The Stupidity of ‘Adrienne Rich’, and Her Lesbian Propaganda

Ironically, Adrienne Rich is nowhere near this good-looking

Deep at the core of all ideologies there are fundamental, foundational beliefs. For Christianity, it is rooted in the ancient Roman and Greek orthodoxies. For the United States it is rooted in the founding fathers and the Constitution. For the LGBT community, it is rooted in Second Wave Feminism, which is where Adrienne Rich threw all of her focus.

Now, you are probably thinking “I have never even heard of this person”, and you would not be very alone. Most people have never heard of her. In fact only a very small minority of people have; the ivory-tower academics from Yale, Harvard, and Smith. It is her nonfiction works which promote the ideas that heteronormativity is a lie, heterosexuality is intrinsically a patriarchal manufacturing from a society in which women are oppressed, and that women are purposely cast-out of the spot-light because of ingrained sexism. If this all sounds familiar to you, it is because of the academics who have been repeating her words ad-nausea for the last 40 years.

What she is most known for, and what is now considered somewhat of a “bible” to the LGBT community, is the ‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence’, a treatise on how “Straight girls aren’t really straight”, and a bunch of other blatant insecure statements written down in the midst of her own psychological panic at her realization she may not actually be gay. Almost everything in the essay is a blatant coping mechanism in which she seems to only wish to convince herself of her beliefs in order to continue masquerading around the idea of social change, as the lingering ghost of the 60’s haunts her mind, as it did for many baby boomers, pushing them to protest and cry for revolution no matter how idiotic the cause or un-researched the issue. After all, I have a degree as well, in Social Sciences no less, and her writings clearly illustrate to me a clear and desperate attempt at rationalizing her life choices instead of creating genuine theories.

I will go through her biggest claims, point-by-point, as a way of proving her sheer artifice:

The Patriarchy Robs Motherhood of Sexuality
Rich argues that throughout history, the act of becoming a mother is an act of removing eroticism and sexuality from the mother, which is the fault of male domination. She makes this point very creepily in her ‘Strong Mothers, Weak Wives’ piece, which goes out of its way to label the entirety of the male group as “inhumane”, before then going on to state that “true womanly togetherness” is represented by the bond between a mother and daughter and…for some reason…The patriarchy is trying to…desexualize mothers…… that girls can not be close to their mothers? I will be honest, I have an extremely hard time following her train of logic here, because of how sickly twisted it is and feels almost like a child groomer’s manifesto, especially because later on she blames incest, yes, ALL incest, on men, yet in no uncertain terms repeatedly layers motherhood over lesbianism and lesbianism over motherhood. It is all very bizarre to say the least. Her primary example for this theme was the Greeks who, she claims, in their mythologies, often had the goddesses portrayed as either nubile and erotic (virgins) or asexual and noble (motherly). There is a serious fault with this in that everyone in ancient Greek society was sexualized, and many of the goddesses had children. She points to Aphrodite as the primary idol of motherly and sexual worship who was only worshiped so because of a lesbian (hypothesized) named Sappho, who split from the “patriarchal, asexual norm” of worshipping asexual goddesses. Except this premise is completely and utterly false and based on absolutely no research. Even just a cursory glance by a high school student would bare better information about the Greeks than Adrienne’s entire bibliography.

Artemis, the goddess of chastity, never married or had children. Athena, a warrior goddess, never married or had children. Hestia, the goddess of the hearth, same ordeal. In fact, nearly every single virgin goddess is the least sexualized (though, this being the ancient Greeks, were still somewhat sexualized) of all the goddesses. Aphrodite, Adrienne’s pillar example, was not even the goddess of “erotic love”, as she posits, that was Eros, who was a man. If you want to push it further and specify goddesses in particular, Eos would fit the “erotic love” bill better than Aphrodite, and guess what; Eos was a mother as well, and explicitly known for having many lovers.

But more than that, society has always sexualized mothers, which goes back to Freud’s original thesis of boys wanting to have sex with their mothers, and in fact the Greeks, which had the infamous story of Oedipus, who was foretold he would have sex with his mother, then left home to break his fate, only to inevitably have sex with his mother. There is also the extreme prevalence of MILF porn, the eroticization of the friend’s mother, and so on and so forth. It becomes a never-ending rabbit hole of motherly eroticization which she completely ignores, partly because she is a woman and has absolutely no understanding of the male psyche, but also for the fact that she has no formal education in psychology, sociology, or even gender studies at the very least. Her entire education is in poetry and writing, and clearly bears no familiarity with the literature in any of those fields, lacking any active research, which one would expect someone to do as the very bare minimum on the subject.

Rape, Incest, and Violence in General, Forces Male Sexuality Upon Women
Adrienne assumes the premise that male sexuality is “forced” upon women and one way which this is enacted is through rape, incest, and torture practices. While you could make a shaky argument for rape, there is a supreme lack of fore-thought behind it. Men, by-and-large, were not “forcing their sexuality” upon those women who were raped. Those women’s sexualities were already determined…Unless Adrienne is making an argument for sexuality to be a choice. The vast majority of women throughout history who have been raped have, at one time or another, been romantically involved with a man by their own choosing or their own admiration. This fact is easily provable by statistics. If rape was to be as common-place as feminists purport it to be in centuries past, then we can assume at a maximum around 3% of those women would have been queer, based on total percentages of LGBT members in society, as surmized by a Gallup poll of American citizens in 2022. You can give or take a couple percentage points based on culture and social values, but the point still stands based on rudimentary statistical math.

Secondly, incest has primarily been taboo in nearly every society, most prominently displayed in royal families who wish to keep their wealth and bloodlines as close-knit as possible. What she is primarily getting at though is the assumption that fathers rape their daughters, which is completely unfounded and has no credibility backing it in either her own theories or any formal studies. Instead, what she does base her “academic theory” on is a book by a feminist activist which recounts trauma from specific individuals recounting their sexual abuse by their fathers, while also interjecting her own ludicrous assumptions about it happening wide-spread in society. Anecdotes are not evidence. And the plural of anecdote is not evidence either. The highest estimate for incest in the United States (involving any relations between any family, not just fathers) is estimated to be as high as 10%, according to ‘Incest – The Last Taboo’, which comes directly from the ‘FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin’. So if we ignore motherly sexuality foisted upon young girls and boys, and sibling incest, and cousin incest, and inflate the manifestation of incest in society above the extreme minority of those within society, we might then be able to surmise that her claim is “factual”, but we can not, because we are using logic and statistics against her claims which are clearly not supported. Instead we can simply write it off as more baseless rhetoric.

As for direct violence against women, there is no evidence to purport that many of the historical incidents involving the torture and killings of women were signs of the patriarchy repressing lesbianism. She conflates the killing of women, in general, with the oppression and subjugation of lesbianism. Completely un-academic. Her statement that lesbians were “put to death for lesbianism” is taken from many various instances, many of which are misconflated, but also an isolated reference to 17th century laws passed in a specific part of the early colonies that made lesbianism punishable by death, while disregarding the thousands of years of homosexuality in the ancient world which went un-molested. She also states that the witch burnings in New England were a result of patriarchal oppression of lesbianism, but ignores the fact it had nothing to do with sexuality. Overall, her statements here are completely based on emotion and allusion rather than confirmed historical precedent.

Men Have Control Over Woman’s Sexuality
You heard that right women, you have no control over your sexuality because you are easily manipulated, unintelligent, unthinking, mindless, automatons that do and say as we men command! At least, that is what is evident in much of Adrienne’s writings. According to her, the patriarchy is primarily concerned with, and about, enforcing and enacting heterosexuality upon women. Never mind the fact she does not back this up, ever, with anything constituting in the least bit of “scientific evidence” or “reputable sources”. She pulls it out of her ass, as it were. Me on the other hand, well I am far more well informed, because I actually read the scientific and statistical literature. What does such literature actually say? Well I will show you! According to the paper ‘Neural Correlates of Sexual Orientation in Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual Women’, after scanning the brains of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual women, researchers found that heterosexual women were just as likely to be aroused by erotic male stimuli as they were erotic female stimuli. Bisexual women showed a slightly greater preference for women when engaged with sensory stimuli, while also showing a slightly greater preference for men from social stimuli. They found for both groups of heterosexual and bisexual women, their responses generally were non-specific, showing a fluidity that leaned either way. However, for gay women, this drastically shifted. Homosexual women showed a firm bias towards female and homosexual erotic stimuli.

This elasticity of sexuality among straight and bisexual women is not shown nearly as strongly among heterosexual men, so there is indeed an argument to be made about how sexuality is, and has been, portrayed, but the idea of a female’s heterosexuality being “foisted” upon them by men, well, the research says other-wise. Heterosexual women enjoy men. Get over it lesbians. If women who identify as heterosexual were to be “defrauded”, as the radical lesbian activist Adrienne assumes, and forced into loving men, we would see a similar neurological response to stimuli as gay women. The research shows the opposite. Gay women and heterosexual women have discordant brain activity in response to sexual stimuli involving men. While it may vary from heterosexual woman to heterosexual woman how much this stimuli has an effect, we can rightly conclude that even if the hypothesized patriarchy was to be abolished, we would not see an end to heterosexual relationships. In fact, we would likely see the same general social paradigms continue, which is the vast majority of heterosexual women still engaging in relationships with men over women. And, from that study, it also states that the category-specific responses from gay women is not even nearly as strong as straight men. According to the research, gay women are less rigidly attached to their sexual orientation than straight or gay men, showing even a malleability among the most ardent of lesbians.

We can also see that this reaction to erotic stimuli does not translate to the role of sexual and romantic relationships. Since society has become more egalitarian, same-sex marriage having been legalized, and the LGBT community becoming more prominent, the amount of people who identify as gay has risen from the 2012 figure of around 3%, to 4%. Clearly not the giant leap and barrier-crushing effect that many radical gay feminists thought it would have, which in many texts from them, can be seen as the true cause for why they wanted to legalize same-sex marriage in the first place; the idea that it would upset the patriarchal norms and convert society into a gay one. 8 years later and that figure still has not budged.

Of course, anyone who is familiar with psychological and neurological literature on women and their sexuality is not surprised in the slightest. This has been a common understanding in the field since the 70’s, about the time that Adrienne became a lesbian, and years before she wrote any of her tripe.

Heterosexuality is Propagandized
From lesbian women being “forced into heterosexuality in the office”, to men pushing “myths and stories of heterosexuality” upon women, Adrienne believes that heterosexuality is not a woman’s preferred role and that solely through the patriarchy it has become the norm. From movies, to books, to commercials, to cat-calling and harassment, women are subjected to endless perpetuation of the “Heterosexual agenda”. This is completely absurd. First off, as previously stated, while women tend to have a more elastic sexuality, this does not in any way shape or form remediate the idea that heterosexual women do not prefer heterosexual relationships in a vacuum. Heterosexual women, as the vast majority of women, are driven by the need to procreate. Heterosexuality did not arrive as the primary means of interaction between men and women overnight, nor did it arrive in the shape of civilization a few thousand years ago. It has been ingrained in human instinctual thought since we had separate chromosomes. The ecological fear for our own survival brought about the sexual dimorphism we see today. Straight women like tall men, confident men, strong men, as that would have been the primary genetic traits for a man to better defend her and her off-spring.

An article by Sharecare titled “Study Finds Women Prefer Taller Men” shows that through dating apps, the majority of women preferred taller men. Dutch psychologists Gert Stulp came to that same conclusion in a 2013 study he did, in which he theorized women prefer taller men for the subconscious idea of protection they offer. This heavily reinforces the idea of women engaging in assortative mating practices, and modern society being a reflection of the millions of years of evolution we have attained in regards to those mating practices, rather than some recent phenomenon of patriarchal domination. This is also reflected in men as we see men of greater height having higher self-esteem, more confidence, and generally being more successful. Could it be we have been living in a tyrannical matriarchy all along, where the self-esteem of men is controlled and influenced by the whims and fancies of women, and that even our own perceptions of ourselves are determined overall by the “female gaze”? Or, and hear me out, could men and women’s attraction to each other just be the natural result of a sexually gendered species which plays out billions of times every single day because of the basic biological desires of the opposite sex; the male desiring affection and wanting to spread his seed, and the female desiring an off-spring, protection, and companionship, with the male being the only one who can provide all three?


As you may have already gathered, all of Adrienne’s writings seem to hint at a sort of subconscious jealousy of men. She does not actually view society through a patriarchal power structure. She instead seems to view heterosexuality as belonging to men and lesbianism belonging to women, (and trying desperately to attach the term “lesbian” to any interaction between women, as you will see if you read her writings) through blind assertions thrown towards both genders using vague analogies from history and a few activist resources, and completely and utterly discounting the heterosexual female experience. Her jealousy derives from the fact that she wants an oppressive lesbian matriarchy instead of what she views as an oppressive heterosexual patriarchy, because she secretly admires and wants straight women to want her. The fact of the matter is, she is a projectionist. In not a single one of her published essays, books, or journals does she put one statistical or empirically researched fact that supports the idea that heterosexuality is forced upon women rather than it being a preference of their own. Each and every time she prefers to use misandry and patriarchy as a scapegoat, cherry picking and falsely attributing historical woes to the make-believe machinations of the power-usurping “male”. Her blind hatred of men seeps through every word she writes, as she wishes (in vain) to enact sexual genocide on the heterosexual concept amongst women…And fails spectacularly. One might even say she is more sexist than the most chauvinistic men; using heterosexual women as political pawns that are not wholly human unless they indulge in her particular brand of girl-on-girl action.

Of course, when her essays were inevitably criticized and torn apart by the vocal minority in her very own academic circles, she released a new essay titled ‘Reflections on Compulsory Heterosexuality’, as a way of trying to avoid responsibility and accountability for what she had written. She proclaimed that everyone had misunderstood her, and that her clear and obvious objections to the patriarchy, her direct, quotable, calls for women to resist, rebel, and reject heterosexuality, were “not actually calling for a lesbian revolution against heterosexuality”.

I think it is high time we threw out these out-dated, poorly researched, utterly ridiculous essays and papers that academia has become so fond over, and refer only to the legitimacy of scientific studies and journals when it comes to making sweeping statements about humankind and the neurological processes of people. But I guess as an oppressive, male, patriarch, it is already in the mind of radical feminists that my only true objective in life is to subjugate them, instead of using facts and logic to deduce reality.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s