as a group is similar to anti-feminists saying women are as bad as men when male crimes are named. (Lesbians also are actually way out of proportion to other women in devoting their lives to fighting oppression and the harm done to the earth and other species.)

If all women chose to be Lesbians, of course patriarchy would be over. Why do these “radfem” pretenders try to stop this fact from even being mentioned?  It was commonly said in the Seventies, including by het feminists who knew clearly what they should do to end patriarchy. When radfems now lecture us about why we didn’t “win,” ignoring the reasons, do they even consider what it means that this revolutionary idea is now almost censored in online “radfem” groups?

The worst part of the parasitizing of Radical Feminism is the shutting off of women’s logical thought processes and excitement at exploring these common old Radical Feminist issues, which is exactly what men want. And that brings up again, how many of these women are working for the MRAs and how many are just trying to steer women away in order to protect their own privilege?

Almost all girls do feel in love with other girls at some point. That’s natural. Making a cold decision to transfer those powerful love feelings to boys and men, even though males are empty and boring at best, and repulsive and dangerous at worst, is not natural. But most girls do it, just to fit in, be “normal,” to not be hated and rejected by family and friends. If that woman finally returns to her love for other women, sometimes decades later, she is unlikely to say, as courageous Radical Feminists did in the Seventies, “I finally returned to my first choice of love, our own kind.” Instead, she will say, “I was always a Lesbian, I just didn’t know it,” in order to not upset the liberal genderqueer/gay male line. It’s one thing for non-feminists to explain themselves in this way that defines Lesbians out of existence (because women who chose men at that point in time are NOT Lesbians), but why do feminists participate in propping up this cornerstone of patriarchal propaganda?

You can clearly see many women finally and happily choosing to become Lesbians in their fifties and sixties and older. Some leave husbands, and many are left by their men. Some of these women grew up in places where they saw out Lesbians in public and some were friends with Lesbians for decades. They usually have far more privilege (houses, careers, savings, etc.) than Lifelong Lesbians — or celibate women. (I’m not criticizing these women who are my friends. I appreciate how they honestly admit that our oppression and existence and visibility made it easier for them to make conscious choices. One friend said she felt uncomfortable having so much when it looks like being a Lesbian means being poor.)

These non-feminist new Lesbians are aware of their past het privilege, so why do women who pretend to be Radical Feminists try every trick possible to shut down such discussions now, including accusing us of “reverse oppression?” They, who are often hyper-critical and condemning of women who don’t measure up to their brand of feminism, and especially go after traitor women who support the trans cult, accuse real Radical Feminists of being “judgemental.” Talking about the differences in access to privilege gained from choosing men is not “judging.” It’s daring to speak about something real that we are not allowed to mention without punishment. They also imply that the women who choose men are more real women, compared to celibate women, Lesbians, and the least “real” women — Butches. So of course het women are more important, and we are expendable. Really, many radfems just wish we would disappear.

Recently in a Radical Feminist group I was chastized for not admitting the “special benefits” I got from living in a “women-only community.”  I have no idea where that mindfuck came from since I write continually about our having no women-only space left, having to deal with trannies and other het men leering at us, trying to grab us, etc., at “Lesbian” events, and that I live in one of the most dangerous cities in the US where guns are fired off in the street in front of our house.

The most obvious proof that women do choose, usually ignored, is the fact that many ex-het Lesbians choose to go back to men for privilege. I certainly remember my Lesbian Separatist lover, much more privileged than me on every level, who I held as she told how abused she’d felt by past boyfriends, how she wished she’d never been with men, felt so damaged by them, crying with her, for her. And only a few years later, she told me in graphic detail how much she loved being fucked by the boyfriend she left me for. She, who had placed limits on our love-making, theoretically because of the abuse she suffered from men, now bragged, “We do everything.”

So please don’t tell me women don’t choose to be het.

And why would a Lesbian say she feels sorry for het women?  Is she in a strange vacuum where she never goes outside, or is she so convincingly passing as het and is so non-threatening to patriarchy that she doesn’t get Lesbian oppression? Feminists who obey male-identified rules of femininity will complain about being sexually harassed by men. I can tell them that if they stop all participation in those male rules (which freaks out most women to where they won’t even consider it, making up the most bizarre reasons for why they have to wear toxic makeup, ugly dresses, etc.), they will no longer be sexually harassed by male strangers. Of course, they might be assumed to be a Dyke and get dirty looks and insults. That is the main reason women keep participating, as well as wanting to attract the “male gaze” which they hypocritically complain about. (This double standard was very clear when a “radfem” online who had tried to stop a discussion about Butch oppression and about the privilege of women who obey male rules of femininity posted on her own page a photo of a little girl in lurid makeup, saying she was a “princess.”)

I can’t avoid seeing the looks of contempt aimed me for just being my unapologetically Lesbian and Butch self. This disapproval and hatred are not just from men, but from het women in this area, many of who have far more privilege than I could ever hope to have. So no, in spite of the bizarre “radfem” line that being a Lesbian is being privileged, it clearly isn’t. How can it be? Choosing to be a Lesbian means being harassed, raped, and too often, killed, for saying no to men. It means that during your vulnerable teenaged years your girlhood friends turn on you because suddenly you are something to despise. (And for those who insist there is no choice, do you really think we forget what you did to us?) It means having your family ashamed of you, disowning you. Too many young Lesbians are locked up in psychiatric hospitals by their families where they are tortured. With other oppressions, you usually at least have your own family and friends reflecting you so you are not alone in being treated badly. For the young Lesbian, and even more so, the young Butch, it means being hated and ostracized with no support.

Choosing to be a Lesbian means having less access to money, which also means less access to a place to live, food, medical care, etc. In some parts of the world we are executed. Until recently, we were either a pornographic joke or said not to exist. When some of us dare to talk about how het and bisexual women choose to be with men, we don’t forget how those women once treated us – and many still do — as objects of contempt while parading on their arms of their men. Some of them deliberately go where they know Lesbians will be, like at Dyke Marches, to video the freak show with their men.

When women brag about being with men they are making it clear they are part of the heterosexist power structure, and that we are not. It’s about heterosexist domination when they say how wonderful it is, how they love it, etc. Some ex-het Lesbians do this too, like the “friend” who showed me a photo of an erect prick on her cell phone, and another who showed a grotesque key chain of a male figure also with an erect prick, laughing “this is going to scare you,” and yet another “friend” at a dance who asked our group of Lesbians, “Wouldn’t you like a great big dick right now?” I was the only one who said, “No, I’d rather eat dog shit.” A few minutes later, she publicly humiliated her Never-het Butch lover by announcing loudly that she was the only one who had ever been inside her. In my experience, there is no getting away from this kind of harassment — so then to hear how het women don’t choose, because they have Stockholm Syndrome, is infuriating.

One of the most dangerous examples of anti-feminist het-supremacist propaganda about how all women are helpless victims of all-powerful men – not because of male violence, but because of how “attractive” men are – comes from a much-praised “radfem” blog:

Even to this day if a man is kind to me or just smiles I can still feel this “attraction” and gratefulness that I’d feel before and tried to get rid of, which simply means that men are still our captors and there’s no way we can completely get away from stockholm syndrome so long as they hold us captive. Which is precisely why I know I have to stay away from them as much as I can…

The reason so many of us trauma-bond so instantly and intensely to men in our proximity and sometimes to just any man that crosses our way, whether we are lesbian, celibate, separatist or “het”, is that we are programmed and groomed to react in this way to male threat since birth.

If I hadn’t seen this kind of woman-hating masquerading as feminism reflected elsewhere, I would have wondered if it was written by a man because of its worship of male power. I have never known a feminist to describe men like this. In the Seventies, men were acknowledged as dangerous, but even liberal feminists wrote about men as weak fools, delusional in their assumption of women being attracted to them. Mainstream films, like “Nine to Five,” depicted men as pompous buffoons who had institutionalized power, but were easily dealt with by smarter and stronger women working together. And that was het feminism. Lesbian Feminism was even more scathing towards men. No feminist attributed such power to them as at this blog.

The new “radfem” attitude is disturbing on many levels. This writer is so determined to appear as a helpless victim, not of male violence, but of her own uncontrollable “attraction” to men, that she reads almost pornographic in her masochism. She says she must keep away from men, not because she hates them or recognizes how how dangerous they are, but because she can’t control herself around them.

Men reading this will love it. It’s bad enough that we have the male media bombarding us with images of women swooning over men, and presenting them as being so powerful that they can just take a gun from a woman’s hand because she is crying too hard to fire. (This scene is never shown in reverse or between two men.) Why would any woman calling herself a radfem want women to feel so helpless around men or promote the woman-hating propaganda that all women are captives of men?

Even worse, how dare she implicate Lesbians, celibate women, and especially Separatists in her pervy obsession with men?  Any man in front of us and we “trauma-bond?”  I don’t know any woman who reacts that way other than the most male-worshipping of women. How dare she erase those of us who do not obey men?  Counterfeit Feminism means not taking responsibility for loyalty to males over females. Why can’t she control herself around men?  Why isn’t she naturally repulsed by them?  And even worse, how dare she completely erase the existence of women who do not feel equally obsessed with men by saying “men are still our captor.”

This is classic mind-fuck/gaslighting. It reads like a bad romance novel. She ignores the real reason she was with men, which is privilege. It’s that simple. And saying that women choose men because of “trauma bonding” denies the existence of women who refuse to bond with men in spite of suffering horrific girlhood abuse. The girlhood sexual assault theory again makes Lifelong and Never-het Lesbians invisible.

Patriarchy teaches us we have no control over our attractions and choices, but we do. In fact, most girls do feel attraction/love for other girls that they stifle, and then systematically teach themselves to go against nature in transferring those feeling to males. True feminists would never say that women have no control of sado-masochistic feelings that they’ve learned. The assumption is that women must fight those impulses, knowing how and why they came about, and that they are not innate.

Even after several years of not interacting with men any more and choosing to love only women, I still get invasive flashes and dreams of PIV/rape, and I still TB to men if I can’t avoid them and they’re “friendly”. I hope it will dissipate more over time though.

She is STILL “aroused” (the word she uses earlier) by pricks. Since most longtime Radical Lesbian Feminists I know rarely think about or talk about men except in to acknowledge one more horror they’ve committed, I believe women pushing these victimizing politics are continuing to obsess about men as they have done most of their lives, and are only pretending to want to be done with them. I believe this “radfem” is actually bragging on some level, and is likely to return to the men she can’t stop thinking about. (I’ve certainly seen enough “man-hating” ex-het women do that.)

Sure, PIV is pleasurable, but the political and social prices are not worth it.

Make up your mind – is it horrific rape or is it a “pleasure” that you choose?

This propaganda is destroying the feminist movement. We need to separate completely from these women. They are our enemies. Who does it serve to say that women have no real choice in one of the most important decisions they will ever make?  Men.

Why do too many feminists want to deny the reality of the choices on all levels, weakening and disempowering women. Choices are still being made now.

Another “radfem” online commented:

The fact that all us womyn are thoroughly immersed in Societal Stockholm Syndrome by virtue of having been raised in captivity does NOT mean that we are to be blamed for not freeing ourselves! Always remember that it is the ABUSER, not the victim who is to blame for the abuse, even if the victim has been inculcated into capitulation as her primary mode of coping with her captivity.

I responded:

I don’t see women who support men against women as victims. All women are NOT “thoroughly immersed in Societal Stockholm Syndrome” or none of us would be feminists. Many of us said no on various levels.

WE are the victims of those women. Liberal feminism is so diluted that the politics of understanding about collaborators versus resistance fighters is lost. Those who are blamed are those who are the resistance fighters.  And of course I never say that women who choose men choose to be abused. I’m saying they choose men for many reasons, including because it means going with the flow, fitting in, feeling normal, etc. A few say they were attracted to men, but most I’ve heard say that it was the thing to do and they didn’t question it and so they crushed their love for other women. Some even talk about breaking the hearts of girls who loved them.

Part of this is that we are not supposed to exist in hetero-patriarchy. And we are not supposed to exist among many feminists. The other part is that we are said to have some special privilege to be who we are or that we are just “lucky.” That denies that some of the most oppressed Lesbians I have ever met (oppressed by racism and classism, etc.) are Lifelong Lesbians and/or Butch. We don’t have to speak out to get targeted. We just have to be. But yes, when ex-het Lesbians say “We’ve all been het,” and we dare to say some of us haven’t, that intense hatred of being treated like freaks,  we’ve experienced from hets since girlhood, gets turned on us once again.

We are warned to be quiet and ashamed of being Lifelong Lesbians or being Butch, or we’ll get even more hatred. Not long ago, some “radfems” made cruel posts to simply attack Butches, with one saying we didn’t even exist. We get the brunt of Lesbian-hating in the male and het world, and we also get it from women pretending to be radfems.

This issue is very personal to me because Butch-hating kills. I can’t tell you how almost every Butch I knew when I was a young Lesbian is dead — from cancer, from being beaten to death, suicide…. Three more Butch friends died this year from cancer, and two more diagnosed. One of those was harassed and ridiculed by her family and Lesbian friends at her own birthday party, by being told she should wear a dress and makeup – “to be more of a girl.” Being Butch is closer to what all women would be without patriarchy, and is therefore as far away from being “male” or “masculine” as a woman can be, yet Butches are targeted by pretend radfems as being “like men.” I have actually been accused of “lesbosplaining” and “sounding like a man” by het feminists when I was objecting to their man-loving politics.

This is the way the mindfuck works: “We must protect and defend real women at all costs. Lesbians aren’t real women. Only women who want to be fucked by… oh, excuse me, ‘have sex with’ men are real women.” But if Radical Feminism means really thinking about male crimes, from the boys who torture and rape animals and even little girls, to the majority of men who would rape and kill if they knew they could get away with it, and, as a group, are destroying the earth, then isn’t it logical that this is a war of survival, not just for human females, but for the earth and all other species? And in that case, aren’t women who keep men going, who nurture and reproduce males, collaborators?  Patriarchy and men rely on women. They could not survive without women’s intimate support.

But of course in the new parasitized version of Radical Feminism, no woman is ever to be criticized. (Unless she really IS a Radical Feminist and then she is fair game to be banned, lied about, etc.)  Just keep those women with the most privilege from being disturbed. In fact, forget they exist. So the most privileged het women, secure in being rich, owning companies, property, political power, and with Radical Feminists as servants, must be erased from the mind. Forget you see them in the media or out in the world or in some of your families. Forget the rich women who are film stars who keep the increasing porn in mainstream movies going. Yes, they make less money than men, but many still make millions. Some of these women are writers and producers, like Lena Dunham, whose acclaimed television series, “Girls,” normalizes the most disgusting scenes imaginable, like where Lena’s character’s beloved boyfriend, who continually sexually abuses her, is shown graphically wanking off on a protesting woman’s chest while calling her a “whore.” This series is lauded as “feminist” and Lena is in full charge.

And then there are women like Miley Cyrus who are continuing the pornographic selling of females to make fame and fortune, in the tradition of Madonna, except that she has far greater influence on young girls. These women know exactly what they are doing.

Obey the fake radfem cult. Just keep talking about girls far away who are chained to walls. Definitely ignore the ones who are so proud of their men and who look at Lesbians like we need to be exterminated. Forget the ones who fire and evict Lesbians, and who join with their men to destroy us.

It’s actually horror movie scary how women who want to be Radical Feminists, but who are indoctrinated into Counterfeit Feminism, respond to obvious female-hating atrocities, like when a Radical Feminist posted in our Radical Feminist group about women who sell their little ten year old girls to men who hire them out to be daily, multiply raped. This is so premeditated that the women first pay to get their daughters medically certified as virgins because then they will make more money selling them. One little girl escaped home, but her mother sold her again. Some of the true Radical Feminists in our group responded with reasonable outrage, saying they would sell themselves first rather than ever sell their daughters, But others actually lectured us about how oppressed the mothers were, they didn’t have a choice, etc. I wondered at what point they would hold a collaborator accountable. We wrote about some of the more outrageous cases in our book, like what about the women who lined up to marry serial rapist and murderer Ted Bundy when he was on death row:

Ted Bundy confessed to murdering 23 young females in four U.S. states. He’s suspected of actually murdering over a hundred. He usually vaginally and anally raped his victims before murdering them, and in at least one known instance he forced one girl to watch while he raped and murdered another, before killing her also. Many of the bodies were found decapitated and otherwise mutilated. It’s believed that his first victim was an eight-year-old girl who he killed when he was 14. After he was in jail for two years, a woman named Carol Boone married him. The night before his execution for murdering 12-year-old Kimberly Leach, his mother told him, “You’ll always be my precious son.”

In 1987, Robert Chambers strangled Jennifer Levin, his 18-year-old friend, and left her half-naked body in Central Park in New York City. He claimed she was forcing him to have “rough sex” with her and he killed her “accidentally”! Since his family is very rich, they hired the best lawyer money could buy, and Chambers was let out on bail. In December, 1987, before the trial even began, he went to a “slumber party” consisting of just him and four women. A videotape was made of the party, showing the women wearing pajamas, laughing, dancing, and playing sado-masochistic games with each other and with Chambers. At one point, he holds a Barbie doll up to the camera, twists its head around and says, “Oops, I think I killed her.” In another scene, one of the women plays at being a baby crying and tells him, “I’ll tell everyone.” He says, “I’ll say you’re lying. I lie and they believe me.” The women were laughing throughout these scenes, even though they were also Jennifer’s friends. One of them, Chambers’ new girlfriend, was interviewed on TV. She said she “loved” him, that he was “warm and funny,” and that everyone at the party knew he’d confessed to the murder. She said he’d received over 400 letters of support, many from women. When asked how she felt about the murder, she said, “I don’t feel it’s really my business.”

How about Susan Smith who murdered her two sons because the man she was leaving her husband for didn’t want her kids, and blamed it on a mythological “Black man”–  or Nancy Garrido, who helped her husband abduct Jaycee Dugard at eleven years old, keeping her prisoner to rape and impregnate for twenty years? What about women kapos in concentration camps, or the Klan members who contribute to bake sales, sew the men’s robes, and cheer at lynchings.

What about the laughing woman who was concerned her fifteen year old son had been raping chickens since he was eleven, not because he was torturing innocent small animals, but because he might get an STD. The boy was shown stroking the chicken as if he loved her, calling her cute, and then showing her cloaca where he rapes her. The announcer says that chickens are easier to get than “girls.” Throughout the video, comparisons are made with consensual heterosexuality. Finally, his mother says she should get him a prostitute, even though she thinks he might have STDs. (  There is another video of a different boy showing him actually raping a chicken, but this isn’t it.)

I know women whose mothers supported their rapist sons to keep raping their little girls. No one has posted about this, but I can imagine the responses excusing such women. When it’s about women leaving husbands or boyfriends who are raping their daughters, the line (which was unthinkable decades ago) was about how the women have no choice because of fear. But what about a seventeen year old Lesbian whose mother invites a six foot four military man to stay in her daughter’s room over a weekend, where he rapes the girl until her bed and even walls of the room are covered with blood? My friend has very limited memory of this, but remembers her mother being so set on making her het, that she had bought her birth control pills before the extended rape, acting like everything was fine, and afterward mimicked the man’s accent, telling her how easy it would be for him come back and open her window to get inside to rape her again. Please, “radfems” who believe women are always victims, explain this betrayal according to your anti-feminist convoluted female-hating politics.

Many other Radical Feminists, like most women, have experienced horrific abuse as girls by males that their mothers allowed or encouraged for the rapists’ benefit. Calling these women “victims” is a direct betrayal of the real victims, many of who are still vulnerable to these cruel and sadistic women. Even in patriarchal courts, it’s sometimes acknowledged that the men who help the actual rapist are equally accountable. We reject pleas that the men are victims too. Feminists were outraged when I reported that one of the men organizing the community rally for the fifteen year old Richmond, California girl who had been gang-raped for hours outside her high school dance said in his speech that “the rapists are victims too.” That large group of boys and men had texted for their friends to join in. If excuses are made for women who help men against women, why not excuse the men also?

Another post was a link to a dishonest article by a woman who was almost every man’s fantasy of a Lesbian going back to men, blaming San Francisco for making her het again.

This was a classic mindfuck article like many I’ve seen before, by a genderqueer, porn-loving, sado-masochist whose hatred for Lesbians just poured out. She is the worst kind of collaborator, on a par with the bisexual pretend Lesbian sexologists like Pat Califia, JoAnn Loulan, and Susie Bright, who made money off ridiculing and manipulating Lesbians, bringing their porn and sado-masochism into our community in books and workshops – except that this article was entirely for men’s benefit. Yet, in our Radical Feminist group, one newer confused woman wrote an elaborate explanation describing this particularly repulsive writer’s supposed past trauma (never referred to in the article) to explain her betrayal of Lesbians and women, and why she was really another victim. This level of mindfuck is enough to get some of us to just give up.

So why this horrific double standard when applied to women?  It’s like wanting a fantasy world where all females always are trustworthy allies, but that is not reality. Women who push this as a feminist line are losing and betraying women who remember what the truth is. Just as you cannot love both the real victims and their rapist/murderers, you cannot support both the victim and the collaborator.

Feminism in the early Sixties and Seventies was about empowering women to know they were making choices. No superior boss feminist stepped in to tell women to shut up talking about choices because they are so oppressed they must not even think about, let alone form, consciousness-raising groups to discuss leaving their men and to decide whether they should then be celibate or return to their early love for other women.
One “radfem” who was constantly posting extremely man-hating posts actually told the group one day about her husband and how nice he was. I said, “Well, this is amazing. I’m guessing you are going to be honest, unlike some others, and at least admit that you, as a Radical Feminist with a husband, are choosing to be het.”  She actually started to waffle and say she was “Stockholm Syndromed” to make sure she didn’t step out of the cult line of het women as victim only.

Another het “radfem” posted about how a woman who had been fucking with a married man for a year because he had promised to leave his wife was a now a victim of “rape and male violence” simply because her boyfriend stayed with his wife, and shouldn’t she have the right to sue him for fraud, violence, etc.? When I responded that she was defining real violence and rape out of existence and wasn’t the wife the real victim, she started insulting me for being a Lesbian Separatist, completely distorting my politics. She also said “It’s also a form of Domestic Violence for a man to fraudulently obtain sex. Saying that a woman should leave a man when she finds out he’s married is similar to saying that a woman should leave a man who beats her.”

True Radical Feminists who are honest and don’t pretend to be victims of the men they are choosing to be with are rare and precious.

Radical Feminism versus Reformist/Liberal/RightWing/Counterfeit “Feminism” 

If those of us who helped define and invent Radical Feminism are not allowed to say what our movement is, then who is?

I first met feminism in 1970 when I discovered the Lesbian Feminist community in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was intoxicating, with love of women and Lesbians, amazing Lesbian Feminist politics, women only space taken for granted, and support to choose to never voluntarily have to be around males. Male crimes against girls and women were named for the first time, and that awareness of patriarchy was incredibly freeing, explaining so much of what had been wrong with girls’ and women’s lives.

We met in the famous unfacilitated small consciousness-raising groups and read and talked and explored. We created politics and culture and community, with newspapers, journals, books, poetry, music, dancing, parties, bookstores, coffeehouses, dojos, conferences, and gatherings. We were ecstatic with our love for each other.

Some of us continued to go further into what the most radical female-identified feminism would become, which was Lesbian Separatism. We transformed ourselves and our beginning feminist movement into Radical Lesbian Feminism. And we paid a price for it, then as now, being censored, lied about, banned from organizations, and threatened. Some quit at the point at which feminism improved their own lives. And some of us did not. Some of us would not stop until everything was transformed for all females and the earth. Our Radical Feminist movement has a clear, unbroken history that is well-documented if anyone cares to look.

So I am very protective of our movement and culture, and I do not want any more true Radical Feminists driven away by pretender “radfem” bullies. The harassment from the men posing as Lesbians is constant, as are their defenders, but the harassment of the women posing as Radical Feminists is more dangerous because they have more direct access to us. I have been banned from “Radical Feminist” online groups for telling the truth, for listing famous classic books by Radical Feminists of Color (responding to racist white women questioning why there aren’t more Radical Feminists of Color), for defending a woman who was announced to be a troll without enough evidence, for revealing a troll who never denied supporting trans against girls (the man won a lawsuit to be able to continue exposing his prick to girls), for revealing a troll who had her man friend in a Lesbian caucus, for calling a Radical Feminist my friend who had been physically and emotionally abused by the moderator of a group, etc. I’ve seen other Radical Feminists unfairly banned from “Radical Feminist” groups also for the crime of being truly Radical Feminist.

I want women to feel free and not trapped. Talking about choices is not about trying to make anyone feel bad for having made bad choices in the past or even about the choices they’re making now. I’m just asking them to acknowledge the truth instead of pretending to be victims. Most of us have been victims of men and boys. That’s different that choosing men to love and making that public enough to get additional privilege.

It’s the same with choosing male-identified femininity, which is giving men what they want and getting privilege at the direct expense of women and girls who are saying no.  Men want all women to be marked by them. They can’t stand it when women refuse to humiliate themselves by masking their faces in toxic lurid makeup that mimic sexual arousal, or accept the badly-made, exposing clothes and crippling shoes they demand women wear as well as refuse to hate their bodies enough to shave off most of their natural body hair. (Women who are anti-prostitution advocates should be aware that makeup and nail polish used to be part of how prostitutes advertised what they were willing to do.) Women aren’t even allowed to have natural eyebrows. (And plucking permanently marks women’s faces as women who have obeyed men.)

Men want women to be immediately identifiable even from a distance as prey and for ridicule. Women aren’t even supposed to be grounded or to safely stand or walk. Men also want women to be terrified at being considered to be Lesbians. No woman is allowed to be in the media without some obvious difference in her clothing from males’ clothing/shoes, etc. Even when feminists have posted online showing reversals of common sexist media images of het couples by switching clothing and trying to show the man in the women’s role, the women’s postures and stances are still submissive.

Most feminists fighting this will still only go so far, yet how can they be against gender while participating in that most female-hating culture? This was one of the most powerful ways that feminists in the Seventies said no to men and male rules. Women in deep with the femininity cult will come up with the strangest reasons why they won’t stop, including that they think they look ugly if they don’t mask their faces into looking grotesque. It all comes back to privilege and wanting to be accepted as “normal,” as well as being in competition with other women. Challenging and changing male-identified femininity is in itself revolutionary. It’s one of the most important ways to say no to patriarchy and is extremely freeing.

Some of our best Radical Feminists are honest about being with men and the privilege they’re getting and do not say they are victims. For those with men who really feel that they’re a victim, then stop. If they can’t because of literal survival, then they are prisoners, not het. (But if this is asked outright, usually women in the Radical Feminist groups will suddenly change their minds because they want status for being with men, as much as they might complain about it.) If they are honest, most women will not leave men because of not wanting to lose the tangible rewards, which the rest of us do not have and never had. It’s not just money and property, but status, including how you feel about yourself. If you can’t bear your family and friends to think that you might be a Lesbian if you leave your man, what are you thinking about us?

Every time you talk about women being victims and having no choices, you are helping patriarchy to keep women trapped. Women are trained to be passive enough. It’s hard enough for women to be able to talk about how they have been betrayed by women. Who is it who wants women to think they naturally belong to men and no choice is possible?

I say to the pretenders gutting Radical Feminism, as I say to the male pretenders — call yourselves whatever you want, just stop trying to steal our name, our movement, our culture, and then parasitizing it for your own use. I say the same to the trolls, and to those who “don’t want to know” what harm that a troll is doing to Radical Feminism and to individual women — please be responsible enough to recognize that we cannot have a movement of women who don’t care about each other, and if that troll, whether paid agent for the enemy or someone who just enjoys pitting women against each other, is not named, held accountable, and stopped, then she will eventually hurt you too. We are in this together. If there is a doubt, let’s make a forum where all concerned can talk freely, with no banning so all can decide what the truth is.

Real Radical Feminists do not prevent discussion about past betrayals of our community. Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. Those who try to prevent discussion about the past that is relevant to now are harming our community. The personal is political. We need to know which women supported men and the trans cult against Radical Feminists. We need to know who lies and uses online bans to eliminate evidence in an attempt to rewrite history. If some women truly do regret betraying us, they will say so, apologize, and explain. They will not make up more lies to continue slandering those who are warning our community about them. And they certainly won’t threaten women to silence them.

Question everything you have been taught is the truth, and know that the more privilege you have, the more likely you will be oppressive unless very careful. It is a constant struggle to not let our Radical Feminist community absorb the dominant male-worshipping, false-femininity worshipping, sado-masochistic, competitive, hateful patriarchal culture.

If you are outraged when a Radical Feminist says something “too radical,” too man-hating, too questioning of the myths about femininity or het supremacy, then stop and realize what you are reacting to, and consider whether you are trying to stop the truth from being said. Don’t force us to go over what was solved forty years ago – try to learn our past so we can finally go on.

For those who are not Radical Feminists yet, but who are excited about our politics, please do not come into our community, ordering and lecturing as if you are our boss, when you haven’t even bothered to learn the history and the work of this movement. Also, if you are privileged, do not try to impose your dominant culture on us, whether it is heterosexist, classist, racist, ableist, ageist, fat oppressive….

If you’ve been drawn to feminism but still feel like an outsider because you are seeing some of the same heterosexist, racist, classist oppressive crap that is in the rest of patriarchy, know that that is not true Radical Feminism but a posturing imitation.
Real Radical Feminism is the opposite of Counterfeit Feminism. We can still have that excitement that was Radical Feminism, but we need to recognize who is and who isn’t truly Radical Feminist. Trying over and over to accept the bullies and trolls who often dominate is done at the expense of the women who should be with us. We need not just a growing, powerful, truly Radical Feminist movement that welcomes all girls and women, but a refuge, a safe space where we can finally talk about the most radical of feminist politics, to go as far as we can. We want the women who have been isolated, marginalized, and othered to finally know they are not alone and that they have finally come home.

Posted in Uncategorized | 40 Comments

If Looks Could Kill: Lookism — The Most Personal Oppression

Chapter Eight


Looksism: The Most Personal Oppression

Bev Jo

Men teach us that there are intrinsic standards of beauty (“aesthetics”) that apply to people, but these standards are political and manipulated, and aren’t an innate part of ourselves. If we don’t think them through, we’ll just accept them and think they come from inside us.

Patriarchy couldn’t exist without a complicated network of lies that are made to feel so familiar that they’re taken for granted as the truth. When you believe those lies, you believe in patriarchy. When you support those lies, you support the rule of male over female and the rule of the more privileged over those they oppress. But when you decide to question and reject patriarchal beliefs, you challenge patriarchy at its core.

In order to improve our lives and to even survive, we must challenge every lie we’re taught.  Changing the basis of what you’re taught to believe is “natural” or “unnatural,” “normal” or “abnormal,” “beautiful” or “ugly,” changes everything. Recognizing patriarchal cons as universal, rather than our own personal problem, is Radical Feminist. We don’t just accept other lies we are taught, like that sado-masochistic feelings are innate and inevitable – we say no to them.

Fear of being oppressed by being called “ugly” is part of what motivates many women to be looksist by “othering” and marginalizing women with the least looks privilege. Yet, what if we could create more camaraderie and empathy among us, instead of the usual  competition?  We are all in this together — all women are vulnerable to looksism. Unlike most of the other issues that divide women, no woman is guaranteed looks privilege forever.

This is an oppression by which girls and women torture themselves, mutilate themselves, and kill themselves – because of focusing their self-hatred (driven by patriarchal rules) on themselves.

Some consider looksism a trivial issue, but it reaches right down into the heart of who is loved and who is rejected. It is one of the major weapons that patriarchy uses to divide women. Other oppressions are linked with looksism, but looksism is the most difficult to get political acknowledgement and support about. The politics of looksism is connected with genocide and gynocide.

Most women never feel attractive enough, because male standards of beauty are unnatural and keep changing. The patriarchal media and corporations make billions off selling women surgery and toxic products that damage their health and, ironically, their looks. These stinking products also literally kill, and pollute the earth and water.

Yet women could be freed from this self-destructive game if they used basic Feminist politics to examine and reject male “beauty” standards that, in reality, are often quite ugly. Most women are afraid to even think about what is truly beautiful because it completely disturbs their sense of reality. Some question particular standards, but don’t question what is named beauty itself in patriarchy. I see so many feminists talking around the issue, but clearly still believing the artifice that what men tell us is beautiful, in reality, is.

Mainstream media shows us almost no images of Lesbians or women just looking ordinary. Women are portrayed grotesquely altered in ways that men never are, and women are judged by completely different standards than men are. In the media, the more sloppy and “unattractive” (by the standards set for women) that men are, the more attractive and “manly” they are considered to be. Even ageism seems to not be problem for old men if they are rich enough.

Because of the pressure on all girls and women to alter ourselves, mothers police their daughters, and women police other women, including friends, to fit the various male standards of looks and femininity. The more natural and unaltered a woman tries to be, the more policed she is. Her weight, hair, clothes, shoes, etc. are all criticized in an effort to make her obey male rules.

When I explore issues that affect Lesbians and women, I think about who does it serve — and who doesn’t it serve — to believe what men, and women allied with patriarchy, tell us about how we should look and about what is attractive or “ugly.”

I grew up seeing that my mother’s measurement of value for herself and other women was based primarily on how they looked. Were they “’good-looking” or not?  Her standard of what was considered “good looking” was rarely based on what I considered to be intrinsically beautiful – a girl or woman who was natural, courageous, strong, kind, and loving, who thought for herself, no matter the opposition, who fought for justice, and was radiant with a love of life and nature. A female who glowed with love for other females added to her handsomeness. And she did not follow or reflect the demeaning artificiality women use who obey patriarchal rules of “beauty.” She refused all signs that would mark her as a man’s woman.

I remember my mother calling one of the first girls I was in love with (when I was five), “homely.”  I didn’t know what it meant until she told me, but I remained convinced that that girl was beautiful.

When we are trained from our beginnings with propaganda about what beauty is and what ugliness is, and who to trust and who to fear, we are also taught what our roles are to be in patriarchy. Grotesque Disney cartoon images and later animation teach us what “normal” women are supposed to look like, even if they are a travesty of a female hippopotamus with a bow on her head and garish lipstick on her mouth. No female animal ever looks or sounds the way they are portrayed in patriarchal media. But when you grow up with bizarre, unnatural images, it’s hard to not internalize them. Even later animation that attempts to be less sexist still shows females, including animals, in some form of traditional male-defined feminine role that hurts all females.

One day I went with a group of Lesbian friends to an aquarium. I saw some of the most amazing beings I’ve ever met – cuttlefish, who are cephalopods, related to squids and octopuses, and considered to have primate-level intelligence.  As soon as I saw them I again wondered how anyone could believe the story we’re taught that “man” is the furthest evolved of all animals. Humans are animals, but men are so obviously not the pinnacle of perfection.

The cuttlefish were soft and sensuous, swimming by gently rippling the edges of their bodies, with ever-changing patterns and flashes of color flowing over them.  They use their colors to communicate, and can decide to show intricate designs and colors on one side of their body which are completely different from the other side. Even though they were captives in a sordid place, there was a deep sense of peace about them. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen any being as beautiful.

I moved closer to the glass, and a cuttlefish came up and looked deeply into my eyes. She had to work hard, undulating the edges of her body so that she stayed at eye level with me. I felt that she was speaking to me, but I couldn’t understand. I wanted desperately to free her and the others. I was in awe of these exquisitely beautiful beings.

As people passed by, I began to hear their comments. “God, I’ve never seen anything so ugly. What is that weird thing?” The hatred aimed at these luminous beings was a shock.1   I’m used to Lesbians getting this kind of treatment, but not usually animals. This was an example yet again of people obeying patriarchal rules about what is considered beautiful and what is called ugly.

I wanted to protect the cuttlefish as I want to protect Lesbians and all females. I felt more clearly than I ever had before that some men and some women’s alliance with the worst men means they don’t just hate us — they hate all life — except, of course, that life which is useful to them. To protect ourselves from such hatred we have to change everything we’ve been taught by patriarchy about what’s “beautiful” and what’s “ugly.” That changes how we relate to each other and to life itself.

The Politics of Beauty

Hetero-patriarchy is based on lies: the lie that patriarchy is inevitable, the lie that males are superior to females, the lie that all females are naturally meant to be het and/or mothers, the lie that Family is good, wholesome, and necessary, the lie that racism and classism are inevitable, the lie that christian European-descent peoples and cultures are superior (even though their “superior” technology is destroying the Earth), the lie that all animals and plants are inferior to mankind, and the lie that a Higher Power has created innately good and innately bad people on Earth who are easily recognizable, because god bestows “beauty” on the “Good” and marks the “Bad” with “ugliness.”

One of the earliest, cruelest lies we learn is that we should fear and hate those who are different from the hetero-patriarchal norm — even if it’s our own selves. From fairy tales to the film industry, the “ugly,” “deformed,” or old person is depicted as evil, while brutal men who have the power of life and death over us are considered “attractive” and “charming.” The courageous witch is called “hideous,” while some of the most dangerous men on Earth are called “handsome.” And of course, Dykes are portrayed as unnatural and horrible, if we’re mentioned at all.

Children are barraged with this destructive propaganda in cartoons and animation, so most children quickly learn that children’s society often means the popular, “attractive” children ally in groups who exclude and sometimes bully the less “’attractive.” (Classism and racism and other oppressions also greatly affect who is popular, including how children appear, whether they wear more expensive, new clothes versus used, shabby ill-fitting clothing, to having surgery to correct “defects.”)

In a recent blog post a feminist described why she was accepted in a male group: “I was exactly what a Boy’s Club wanted. I was a young, not-hideous woman who passionately supported their cause.” I’m still in a bit of shock that a self-described feminist would use the term “hideous” to describe other women and am still wondering what she actually meant. Certainly, by the context, old women might be considered “hideous,” but I’m also thinking Lesbians, women oppressed by racism, ableism, etc. What kind of feminist thinks other women who lack her privilege are “hideous”? This is more than just projecting and spreading how the men would think, but reflect her own thoughts and politics. It’s horrific that any feminist would use “hideous” to describe any women. But that reflects how acceptable looksism has become.

Looksism is often ignored even by politically aware Radical Feminists, partly because it isn’t considered a valid oppression by male political groups. Yet looksism is intensely political, and is used to perpetuate all other oppressions, including heterosexism, sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, classism, imperialism, ableism, ageism, and fat oppression. The people who are visibly a member of an oppressed group get the worst treatment. Those who are clearly more Butch, fat, dark, disabled, older, or not yet adult, and poor are more oppressed than others of the same group who look less blatant. Those who look the most female – the most like Dykes – get treated far worse than those who look effeminate and who obey the rule of male-defined “femininity.” It’s no coincidence that gay men attacking in print Lesbians who they had never seen, called the Lesbians both “man-hating and “ugly.”3

When men control governments, they control the cultures of their countries. The most powerful countries also influence and control the cultures of others. Men in power decide which faces and bodies are to be loved and admired, which are to be tolerated and pitied, and which are to be shunned and despised. Those decisions are based on what will serve men, regardless of the pain and oppression they cause. In many parts of the world, white/European-descent gentile men have enforced the idea that pinnacle of perfection is rich, thin, young, able-bodied, het, christian, light-skinned Euro-descent men, even though, as a group, those are the most selfish, hateful, thieving, murderous, and destructive men on Earth. This propaganda protects patriarchy by setting up women to fight each other on behalf of “their” men.

Instead of bonding together, oppressed people who are more privileged than others in the patriarchal hierarchy are more likely to despise those that the men in power designate as beneath them. That’s how oppression continues: the rich woman knows she’s not worth as much as a man, but at least she feels superior to a poor woman. The poor woman is treated badly, but if she’s thin and has “good looks,” she can pride herself on that. The fat poor heterosexual woman knows she’s despised, but at least she’s “normal” and not a Dyke. The lowest in status are those who are the most oppressed and who suffer multiple oppressions – the racially or ethnically oppressed, never-het, Butch, lifelong Dykes who are fat, poor, old, disabled, and considered ugly.

One of the cruelest aspects of patriarchal hate propaganda is that it can even make one’s own group seem alien, while the more privileged group appears in the media as cozily familiar. Studies were done in the U.S. using two sets of dolls that were identical except for color, with one group dark-skinned and the other light.3 Young children were asked which doll “you would want to be, you want to play with, is a nice color and would take home if you could.” In spite of African-American Pride movements, 65% of the African-American children chose the light-skinned dolls.  This is alarming evidence of the effects of institutionalized racism in which everyone in the U.S. is taught that European-descent, especially WASP, appearance and culture is the best. (There is a excellent more recent video of African-descent girls talking about the effects of racism on themselves and the idea of beauty —

Racist propaganda has been going on for hundreds of years. History is re-written so that the accomplishments of racially oppressed cultures not only are hidden but are often credited to their oppressors and the invaders of their countries. Many light-skinned peoples pride themselves on the lie that the ancient civilizations of Egypt were created by people who looked like them. Much of the evidence of the truth has been systematically destroyed over the centuries, yet there are still many portraits and sculptures that survive, showing dark-skinned ancient Egyptian queens and kings.  Drawings from several hundred years ago show the face of the Great Sphinx of Egypt to be clearly African, and not Arabic or European.4 The Sphinx was not eroded into unrecognizability by weather and time, as so many historical and archeological books claim. Invading soldiers deliberately used her for target practice until she was no longer identifiable as African.5 African and African-descent researchers have made this public, but most white/European-descent historians still ignore and deny these facts – just as they deny proof that humans were in the Americas for over forty thousand years and came from the south and central Pacific as well as from Siberia, as if that gives Euro-descent people more claim to the land they stole. Their painters and sculptors even portray their Jewish god and followers as looking northern European.

Racism fuels some lies, while male-supremacy fuels other lies. Male historians deny the existence of female-centered cultures before patriarchy existed.

Who knows what else has been changed? There are still a few statues of female sphinxes, but most ancient representations of women from many cultures throughout the world have been altered or destroyed, leaving us little evidence of the time before men took power. (Max Dashu’s Suppressed Histories Archives is a wonderful international comprehensive counter to patriarchal lies.) Male historians also attribute as many of women’s accomplishments as possible to men, and when they can’t ignore certain women in history, they make sure they are portrayed as heterosexual and devoted to men, even when they are well known to be Lesbians. A more recent version of this male re-writing of history is when the transgender cult describes Dykey women and Butches from the past as being “transsexuals” or “transgender,” and actually calls them by male pronouns!  Nothing like desecrating the memory of dead women on behalf of men.

The politics of the European christian gentile ideal of beauty developed when the European aristocracy decided they needed excuses for oppressing their own poor people and the people in the countries they invaded. When the Roman Empire had invaded and controlled most of Europe, northern Europeans were considered uncivilized and inferior savages by the imperialistic Romans, but when they themselves later became invaders, they also called their victims “savages,” making those people less human and somehow deserving of the atrocities the Europeans committed against them. (Other patriarchal cultures, such as Islam, were also spread by invasion from Arabia into Africa, parts of Europe, Asia, and reaching to Indonesia, and did similar things, but the European dominance, which is still affecting many of us, went beyond imperialism into genocide.) Most European cultures became competitive, cruel, greedy, and domineering, and met anyone different from themselves with only conquest, theft, slavery, and murder in mind. (As Bishop Desmond Tutu said, “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”

Many christian European and European-descent social scientists have written about people’s so-called “natural” fear and hostility toward those who are different than themselves, but it’s European christians who’ve displayed this quality the most consistently and cruelly. In many countries where Europeans invaded they were at first received with friendship, generosity, and courtesy, even though they looked very different than the inhabitants.  Meanwhile, Europeans named anyone who looked different as “ugly.”

In Europe, the lightest skin was considered “beautiful” because only the rich could be extremely pale, since they didn’t have to work outdoors in the sun.  During the Industrial Age, factory workers were pale from lack of sunlight, while the rich had leisure time to sun themselves at the Riviera, so suntans became “attractive” — as long as it wasn’t someone’s natural skin color.

It’s very likely that thinness became a status symbol because rich European men’s wives were supposed to look fragile and weak, showing that they didn’t need to do any work. The woman’s thinness also made her husband look and feel more powerful by contrast. That mania for thinness is still related to class, nationality, and race.

The supposed “beauty” standards of female facial features are based on the qualities that distinguish gentile Europeans from most other racial and ethnic groups. Some characteristics of “beauty” and “ugliness” don’t seem to fit into set formulas that further racism or ethnicism, because male rule thrives on hierarchy and inequality, so that even in racially similar populations there still have to be standards defining the hierarchy of the “most attractive” to the “least attractive.”  When most people accept those rules, it’s then very easy for them to know their place or be put back in their place if they try to escape. It’s just like hierarchical school play-ground culture – if you don’t like what someone says you can always try to humiliate them by making fun of their looks.

What’s in a face? A face can tell you almost everything about someone – her sex, race, age, class, whether she’s a Lesbian or het, and how female-identified, Lesbian-identified, and Butch she is. People project their inner selves into their facial expression so that you can sometimes tell if you could like or trust someone just by the look on her face.  Expressions can reflect directness and honesty, or manipulation and pretense. If a female chooses to cover her face in make-up and literally change her features through surgery and electrolysis, then she’s making a definite statement about who she is and how she’s likely to relate to you. If her own face isn’t good enough for her, what will she think about yours?

Fear of Nature

I believe that in dominant Euro-centric cultures, we are fed patriarchal lies when we are little girls, which teach us to transfer our reasonable fear of the men and boys who threaten and assault us (often in our own families) onto harmless, innocent little animals — many of whom are revered in other cultures. Most girls are sexually assaulted and all girls are sexually harassed. It is terrible to be living in continual fear, often with no one to go to for support. Why else do girls and women shudder at the thought of certain animals or their body parts, such as snakes and little useful tails on rats and mice, rather than the more dangerous claws and fangs of more popular animals? Films and television producers love to show women screaming in terror at the sight of sweet little animals. Alfred Hitchcock even got women to be afraid of birds!

We are not instinctively afraid of nature and animals. Until fairly recently, nature was the home of humans for millennia, and no one would waste time being afraid of harmless creatures. If it wasn’t for being bombarded with horror stories, we would not be afraid of spiders, rodents, bats, etc.

How many readers just shuddered reading what I wrote, when they envision those animals?  How many shudder when seeing media images of males being worshipped, including sometimes their pricks, and women pornified into grotesque objects? (Girls and women did used to feel horror or disgust at seeing pricks, knowing what they represent. That is what I think we have an inborn fear/revulsion of – not little harmless animals.)

In Laurel Holliday’s book, “Children in the Holocaust and World War II: Their Secret Diaries,” she includes a woman’s story of how, as a little girl, she and her family hid from the Nazis in the sewers of Warsaw. This was a short piece, and yet she mentions how the sewer rats (Rattus Norvegicus, also the domestic rat, lab rat, “pet” rat) were her “friends.” She didn’t say if they brought her food or just kissed and cuddled her to comfort her during such a terrifying time, but it was touching that she included them in her story. Knowing rats’ capacity for kindness, I am sure they could tell how afraid and lonely she was, and so gave her that special deep love that rats know how to give.

(Since originally writing this, I found out about the Rat Community, which is 99% women, most of who are involved in rescuing rats and who go against rat-phobic patriarchal propaganda. Rats are amazingly intelligent, loving, thoughtful little people who are hated and feared by humans who’ve never even known them personally, as also Lesbians and other oppressed peoples are feared and hated.)

Cable television channels that used to show beautiful and informative nature documentaries, now mostly portray wild animals as evil monsters who deliberately want to hurt humans and who therefore must be conquered and destroyed by “courageous,” posturing, cruel men. The men look silly when you recognize that the terrified animal being filmed is clearly trying desperately to escape the hunters, so they rev up the music and intersperse shots of scary close ups of eyes and fangs, often of clearly unrelated species, and repeatedly say how “dangerous” the poor animal is. Most of the remaining channels on animals, science, and nature also show men as conquerors of nature, stalking, hunting, experimenting on, torturing, and killing wild and domestic animals for sport.

Various methods are also used to train people to think of animals as “other” – as not being a person we could identify with or love unless we own them. Instead of saying an animal in a documentary is “eating,” they are described as “feeding.” “The deer were out feeding in the twilight….” When did this ridiculous, pretentious crap begin? Feeding is what somewhat does when giving someone else food, not when they’re eating. And why do people repeat it without thinking?

Instead of using common sense and experience to know that of course animals think and feel emotions as we do, we are ridiculed into believing that it is “anthropomorphizing”6 to recognize what is obvious until we obey “the expert” and stop. We are taught to disconnect our own experience from what we then believe. This is a basic lesson in patriarchy – ignore your own female wisdom and common sense.

Even animal lovers sound embarrassed and apologize for daring to say the truth that of course animals think and feel. And then too often people believe and repeat the lies that some animals are superior to other animals, so that women who think it’s wrong to eat mammals or birds, happily eat fish and kill spiders. When asked why, a friend told me, “Fish don’t feel as much.” This was a longtime Radical Feminist who surely knew the history of male scientists lying when they wrote declaring that women felt less than men, and that people oppressed by racism felt less than Euro-descent people, and slaves felt less than slave owners. I asked her if she had ever seen/been with fish in their own environment and she said no. Yet she repeated the propaganda against fish, a people she did not even know.

I have swum/snorkeled with fish and saw every emotion in fish in that short period of time that I have seen in humans. I saw curiosity, affection, anger, outrage, happiness, fear, jealousy, and even embarrassment. I spoke to fish I’d never seen before, offering them love, and they immediately responded by coming to me and swimming around me, touching me with what felt like a loving answer. I am very impressed with fish, but I certainly was taught to think of them as barely alive. (And I had only met fish who were lonely, mentally ill captives in tiny containers, bored and terrified, deprived of everything that would make them happy, including being fed what they would chose in their own home. That does not help us to see the complexity of fish emotions.) I have had interactions with insects who I met only the day before and who clearly recognized me and came to me. Animals are amazing if we only bother to notice them.

I know my friend who denied fishes’s feelings had been bullied by a vegan activist who had also given her photos of tortured chicks to bring to our dinner, so I think she was trying to rationalize continuing to eat food she loved and that her body needed, while dealing with the contradiction of animal lovers eating animals. Plants also feel, but unfortunately, we all need to eat someone to survive. I’m not suggesting anyone be vegan since human bodies are designed to be omnivore like many other species, and we do less harm to the environment and other living beings if we are ethical omnivores than if we end up supporting Big Agriculture, including Monsanto, which is cutting down rain forest to plant GMO soy.

Many people also think of plants as not feeling or barely being alive, and some are actually afraid of plants, as they are afraid of nature in general. Plants must be “tamed,” altered, damaged, and made unnatural for humans to feel safe and comfortable with them. So many people are obsessed with pruning, shaping, and distorting plants, which literally hurts the plants and opens them to disease and infection.

Many men happily destroy forests as a way to mark territory. They desecrate and pave land so that no beings can live there anymore. They transform beauty into true ugliness. Wild, free nature makes them uncomfortable.

Who does it serve to think of animals and plants and nature herself as something only to use or to fear?

Most animals are terrified of humans with good reason and are just trying to live in peace, which is impossible when their home is being destroyed. But even some feminists seem to lose their sense and politics when they want to kill every wild animal on “their” land, without realizing that their new property already had inhabitants who have nowhere else to go. A particularly ironic case was a Lesbian couple who were about to have a baby, who hired men to trap and remove – which meant, by law, killing – two baby raccoons who we heard crying all night, in separate traps without water or food. The hungry babies had committed the terrible crime of lifting up newly laid sod to look for grubs and slugs to eat. Planting grass in the Bay Area is not a good idea anyway since it needs an enormous amount of water in an area that gets no rain for over five months a year. I managed to talk the women into letting me release the babies into our yard, where I hoped their mother and siblings would find them. Eventually, I fed all six by our front door and became close with their mother, who would hold my hands when I would feed her. (She was a bit rough with her claws the first time, but stopped when I asked her to be gentle – and she remembered the next year, even after I hadn’t seen her for months. I believe the two trapped babies were permanently traumatized though.)

As a girl, I went from loving every animal I saw, to being terrified of spiders. Finally, when I was eight, I decided that I couldn’t continue living like that. I forced myself to learn about spiders, and, after watching them, my revulsion and fear quickly turned to love. Instead of reacting with fear of being hurt if a spider startles me, I react with fear that I’ve accidently hurt or terrorized her. I worry if I’ve torn her web, and try to offer water or anything that might help her. I see their emotions and tell them I love them. I’m trying to make up for having asked my parents to kill them when I was little, and as a result I’m always meeting little beautiful creatures who I consider my friends. I can handle them without fear and I enjoy learning new things about them. (I’ve discovered that Araneus Diadematus, the beautiful large orb weavers, can dramatically change color to camouflage, and Pholcus Phalangioides seem to mimic the female pheromones of other spider species to entrap males to eat.) If a species is in our house who would not do well, I take them to a safe place. If they are a species who is happy in our house, I water and feed them. I can also grab bees and wasps to take to safety if a human is about to kill them.

I know women who are afraid to walk on trails because they think wild animals will attack them.  I treasure every encounter with wild animals, including rattlesnakes (who always try to escape without striking), and tell women that the only real danger on trails is the same as it is in the cities: male humans and dogs off leash.

Stopping being afraid of nature is incredibly freeing and spiritual. It’s also fun.

Don’t let patriarchy control you and turn you into a murderer or accomplice.

Nature Is Female

Patriarchy’s goal seems to be to destroy Nature and replace her with as artificial a world as possible. Its media are cults of superficiality in which appearance is everything.  Depth, intensity, independent thinking, intimacy, and feeling are all avoided. In magazine ads and on television, emaciated models pose with vapid, cold, arrogant, and cruel expressions. These are the looks that we’re told are beautiful. We’re shown “perfect” bodies that are literally manufactured by men. That’s how men want us to be – as plastic and unreal as their machines. (There are an amazing number of films, television series, and animation/cartoons that portray machines as having human emotion. Men are obsessed with this idea and I can only wonder if that is partly about their own search for the feelings that most seem to lack.)

In their phony world, men have left no room for the natural differences that exist in real bodies, including disabilities. The revulsion patriarchy shows towards people they call “disfigured” is actually part of their revulsion towards Nature herself.  We come in all sizes and shapes, with the infinite variety that Nature loves.  What’s truly repulsive and boring is the image that hetero-patriarchy presents to us as the “perfect woman,” who is shaved/waxed, plastic-surgered, skinny, yet with enormous toxic bags of silicon attached to her chest, pretending to be breasts. (That’s part of what’s so wonderful about going to a large gathering that’s mostly Lesbian, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. It’s one of the only ways to see a small part of the incredible variety of Lesbians who have not changed their natural bodies.)

If we go along with what we’re told, agree to love the bodies they want us to love, and agree to hate the bodies they tell us to hate, then we’re supporting patriarchy, heterosexism, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnicism, fat oppression, ableism, ageism, and even classism. Then we’re serving the male ruling class and we’re despising women who deserve our love and support and who can love and support us.  We end up despising ourselves.

If no female is ever good enough – no hair quite the right texture, no color quite right, full lips surgered, while thin lips are injected with poisonous silicone — then more toxic products and plastic surgery are sold to women, and insecure women are more vulnerable to male predation. Now women who don’t even need glasses are urged to get contact lenses to make their brown eyes look bright blue or green, even though contacts are uncomfortable and harmful to eyes.6 Changing fads mean big money. They’re also necessary to keep women obsessed with fitting in and competitive with each other.

Even though many of us have exposed the effects of women contributing to looksism, too many feminists’ attitudes are still that it’s all a matter of different likes and dislikes, tastes and attractions, or that it’s our “’feminine” prerogative to change ourselves. Some women just “happen” to like looking the ways men have decided women should look. If it’s a fad among hets and/or gay men, then it’s “fun” among Lesbians. We’re supposed to believe that bleaching hair couldn’t possibly have anything to do with racist attitudes of “blond is better?” Or that women dyeing their hair when it starts to grey is not about ageism?  (I’m not blaming women for trying to avoid more oppression, but blaming patriarchal attitudes that influence women to harm themselves and other women.)

Some women wear make-up because they say they look awful without it, but don’t seem to realize that it marks them as much as wearing a sign saying “I’m a man’s woman.”  Why else are cosmetics designed to make women look sexually aroused if not to send a message to men?  Besides the usual reddened cheeks and lips, many women mimic high-fashion models who wear make-up on their cheeks that look like bruises. But then men do like to beat women and sado-masochism is an essential part of heterosexuality.

Women against prostitution should be aware that some forms of male-identified femininity that have become mainstream were once signals of the ways that prostitutes were willing to service men, with lipstick for oral sex, red nail polish for hand jobs, etc. Why would any woman want to participate in that? Yet women are now considered to not look proper in some settings without lipstick.

Even someone as courageous as Rachel Maddow has to wear makeup and low-cut blouses on television. Women are never presented as full equals anywhere. Women on the Supreme Court wear ridiculous-looking white ruffles on their chests, as opposed to the dignified ties the men wear. The more you look for the expected differences in appearance, including body language, stance, expression, etc., the more you see.

It’s even more harmful to change our bodies permanently, through surgery and electrolysis, or temporarily, by applying burning, poisonous chemicals to straighten, curl, or color our head hair or to remove our body hair.  Of course, to get a job we usually have to remove our facial hair, but too many women make changes in themselves that are not based on survival needs and are instead based on betrayal of and competition with other women.

Many Lesbians and most het women drastically change themselves because they’ve been convinced that there’s something unnatural about the way our bodies naturally grow. The male medical industry tells us that we’re not supposed to have facial hair, and that if we do it’s a sign we’re “abnormal” because of having too much testosterone. Lesbians are particularly likely to be hit with this insult. As usual, there’s a double standard.  Since men now prefer thinness, they would never consider telling skinny het women with small breasts that they’re deficient in estrogen!  Meanwhile, the fact that some of the Dykes with facial hair also have large breasts, which is a sign of ample estrogen, is ignored because largeness in females is feared and hated.

Men love having reasons to tell us we’re abnormal, and they have the power to declare us normal or not. So they’ve hidden from us the truth that it’s quite natural to have facial hair and “unacceptable” hair on other parts of our bodies.  Even male medical studies show that one-fourth of “normal women college students” and three-fourths of women over 60 have facial hair.7 The truth is likely to be even more, since most women remove facial hair and would be unlikely to admit having it if questioned. Yet even in these studies, men persist in referring to a quality shared by one-fourth to three-fourths of women as “abnormal.” But then oppression is never logical, nor are men.

Now they’re telling us that we should be completely hairless, except for scalp hair, eyelashes, and, occasionally, eyebrows (although they are often permanently misshapen or shaved off to be painted back on). We’re even expected to have naked pubic areas. Advertisements constantly flash naked outer labia at us and it’s almost impossible to see a media image of a woman in a bathing suit that doesn’t clearly show a hairless pubic area. Are they going to tell us soon that female pubic hair is unnatural?  Or will they be satisfied with implying it’s ugly, while getting women to fit into their porn fantasies?  Is the motive simply more female-hatred and a new billion-dollar industry?  Or is it a not-so-subtle message that men want adult women to resemble the little girls men like to rape?

This is becoming so mainstream that I’ve read women who call themselves “feminists” who insist it is entirely reasonable to pay money for other women to wax or shave their outer vulvas. Girls who are athletes in sports that force them to wear revealing costumes are also are expected to remove their pubic hair, which means that girls who refuse will be forbidden to do their sport.

Even our voices expected to be unnatural.  Many women pitch their voices higher than is necessary or natural, to prove their “femininity,” making them sound more like little girls.  Then Dykes with naturally deep voices are treated as if they are the abnormal ones. Only certain accents, dialects, and languages are acceptable and anyone who talks differently suffers constant ridicule until she changes. Just like changing your natural appearance, changing your accent denies and betrays your connection with your class, racial and ethnic group, region, country, and your own self.

One of the most bizarre things in terms of looksism, is that many parents are now ordering breast implants for their daughters’ sixteenth birthdays!  Besides the health risk of surgery, and the humiliation and degradation of girls being pressured to have grotesquely large, fake breasts for the benefit of boys and men, silicone implants are so toxic that they have killed women and made others disabled with chronic illness. Once banned, they are again the most common form of implants in the U.S., since money is always more important than girls’ and women’s health and lives.

This is all about making girls and women saleable to men in the most horrifically grotesque, sado-masochistic, and pornified ways. It reflects male desires to have women pay to harm themselves to look bizarre and unnatural in order to fit in with male fantasies. Even more upsetting, women agree to damage their bodies as a way to compete with other women. Some women have even gotten breast implants so unnaturally large that they can hardly walk. It’s bad enough for women to do this to themselves, but to their daughters?

Now some women are actually having parts of their toes removed and metal pins inserted instead so they can fit into tiny designer shoes.8 Women are also getting parts of their labia cut off if they are “too big” – or as a woman I heard interviewed explained, “so I can be more pleasing to men.” When apologists for such self-hating/female-hating women say it’s about “beauty” and not misogyny, how else would the increasingly popular hymenplasties be explained?

These surgeries are about obeying men and betraying women. Many people understand boycotting and not supporting companies that harm women, but not when it comes to the surgeons, clinics, hospitals, etc. who participate in dangerous surgeries with the only goal being mutilation of female bodies to fit unnatural male demand. Female Genital Mutilation, including clitorectomies and infibulations, are horrific crimes against girls and women that are done against their will, and which can leave life-long pain as well as causing death. Women who voluntarily choose to have their labia cut to fit disgusting female-hating male standards trivialize Female Genital Mutilation and are collaborating with our enemy.

Fat Oppression

If patriarchy announced it was going to limit females’ food in order to control and damage us, there would be a tremendous outcry. But since it’s presented as a way for us to look “beautiful” and be more “normal” and “healthy,” women eagerly starve themselves, and starve and harass their daughters.

Feminists have written great articles against fat oppression, but they, and the excellent feminist anthology on fat oppression, Shadow on a Tightrope, are either hard to find or no longer known by most feminists.10

Patriarchy wants us to waste our time and energy on feminine obsession with “beauty” and thinness, and to avoid thinking about what’s really important in our lives.

There is so much hatred against fat females. The fatter a women is, the more visibly female she is. As a result, many women not only want to be thin, but to look like adolescent boys (I’ve heard feminine women proudly brag about this.)  Meanwhile, females are suffering discrimination and literally dying because of fat oppression.

The medical industry makes a fortune off diets, drugs, and dangerous surgery for fat women. Even though lies about health hazards of being fat have been refuted, there is still far more money made in killing and maiming fat women, so most doctors continue supporting the lies.

Following the medical industries’ recommendations (until recently) to diet and eat trans fat, low fat, soy, and high carbohydrates, such as grains, beans, etc. has greatly increased the amount of people said to be dangerously “over-weight” in the US, but those people are starving nutritionally, while the diet industry tells them the opposite health advice they should be getting.11  

Doctors recommend people eat low fat, ignoring that organic saturated fat is one of the most important nutrients we can eat, stabilizing blood sugar, preventing diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.12 People who restrict their fat intake often end up desperately binging on high carbs like sugar (with the fat taken out of dairy products then sold back to them in ice cream, etc.), further depleting their health.

Cholesterol has never been proven to be a cause of heart disease, yet Big Pharma with doctors are making a fortune off prescribing statin drugs which cause stroke, cancer and dementia. Those with the highest cholesterol live the longest. If your cholesterol is very low, doctors will congratulate you, even though one reason could be cancer.

A friend who was in a women’s cancer support group saw most of the women die after following doctors’ advice. One woman, who had had lymphoma, was “treated” three times to chemotherapy, as well as having many radioactive scans – all of which could have easily caused the different cancer that she ultimately died from. Her cholesterol dropped so low that the last doctor she saw said that it looked like that of a famine victim. He was the only one of the many doctors she saw who realized that cholesterol that low was indicative of very serious illness: she had metastasized breast cancer.

“Before looking at the connection between blood cholesterol levels and heart disease, it is worth highlighting a critically important – remarkably unheralded – fact: After the age of 50, the lower your cholesterol level is, the lower your life expectancy.”

“Perhaps even more important than this is the fact that a falling cholesterol level sharply increases the risk of dying of anything, including heart disease”.13

One of the greatest obscenities about fat oppression is that while people are dying of starvation, literally dying of thinness, fat is despised in rich countries. Even when there was such panic about AIDS, with famous people in the last stages of AIDS looking skeletal, fatness is still feared and hated. (In some parts of Africa, where fatness is still associated with good health, AIDS is called “the slim disease.”)

Damage attributed to being fat is actually caused by years of constant dieting, with rapid weight loss and gain. It’s fat oppression that kills, not being fat, but most people don’t know that.14

Lies continue to be spread and are just accepted, like the myth that high cholesterol kills, when the opposite is true. If health concerns were really behind the harassment and oppression of fat women, then smokers would be yelled at on the street and people who drink toxic diet sodas and other artificial “food” would be lectured at the way fat women are.

In 1981, my lover and I became ill with matching symptoms of flu that that lasted for months — low grade fever, exhaustion, aching, etc. (This was before Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome, or Lyme disease were known about). The Lesbian doctor we saw said that nothing showed up on the blood tests, so nothing was wrong with us. She me to just lose weight (I weighed about 140 lbs at the time) and advised my very thin lover to drink coffee. Luckily, I didn’t lose weight since my symptoms also matched the early stage of some cancers – except that I hadn’t had the weight loss associated with cancer.

I suspect our illness was a combination of toxic exposure and either viral or bacterial infection (My lover eventually got well, but I never did. I now know a lot of women with the same chronic symptoms.)  If the incompetent doctor had known anything about nutrition and health, she would have told us to eat the opposite of what doctors usually order: only organic food and as much saturated fat as possible, plenty of meat15  and vegetables, no thyroid-toxic, estrogenic, carcinogenic soy ever, no other beans and grains, nothing high in carbohydrates, no transfat or polyunsaturated oils (like canola, which is usually rancid). But doctors are so fat-phobic that another doctor was horrified when I said I ate an avocado a day, because “they will make you fat!” (The irony is that the more saturated fat someone eats if their carbs are low, the more weight they lose.16 But never trust doctors to know about nutrition or health.)

Fat females are accused of being mentally sick as well as physically sick. This propaganda means when thin people look at a fat female, they make immediate insulting assumptions that she has some “mental or emotional problem” she’s “compensating for,” in addition to believing the lies that fat people eat more and exercise less than thin people.

Why this unreasoning fear of fat? If you look at the most ancient statues from across the earth, they are of fat women.They are clearly not “fertility” symbols or pregnant effigies, which male archeologists irrationally declared for years, or any other bizarre theories17 –they are simply, gloriously fat women.18

Fat men are oppressed, but much less so than fat women, and most of the anti-fat propaganda is aimed at women. This also has a direct economic benefit for men, because of the billions of dollars spent on the diet industry, as well as for clothing manufacturers who make money selling women more expensive and shoddier-made smaller clothing sizes. Cyril Magnin, a U.S. department store owner, boasted that in the 1930s he removed all women’s clothing in sizes 16 to 20 from his stores and replaced them with sizes 8 to 14. He was one of the first to do this, and it set a trend, which permanently affected the standard of “women’s” clothing sizes in the US19 and therefore in countries influenced by US culture. Meanwhile, they make money by selling smaller amounts of material. Buying a mini-skirt or short top that exposes the midriff is supporting this con as well as being demeaning and exposing female bodies for male consumption.

Men are always measuring things, from their pricks to their nuclear missiles, and saying “bigger is better.” They want everything to be huge — except women. Women who are the same size as ordinary large, muscled, healthy men are considered fat and unhealthy. And women internalize these lies. In one study, 70% of women interviewed saw themselves as fat, while only 20 to 25% of them were seen by others as fat.20 The patriarchal standard “healthy and fit” female looks emaciated compared to the standard “healthy” man. Men want us to be invisible, except as sex objects — but fat women are blatantly present. Fat women are an offense to mankind. Men want us small and weak, with just enough strength to serve them, so they can push us around. They don’t want us to have fat any more than they want us to have brains or muscle. And they’ve been breeding us for thousands of years, just as they’ve bred “domesticated” animals to be almost unrecognizable compared to their original, natural selves.

Men have bred dogs into forms that would never occur in nature, making caricatures of wolves to fit men’s bizarre fantasies. The most valued dogs, the certified pedigrees, are the least natural and the least likely to survive on their own. Men’s cruel genetic interference has resulted in painful disabling deformities common in some breeds. All this is done in the name of being “animal-lovers” and “dog-lovers.” But then men say they “love” women too. Man has been tampering with nature for as long as he’s been able to. How do we know how much the many years of enforced selective breeding have changed our own female bodies?

Men’s preference for controllable women was the reason for footbinding in China and painful constricting corsets and high-heeled shoes in European-descent countries, and is also the reason most women diet in countries that are dominated by European-descent male culture. One U.S. diet ad aimed specifically at women said simply, “Waist away.” Ads for products to increase weight show men, while ads for diet foods and diet drugs show women. In many places in the world, men and boys are given the first choice of food, including meat, while women and girls eat only what’s left. This means more females die of starvation than males, and they also die sooner than starving males.

Gynocide includes the systematic underfeeding of females and overfeeding of males. An Italian study showed that baby girls are breast-fed less than and for briefer periods than boys, and girls are also weaned earlier: “On the average, the breast is withdrawn at 12 months for little girls, at 15 months for boys. Duration of nursing at 2 months is 45 minutes for boys and 25 minutes for girls. Nursing at 6 months: 8 minutes (girls),15 minutes (boys.)” Studies in Egypt and Jordan show that mothers’ breastfeeding is continued “longer for boys” and they are “generally better cared for.”21

“When is a child worth keeping?” From a 1990 survey22 of parents: Only 1 percent would abort on the basis of sex. 6 percent would abort a child likely to get Alzheimer’s in old age. 11 percent would abort a child predisposed to obesity.”

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency food consumption charts23 show that young adult males eat approximately 50% more than the average U.S. citizen — yet 80% of 9-year-old girls in San Francisco are on diets24, which will create a new generation of females who are smaller, weaker, and more susceptible to disease than ever before. Lack of sufficient nutrition in a growing body prevents it from developing to full size and makes it much more vulnerable to illness.

As the decades go by, we see how younger women do seem to be suffering the results of enforced starvation, as well as the effects of soy in so many foods and plastic leaching into foods. Soy is thyroid toxic and both soy and plastic are extremely estrogenic, which means they are serious hormone disrupters and carcinogenic. I believe that’s why almost every younger woman I know has excruciating menstrual cramps, polycystic ovaries, endometriosis, and/or serious emotional and mental problems.

Endocrinologists are seeing many cases of stunted growth in girls caused by their dieting. Some doctors worry this will prevent women from reproducing, which would affect future generations of males. But where’s the concern for the girls? Many girls are tormented into dieting by the incredible fat hatred which exists in primary schools. In a recent study of nine-to ten ­year-olds, thin children were called “smart” and fat children were called “icky, too much, ugly, and lazy.” In the film, “Portraits of Anorexia25,” one young girl said, “They called me fatso or blubber. I just stopped eating so they’d stop calling me names.”

In a television report, a group of girls and boys about 10 years old were shown pictures of fashion models and asked what they thought of their body size. The girls said the models were “skinny” and that, “you can see their bones.” The boys, pointing to the same parts of the pictures said “their legs are too big” and “humongous.” These girls described being called “chubby” and “too fat” by boys at school, even though they were very thin.

One II-year old girl who looked like a Barbie doll said she became anorexic because she didn’t want to be an “Amazon.” That’s likely to be her way of saying she didn’t want to look like a Dyke and would rather look weak (male-identified feminine) rather than strong. The girls also talked about wanting to be attractive to boys. Another girl ate so little in her effort to be thin that her hair fell out. These particular girls were choosing to diet, but very often it’s the parents who force girls into dieting by depriving them of food.

One researcher says that anorexia nervosa dates from Victorian times in England, when the feminine ideal meant weakness, fragility, and illness. Lord Byron (a 19th century English poet) said, “A woman should never be seen eating.” It was an insult to call a class-privileged woman “robust,” because that suggested she looked working-class. Women in privileged countries have lost their instinctive fear of starvation. When women students in the U.S. were shown pictures of starving, emaciated women from the 1930’s Depression, they saw them as attractive rather than starving.26 Today, in the U.S., 100,000 more girls develop anorexia nervosa each year and, of that group, 6,000 die from starvation.27

Meanwhile, doctors pressure fat women to take diet pills and to have intestinal bypass, stomach stapling, and liposuction. By 1987, several women in the U.S. had already died from these tortures.28

“Lesbians are fat” is actually one of the male/het stereotypes of us.29 This is one case of an oppressive stereotype reflecting the truth — Lesbians ARE less likely to diet than het women since thinness is a heterosexist value. As usual, men take a positive, self-loving Dyke tradition and use it to attack us. Yet many Lesbians do diet, talk of diets, and make fat-oppressive comments.

Ironically, many Lesbians and women are smaller in height and bone and muscle mass than they would have been because of trying to be healthy and/or being vegan for years. Many long-time vegans also have chronic pain and spine, joint, ligament, and tendon damage, as Lierre Keith describes happened to her in her book, The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability. She also talks about vegan rages and severe depression. Patriarchy could not have come up with a better plan to weaken women while pitting us against each other since this issue has divided feminists more than any other. Radical Feminist omnivores have even been physically threatened by vegans, and Lierre herself was attacked by three cowardly masked vegans at the Anarchist Book Fair while she was speaking. (Her spine damage is well known, yet they ran from behind and each smashed her in the face with “pies” full of cayenne. They videoed their attack to humiliate her, but that backfired.)

Mainstream medicine teaches the function and importance of all body tissues and organs except for fat tissue because of fat-hating male prejudice.

Fat is literally protection against death. When people are dying of cancer, they usually waste away and die from starvation as much as from the other effects of cancer. So if you’re fat and you have cancer, you’ve got a lot more time than a thin person has to try to get well. Yet even in this age when cancer is a modern plague where more than one in three people in the U.S. getting it and most of us know many women who have died from it, we’re still pressured to be thin.

Fat is a vital body tissue that protects our bodies. It cushions muscles and internal organs, insulates us from cold, and helps us to float, making swimming easier and drowning less likely.30 Fatness strengthens our bones. Osteoporosis, the weakening and thinning of bone tissue is a major cause of injury and disability among older women, often leading to death as a consequence of hip fractures. As our weight increases, so does our bone mass, protecting us from osteoporosis.31 That’s one reason our bodies naturally get fatter as we grow older.

Our bodies know what they’re doing. Male thinking, so obviously reflected in male religions, teaches us to hate and distrust our bodies. We’re told to separate our minds from our bodies and treat them as two beings: “The mind should be the master, and the body the servant.” (This is schizoid thinking — and men call women crazy?)

Fatness is also protection against famine, which is why people who’ve gone through periods of starvation often become fat – bodies naturally interpret dieting as starvation and so guard us against future famine/weigh loss by regaining the lost weight and more as soon as possible. Our bodies then become reluctant to ever lose weight again by permanently slowing our metabolism – which is why the more you diet, the harder it is to lose weight, and the easier it is to gain it back.32 I believe our bodies carry this lesson into future generations, so that the descendants of people who have survived famines will tend to be fatter and more prone to gaining weight as a result of dieting.33 These, after all, are the people who survived.

             Fighting Looksism ls Dyke-Loving  

Lesbians, by our very nature, have separated much of the truth from the lies. Choosing to come out meant finding or returning to our true selves. Some of us had already refused the male-invented feminine uniform which is designed to demean women, but is also a signal of submission to men. Other Lesbians rejected it as they became more their own being, and no longer wanted to please or attract men. That changing of appearance is a powerful personal and political message to the world that we choose to be naturally female instead of being covered in the layers of artificiality men call “feminine.”  As those layers are refused or removed, the truth appears.  Away go the constricting, exposing clothes and the painful, limiting shoes that distort female bodies. Away go the cosmetics that mask real faces and bodies. Refusing male identification means becoming solid, real, direct, and honest in body and spirit.

Men tell Dykes we “look like men” because we look natural – only men are permitted to just look like themselves, including looking their true age. What is more unnatural than dousing ourselves with toxic chemicals to destroy our natural aromas, hair, and skin texture and color, etc.? There’s certainly never been any medical argument about why we’re not supposed to have armpit or leg fur, but men and their collaborators (too often our own mothers) have pressured us for years to cut or poison ourselves removing it. If it’s so “unsightly,” then why aren’t men expected to be equally hairless? Standards of “beauty” are as phony as “beauty parlors.” Men reserve certain appearances only for themselves. How else is anyone to know immediately who’s lord and who’s lackey?  Only men are supposed to have facial or body hair, just as only men are supposed to wear trousers and sturdy shoes. By insisting on being ourselves in such a small thing as keeping our own body and facial hair, we’re threatening men and their women supporters at their fragile cores. That’s why they react to Dyke-identified-Dykes with such unreasoning hatred.

Lesbians need to think about who we’re hurting and stop it. Do we really want communities where anyone who doesn’t look like a mannequin feels like an oddity? Do we only want to be around Lesbians who fit male-identified standards of “pretty”? What about the incredible handsomeness and realness of the diverse faces and bodies Dykes are born with, that reflect the multitudes of races, ethnic groups, ages, sizes, and shapes living on Earth?

Is it right for disabled Dykes to be rejected by non-disabled Dykes? Should older Dykes feel as out of place among younger Lesbians as they are in the het world unless they try to hide their age? Should Dykes with ample hair on their bodies continue being made to feel like freaks? And do we want fat Dykes to injure their health and torture and kill themselves because too many Lesbians believe men’s fat-hating, female-hating lies? As Dykes, we know what it is to be feared, hated, and attacked because we’re “different.” We know what it is to be the alien group that’s ostracized and stared at. So we, of all people, should never treat another Dyke that way.

Men call Dykes ugly? Look at them! We already know they hate us, and we can’t change that. What we can control is avoiding internalizing that hatred and turning it on ourselves and other females. Even if we try to accept fatness in other Lesbians and only hate it in ourselves, then we still do men’s work for them. And, besides, it’s not possible. If we hate our own fat there’s no way we can accept fat Dykes.

We’ve already rejected most of men’s commands and lies. Dykes have questioned and fought lies and injustice more than any other group of people. We’ve been in the forefront of challenging all forms of oppression. The more we continue fighting the lies, the stronger we become, individually and as communities. Why not “let ourselves go” and really be our natural selves?

Looksism Kills Females 

It’s the story of patriarchy: males hate females. They want to own and control us because, though they hate us, they need us for their survival and creation. Why then do so many females do men’s bidding and take into themselves men’s oppressive ideas of what’s beautiful and what’s ugly? If women didn’t continue doing men’s work, patriarchy would end immediately.

In choosing to serve the masters, women are rewarded by being given a higher place in the male hierarchy. Women get privilege only at other females’ expense. There are no upper or middle classes if others are not forced to be lower class. There is no racial privilege without racism. Het women gain status according to the degree Lesbians are oppressed. “Beauty,” like other privileges is never neutral or “just the way things are.” No one can be considered “beautiful” if someone else is not called “ugly.”           

Lookism is wrong, hurtful, and cruel. No woman should participate in it. The extremes that some females have gone to in order to make themselves acceptable – not even to be “beautiful,” but just to fit in – have killed them. Don’t be a victim of patriarchy, and don’t victimize other females on behalf of patriarchy.


There are new endnotes added since the printing of our book in 1990. Most of the references can be looked up to find more recent versions.

1.  Most women love their ” pets,” the dogs and cats they own, and proudly think of themselves as animal lovers, — yet too many don’t seem to care at all that their cats and dogs are relentlessly torturing and killing local native populations of birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and insects, many of who are perilously near extinction as a result. Cats have exterminated all reptiles and amphibians where we live, as well as also killing many birds and even squirrels. It’s very upsetting to want desperately to have a tiny wildlife refuge in our yard, but be unable to because of neighbors’ cats. I’ve actually read feminists brag about how often and how many animals their cat kills. Others may be momentarily upset, but not enough to stop the slaughter. Even a kind friend said, after her cat killed a baby mockingbird, “There are plenty of birds, aren’t there?” The mother of the baby had been frantic for days, as her baby was starting to fledge, but could not protect her.

This isn’t about “survival of the fittest,” but about non-native animals exterminating vulnerable native animals, as well as depriving native carnivores of food.

Well-fed cats can kill up to 800 small animals a year. At least one cat on an island caused the extinction of an entire species. From Wikipedia: Feral cats introduced to such islands have had a devastating impact on these islands’ biodiversity. They have been implicated in the extinction of several species and local extinctions, such as the hutias from the Caribbean, the Guadalupe Storm Petrel from Pacific Mexico, the Stephens Island wren; in a statistical study, they were a significant cause for the extinction of 40% of the species studied. Moors and Atkinson wrote, in 1984, “No other alien predator has had such a universally damaging effect.”

Another study (Leon Jaroff , “Attack of the Killer Cats,” in Time, July 31, 1989, found that the five million house cats in Britain kill and bring home at least 79 million small animals, including 30 million birds, a year. One cat brought in 400 victims a year!  A US study says that the number of native animals killed may be double since cats bring home only half their victims. This is even more serious where cats and dogs are not native, but have been introduced by men. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, a single pet dog killed at least 150 endangered kiwi in just a few weeks in 1985. Until the government started removing cats from Stewart Island, feral cats yearly killed half of the remaining Kakapo, one of the three remaining indigenous parrot species in Aotearoa that are almost extinct. Just a few dozen were left by 1985.

This is not the cats’ or dogs’ fault, but the humans who breed them, release them, and don’t protect their potential victims.

Yet anyone who objects to the inequality of owning “pets” and who protests the number of animals killed by cats and dogs is likely to be accused of being an “animal-hater.” That’s because generally only mammals domesticated by man and introduced into countries that didn’t previously have them (as part of European nations’ imperialist invasions) are considered “real” animals.

Meanwhile, as those whose cats have disappeared know, cats kept inside are safer from disease, predators, cars, cruel humans, etc

I’d like to credit Linda Strega’s wonderful article “Pets: Mine, All Mine” which questions the ownership of other beings as pets, printed in The Lesbian lnsider/lnsighter/ lnciter, January. 1981, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Eileen Anderson’s, “The Politics of Pets,” Lesbian Connection, Vol. 12, issue 1, July/August, 1989.

2.  The April, 1987 issue of the Bay Times, a San Francisco (LGBTQWTF) newspaper, printed a letter from a gay man criticizing Lesbian support of Nancy Pelosi for Congress — “How dumb: the man-hating dykes (ugly ones at that) do the obvious: back Pelosi.”

3.  One study was by Darlene Powell-Hopson, and the other was by Mamie and Kenneth Clark. Both were reported in Time, 4 September, 1987. 74.

4. The Mansell Collection, The World’s Last Mysteries, (The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 1981), 200:

5. Chambers Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana. Kurt Mendelssohn, The Riddle of the Pyramids, Praeger Publishers, NY., USA, 1975), 54.

6.  Since writing this chapter, I’ve read When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson with Susan McCarthy, and Animal Talk by Tim Friend, which both describe beautifully how ridiculous it is for scientists to claim that animals don’t feel as much as humans do, and as I’ve thought, they question whether they feel more since we don’t see animals experimenting on other animals.


7. There  has been a barrage of U.S. television ads, and Newsweek, 30 November,1987, had an ad saying: “Decorate your eyes this holiday season.… contact lenses can change your eyes from brown to baby blue, green, hazel, aqua or new sapphire blue.”

Meanwhile, we’re still learning about the full extent of the dangers of contacts. They’re known to weaken the cornea and make eyes more susceptible to infections and cataracts. Even short-term usage causes loss of the blink reflex which means eyes become more vulnerable to any object which comes towards them.

8.  Lewis B. Morrow, “Hirsutism,” Primary Care 4, (1977),128.

9. – Smithsonian magazine, October 2012                            The Distressing Worldwide Boom in Cosmetic Surgery, by Joseph Stromberg.

In ancient China, where foot binding was invented, a stunted foot signified a prized comeliness. In modern Manhattan, the pursuit of beauty has led some women to surgically shorten their toes and secure them with metal pins to fit more easily into three-inch Jimmy Choo stiletto heels (Kristina Widmer’s foot, post-surgery).  



For his new book, Love Me, photographer Zed Nelson traveled to 18 countries over five years, documenting extreme measures undertaken in the quest for cosmetic perfection. Nelson’s unsettling images of plastic surgeons, beauty queens and bodybuilders underscore the seduction of narcissistic compulsion. “Beauty is a $160 billion-a-year global industry,” he says. “Body improvement has become a new religion.”

Nelson’s project began when he noticed, while travelling internationally, that global standards of beauty had become eerily homogenized: He saw skin-lightening products in Africa and surgical procedures to “Westernize” eyes in Asia. The popularity of rhinoplasty in Iran was especially apparent…“When I arrived in Iran, I was amazed,” Nelson says. “My interpreter had had a nose job, as had her mother, her sister, and her two best friends. People were proudly walking in the streets with bandaged noses, excited to be the new owners of small, chiseled, American-style noses.”

… Banks now offer loans for plastic surgery. American families with annual incomes under $25,000 account for 30 percent of all cosmetic surgery patients,” he says. “Americans spend more each year on beauty than they do on education.”

Notice how Nelson keeps referring to “beauty” and “body enhancement,” and never questions that these surgeries are the opposite. I believe many men find artificiality more attractive than reality.

10.  Megan Mackin, dear friend, Radical Feminist, and Fat Activist wrote this powerful poem in the tradition of the Radical Feminist Fat Activist movement:


chiding eyes that look away, tell you how you don’t belong; scowling,
sneering, smirking their silent cues nonverbal; you are wrong!

snarl the narrow turnstiles, booths and halls — the seats that bruise
you, rip your tender flesh; you are outcast, cursed and boundless –

fat that cannot be accommodated within the normal span of chair, or
sizes in the normal styles of clothes; but helpful experts will appear

with their troops prepared and waiting, they will snip you, carve you,
tuck you, band your organs, bind you mentally and starve you;

they will cost you sums of money you cannot begin to know; they will
cost you much, much more in terms of suffering and sorrow;

then, when all your bills are tallied and you reach the journey’s end, you
will find that more than likely you’re still fat — and so you must begin

but now you have the blessing of some of those you’d feared, since, as a
repeat patient/ customer you’ve gained respect from those endeared –

not to you but to the money — behind the pockets you have lined; just
perhaps you’ll be like others who have spent their lives and health to find

that the real problem isn’t that your body size is wrong; instead it’s with
a culture that cannot abide its women being either big or strong;

it’s with a culture where corporations can demand compliance,
and taking space gets perceived — and named — as pure defiance;

it’s where self-absorption, thin-obsession, is demanded from the masses,
to allow the rule, unfettered, of the distant upper class …

there are many ways, of course, to name the problem, and though we
maybe won’t agree on its form, exactly, we can still begin to see

that bodies are more real than all the chairs or booths that people make,
and sizing them too small is certainly the true mistake.

self-hatred isn’t necessary, it’s coerced beneath our skin by the powers
seeking profit, naming fatness (in the guise of “gluttony”) as “sin.”

every body has its beauty, its unique and artful form; everyone deserves
to know this, to distrust the money-manufactured norm;

if you can’t yet see you’re handsome, then simply know that others do;
if you
cannot find your worthiness, please trust that we believe we see that, too.

–diana Mackin
12-something a.m., Sunday February 22, 1998

11.  Layna Berman’s (with Jeffry Fawcett, PhD) radio show “Your Own Health And Fitness” has provided so much valuable health information, including warning people about transfats years before the AMA changed its mind from pushing it. I feel like she has saved my and friends’ lives. Your Own Health And Fitness broadcasts Tuesdays at 1pm on KPFA 94.1FM, Berkeley, California, and on KFCF 88.1FM Fresno. (Check their  list of stations that carry the show for other dates and times.)

From Layna’s website:

“Your heart is big business. Its care is dominated by the theory that cholesterol causes heart attacks. Yet even as the theory holds fewer and fewer advocates, the treatments stay the same.”

12.  Mary Gertrude Enig, PhD, author of Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol, is a nutritionist and early trans fat/hydrogenated oil researcher, warning of their dangers before they were widely accepted. She pushed for improved labeling of trans fats on products, which has now become mandatory on products in the U.S. and in Europe.

Enig also disputes the widely accepted view in the medical community that consumption of saturated fats contributes to heart disease. She believes both butter and coconut oil are not eaten enough and are good for heart health, and criticizes the use of polyunsaturated oils, which most doctors and diets recommend, because they are rancid, and also argues that many who follow low-fat diets feel low on energy because they are “fat deficient.”

13.  The Great Cholesterol Con and The Great Cholesterol Myth by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick (Scottish doctor and author of The Great Cholesterol Con, 2008, graduated from the University of Aberdeen in 1981, has been a general practitioner for over 25 years, and has woked with the European Society of Cardiology) documents the misguided use of statins in primary care, citing evidence from many trials and World Health Organization data to show that statin drugs do not increase life expectancy overall, and do not prevent heart disease in patients without cardiovascular symptoms. Kendrick states that widely varying levels of cholesterol are inversely correlated with deaths from heart disease, and correlated with cancer mortality, as well as strokes and dementia. His findings show that within a reasonable range, higher total cholesterol is associated with lower cancer mortality, but lower rates of deaths from heart disease—the opposite outcome that one would expect if cholesterol were a causative agent for coronary heart disease. Nov 18, 2005

Gary Taubes and Robert Atkins also have written excellent articles and books recommending organic high saturated fat as good for health.

14.   Our Imaginary Weight Problem —   This study illustrates just how exaggerated and unscientific the government’s claims are on the relationship between weight and mortality risk.

 Dr. Paul Ernsberger, “Is it Unhealthy To Be Fat?” Radiance, Winter 1986, 12-13. A graph with 4 weights of females, 110 lbs., 122 lbs., 224 lbs, and over 287 lbs., shows that the fattest (at over 287 lbs.) live longer than the thinnest (at 110 lbs.). Those in the 224 lb. group outlive the “insurance ideal” weight of 122 lbs.

Jan. 2, 2013 — Could Being a Little Overweight Help You Live Longer?

Newsweek Special Edition on “The 21st Century Family,” Winter/Spring 1990, page 98.

Also, very thin women have higher rates of lung cancer and osteoporosis than fatter women. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 3, 1987.
CDC: Dangers of being overweight overstated.
Stigma and obesity-associated disease
Death rates by weight (range);%20Nutrition%20Journal%202010,%209:30doi:10.1186/1475-2891-9-30

Diets fail
Linda Bacon’s Paradigm Shift

15.  China Study refuted:

Other studies that purport to show meat is unhealthy do not differentiate between toxic non-organic meat laden with hormones and antibiotics from animals fed GMO grains or highly processed meat full of toxic nitrites and nitrates from healthy organic pastured meat.

16.  Robert Coleman Atkins, US physician and cardiologist — “Atkins Nutritional Approach,” and Dieter’s Dilemma: Eating Less and Weighing More by William Bennett and Joel Gurin.

17.  Male scientists go to the strangest lengths to alter the truth. On the BBC­TV series, “The First Eden,” David Attenborough claimed that the famous many­breasted statue of the goddess Diana at Ephesus actually has a chest covered with testicles! (Shown on PBS television stations in the U.S., December 1987.)

18.  Carbon dated to at least 35,000 years ago…These figurines were carved from soft stone (such as steatite, calcite or limestone), bone or ivory, or formed of clay and fired. The latter are among the oldest ceramics known. In total, over a hundred such figurines are known; virtually all of modest size, between 4 cm and 25 cm in height. They are some of the earliest works of prehistoric art.  

UntitledMA27128565-0001             UntitledMA27128565-0002

000_Untitled UntitledMA27128565-0003                                                                                                                                      

19.  San Francisco Chronicle, 30 March, 1988.

20. Dr. Dean Edell’s Medical Journal, KGO-TV, San Francisco, 10 November 1988.

21. This study and the following one are quoted from a thesis by Marianne Lens of Brussels, Belgium, 1981-1982, titled “Perspectives D’Analyse de L’Ideologie de Ia DIFFERENCE, Comme Fondement de L’Hetero-Patriarcat.”

L. Van Loon and Van Pee-Grosjean, “La Femme: Objet de Sante Publiquet,” Germ, Lettre de Information 99, June, 1976, 18-19.

E. Gianini Belotti, Du Cote des Petites Filles, (Paris, France: Ed. des Femmes, 1977). Marianne says “Of course these results are of a planetary nature, since patriarchal oppression itself is omni-present.”

22. Newsweek Special Edition on “The 21st Century Family,” Winter/Spring 1990, page 98.

23. Dietary Consumption of Selected Food Groups for the US Population (Purdue Research Foundation for the EPA, Washington D.C., Feb, 1980).

24.  A report on KRON-TV, San Francisco, June 6, 1987, said that 80% of nine-year-­old girls are on diets. In Newsweek, 27 July 1987, a study by Laurel Mellin of the University of California at San Francisco, stated that “81% of the 10 year-­old girls were dieters.” “More than half the girls described themselves as overweight, while only 15% were….”

Corinna Kaarela found that in a study of 500 “middle-income, parochial schoolgirls,” 89% of the l7-year-olds were on diets. UC Clip sheet, Vol. 62, No.1, 9 December,1986.

In Time,14 July,1986, Dr. Michael Pugliese reported that “restrictive diets …now account for one-fourth of the cases of failure to thrive seen at the hospital.” (North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, NY) “…the youngsters were all on low-fat, low-cholesterol diets and getting only 63% to 94% of the calories they needed.” A 21-month old girl had “…failed to gain any weight in nearly 6 months.”

25. By Wendy Zheutlin, Fat Chance Productions.

26. Joan Brumberg, in a KALW, San Francisco, radio interview, 16 August 1988, about her book, Fasting Girls: The Emergence of Anorexia as a Modern Disease.

27. KRON-TV, San Francisco, news feature on “Eating Disorders,” 11 November 1988.

28. 20/20, ABC-TV, U.S.A., 1 January 1988.

29. In the May, 1986 issue of San Francisco Insight, one het woman commented on another het woman’s feeling good about her weight increasing to 150 pounds by asking, “Has she gone gay?”

30. Wearing only a bathing suit, Lynne Cox swam the two miles of the Bering Strait, from the island of Little Diomede, Alaska to Big Diomede, Siberia, in the summer of 1987. The water temperature was 34 degrees Fahrenheit and, although people usually die in such cold water after 2 hours, Lynne swam for 2.12 hours and was fine. Doctors said that her layer of fat acted as an internal wetsuit. She weighs about 209 lbs. Kathleen McCoy, “Making Waves,” Radiance, Spring 1988, 25.

Update from Wikipedia: Lynne Cox (born 1957 in Boston, Massachusetts) is an American long-distance open-water swimmer and writer…. She has twice held the record for the fastest crossing (men or women) of the English Channel (1972 in a time of 9h 57 mins and 1973 in a time of 9h 36 mins). In 1975, Cox became the first woman to swim the 10 °C (50 °F), 16 km (10 mi) Cook Strait in New Zealand. In 1976, she was the first person to swim the Straits of Magellan in Chile, and the first to swim around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.

Another of her accomplishments was swimming more than a mile (1.6 km) in the waters of Antarctica. Cox was in the water for 25 minutes, swimming 1.22 miles (1.96 km).

31. Patricia Hausman, The Calcium Bible, How to Have Better Bones All Your Life, (Rawson Associates: New York, U.S.A., 1985), 36-37.

32.  A 1986 study by the University of Pennsylvania of adopted children and their adoptive and biological parents showed genetic inheritance had a far greater influence on children’s weight than environmental factors such as amount of food eaten. San Francisco Chronicle — 12 November 1986.

A study of Danish people found that the genetic tendency for fatness is passed most strongly from mothers to daughters. “Genetic influences from fathers, and from mothers to sons, are apparently about half that of mothers to daughters.” What could more clearly prove that fatness is a specifically female characteristic? Charles Petit, “Genetics’ Role in Contributing to Obesity,” San Francisco Chronicle, 31 March,1989. A5.

33. Alvin Feinstein, “How do we measure accomplishment in weight reduction?” Obesity, Causes, Consequences and Treatment, ed. Louis Lasagna (Medcom Press, 1974), 86.

Aside | Posted on by | 40 Comments

Ageism – A Radical Lesbian Feminist Perspective


– A Radical Lesbian Feminist Perspective 

Bev Jo

Do not name me against my will. Do not presume to know how I want to be named without asking me. Do not call me “elder,” “elderly,” “geriatric,” or “crone.” Do not assume that naming me in a category as different from yourself is flattering. Do not assume that I agree to be part of the mainstream ageist and heterosexist separation of females. Ageism is one of the many ways that patriarchy divides women from each other.

Wouldn’t it be better to make all Lesbians and women welcome and have truly inclusive and diverse Lesbian communities without driving anyone away by “othering” and oppressing her?

Similarly, do not call me “cis” or “cunt.” Even the feminist/Wiccan “maiden, mother, crone” is based on sexism and heterosexism – pre-fucked, currently fucked, post-fucked – all identities associated with bonding with men, with no recognition of females who say no to men and to male rules and patriarchy. I do not agree to any of it. My identity is based on being a Lesbian.

Aren’t all old women oppressed enough without doing it in the name of feminism? Why categorize one group of females from another except to divide us? Yes, we may measure and treasure our ways of being different from the mainstream. But ask first before those of you with privilege dare to call us names. Do not patronize us.

A name I particularly hate is “young lady.”  When I was a girl, pompous feminine teachers told us they would force us to be “young ladies,” which meant trying to destroy our natural, wild girl selves. Being yourself means falling in love with other girls and forming communities, like my friends and I did in our all-girls’ high school. Some girls rolled around wrestling on the floor. Not “ladylike.” A few of us refused to obey those ridiculous rules that restricted our movements, minds and freedom. How terrible for a girl to take up space, stand and walk grounded and with pride. Mincing and wriggling while walking is not natural. Holding in your body while males are encouraged to take up space is training for girls to be obedient servants, victims, and rape bait. All aspects of male-defined femininity are devised to separate females’ bodies from our minds and spirits.  “Lady” is also classist, with its origins in English aristocracy. It is especially insulting to any female who refuses male rules to be feminine, such as Butches.

Men use “young lady” to patronize us, as if they expect us to giggle in gratitude for calling us “young.” If you object, they act as if you are insulting them. But they expect themselves to be addressed in ways that gives them respect and dignity.

I am not even that old at 61, and I don’t feel very different from how I’ve always felt. You don’t make a decision to become old. It just happens. So it will happen to everyone, if they live long enough. It is therefore in all women’s interest that old females be treated with respect and equality.

Perhaps that is part of what causes ageism: the fear of becoming old – so you try to make distance and end up objectifying old women. It’s not even that patriarchy is consistently youth-worshipping, because some old men are given the most respect, ruling countries, deciding the fate of everyone else. Actors in their eighties are called “handsome,” while old women are made to feel ugly, unwanted, and even monstrous. There are so many media portrayals of old women as dangerous, fairy tale nightmares, while it is rich old white men who are literally destroying the earth.

Old women are hated, instead of being appreciated for what we’ve learned, and what we can teach. Sadly, some women even say they want to become men in order to avoid becoming “old women.”

The most ageism I’ve gotten as a Radical Lesbian Feminist writer has been from the trans cult – the men who appropriate Lesbian identity and use ageism to discount and erase my and Janice Raymond’s and Mary Daly’s and other radical politics by calling us “dinosaurs.” They talk as if their ideas are new (they aren’t – we’ve been countering their female-hatred and Lesbian-hatred for over forty years). Those of us who have continued being politically active have seen public feminism become so right wing/mainstream as to be almost meaningless. Politics do not necessarily improve as time goes by. Even politicians who were right wing extremists in the Sixties are now considered moderate.

I understand why the supporters of the trans cult want to discredit us – many of them even threaten to rape and kill us – because the truths we point out expose their lies and threaten their power. But why do some women who call themselves Radical Feminists also tell us to “retire”?  It’s for similarly arrogant reasons – to censor us because our radicalism threatens their privilege. Appearing radical is trendy, but truly radical politics reveals them to be more mainstream.

Of course it’s hard getting older, as health tends to decline (although I know Lesbians in their sixties and seventies with far more stamina and strength than some in their thirties and forties). Some older women will live longer than some younger because of growing up before food, air, and water were so polluted, and before nuclear age radiation existed. Modern GMO “food,” toxic soy, and food cooked and stored in poisonous plastic (soy and plastic are xenoestrogens) are damaging our bodies and minds, causing cancer, hormonal problems, depression and mental illness. Almost all younger women I know have health problems that were rare before.

The media spreads lies to get people to accept the unacceptable. We are told that people live longer now, but, except for infants and women in childbirth dying, that isn’t true, as death records show. People also had healthier lives. We are told that cancer and Alzheimer’s are genetically caused, but that would mean no increase over time. Those of us who lived sixty years ago know that cancer was so rare that a child with leukemia was on the evening television news, and no one had Alzheimer’s.

Dementia was also very rare and not assumed to be a common result of growing old. I lived in a very polluted industrialized area, knowing many old people in my enormous extended family and large neighborhood, yet my step-grandfather was the only person I remember who got cancer. It certainly was not one in three or two, like now.

Of course there are genetic vulnerabilities, but the real source of these epidemic illnesses is exposure to environmental toxins, (There is NO safe dose of radiation in spite of the propaganda. Stanford Medical School taught my Physician’s Assistant that 20 percent of all cancers are now caused by CAT scans. That is a horrifying one out of five.)

People now happily buy toxic products to pollute their homes and neighborhoods, with laundry fumes spewing from drier vents making our neighborhoods smell like factories.

And the medical system makes a fortune by “trying to find a cure,” instead of stopping what they know is the cause. It’s all about making the rich richer.

Younger people often don’t know the truth. A current myth is that fascist Reagan was a good president. Lies told often enough are believed – unless those of us who remember the truth tell it.

Barbara Macdonald’s (with Cynthia Rich) book, Look Me in the Eye: Old Women, Aging and Ageism, from 1983, is still the best book I’ve read about ageism, with that old Seventies direct, radical, and sensible Radical Lesbian Feminist politics that I rarely see now. The book began when Barbara was 62 and Cynthia was 41. Barbara described being so alone as an old woman in her community, treated as “other” by younger women.

Almost thirty years later, my experience is very different, though ageism of course still exists and younger women are clearly more valued. I see older Lesbians being dismissed with a glance, just as I see those with less privilege in other ways dismissed. Still, old and older Lesbians now have a huge loving community. We no longer have our bookstores, coffee houses, or bars, so we meet in public, het, or gay male spaces for a night. There is so much for older Lesbians that sometimes I have to choose between five events in one evening. One of my friends in her twenties likes to go to the dances where ages range from twenties to seventies. I also love that age diversity, especially when older is the majority.

I also object to ageism directed at younger women. When I hear someone called “immature” as an explanation for what I see women in their sixties doing, it’s clearly about choice and not age. It’s a shame when Lesbians automatically reject possible friends or lovers simply because of age. We have many differences among us, but I would like to think that all could be overcome with enough love for each other.

After the feminism of the last forty two years, it’s been a shock to see older Lesbians desperately trying to look young in ways that only accentuate their age. Some even have had plastic surgery, so I appreciate the handsome and beautiful old Lesbians who look comfortable in their skin, proud of who they are, happy to be with other old Lesbians.


I am a lifelong Lesbian, working class Butch, born in 1950. I began writing as a Radical Lesbian Feminist in 1970, when I found the San Francisco Bay Area Lesbian Feminist community. Iworked with Lesbian collectives, including on one of the first Lesbian Feminist conferences in the US, in 1972, the local women’s bookstore, Lesbian Coffeehouse, Dyke Separatist Gathering in 1983. I co-wrote and published Dykes and Gorgons in 1973, and Dykes-Loving-Dykes in 1990. My articles have been printed in For Lesbians Only, Lesbian Ethics, Mehr al das Herz Gebrochen, Finding the Lesbians, Lesbian Friendships, Lesbian Inciter, Sinister Wisdom, Hag Rag, Lesbian International, Lesbian Voices, etc.


Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments

Leather = S/M = BDSM — It’s All Still Sadism and Masochism

Leather = S/M = BDSM –

It’s All Still Sadism and Masochism

Bev Jo

(This is an update of our chapter against sado-masochism from our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, which I co-wrote with Linda Strega and Ruston, and which we published in 1990, and which was translated and printed in the German Lesbian anthology against sado-masochism, Mehr als das Herz Gebrochen (More than a Broken Heart) by Constance Ohms (Hg)in 1993. Some other chapters and updates from our book and later articles can be seen at

(My focus here is about the contradiction of some Lesbian Feminists, or even Radical Feminists, also being sado-masochists. Some Radical Feminists ask how sado-masochists can be feminist at all, but some do have otherwise strong feminist politics. I am exploring this because Lesbians are my people. But I am in no way saying that Lesbians are more likely to be sado-masochists than are women who choose to be het or bisexual. Sexual interactions with men are by their nature sado-masochistic. Lesbians are the people who are the most free from the sado-masochism permeating patriarchal culture.)1

Most of us grow up with mental, emotional, and physical abuse. I believe most of us have been sexually assaulted, and certainly all females have been sexually harassed as well as subjected to violent hatred of females throughout the media. Patriarchy, reinforced by religions, is a sado-masochistic culture, based on humiliation, pain, and suffering. Most females’ earliest feelings of love, intimacy, and passion are interwoven with dependence, fear, anger, threats, and rape. We are taught to be both self-hating (masochistic) and to hate our own kind (sadistic). We are trained into sado-masochistic scenarios from the day we are born. I believe this is done to disconnect us from our natural feelings of love and passion towards other females. We are also taught to turn our reasonable, righteous anger inward so that most girls feel suicidal at some point in their lives. It is hard to identify with other females who are victims, so many girls and women learn to worship the boys and males who have tormented and tortured them. This also explains some of why women will line up to marry imprisoned serial rapists and killers of women and girls, and will betray other females on behalf of men claiming to be female.

Most girls hate themselves and other girls so much that they choose to become heterosexual. Lesbians fight for the right to love ourselves and each other, but we still carry a lot of self-hatred. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept feelings of masochism and sadism because of the ways we’re oppressed any more than we have to accept the feelings of hatred and self-hatred because of being exposed to the heterosexism, classism, racism, anti-Semitism, ableism, ageism, fat oppression, looksism, etc. that are reflected in the patriarchy around us. Our politics and common sense give us the awareness to say no to oppression, as well using our own privileges against others, and gives us the strength and awareness to face reality and reject the lies forced on us.

It’s one thing to recognize the ways we are manipulated and conned to hate ourselves and other women, but it’s another to glorify, proselytize, and sexualize this misogyny and to justify it as a reasonable political position and identity.


It’s telling how many euphemisms Lesbians use for sado-masochism. It’s as if Lesbian sado-masochists, and particularly those identifying as Lesbian Feminists, really do not want to use the most accurate and revealing word for what they do. I believe that’s because they are in conflict about it.

After all, how can they self-identify with the Marquis de Sade, who proudly tortured and murdered women, as well as Sacher Masoch, who pretended to be a masochist2, while also subjecting women to non-consensual sadism. Identifying with these men is male-identified in the worst possible sense. And yet, many Lesbians have joined with the majority mainstream het and bisexual women and with most men in becoming sado-masochists.

When sado-masochism first openly appeared in my Lesbian Feminist community in the San Francisco Bay Area in the late Seventies, Samois, a “Lesbian Feminist” sado-masochist group, played with the terms and with many Lesbians’ minds by calling it “S/M,” saying that the power was equally shared. Their book, “Coming to Power,” began with sado-masochists patronizingly re-naming the rest of us as “vanilla.” (The sado-masochist cult shares many parallels with the trans cult, where women are re-named against our will – trans call us “cis” — and where we are insulted and lied about and lied to in order to con and manipulate us.)

The euphemisms keep changing. The most common one I see now is BDSM and “Leather” and “Kink.” I have been shouted at for daring to say “sado-masochists” rather than “Leather-dykes.” I have also been called “leather-phobic.” Anyone who refuses to call men who appropriate female and Lesbian identity “transwomen” will recognize the cult technique of bullying to censor opposition and political differences. In both cases, we are forbidden to think or say what we think. After enough times of being yelled at and threatened, many Lesbians just obey.

But why should we obey? What right do sado-masochists have to claim the term “leather” for their own or to police our language and politics? Leather has long been associated with Lesbians and especially with Butches who came out before feminism, and has nothing innately to do with sado-masochism.

Can you remember your first reaction when hearing about “Lesbian Feminist” sado-masochists?  Many of us were stunned that Lesbians, and especially Lesbians who called themselves feminists, would participate in such a Lesbian-hating and female-hating practice.

It’s important for those who consider themselves Radical Feminists or Separatists to be aware of how sado-masochism bonds them with patriarchy, het and gay men, and het and bisexual women. Some of us watched sado-masochism brought into our Lesbian communities and relationships by women who learned it from their husbands and boyfriends. Other women learned it from gay male friends. Some members of Samois had previously been in “Cardea,” a women’s sado-masochist support group, which had been connected to “Janus,” a group that included het and gay male sado-masochists.

Sado-masochism may be trendy, but it isn’t new – it’s as old as patriarchy. Religions, such as christianity, are based on sado-masochism. Those of us who were forced to be catholic as little girls, grew up surrounded by images of bloody and tortured jesus and saints, and were taught to regularly contemplate the blood and gore.

Mainstream culture is full of sado-masochism. I saw virtually every Hollywood movie in the Fifties when I was a girl. I’d thought that sado-masochism in the media was less obvious than now, but recently saw just a few minutes from the 1960 popular film, “Spartacus,” which I’d seen when I was nine. Spartacus was the escaped slave who formed an army to free people enslaved by the Romans. In the short scene I saw, he freed a slave woman who asked him to order her to always obey him, as part of their flirtation. Talk about obvious sado-masochism!  Clearly, sado-masochism was far more important than the idea of freeing everyone. (This scene, which was supposed to be powerful and presumably sexually charged, was just laughable. But then, most sado-masochistic scenes are.)

Part of the myth of sado-masochism is that it is so bold and daring that discussing it or even thinking about it will “trigger” women who have been abused. I believe sado-masochists get off on this because it contributes to their power. Nothing deflates that posturing as quickly as not only refusing to be intimidated, but finding it silly and pathetic. Yes, some aspects are horrifying and play on serious misogyny, Lesbian-hating, racism, etc., but that makes Radical Lesbian Feminists angry rather than afraid.

Sado-masochists attempt to intimidate any Lesbians who oppose them into not trusting our reasonable and instinctive emotional, psychic, and political objections to sado-masochism by using the political language of oppression to silence and censor us.  Just as with the trans cult’s dishonest tactics, sado-masochists use feminist politics against us. The fact that many responsible and caring Lesbians don’t want to oppress other Lesbians is used to manipulate us into accepting sado-masochists as an oppressed sexual minority. In reality, they are the mainstream majority, with sado-masochism providing titillation for otherwise bored hets. Sado-masochism (again, like the trans cult) is a right wing backlash against female-loving. It’s mainstream as well as deeply misogynist and Lesbian-hating. Reverse discrimination does not exist.

In my experience, when the political cons don’t work, both sadists and masochists resort to their usual verbal/emotional abuse, including using classism, by calling us “stupid, ignorant fools” and telling us to “educate ourselves,” as if that will make us be more open to their obviously warped politics. Attempts at shaming and humiliation are classic parts of sado-masochistic scenes, so most are quite used to these techniques.

The main pro-sado-masochist argument is that someone should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom and it’s no one else’s business. Well, the same can be said for porn and prostitution, as well as other right wing political practices. Such decisions affect all of us, individually and as a community. We’ve had enough decades seeing the harm sado-masochism does to Lesbian relationships and communities to have the right to talk about it.

At this point, for me, it’s really just about saying “no” to sado-masochists. But I haven’t seen that work very well, whether I’m trying to be friends or work politically with them. What I’ve experienced is non-consensual verbal and emotional abuse with my “no” being ignored.

The last time I ignored my common sense and worked with two sado-masochists in a Radical Lesbian Feminist political group, I was subjected to one of the members bringing her bullwhip to every meeting, presumably because she needed to practice. (You can’t make this shit up.)  From what I could tell, she was using it to flirt and to try to intimidate me. The intimidation didn’t work, but the flirting with other members did. Another member who claims to be against sado-masochism gave me an insulting lecture saying that I was showing bigotry equivalent to racism because I’d said my experiences with sado-masochists are that they inevitably do non-consensual emotional abuse.  (Again, this is similar to the kind of mind-fuck the trans cult uses against feminists.)

I lost a sadist friend from that group who I otherwise shared Radical Lesbian Feminist politics with. She accused me of “outing the worst and darkest hour of the Leather-dyke community” because I wrote at a Radical Feminist blog about gentile Pat Califia non-consensually carving a swastika into her Jewish lover’s back. What Califia did has been well-known for decades as an example of what sadists can do in spite of claiming to be respectful of “no.”  It is even more volatile and relevant because Califia is one of the original stars of the “Lesbian Feminist” sado-masochist movement and was instrumental into bringing it into our communities. Linda Strega, Ruston, and I wrote in our book in 1990 about what Califia did. It’s never been a secret. Yet, this friend was so desperate to keep it hidden that she verbally abused me and tried to censor me. She acted like I had betrayed her beloved sado-masochist community and expected that I should keep their secret, which I have to say is a bit reminiscent of keeping Daddy’s secret about molesting daughters – especially since sadists (including my ex-friend) like to be called “Daddy.” Considering how many women have been sexually assaulted by “Daddy,” it is also hard to accept “Daddy” being used as a “play” term for sadists in sexual encounters.

Rather than being discriminated against, sadist pornographers seem to get preferential treatment.  Califia has continued being Lesbian sado-masochism’s poster girl in spite of the fact of her increasing public male-worshipping. Califia said decades ago that she “would rather fuck a hot boy who’s into S & M than a vanilla Lesbian.” It’s actually a relief that she has come full circle back to men, although in a slightly different version of her former male-identified self. She is now claiming to BE a gay man – or what the more rational of us recognize as a het or bisexual woman obsessed with gay men (“fag hag”). Yet Califia still has so much power that even after abusing her lover in such a horrific way (can you imagine removing that scar?), after being forgiven for calling the police on the lover’s friends who went after her, and after writing books with some of the most Lesbian-hating misogynist sadistic porn imaginable (in “Macho Sluts,” one story is about a Lesbian being given the birthday “gift” of being gang-raped by gay men posing as cops), she was still made Lesbian sex/relationship advice columnist for the Lesbian magazine “Girlfriends.” She was allowed to keep that job even after she “came out” as a gay man and called herself “Patrick Califia.”

I do not believe the gay male line, which has done so much damage to Lesbians, that we are all “born this way.” Lesbian Feminists in the Seventies proudly said that we were making a choice to be Lesbians, as opposed to the mainstream het lie that says only a few perverts are born queer. Women being aware we are making a choice to be het or bisexual or Lesbian changes women and changes the world. It’s an enormous threat to patriarchy. It brings up the fact that all woman could choose to be Lesbians, which is what I think they would do if it wasn’t for the extreme punishment for refusing and reward for obeying.

As our once independent, strongly feminist Lesbian community was being eroded by gay male influence, many Lesbians started to explain their past het choices and later coming out as “I was always a Lesbian. I just didn’t know it.”  The right wing’s attitude is that we don’t deserve equal rights because we are choosing to be queer, so gay male and now mainstream Lesbians’ answer is that “We would of course choose to be het like you if we could, but we’re just pathetic queers who have no choice, so please give us equal rights.” It’s a politics based on shame and pity, not pride and self-love, like Lesbian Feminism.

I believe that Pat Califia has always chosen to be a bisexual, like the two other women (JoAnn Loulan and Susie Bright) who were the main “sexologists” who pushed their agenda of sado-masochism, porn, heterosexism, etc. in our Lesbian community in the Eighties. They pretended to be Lesbians partly because writing porn/sex books and doing workshops for Lesbians meant they were accepted by Lesbians and made money and careers from Lesbians. JoAnn Loulan redefined “Lesbian” in her destructive book, “Lesbian Sex,”(which Linda Strega and I reviewed in our article, “Lesbian Sex – Is It? In 1985) by saying that “some Lesbians have wonderful ongoing sexual relations with men.” This was such a mind-fuck that one of our headings was “Can Therapists Make Lesbians Disappear?” We knew Loulan could not be a Lesbian by her own definition, and years after taking money from Lesbians, she admitted on national television that she was with a man. But most Lesbians seemed to believe and trust these women based on the authority and expertise they claimed as therapists or “sexologists.” In restrospect, it was actually quite the dominance and submission scenario. This was also where our community seemed to switch from not trusting anyone who set themselves up as stars, to just obeying “authority.”

Those who were pro-porn and sado-masochism were scathing and ridiculing towards Radical Lesbian Feminism. The glossy magazine, “On Our Backs,” that glorified “Lesbian” porn and sado-masochism and role-playing, chose that name in opposition to the longtime Feminist newspaper, “off our backs.”  It was all clearly so reactionary and right wing, yet few seemed to question it. Or maybe they did and were censored in the Lesbian media. And then the “Lesbian” strip shows began – not just in the usual male porn districts, but in our own communities, prostituting all of us for men and endangering us. (How many men have raped Lesbians after reading Califia’s porn about Lesbians wanting to be raped?) Suddenly, mainstream or liberal and leftist bookstores replaced Feminist or Lesbian Feminist books and newspapers with porn and sado-masochist books by “Lesbians,” for Lesbians, and whoever else wanted to spend the money. I still believe that the male porn industry funded this takeover of our communities.


The “consenting” exchange of power and trust said to be the core of sado-masochism is in reality a re-play of the betrayed trust and abuse of power most of us experienced as girls. What does it mean to be unable to accept “love” unless punished? Why ask someone you love to play your rapist? Why want to hurt, beat, cut, whip, burn, humiliate, and shit on someone you “love?” How can re-playing scenes of sexual terrorization ever be good for someone? How can anyone who is sexually excited by the inequalities acted out in sado-masochism be trusted to respect limits. If it was a release, then why is sado-masochism so addictive and those who join the cult increase the level of pain and destructive games? Why do so many lose control?

When Lesbians are used to playing emotional as well as physical sado-masochistic games, do they automatically stop when they are around Lesbians who do not want to play games of hierarchy and humiliation? In my experience, they don’t. Besides friends and acquaintances being treated in sado-masochistic ways, some scenes are done as public displays, with unwilling spectators, because many sado-masochists are stimulated by having an unwilling audience. Even just parading around in sado-masochistic regalia, and bragging about sado-masochistic events is exhibitionistic and an example of shoving sado-masochism at us against our will, like the sadist who brought her bullwhip to our political meetings.

It’s hard to take seriously a Lesbian who accuses you of “demonizing” sado-masochism while she is wearing the Nazi-style leather cap that gay male sado-masochists popularized. Gay men made an entire business out of producing expensive leather sado-masochistic paraphernalia, as well as fabricating a political movement, complete with a “Leather Pride” flag (black and blue with a red heart3), which they march with and fly over the Armory, an enormous dungeon that takes up an entire city block in San Francisco. Demanding respect as an oppressed minority parallels the trans cult again.)  My ex-friend first became a sado-masochist in a bisexual community when she was still quite young. She became a Lesbian within a year, but, in spite of her otherwise Radical Lesbian Feminist and Separatist politics, her first loyalty lies with the sado-masochistic community, which became obvious to me when she clearly still thought of Pat Califia as a courageous hero, rather than the male-worshipping misogynist porny bisexual sadist who brought the worst aspects of gay male culture directly into our community, as well as the genderqueer crap my friend so rails against.

But then sado-masochism is about ritualizing inequality and oppression. Hero-worship without examining what that means is just one aspect of mainstream sado-masochism in patriarchal culture.

Another example of non-consensuality is in female-identified Lesbian support groups which are meant to provide a safe space for Lesbians who do not want to be around women identifying as male and using male pronouns, yet special exemptions are made for sado-masochistic “play” language. Why the double standard?  Even more interesting is that it would never be allowed for someone to bring a beer to such a group since that might trigger a Lesbian in “Recovery” to want to drink, yet there is no concern for anyone who has been raped by their “Daddy” to not want to hear Lesbians play with that term sexually.

A friend of mine had dinner with a Lesbian who defines herself as a “Top.” When my friend went to leave, the sadist grabbed her arm and told her she was staying.  My friend finally had to push her away to get her to let go. What if another Lesbian in that situation had been too intimidated or upset to be able to show that she was willing to defend herself?  It sounded like this was a game/scenario the sadist was used to playing. How many Lesbians has she attacked?

I have to ask: What atrocities have sado-masochists managed to hide?


Sado-masochists tell us we need games, apparatus, and role-playing scenes to be exciting, which is similar to when men and het women ask “What can two girls do together without a prick?” Instead of asking how can we be passionate without rape and slave and prisoner scenes, handcuffs, whips, dildos, role-playing, etc., I ask why any Lesbian feels so bored and empty that she is driven to increasingly unsavory and bizarre scenarios. It’s running away from real passion and intensity. There is nothing like being completely present with your lover, looking into each other’s eyes, as you make love. But then, many sado-masochists have anonymous sex with complete strangers.

To me, the epitome of sado-masochism, which, after all, is based on male violence against women, is the glorifying of maleness. Using dildos, and believing you need dildos for Lesbian love-making, is more destructive for Lesbians than the worst aspects of sado-masochism. I just don’t understand the reason for it other than pretending to be male or pretending your lover is. There is nothing you can do with a dildo that you can’t do far more intensely and passionately with your Lesbian hands and Lesbian body. Most Lesbians find pricks disgusting, so why play with a fake one?

From what I’ve read, it’s ex-het Fems who primarily brought dildos into our Lesbians communities (Joan Nestle wrote about this in “A Persistent Desire,” when she described carrying a dildo in her purse in case she met a Butch she wanted to fuck her), and then brought them back after they seemed to be rejected by most Lesbians. I can’t help but distrust the motives. A self-hating, lesbophobic, Lesbian-hating Lesbian can pretend it’s not really a Lesbian making love to her if a dildo is being used. And that same hateful woman can feel more “normal” by pretending to be a man touching a woman when she is “making love” with a dildo. It’s a way to avoid touching and being touched. It’s a way to distance, as well as to pornify Lesbian sexuality.

I have heard so many Butches say they hated and felt objectified by being asked to use dildos on lovers. But, of course, Lesbians, and especially Butches, want to please their lovers. I’m guessing that dildos came back into use because some Fems demanded them, and then lovers complied. Dildos merged with the rest of the sado-masochistic “sex toys” that Lesbians talk about in order to not feel left out.

I’ve seen two documentaries where Lesbians decided to have mastectomies and take hormones to please their lovers who did not want to think of themselves as Lesbians, and to please their lovers’ families. So if mutilating yourself and risking your life is required for some relationships, why not use dildos?

When I protested at a Butch Conference that it was wrong to assume that we all used dildos, a sado-masochistic Hard Fem lectured me as if I had no awareness of what dildos were. When I refused to submit to her, she dismissed me by using ageism, telling me that I was probably too old to change. Is fourteen too old?  That’s the age when I first heard about dildos, in 1965, when I visited the girl I had been in love with since I was five and she was nine. Now, at eighteen, Rosemary had found a sort of Lesbian community, though it sounded like it was the ex-het, ex-wife Fems in control and who taught the younger Lesbians what to do. Rosemary was in love with her Butch friend, but that was disapproved of. She asked if I knew what a dildo was and proceeded to explain that Lesbians needed to use them to satisfy these women since they didn’t have pricks. I only vaguely knew what a prick was and was repulsed. I was also confused since I was sure I was a Lesbian, having been in love with other girls since my earliest memories, but if this was what it meant to be a Lesbian, then how could I be?  How many young and older Lesbians are made to feel more alone and isolated by the normalizing of dildos and other sado-masochism in our communities?

Butches are particularly objectified in regards to dildos. A local “sex toy” party and demonstration was given recently by a Fem who made a “joke” about having to watch to make sure that no Butch would steal her dildos. Why would any Butch want her ugly dildos/

It is so disturbing how absolutely mainstream and acceptable dildos have become in our communities. Where once Lesbians said no, they now feel guilty and not trendy enough if they don’t use them. I even hear Lesbians complaining about the cost — after all, it’s become a big business. It’s also become a het and mainstream joke in the media and elsewhere, and therefore is a way for men to be reassured that, deep down, Lesbians really do want pricks. How can any Lesbian with a sense of pride want to participate in this? Men appropriating Lesbian identity are also using dildos to claim that their pricks are just a variation and so they should be allowed to be in female-only space. (GenderTrender is a blog by Gallus Mag, where she posts some of these Lesbian-hating men in their own words —


Many sado-masochists are also addicted to alcohol and other drugs. The popular gay male drug, poppers (amyl nitrate), is used to make it easier to have something shoved up your rectum. While it can be damaging to be lovers with addicted Lesbians who are not careful, it can be dangerous to do sado-masochism with one. Sado-masochists say that when someone is sexually aroused, sensations which normally would be painful are no longer felt as pain, or that, mystically, there becomes less distinction between pain and pleasure. But why wouldn’t there be more sensitivity, rather than less? Why is insensitivity to pain said to be good when it is actually dangerous to our safety? If a Lesbian is feeling numb sexually, why is sado-masochism recommended, rather than exploring why she is shut down? The oppression and brutality that we’ve suffered as Lesbians and as women have caused many of us to become numb, physically, psychically, and emotionally. It can be hard for many of us to really feel our bodies because they’ve been the objects of torture and ridicule for so long.

A friend has said that we’re not born wanting to feel pain. Babies move away from pain, not towards it. Craving pain is not natural. It’s a sign of damage.

We’ve all internalized a connection between love and violence, pleasure and pain – it’s a natural response to constant assault and abuse from an early age and a culture that glorifies rape and torture. It’s not our fault if we’ve internalized some of those feelings, but it’s therapized crap that we should just accept them. Do we just accept oppressive or suicidal feelings that we might have? Sadistic and masochistic feelings are not naturally ours. We must fight them just as we must fight suicidal, addictive, or other destructive impulses.

Another addictive and male aspect of sado-masochism is competition to see how far you will go. There is definitely status into being into “heavy” sado-masochism, including wearing the black handkerchief in a back pocket (again, Lesbians imitating gay male culture.)  Along with this are the putdowns and ridicule of non-sado-masochist Lesbian love-making as being weak, passionless, prudish, etc., when the truth is the opposite.

The fact that many sado-masochists keep increasing their dosage of pain and humiliation, as addicts do, in a desperate attempt to feel less numb or just to feel something, is ignored, as is the fact that as a group, Lesbians are the most passionate people on earth.

Sado-masochists, like other addicts, insist that what they are doing is good for themselves and that they are making a healthy choice. Once addicted, doses tend to increase, and so does the level of sado-masochism.  Lesbians start to do more and more, bragging about pushing limits. It becomes necessary to do sado-masochism to feel sexual at all or to have an orgasm. And sado-masochists relentlessly push sado-masochism on the rest of us, nonconsensually.

An example is from an interview with Joan Kelly (an upper-middle class woman who describes herself as a Radical Feminist and who has a blog called “Chicks Dig Me.” She is still selling her book, The Pleasure’s All Mine: The Memoir of a Professional Submissive. Here’s an excerpt from the Village Voice review of her book:

Big Bucks for Pain Sluts: Inside the Kinky World of a Professional Submissive4

My favorite part of the job is the physical high, while the biggest drawback is tending to bruises several times a day after a heavy corporal scene. “I surprise myself at how far my pain tolerance has evolved. For example, I had a client sew my vaginal lips shut, and I didn’t make a peep,” Ophelia (Joan Kelly) boasts via e-mail. “I had another client who took 18-gauge needles, heated them until they were red-hot, and used them to pierce the insides of my butt cheeks. I could hear my skin sizzling as the needles penetrated me.”

Why have I never seen any feminist challenge this woman’s right to call herself a feminist, let alone “Radical Feminist,” while selling herself and all women out in such a disgusting way? She is making money off feeding men’s fantasies about women loving being tortured by men.

A friend describes these public proud sado-masochist prostitutes as being in the pimp role, because they proselytize prostitution. In this case, Joan Kelly is also pimping all women into being targets for male violence. Certainly men use this kind of porn as an excuse for assaulting women, since it’s not just “snuff” films (where women are literally killed for male pleasure) which lead more men to attack women and girls. Explicit pornography in advertizing, TV, movies, magazines, and online has massively increased as a response to feminism until it’s become a “normal” expression of heterosexuality and is now part of mainstream “culture” in many countries. It’s also part of the backlash against the Women’s Liberation and Lesbian Liberation Movements and has contributed to the rise of sado-masochism in het and Lesbian society. “Lesbian” porn for and by men is the most popular porn. The mainstreaming of sado-masochism in the everyday propaganda of women being willing victims or “sluts” is just as dangerous. There is a direct link between sado-masochist “toys” and high heels, make-up, slutty clothes, etc.

Too many Lesbians get involved in sado-masochism because of desperately wanting to please lovers. How many Lesbians now want to become free of the addiction of sado-masochism, but don’t know how, and instead of getting support, are called traitors by the proponents of sado-masochism? It is very hard to leave a cult.


We really are not supposed to talk about this, but some sado-masochist Lesbians have suffered permanent physical damage from: lacerations of the vagina and cervix, loss of bladder and bowel control (from fisting), uterine injury, scarring from whipping, burning, and cutting (how do you remove an incised swastika?). Some Lesbians have gotten STDs, including Hepatitis and AIDs from blood and shit contact. Joan Kelly described loving the feel of those hot needles inserted into her body and from having her labia sewn up. Can you imagine her scars? (Sorry to focus on the scars, but it’s a permanent reminder even after a woman decides to quit sado-masochism.)

One Lesbian sado-masochist book’s “suggested guidelines for safety” only reveals how unsafe sado-masochism is.  The needle for nipple piercing has to be carefully placed to not puncture the milk ducts. “A womon’s nipple will take three months or longer to heal, with daily attention to hygiene.”  For labia piercing: “You will need to wash the vulva at least twice a day…until it has healed. It will take at least 6 to 8 weeks to heal.” For “golden showers:” “Anyone who drinks piss should be sure to drink plenty of water afterward, to help wash the excess urea out of her system.” “If you receive brown showers, you should monitor your health closely. In particular, you and your partner need to be checked regularly for intestinal parasites.” Since it can take a while to show up positive for certain blood-borne illnesses, some women can be contagious without knowing.

What does it do to a Lesbian to be whipped, chained, cut, burned, humiliated – to lick someone’s boots, to have cries of “No, stop!… please stop….” be ignored as part of the game – to be literally shit on and ordered to eat shit, to be called vile names? What is the effect on the Lesbian doing these things?  How does it affect anyone else they relate to? What does it do to a Lesbian to be told she must hurt and humiliate her lover in order to please her?  And how often does the “safe” word end up being ignored?

Lesbians have been made the scapegoats for the men and boys who sexually assault girls and women. What damage does it do to play out those scenarios? When a Lesbian plays “rapist,” she is inviting the forces of Lesbian-hatred deep into herself and into our culture. When a Lesbian plays at being a willing victim, she is mocking all victims of rape. (I still believe that glorifying rape by feeding the lie that women want to be raped, as Califia has done for money and fame, is one of the worst betrayals any woman can do to other women.)

What damage is done for a Lesbian to be called a “slave” and call her lover “master” or “Daddy?”  On US national television a European-descent Lesbian was shown calling her African-descent lover her “slave,” as she led her around by a leash. What damage is done when a gentile dresses up in a Nazi uniform and carves a swastika on a Jewish Lesbian’s body? What damage is done in playing out rape scenarios for “fun?” How can any Lesbian defend, identify with, or justify these actions?  I ask the same question about those who read and watch porn. I say that it damages Lesbians who do these things, on many levels. It is hard enough to not be contaminated by misogyny and Lesbian-hatred that is all around us as it is.

Some “Lesbian Feminist” sado-masochists are outraged at what we and others have written, and they protest, “But we don’t do that!”  Yet by saying they are into “Leather” or “Kink” or “BDSM,” they make a public statement identifying themselves with that cult. I have yet to read or hear any Lesbian publicly protesting or disagreeing with any aspect of sado-masochism. Loyalty first goes to other sado-masochists, including someone as abusive as Pat Califia. My ex-friend never sounded upset at Califia, but only at me for writing about what she’d done.

Most sado-masochists insist that sado-masochism helps free them from past trauma and abuse. They say they know the difference between real and pretend, consent and abuse. But Lesbians who leave the sado-masochist cult say differently and talk about how lines are crossed and consensuality ignored. Even Lesbians in non-sado-masochist relationships that become abusive can have trouble recognizing what is abusive until it’s in the past. Instead of freeing you from past abuse, sado-masochism is like cutting an old scar, deepening the damage.


“Top” (sadist) and “Bottom” (masochist) are roles used by het and gay men, het and bisexual women, and Lesbians to define their sado-masochistic roles. Although sado-masochists may switch, most define themselves in rigid roles. Sado-masochism is defined as a “mutual exchange of power.” Why then, are the vast majority of sado-masochist Lesbians self-defined masochists who crave pain and humiliation? The few “tops” usually don’t look very comfortable in their sadist role.

We live in a very Lesbian-hating world and it is almost impossible to escape internalizing that self-hatred. It’s no coincidence that many sado-masochists Lesbians, including “tops,” are still self-mutilating. Rather than accepting and encouraging the roles of dominant and submissive, sadist and masochist, why not fight those roles?  Many sado-masochists are addicts trying to be sober. Why don’t they see the connection with sado-masochism as another kind of destructive drug?

We have enough trouble from having grown up in patriarchy with inequalities like heterosexism, sexism, classism, racism, anti-Semitism, ableism, ageism, fat oppression, looksism, etc. as being the norm without glorifying abusive power differences. It increases and reinforces inequality to ritualize and sexualize it. Yet, it used to be said that playing sado-masochistic games would somehow free Lesbians from the oppressions we’ve been indoctrinated with. No one is so trustworthy that it’s safe to play with such pain and oppression. Even when the roles are reversed, how does it affect a relationship for the more oppressed Lesbians to focus a lifetime of justified rage onto her Lesbian lover? The situation still isn’t equalized.

All these years after this fad became popular in our community, has anything seemed to change for the better?  I sure haven’t seen it. I only see the sado-masochists I know refusing to take “no” for an answer.


Patriarchy loves to create subcultures so that the boring, bland privileged can feel even more superior compared to “common, ordinary” people. Meanwhile, their trendy subcultures, with their own expensive clothing and hair styles, create new markets for the fashion industry. Often manufacturers themselves determine which new fashions will become “counter-culture” styles. This game-playing at who’s trendy and who’s passé helps hets feel less numb, since being het is incredibly boring.

The most popular fads are those pretending to express “rebellion.” Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol had that appeal in the past, but they have long since become part of mainstream dominant culture.  Still, in spite of how passé they are, and how dangerous they are to the health of the users as well as those around them, many Lesbians still use them simply because they are associated with being trendy.

Trendy Lesbians often act as if they are still rebelling against their parents who don’t want them to look slutty, but they are actually allying with the parental attitudes that prefer a Lesbian be or look ANY way other than identifiably Lesbian. Looking male-identified feminine is very much part of sado-masochism, although many non-sado-masochists also consider it exciting and sexy. This is where the line between non-sado-masochists and sado-masochists can blend and merge. It’s interesting that some feminists who object to leather and studs on Lesbians feel fine about the more traditional male look for women: high heels, make up, dresses etc. But the conformist, reactionary politics that support Lesbians looking het also fuel sado-masochism.

Anything that reflects how men want women to appear, including looking ridiculous and emaciated, is innately misogynist.  Mainstream and fashion images of women often mimic or promote sado-masochism, such as showing women wearing makeup that mimics bruising – once you start to recognize sado-masochistic promotion, besides the overt images, you see that the media is full of it.

For het and bisexual women who are already male-identified, being sado-masochistic is just “normal.” Het and gay male culture and media constantly show sado-masochism in films, television, plays, books, etc. Many het and bisexual women seem to whole-heartedly participate. I believe that heterosexuality is by its nature sado-masochistic. Women being fucked by men is humiliating and degrading, which is why many het feminists are against women being fucked or “PIV” (Penis in Vagina), as many call it. (I really don’t like euphemisms, and the current feminist term “PIV” both pretties up the reality as well as making it sound even more grotesque.)  There’s a reason that girls’ first reaction to learning about fucking is to be horrified and disgusted.

Many women now proclaim proudly how they love being fucked, but that’s a fairly recent phenomenon, which I believe is in response to the intense pressure on women to obey men’s rules, which is a direct response to the threat of the Women’s Liberation Movement. In the past, it was an open joke that women chose a form of legally contracted prostitution, to sexually service one man in exchange for het privilege, respectability, “being taken care of” (since men’s wages are so much higher than women’s), to be considered “normal,” please their families, etc. – with the joke being that they hated being heterosexual with their men. (“Not tonight, dear, I have a headache.”) All that changed with the “Sexual Revolution,” where men got “free love” (no more paying), while women got STDs, pregnant, and less rewards (though still enough for most to not consider being celibate or Lesbian.) The “Sexual Revolution” was men’s way of dispensing with the game of heterosexual “love” in order to admit that they just wanted to fuck, rape, and abuse as many girls and women as possible.

Some mothers try to protect their daughters from being fuck fodder for men but many girls and young women rebel against their mothers by becoming even more of what patriarchy calls “sluts” and are proud of what they mistakenly believe is being “liberated’ and daringly rebellious. There is nothing more conservative, reactionary, destructive and old-fashioned than for a woman to be fucked. The male “Sexual Revolution” capitalized on this by encouraging as many women as possible to agree to being fucked by as many men as possible to feel “liberated.” Some women literally died as a result from getting lethal STDs such as AIDS and Hepatitis.

There is a whole level of sado-masochism that carries over into oppressing Butches, but with the same kinds of erroneous assumptions that are similar to the trans cult, where the most female and Lesbian and most oppressed in the situation (Butches) are equated with being the opposite – the most male, the dominator, and the privileged. The reverse is true, which we explained in our book and in my recent update, “Supporting Butches Supports All Lesbians.”

For the Radical Lesbian Feminists who don’t understand, equating Butches with privilege, is similar to how the trans cult says that Lesbians are more privileged than trans, even though they are either men wielding their male privilege against Lesbians and women, or are women who want male privilege and are self-hating enough to despise Lesbians.


I went to a party recently where a friend brought out a paddle and explained that sado-masochism helps to heighten sensation. Another friend, rather wearily, I thought, repeated almost verbatim, another old Samois line about how playing with sado-masochism helps women overcome past abuse (as opposed to the reality of becoming addicted to reenacting it.) It is very sad to see all these years later, younger women continuing those sado-masochist con lines.

Some Lesbians promote the myth about sado-masochists being an oppressed minority by saying they shouldn’t have to “be in the closet” about their sexual preferences. We agree that we would prefer knowing who is and who isn’t a sado-masochist since so much of how they act is based on enjoying power imbalances and there’s enough of that already between women without playing games to add to it. So, no, we don’t want anyone hiding that they enjoy humiliating lovers, cutting and beating lovers, pressuring lovers to drink their piss or eat their shit, etc. or that they are masochists who want a sadist lover, and we object to comparing being sado-masochist to Lesbians who have to hide who they are to survive.

Some have credited sado-masochism with making it easier for Lesbians to talk about sex, but Lesbians do that all the time without being sado-masochist. Perhaps it just isn’t considered “real” sex if it isn’t in a male context? — Just as men don’t consider whatever is not fucking to be “real” sex, no matter how many more orgasms women can have with other women.

We support Lesbians who have stopped being sado-masochists and know that they get bullied in a similar way to how women who leave the trans cult are harassed.

Haven’t we learned enough by now to know that wanting to do something that is destructive to ourselves and other females is just not good? For our survival and self-respect, we need to turn our justified hatred against our enemies and our oppressors, instead of inward, letting men’s war against us to be successful.

Many Lesbians are becoming Radical Lesbian Feminists and Separatists, saying no to male and het values, and are fighting unjust hierarchies and oppressions. Recognizing

heterosexism among ourselves and in our communities opens the way to freeing ourselves from it. Rejecting and fighting sado-masochism is part of that. Some Lesbian events, like Dyke Separatist gatherings have been publicized as sado-masochist-free.

If Lesbians give up sado-masochism and allow their natural Lesbian passion to come out, they’ll find that nothing can compare with that wild love that only Lesbians have and can give.


1   Susan Hawthorne has also written against Lesbian sado-masochism in

2  From Wikipedia: On 9 December 1869, Sacher-Masoch and his mistress Baroness Fanny Pistor signed a contract making him her slave for a period of six months, with the stipulation that the Baroness wear furs as often as possible, especially when she was in a cruel mood….Sacher-Masoch pressured his first wife, Aurora von Rümelin, whom he married in 1873, to live out the experience of the book, against her preferences.

3   Leather Pride flag – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4   Big Bucks for Pain Sluts
Inside the kinky world of professional submissive
Rachel Kramer Bussel Tuesday, Feb 7 2006

Over the course of her career, Joan Kelly ( has been strung up and splashed with freezing water, had her labia sewn shut, gotten caned, and taken countless bare-bottomed spankings—and has loved almost every minute of it. As “Marnie,” the Los Angeles–based kinky gal works as an independent professional submissive. For $260 an hour (to start), you can hire her to lie across your lap and get whacked good and hard (her favorite) or, for several thousand dollars, go deeper into your dominant fantasies. She’ll even come right to your hotel room, or you can use a local dungeon.

Joan Kelly, author of The Pleasure’s All Mine: Memoir of a Professional Submissive

It’s clear from Kelly’s (Carroll & Graf, 2005) that this job’s about much more than money. Her excitement        is evident over the phone, as she reveals that she’s been single until recently, getting her pain fix on the job. “When I started, I had that Pretty Woman fantasy, thinking I’d meet Mr. Kinky Right. If that had ever happened, I would’ve quit in a heartbeat,” she confesses. “If I don’t have someone in my personal life [to be kinky with], I’m physically compelled to do sessions. I’ve tried to quit a few times, but I couldn’t—I have to have this in my life.” Kelly’s current paramour, whom she met online, is “getting kinkier by the minute,” responding to her cues.

Local pro sub Submissive Ophelia (, who claims she’s “New York City’s most hardcore masochist,” also got into the work after a failed relationship. Her first boyfriend made her his captive, and after that, “I had a difficult time meeting men who enjoyed dominating me. My submissive urges kept growing, and I decided being a pro would get me more playtime and fulfill my desires.”

Her favorite part of the job is the physical high, while the biggest drawback is tending to bruises several times a day after a heavy corporal scene. “I surprise myself at how far my pain tolerance has evolved. For example, I had a client sew my vaginal lips shut, and I didn’t make a peep,” Ophelia (Joan Kelly) boasts via e-mail. “I had another client who took 18-gauge needles, heated them until they were red-hot, and used them to pierce the insides of my butt cheeks. I could hear my skin sizzling as the needles penetrated me.”

Byron Mayo, co-owner of the BDSM advertising hot spot and former owner of a commercial San Francisco dungeon, has nothing but praise for the skills pro subs bring to their trade. “You can touch places in a really good sub session that most marriages don’t get to in years. The result is a sense of psychological intimacy most of us crave but rarely get,” he says. “In a world of political correctness, confusing role models, and enforced ‘equality,’ the ability to tell a beautiful, intelligent, and demure woman to get on her knees and do what you say is a fantasy come true.”

A woman after my own heart, Kelly’s favorite type of scene involves over-the-knee hand spanking and role-playing. “The hottest thing for me is if they’re ‘punishing’ me for something. I could do back-to-back spanking sessions all day, every day,” she enthuses, then clarifies—”but not if it were eight hours of super hard spanking.” She has done five hours in a row, but she enjoys the challenge. “I’m tired at the end of a day like that, but mostly from the emotional energy of plugging in with one person after another.”

Being a sub is decidedly more risky than wielding a whip, which is why pro subs make more than your average dominatrix. Kelly explains that in L.A., dungeons often start women as subs who can work their way up to being doms. They may go through the motions, but for Kelly, it’s all real. “Virtually any pro sub will do spanking, but if it’s not their fetish, they’re not gonna have the kind of response that turns a fellow fetishist on. Spanking pushes an instant arousal button in me. That’s not common in the professional s/m scene.” Mayo praises such dedication. “I’ve seen pro subs come out of sessions glowing like they’ve just spent a week on an island vacation with a fantasy lover. Others emerge needing to curl up and be held because they exposed so much raw emotion. They have to do it because they love it, or it will quickly go sour.”

  • Novice clients, be forewarned: Cash alone will not buy your way to smacking Kelly’s ass. This proud “spanking fetishist, selective and submissively responsive bottom, and excitable pervert” (according to her website) insists that although she enjoys herself immensely during sessions, she’s no one’s plaything or naughty little girl. Don’t call her and expect instant obedience; you not only have to pay for that, you have to earn it. “Clients have to respect me as an equal person. I get to say how hard things will get, I get to say what I need,” she explains. “Guys will call up and while I’m trying to interview them as a potential client, ask, ‘Are you kneeling?’ It’s embarrassing for the guy.” Her advice? “Never assume anything about a woman you approach for a pro session—we’re all different. Some subs won’t take off their G-strings but will let you cane the shit out of them. There are women like me who’ll get naked and jerk off in front of you, but you better not start caning the hell out of me unless it’s my idea.”
Posted in Uncategorized | 60 Comments