Category Archives: Hate Speech
Q is for Queer
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
from Jane Siberry’s “Mimi on the Beach”, 1984, when ‘queer’ was still a slur in some places. Jane herself is a Canadian gay-lesbian musical icon, although she is not really a publicly declared lesbian, or rather, her sexuality is not part of her public identity. I admire her for this, as I have issues with sexual labels since we don’t understand much about women’s natural sexuality. I only care that she isn’t fucking dudes, and that is not the same thing as identity or labels 😉One girl laughs at skinny guys
Someone else points out a queer
Well, they’re all jocks, both guys and girls
Press the button, take your cue
I think it is interesting to follow issues across generations. Sometimes, feelings on a topic or event will endure across generations despite the young having no true understanding of or real connection to what has happened. For example, I experienced this when I lived in Nanjing, China. My students had a deep and aggressive hatred of the Japanese despite the atrocities committed in their city having occurred two generations prior, despite currently living in prosperity and despite most to all never having met a Japanese person in their lives. But there is a collective memory of the event that is kept alive across generations in places where the Japanese did their worst, so you don’t experience this anti-Japanese sentiment in other parts of China.
You can also witness the opposite – newer generations exhibiting neither understanding of nor sympathy nor empathy for past violence or oppressive acts and thus acting in a very dismissive or flip way due to ignorance. I suppose this can happen when the oppression or oppressed group is not taken seriously by society, there is no collective memory formed, and the impact is not conveyed across time through intergenerational discussion. A good example of this is the long history of the oppression of women. Women don’t acknowledge a shared worldwide trauma due to male violence, and often don’t even know their own class history. Instead, they promote collusion with and subservience to the male oppressor class to new generations of females and punish rebellion. Talk of reality is stigmatized as ‘too negative’.
Likewise with the long oppression of homosexuals. While that oppression still exists, how it manifests has changed in some, but not all, ways. The past use of the word ‘queer’ as a slur that folks from the Baby Boomer generation can still recall, doesn’t resonate at all with today’s youth as there is little to no acknowledgment nor intergenerational discussion of gay and lesbian oppression. And consequently, the slur has, with little consideration, been ‘reclaimed’ and turned into an identity used and abused by many who are not gay or lesbian at all.
So my questions are these: where is the balance between acknowledging and respecting the violence and inequality of the past and being able to move on and be better as a society? And with specific regard to the topic today, can and should historic slurs be reclaimed, and if so, who should be allowed to do so? And can reclamation be considered appropriation, if the ones doing the reclaiming are not members of the historically slurred group?
Now I do have my own opinion regarding the reclamation of slurs and other hate speech. But I’m not going to tell you what to think until the end, as this is a topic of debate and I’m not sure if there is an objective right or wrong answer. There are probably points to be made on the various sides. What I will say is that what is objectively true is that society is not uniform in the application of their opinion to different groups, and I think it is a matter of respect-giving due to the presence of males in oppressed groups. Groups focused on females only or mixed groups that don’t conform to patriarchal gender expectations are universally discounted, censored and disrespected, while racial and religious groups, which have macho males and compliant females within its ranks are respected and allowed to have and talk about a shared history. As a result, we are still dealing with supposedly reclaimed and repurposed slurs against women and homosexuals, while this is never an issue for racial and religious groups.
So, I’m not going to go through a whole history of queerdom here. This has been done elsewhere in numerous places, although not always very well. I’ll briefly touch on the whens and whys of the repurposing of the term queer, and I’ll spend more time talking about why queer identity might be so popular amongst younger people today even though they are not themselves the creators. And then you can make up your mind about the whole thing yourself.
The Reclamation of Queer
At the risk of oversimplifying a development in thinking that is needlessly convoluted, I’ll say the following: I believe the reclamation of ‘queer’ came out of the academic thinking on the ways of knowing and being posited by poststructuralism and postmodernism coupled with a typical, youthful, cultural rebellion against the norms of society. The former talked about there being no real truth. All reality is subjective. Everything is socially constructed and rooted in power dynamics and systems. Nothing, including words or language, has a singular meaning that we can all understand. And the latter did what all generational rebellions do – they challenged what was mainstream at the time and proposed an opposing way of living life and finding one’s place in the world. But remember that all rebellious movements end up the same way – in their efforts to ‘not conform’, they end up being very conformist. It is very much like how oppressed groups that rise up aggressively and even violently end up becoming oppressors eventually. We’ve seen both trends in counter-culture movements throughout time.
Anyhow, when applied to sexuality, we ended up with queer theory and the development of queer as an identity. It challenged the idea of ‘fixed identity’, especially fixed sexual, gender and sexuality identities, and it attacked the use of what was considered to be constructed binary categories, including male/female and gay/straight. Everything is socially constructed, even the things scientists know are biologically based and objectively true, so everything is open to interpretation and is fluid in its existence. Basically, nothing means anything, and we have nothing to anchor our understanding and communication.
But, the movement and theory offered people who didn’t feel they fit in the means and permission to create their own way of knowing and being that was unique and special and to house it under the umbrella term ‘queer’. Using the former slur to describe a new identity caught on in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and despite the passage of time, it is still as undefinable and hard to understand as it was in the beginning – perhaps even moreso with the development of more and more and more micro-identities and associated jargon and labels. There are million of examples of people trying to explain their queer identities online, and I’ll provide one here to illustrate how unuseful all of this is.
“Bisexuality it doesn’t encapsulate the nuance of my sexuality – Here’s what that means. While I find cisgender men attractive, I am not authentically me when I date them. For me, “bisexual” means being sexually attracted to all genders and gender expressions, but “homoromantic” means I only have romantic feelings in queer relationships. Because this is a little complex, I just say “queer.”
Okay, so I had to read that a few times, and in the end, I still didn’t understand who this person was, or not that I care, whom they are willing to date. I have found with the queer that ironically, in trying to ‘identify’, they end up being completely unidentifiable – in other words, extremely hard to pin down and get to know. How can you make a substantive friendship with someone if you don’t understand who and what they are and what they think and what the hell their words even mean?
Now, personally, I don’t care about people’s constructed identities. As far as I’m concerned, you can call yourself whatever you want in your private life, and I oppose constructed categories for women as a rule. With males, I’m fine putting them in a single box called ‘predator class’ and then staying the hell away from them as much as possible. But I am invested in females finding and developing their natural selves apart from male oppression. But postmodernism, queer theory and queer identities don’t solve this problem for women. Rather, they make the problem worse by taking meaning away from things that actually mean something historically, and politically, and sometimes, objectively. When you’re talking about things concerning historically oppressed groups, the personal is always political. So the actions of the so-called queer have had massive sociopolitical effects on those for whom the slur, queer, was originally intended: gays and lesbians. For example, queer studies has taken over gay and lesbian studies departments and courses, which were initially rather difficult to establish due to homophobia, and this has served to erase the long oppression of homosexuality and to refocus on the queer, many of whom are not oppressed or whose proclaimed ‘oppression’ usually just ends up being bullied because of having pink hair. Further, Pride and other extremely important cultural and political groups and events have also been infiltrated and taken over by the queer, which has served to alienate the very people who started the groups and movements. Gays and lesbians who refuse the queer label and who oppose the takeover of queers, institutionally and culturally, are then labelled exclusive, bigoted, phobic of one form or another, and experience, yet again, the censorship and even violence that they’ve struggled with throughout history. The ‘inclusive’ focus of the queer has served to erase historic oppression and to impose a ‘join or die’ ultimatum on people who have very secure and easily definable sexual identities and have fought hard to have them recognized.
The Rise of Queer Identities Among Youth
It’s interesting to note that queer wasn’t born during the Millennial or Gen Z generations, but has taken hold with them and is perpetuated, or maybe ‘marketed’ is the better word, through their social media personas. Why would something that came from from theory proposed by members of the Silent and Baby Boomer Generations, and peddled to members of Gen X – my generation – be so appealing to today’s young people? I’ll propose some thoughts and if you have any of your own, I’m happy to hear them.
- Queer has something very adolescent about it that hasn’t matured over the years. In essence, it comes across as youthful identity-seeking, which is a normal part of growing up. Every generation has its counter-culture. And if it weren’t queer, it would be something else. It actually doesn’t matter what the identity is, as long as it goes against the mainstream. And while a minority might actually understand the sociopolitical origins of this identity, most don’t and only cling to the identity to feel like they are opposing something bad, and perhaps to find some superficial pleasure in the required fashion and its shock value in the general public. In my generation, although queer was finding a foothold, the trendy, counter-culture identity was punk. Most punkers at the time didn’t really understand what the movement was about in a deep way, but revelled in the fashion, the reactions they received, and the false feeling that they were changing the world. And I think you can say the same about the queer movement. But regardless of counter-culture identity, all you need to do is to ask adherents what they believe, and you’ll find out where they’re coming from. Most will be unable to provide a coherent answer, a contingent will have memorized all the talking points and will come across as militant robots who will kill you if you oppose them, and a tiny minority will actually be able to speak with intelligence and nuance about their beliefs and their actions that support their beliefs.
- Coupled with 1), many people identify as queer due to social contagion, peer pressure and the need to conform and belong while ironically feeling like they are nonconformist and renegade. At this point, there is almost a cult-like recruitment aspect of the queer identity, and like a snowball rolling down a steep hill, it is hard to avoid getting caught up in the slogans and self-righteousness of queers pretending to fight along social justice lines.
- We are living in the most narcissistic period in history, and I don’t mean clinical narcissism, I just mean an overblown self-centredness or egotism. This current time period is marked by a need to be a) special and liked coupled with a need to publicly and widely advertise one’s real and, if need be, newly minted, oppressions. Queer is notoriously inclusive, which allows people with extremely easy lives the chance to take on an oppression identity and use it as a weapon against targeted enemies. The funny thing is that queer people with actual, but socially unacceptable, oppressions will often overlook or fail to acknowledge them in favour of a made-up oppression that is more fashionable or accepted. A good example of this is women who refuse to acknowledge that they are oppressed as females because the world refuses to do anything about this longest-running human rights issue, but will latch onto undefinable and meaningless queer identities that give them a highly supported whining oppression platform.
- It allows people to escape gender conformity without actually naming the real problem and suffering the consequences of truth-telling. The real problem is male domination of females, but it is much easier to shave your head or stop wearing dresses, call yourself queer and drop barrels full of shit onto radical feminists or non-queer gays and lesbians. You can’t make progress on social issues if you don’t understand why the issues exist to begin with and who is actually responsible for creating and maintaining them. So many rebellions and movements arise without deep analysis or understanding on the part of the soldiers fighting the war. This is nothing new.
- If you are a lesbian, you will get more approval calling yourself queer than lesbian. These days, many things that are seen as ‘exclusive’ are the target of eradication. Inclusivity, even if it erases small, but significant, oppressed groups, is the goal of today’s movements. And when we talk about exclusivity, let’s face it, we are talking about excluding men from women’s lives and allowing females to be free from male violence and oppression. Racial groups (except whites) are still allowed to be exclusive, of course, because males are still part of those groups and still run the show in all cases. But any group that excludes males is deemed oppressive and must be destroyed. This is a relatively recent development in Western culture and it represents a backward slide in human rights, in particular, women’s rights, and even more particularly, in lesbians’ rights. There are a few people still fighting eradication. The Get the L Out group based in the UK is one such group, and they are the targets of heaps of abuse.
- It still supports the established power structure while feeling like positive social change. Queer is a male-dominance movement if you strip it down and look at it honestly. A lot of today’s queer fuel comes from the trans cult, which is as pro-male, pro-gender, pro-female-submission, and pro-lesbian-erasure as any conservative or macho movement. I’m still convinced that groups that have sociopolitical power and make changes that happen relatively quickly are, under the surface, not changing anything at all, but supporting the existing power structures and systems.
Conclusion
To come back to my initial questions. I’m a big fan of balance, but I think it is really hard to find in this world. We either cling to the past with irrational, unanalyzed emotionality in order to maintain oppressive systems, or we erase the past and replace it with something looks different, but still doesn’t change those oppressive systems. What would it look like to actually acknowledge what is going on…?
Finally, with regard to slur reclamation, I’m of the opinion that we should treat slurs like any museum exhibit. Preserve the memory and meaning, and then leave it in the past, but under glass for all to see if they choose. I don’t think keeping something in active circulation strips it of its former power, and I think it is a mark of disrespect to attempt this. In the case of the queer slur-turned-identity, I don’t think anything has been achieved. While initial reclamation was by gays and lesbians in the 1980’s – the actual targets of this slur – today, it is used by people with no historic claim to it. I think that is disrespect and a demonstration of ignorance. But you can make up your own minds, of course. As I said earlier, this is a topic of debate, not a mathematical proof with a clear, correct answer.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Rapetainment
This post is part of the ongoing Birth of a Feminist series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
As children, we all grow up thinking that what happens in our families and/or households is normal and that everyone pretty much has the same kinds of family relationships and rituals that we do. Over time, exposure to other children, especially when visiting their homes, teaches us that no two families are the same, and even the most mundane of activities may be done a little differently in other households. Your family, for example, might have dinner around 5:30 every night while your friend’s family might eat around 7:00 pm. Or you might have a lot of chores, but another friend might not have any. There are a million variations on how families operate, and it is a function of parental values and experience, and the personalities and dynamics within the family. But despite all the little differences, the average family is more similar than different.
But then, there are families that operate a little differently. Families where the practices and relationships can be downright weird, unethical and even abusive. Now, I think that all families are harmful to girl children – family is not a natural or healthy grouping, but a patriarchal construct designed to give men power through ownership. Patriarchy, by definition is about male domination and female slavery, so all institutions and systems designed by men are harmful to girls, a risky endeavour for adult women if they choose to support and engage with them, and almost universally beneficial to males. But there are degrees of harm to girls in the patriarchal system known as ‘family’. There are families whose practices and relationships are much more abusive and harmful to the female children than those of the average family. But the girl children in those households still grow up thinking that what they are living is normal. Some of these girls may, at some point, come to realize that what they are experiencing is not normal and definitely not healthy, but it can take years for this to happen. Given the nature of some of these family practices and relationships, many of these girls may not actually come to their realization through discussion with others, but completely alone through observation and analysis. After all, what they are living is usually either taboo or extremely embarrassing to even broach with others, and discussion can get them socially tainted, blamed, and even further victimized by their family or patriarchal society.
My own family was a weird one, but I didn’t really understand the extent of the harm they did until I was much older. I was stuck in a household with two strange and damaged parents: an ever-present, NPD housewife-mother who had two modes – antagonistic or stand-by, like a computer in sleep mode waiting for a button to be pressed; and an enabler, narcissistic, psychologist father who was seldom around due to workaholism, but who I later came to realize, probably did more damage in the bursts of time spent around me than my mother did. I’ve written before that women tend to inflict tons of shallow cuts on fellow females, but men inflict stab wounds or else fly in, drop bombs and then leave. For some reason, we tend to pay attention to what other women do to us while conveniently forgiving and forgetting male atrocities enacted on our bodies and psyches. I believe we are well trained from birth to do this. Anyhow, I did eventually come to see my father for what he was – a horrible, entitled, sex-crazed, liberal misogynist. But it took my parents’ divorce and leaving home and developing my own goals separate from wanting to please my hero-worshipped father in order to accomplish this.
There were many forms of harm in my family, but I wanted to get into one daddy dearest was responsible for and that didn’t start to make me question things until I was 19 years old.
My father liked movies. I still remember the first time my family rented a VCR machine in the early 1980’s, invited some family friends over, and watched Star Wars. Not long later, my dad bought a VCR for the family, and began bringing home rented movies for the family to watch together. We were never asked what we wanted to watch. It always seemed to be ‘Dad’s choice’, and that never seemed to consist of anything considered to be kids’ content. And so began my exposure to explicit violence on television (and films). I have a specific pre-adolescent memory burnt into my brain of a scene from one of Dad’s films consisting of a violent beating and rape of a young woman. I also remember standing up shortly after that and going to my bedroom. I can’t remember what happened after that, but I know that I was not spoken to about what I had seen. I am not sure what had gone through my mind other than discomfort. And there were other experiences like this. Other violent films, some weird films. Dad also had taken a lot of pleasure in choosing films randomly – and that is actually something that I have done all my life as well, although I make sure to avoid films advertising explicit violence against women.
I also have a distinct memory of going to the movie theatre with a friend of mine when I was about 14, and for reasons I can’t for the life of me remember, we decided to sneak into another film. I am not sure how we chose the film, but we ended up in Casualties of War, an R-rated film with multiple very graphic and violent scenes of a squad of American soldiers raping and torturing a young Vietnamese girl. It was terrifying, but neither my friend nor I could move – I think we were afraid we would get caught where we weren’t allowed to be. I still remember that horrible film so many years later. It is hailed as a ‘masterpiece’ by men, and they refer to what the soldiers did as a ‘moral quagmire’. Yes, men often say that rape during war is an inevitable moral conundrum. What to do, what to do? But it sure makes for super fantastic cinematography, don’t you think? My 14-year-old self did not think so.
It wasn’t until I was 19 that all of this violent film-watching at home and in public caught up to me and led to a significant realization, and it was likely due to my age coupled with other trauma going on in my life at the time. The previous year, my best friend had gone missing while walking home and then had been found dead a few weeks later, the circumstances surrounding it never released by the police and are still a mystery to me today. In the very same horrible month, my parents decided to announce a surprise divorce leading to my mother’s increased insanity and the longest and most convoluted divorce court case my father’s lawyer had ever profited from. As well, at the time, there had been some high profile abduction, rape, torture and murder cases of teenaged girls in a community near where I lived – this ended up being the famous case of the Canadian serial killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. Needless to say, I was beginning to be very sensitive to violence at the time.
Following my parents’ divorce, my siblings and I would visit with my father on Sundays, stay for dinner, and sometimes watch a film – like old times. I remember one particular night, it was just my father, brother and me, and Dad put on some video. And it wasn’t long before I was presented with a scene of a woman at night in her home preparing for bed. A man was watching her from outside the house and then decided to break in, and start beating the shit out of her and raping her. I started crying. It hit me that most to all television and film entertainment was not for women and girls. It was for men. It is rapetainment. We women and girls sit there watching representations of ourselves being dehumanized, violated and destroyed on a continuous basis and we are expected to accept it and laugh along. How is this entertainment??? For women and girls, that is? I can understand that men might like it and get turned on by it or feel powerful because of it or possibly feel nothing at all. If I decided to write a television or book series centred on the terrorism, torture, mutilation and killing of men and boys, I guarantee you I’d be censored, or I wouldn’t sell anything, movie studios might reject me, and likely a horde of women would descend on me and call me every name in the book. I’d be a ‘misandrist’. And to question the escalating misogyny, slurs and violence against women in entertainment is met with derision, gaslighting, ad feminem attacks and excuses of “it’s art”, “it’s free speech”, “it’s just fantasy”, and “don’t be so sensitive, sweetie.” Would this argument work if the tables were turned???
Anyhow, back to my 19-year-old self. The accumulation of years of vulnerability and experience and fear and confusion resulted in my tears, and finally my father noticed. He stopped the film, whisked me upstairs and left me in the bedroom. Then he went back downstairs to rejoin my 15-year-old brother and to enjoy the rest of the rape movie. It was never talked about again. I felt alone and raw and so utterly hurt and disappointed and confused and angry. Remember that my father was a psychologist. He had trained as a child psychologist, but then went on to specialize in sex therapy. I almost want to say, “Ha, classic!” But that isn’t quite the right way to put it. It is so much worse than that.
There is a profound sense of hurt and betrayal that you feel when you realize a parent has harmed you in a deeply disrespectful way. It is natural for children, as they grow up, to begin to see their parents as regular humans with all the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that all humans have, but it is another thing altogether to realize a parent doesn’t respect you or see you as human worthy of consideration or care. This is even more significant if you are female child as we are all in a process of realizing that we aren’t respected as full humans by society at large. To have it come from your parents as well hits you really hard. I think this was the beginning of a long end for me with regard to my father. I began to see him as a misogynist, and there were countless examples after that to support my suspicions. And I became more vocal over time. He definitely didn’t like me pushing back against what he believed was his right to enjoy women’s degradation and subordination in entertainment form. But still it was confusing. He did respect my superiority to him in math and science, and he was the only one to tell me that it was perfectly fine for a woman NOT to have children. But where so many women would see this as a sign of a ‘great man’ or a ‘good dad’, his harm to me outweighs anything good he said or did. I think any person can have something in common with the worst people on earth, but it doesn’t mean you have to see them as good people or that they have redeeming qualities. Honestly, I don’t know how one can have a daughter and still find rape and violence against women to be entertaining. I just can’t get past this, but I will say that when women say “every child needs a father”, I couldn’t disagree more. Men know what men are, but they have no ability to feel empathy for women and girls. And empathy is the bare minimum you need in order to be a parent.
A last note on rapetainment.
Without getting into what will be a separate post on entertainment as patriarchal propaganda, I’ll just say here that even children’s media is designed to instill a docility and acceptance in females where it concerns how girls and women are seen and treated in the world. As a child moves into the consumption of adult material, the level of graphic and linguistic hostility and outright violence towards female people escalates – and with absolutely no added value, I might add – and thanks to what we consumed as children, we are well prepared to view it as entertainment, sitting happily with the males in our lives and pretending that the material is designed with us as a co-audience alongside men. In fact, the material is designed for males primarily as entertainment and ego-boosting, and then secondarily for females both as a threat, instilling justified fear, and as a confusing reminder that we are supposed to want and need males to protect us from their fellow males. The violence and slurs are normalized through repetition, and entertainment can be seen as a form of education as it works in the same way, burning it into your brain so that it becomes part of how you think and act. As a result, most females, by the time they reach adulthood, don’t even notice what is going on. They sit there with family members, husbands and boyfriends, laughing along to the rape and dead hooker jokes, feeling afraid and then safe when the alpha male slips an arm around them to let them know that they’ll protect them in exchange for docility and other services. And then women go back to their lives where they can pretend that this so-called art that they’ve consumed isn’t actually a reflection of what goes on in the world or that it has larger implications for and effects on women’s lived realities.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Why Search Terms Went the Way of the Dinosaur
For those of you who run blogs or web sites, have you noticed over the past decade that Google (and other search engines that facilitate the remaining 8% of searches that Google doesn’t perform…) is no longer giving web sites feedback on the search terms used to get to their sites?
I set up my first major web site in 1995 – a co-venture with one of my professors. It is still up, but no longer the award-winning powerhouse it was at the time. I just visited it about an hour ago, and noted that my former prof took my name off the site’s credits, even though I did ALL the research and ALL the coding and ALL the fixes. Didn’t I just write about men stealing from women in my last post…??? Anyhow, in those early days of web development, I realized that search terms were really helpful. The concept of SEO was just a few years away and hadn’t become big business yet. But knowing how people got to your site could help you write content of interest to people, which would in turn, bring more traffic. As we were operating as a resource, we weren’t trying to make money, but to help people find information. I’ve run other web sites since then, and search terms became increasingly important.
But recently, this treasure trove of information has dried up. Since 2011, Google decided they didn’t want to provide that kind of information anymore – although they said that it would barely affect site owners. Not so. In 2013, they expanded their search encryption policies, and basically, the iron curtain came down. Now, if you listen to what the men (let’s face it, these are male decisions) running the search engines say, they cite that they are concerned about privacy. But whose privacy? Unless, you are connecting a search term to an individual’s computer, what’s the big deal? Why shouldn’t we have access to the words that bring netizens to our sites?
Well, if you actually looked at search terms when they were readily available, and you consider what drives much of the internet traffic and downloads, a hell of a lot of it is porn and other misogynistic – some of it disturbingly violent – content. And this is a big deal for women like myself, who run feminist content. What is bringing people to our sites? And we come back to circling the question of whose privacy is being protected by blocking access to search terms.
There was a really great, data-oriented site that was stopped in 2013, likely coinciding with Google’s male protection racket ramp up, that I still link to in my side bar – What Men Want to See Online – which collected search terms from women running feminist web sites. It was telling, even shocking, disturbing, saddening, and it supports the idea that search engines are most concerned about protecting male privacy. Men worried about being targeted/located and accused of what they euphemistically call ‘thought crimes’ have likely fuelled this enactment of online privacy. (It’s amazing how many men I run into who are obsessed with ‘thought crimes’ – why is that…?) It is very important that men can search for, access, and masturbate over and over to rape videos, woman-torture, child porn, sexist racism, and the like. The privacy – and safety! – of women and children is just silly to think about. This protection ensures that men can easily keep the rape, torture and other woman hate going both on and offline. If you hide a problem, then it keeps going, keeps building. And we well know that ‘thought crimes’ cannot be compartmentalized – even though men tell us that their fantasies about cutting women up is just that – fantasy – and has nothing to do with their real feelings towards half the population… yeah, right. Do you really thing that men sit at their computer jizzing over a woman being tortured and raped and then go to work and treat their female co-workers fairly? Get real. I am not actually sure which is more disturbing – that men can get off on rape, and then go back to business as usual (which is not fair treatment, by the way), which I would also call psychopathy. Or that men get off on rape and then bring it into the meat world, which is also psychopathy. Hiding it or letting it hang out. Which is worse? And they can’t really hide misogyny; not really. Men aren’t that smart or skilled, and like I’ve said before, they are terrible liars. They don’t have to be – every disgusting thing they do is protected.
Now, Story Ending Never wasn’t operating when WMWTSO was collecting data, so I couldn’t contribute my wealth of filth kindly provided by males from all over the world. When I ran into the site after the fact, I went a-digging into my own data, and I was surprised that so many men were looking for rape and somehow found themselves on my blog. The search terms available have drastically dropped off in the years since I started writing in 2015 – I almost never get specific terms anymore – but my 6+ years of data fall into a few major categories.
There is a shitload of racist (against white women) rape and porn search terms. If you are one of those willingly ignorant assholes who thinks white women aren’t major targets of serious, violent, racist, sexist, rape-hate, you can find the nearest cliff and lean over. No, just a little more. Go on, now. Racist sexism against white women is the most accepted and promoted racist-sexism (even among rapey white males who are happy for women to pay for male crimes, and shockingly, some self-hating, badly abused white females) in current times.
The racist bullshit co-mingles sex, fucking, raping, porn, erotica and romance. The focus is mostly Arabs raping white women, a few black rapists thrown in, but you get the picture (see my keyword list attached below). If you need more proof that men put everything from love to rape to revenge fucks to sexy fun to porn into the same bloody category, just look at search terms – oh wait, you can’t anymore. We are protecting men’s searches now. Anyhow, why do you think I started the Love = Hate series? They are the same thing for men. But you can look at my list because Google can’t erase what has already been recorded.
There is a second major category highlighting men’s obsession with being castrated. I swear men want this. They drool over it. They dream of it. And part of me thinks we should help them out… but I don’t get this obsession at all. I mean, I know men constantly think of hurting women in horrible ways, and I think they assume women do the same thing – dreaming of hurting men and maybe dreaming of being hurt. However, the average woman decidedly does not. She neither dreams of being a slave nor of acting like a typical male. But men need to think this is true to create insane justifications for what they do to us. Otherwise, how can you feel like you are righteous if your target is innocent…? This is how religion (another product of male thinking) has always operated – justifying horrific treatment of people by creating false reports of evil in their ‘enemies’.
The third smaller category of filth that men use to arrive at my site is prostitute humiliation. The first category of search terms, I get – I am white and female, so I will automatically be the target of racist, sexist hate. I don’t know why the castration fetishists come to me or why the prostitute haters come to me. I don’t really write about either – maybe an occasional mention, but nothing worthy of the scores of scrotes who find me through these depraved search terms.
Anyhow, those are my two cents on the internet today. I’m busy procrastinating on something I need to get done, so I’d better get back to it. If you’re interested in the list of search terms, I am including them here for download instead of including a really long list of filth within this post.
Search Terms Used to Find Story Ending Never
[Part of the Conversations with Men series.]
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
H is for Hate
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Holy hell, time flies when you’re not having fun! I swear, I didn’t mean for nearly 2 months to go by before writing another post. I had a topic chosen and everything. Really! But I find time is moving strangely during this neverending pandemic. Likely, many of you are discovering strange feelings and experiences are entering your small viral bubble world, and you probably feel you don’t have much control over…, well, much at all. You are not alone, even if you feel you are.
But while later than planned, I am here now with the next post in the Alphabet Series.
H is for Hate
I was going to choose helplessness at first, and it is probably a good post topic for another time, but I was inspired by a post I read back at the end of March, written by a more mainstream, academic type of ‘feminist’ on the topic of whether hate crimes and hate speech apply to women as a class, and who decided by the end of her post that while women experience sex-based issues (she seemed almost loathe to call what women experience ‘hate’), the legal system is not the way to deal with it. The legal system works for all the other hates, but it would just create more problems for women (or more likely, she meant for men) than it could even begin to solve. And we can figure out why this might be true – a) crimes and ‘lesser’ harms done to women are constant, committed by most (if not all) males, and against most (if not all) females. I mean, seriously, every single male would go to jail for some period of time in his life if we actually had justice for women and girls. And let’s face it, there would be a shit ton of brainwashed fembots out there protesting holding men accountable for their crimes against women… But it tickles me to imagine males actually justifiably (i.e., being held accountable) living with a fraction of the fear that females unfairly (i.e., simply being born female) live with. And secondly, b) most women ‘consent’ to fucked up, convoluted and demeaning relationships with males. It is impossible to police woman-hate when women seem, on the surface, to say yes to so much of what is done to them.
Now, did this mainstreamer suggest what might work? No, of course not! She works for a university and is a white woman (a dangerous status today), so taking anything other than a milquetoast stance on women’s issues isn’t possible in this age of group-selective Western censorship. There was the obligatory hint that education might be the way to go… And I think it was at this point that I realized that my topic was going to be Hate, specifically woman-hate. You just CANNOT educate males out of raping, out of their innate violent natures, out of doing everything possible to make sure that females lose in every aspect of life and in every corner of the world. Myself, I am a nature-AND-nurture theorist when it comes to human problems, and I believe that to choose either one alone to explain our human world is just plain silly, and even ignorant. But, I regularly read different kinds of self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ who do take these irrational essentialist stances for several reasons, only one of which seems to be that I end up with plenty of stuff to write about. And if you’re wondering about the woman in question, I won’t name her as she is fairly typical of most liberal-leaning feminists out there, although more educated and articulate than the average one, and besides, I don’t believe in publicly shitting on women unless they are doing something really evil and need to be taken down. And even then, I am decidedly not an activist, but rather a writer and navel-gazer and educator. I write to add a perspective, rather than to try, futilely, to change the world.
But back to hell. I mean Hate. There was a nice assortment of h-words I could have chosen for this post. Like I said, helplessness was a tempting choice and you may see it in the future. As well, H is for honesty, hope, hetero/homosexuality, housewifery (definitely want to write about that sometime), homelessness, his/herstory, harmony (key concepts in places like China, but also with the Cult of Positivity crowd — “Why can’t we all just get along, waaaah…?!!?”), and harm. And there are tons more.
Now, if you’ve read further on this blog, you’ll possibly be aware that I already have an ongoing series called Love = Hate. Hate, in general, is a massive topic. It is the prime current (coupled with greed) that runs through and guides the course of all male-dominated societies (basically, every society on earth since the beginning of time), but that is often called love, justice, fear, retribution, morality, the natural order – everything but hate. But as this is a woman-centric blog, my focus is on woman-hate or misogyny. So I’ll stick this post in there in addition to here in the Alphabet Series.
My plan here is to address a couple of the thoughts I came across in the article on hate, or rather non-hate, where it concerns women. And I’ll try to reach a conclusion or at least a suggestion, where the other author couldn’t bother.
Domestic Violence Ruins Progress on Woman-Hate Issues
I’m going to re-word this as I certainly don’t think women deserve violence from males. Ever. But I do take issue with female’s willing ignorance when it comes to putting trust in males. We are swimming in evidence that males hurt females constantly, and that proximity to males vastly increases the probability that a woman or girl will be raped, physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, and/or killed. We know that at least 25% of hetero-partnered women experience severe physical violence at the hands of their loving male partner. But despite knowing this, mothers still groom their daughters for heterosexuality and for relationships where although they will probably live an economically better life and be vastly more protected from other males than women who don’t partner with men, they will have to endure some form of misogyny, including manipulative and consensual rape, in exchange. This is the heterosexual contract, and we all know this in our lizard brains, even if we refuse to acknowledge or accept it. In the situation where domestic violence happens and a woman manages to escape it, many will still jump back in the dating pool with this delusion that there is a ‘good one’ out there waiting for her. It is pure insanity, especially in places where women can freely choose to support themselves financially instead of being forced to exchange rape for a home and food. But it is a psychologically complex issue. And even in more progressive places, it hasn’t been all that long for women to have had this choice. Change in thinking takes time especially when traditional thinking and behaviour are always more rewarded.
So, if you boil it down to a single basic truth, heterosexuality is the problem. Go with males, and you are asking for trouble, and will ensure that the system never changes for ALL women and girls. So I’ll reword my header of his section to “heterosexuality ruins progress on woman-hate issues”. Until women reject heterosexual relationships with males, progress on addressing actual hate crimes against women, which I would argue MUST, for the time being, exclude crimes committed within a consensual relationship, will go nowhere. The fact that women consent to male abuse (and this is learned at an early age due to grooming for abuse by mothers, fathers, entertainment, schools, social institutions, etc) is the number one roadblock in sussing out what is going on in any reported hate crime against a female. If you look at all other groups who experience hate crimes, not a one of them is groomed from birth to consent to abuse from or seek abusive sexual relationships with members of oppressive groups. It is because of this that I believe that heterosexuality is morally wrong, irrational from a female perspective, unnecessary for human existence and the continuance of the species, anti-progress, intellectually, for the human species, and inherently violent and destructive to over half the population of the world. And of course, as I’ve said many times before, no one is born heterosexual, so this is a circumstance that absolutely doesn’t need to exist. If we stopped forcing girls into heterosexuality, male violence wouldn’t be the guiding force of human existence. But of course, preventing this is another matter altogether and adult females would fight tooth and nail against stopping the harm of their daughters, likely on the basis that isn’t fair to deny pussy to males.
Woman-Hate Isn’t Really ‘Hate’
One point the author danced around is the idea that all of the currently protected groups under hate crime legislation experience real hate whereas women experience, not hate, but the effects of male entitlement. The reasoning is this. The motivation for persecuting racial or religious groups (and even gays/lesbians) is to eradicate them, whereas males see a use for females, so don’t want them dead, but rather, subservient. So, I call bullshit here. In the history of the world, more women have died at the hands of males than specific racial or religious groups have at the hands of their oppressors. Currently, more women and girls die each week because of men and because they are female, than all persecuted groups combined in any given week. The woman writing is British, so if you look at how many non-whites are killed by whites due to racism in the UK every week, I think there is no comparison with femicide. And I think we’d find the same situation if comparing the prevalence of other lesser hate crimes, such as harassment. There have been what I’ll call ‘episodes’ or blips on the long timeline of human existence, where one group has tried to eradicate another group. There is nothing close to the comparitively short Nazi eugenics program for Jews today – in fact, they are generally, a very wealthy and powerful group now, and frequently show themselves to be effective oppressors of other groups, including women and children. My other favourite go-to oppressed group, American blacks were never targets for eradication. They were seen as a resource to be used and abused – kind of like how men have used women in the past and still do today. So the definition of hate as the desire to obliterate in total doesn’t work. Not all accepted hate targets are targets for elimination, and on the flip side, many males actually do want women to die.
I’d also argue, as I have in several past posts, that most, if not all, oppressions stem from woman hate, the reasoning being that males covet the vaginas and uteri of the females of their tribe, and any group (racial, ethnic or religious) that threatens these possessions and the bloodlines of their group are attacked. So males don’t want males from other groups raping or stealing their women and knocking them up, so they do what they can to take away the power of those ‘others’. So all racism is based in misogyny. Pretty simple to understand. With gays and lesbians, it is still woman-hate that fuels homophobia. Men are supposed to rape and possess women (instead of being penetrated like a woman), so gay dudes are a problem. Women are supposed to be raped and possessed by males, so lesbians are a problem as they are way too goddamned free and how dare they reject those who are superior to them? So how can groups that are persecuted on the basis of woman hate experience legitimate hate, while women are not truly hated?
Solutions?
Now, I agree with the author when she says that the legal system does not solve societal problems. The legal system was designed by men, for men. I think it can help racial groups and any group with males in it. And given what has happened, legally, to validate the trans, we know that male trannies are still male, no matter what the hell they’re wearing or what is going on in their Y-chromosome-filled brains. And it is for this reason that the law will not end problems specific to women. Women are not men, so the system doesn’t work for them. Males cannot conceive of being held universally accountable for their actions, even though they may throw a paltry few under the bus to keep up the appearance of ‘justice’.
But if you don’t advocate for the legal rights for women, and your only suggestion is education, which hasn’t produced any results in the millennia that women have been pleading with, and reasoning with, and educating males not to hurt them, then what hope is there?
Well, personally, I don’t think anything is going to change for women until they reject heterosexuality en masse, and that is NEVER going to happen. So my solutions are based on pure fantasy, meaning that they will never happen in the West or any place that pays lip service to human rights. Males would never allow women to take their power away, and there are too many handmaidens working against female liberation, human rights and dignity already to ever achieve a critical female opposition to changing the legal or social systems.
I don’t believe in system change, as I said, so any solution I would ever come up with would be grass roots or individually- or small-underground-group-run. I do, personally, like the idea of vigilantes working on behalf of wronged women. In Canada, our native people’s have some legal traditions for dealing with conflict in their communities, so why can’t women go further and develop their own justice system to deal with sex-based crimes? In my opinion, if a system doesn’t work for women, then they are justified in taking matters into their own hands. Males have done this many times in the past. Why can’t women? It can be organized, or it can operate more on a vigilante or extra-system level.
The Gulabi Gang founded by Sampat Pal in India is one of my favourite women’s vigilante groups. It started out very grassroots and individual – an single woman’s natural and justified response to a situation involving an abusive husband, and it has grown into a network of over 400,000 women. Women supporting women, armed with sticks and chasing down and beating the shit out of rapists. Not only would that never be allowed in the West, but I can’t even imagine Western women getting their thinking past the utter unfairness to men of giving them a taste of their own medicine. As an update, sadly, I found out that some of the Gang took issue with Sampat Pal over how she was running things, and turned on her, beating her with the very sticks meant for men, and she eventually got kicked out of her own organization. I think back to what I said in my last G post about women needing a few generations to heal before they could ever create their own high-functioning, woman-centric society.
Oh, and one last note, as no doubt someone is wondering why I haven’t talked about ‘misandry’, which is the current whiny accusation of Western males in response to feminism. Misandry – unjustified and pathological hatred of men – isn’t a thing. Males are oppressors and hate women reflexively for no rational reason. When women hate males, it is in response to the oppression and violence done by said males. It is therefore justified, not illogical or pathological or bigotry. This purported prejudice against males that is gaining traction in both testerical incel and liberal circles as something that must be addressed because of the increasing number of ‘poor suffering males’ doesn’t exist. The lies men tell are flimsy, but widely believed, and I’ll address this in my L is for Lies post. We all seem to like to believe males’ crocodile tears. But never fear, males are still on top, doing whatever the fuck they want, and they laugh, if they even notice at all, as women and girls suffer.
Again, this is part of the Alphabet Series as well as the Love = Hate Series
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
It’s That Time Again: Black Dicks Matter Month
I’ve seen variations on the following theme increasingly on the internet and once or twice in person (it would be more if the pandemic didn’t limit outdoor interaction and if I were more socially inclined).
I’ve been back in the West for a little over a year-and-a-half, and things have gotten wildly out of control thanks to the liberally insane. I posted on my experience with BDM last year in California and the complete and utterly deafening silence of the Women’s History Month that followed Black History Month. I’m still left wondering whether it’s because a) we erase women’s history, so there is nothing to celebrate, or b) black males can’t accept that there are people more oppressed than they are, or c) trannies have completely taken over womanhood and won’t allow any kind of attention paid to XX because to do so would be to lit-er-al-ly murder them en masse. Probably all three. Regardless, censorship is alive and well in the West. And speaking of censorship, if I get electronically erased by posting this, you can still find me occasionally on Saidit BPF . I don’t allow comments here and thus don’t get a lot of traffic, so I am probably less of a threat than other writers, but you don’t know these days… Just always remember who actually has the power in this world (hint: it is not the people being systematically and swiftly censored – aka women who don’t support the liberal or conservative male agenda – they are the same thing, really). Language and who gets to control it is the ultimate show of power. Note that in the comic strip below, the character playing the ‘target’ (the white female) doesn’t represent anything I’ve ever seen in person or online (i.e., I’ve never seen a white woman stand up to a black male before and question his supremacy over her). The other characters, however, are depictions of what is actually going on. You have ALL witnessed it at least once. I shouldn’t need to spell that out, but if that were true, this post would have never crossed my mind. Just tired of the lies.
White females are not responsible for the sad state of the world, despite how liberals (and me in a fun post) have re-written history to make it appear. Wake the fuck up. Men need to take responsibility for what they have done and continue to do, and women really need to stop policing other women and supporting the oppressive male agenda, which includes group-specific censorship, and hate speech against women (and especially, white women).
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Better Seen, But Not Heard
I’ve never really understood why people get so obsessed with actors. They are basically glorified memorizers, some of whom are able to sell a lie. We worship this? Okay.
Well, once in a while, there might be someone with real talent; they are seldom recognized as a) we celebrate all male mediocrity, so the most famous male actors aren’t really that talented, b) women are chosen for their looks rather than acting ability, so most female talent never makes it to the big screen, c) most writers are male with a few male-identified women thrown in, so the roles for women are limited and usually supporting roles and/or caricatures. Female talent seldom gets to shine, even if they have been noticed.
But one thing is true, no matter the talent or lack of talent in the acting department; these folks aren’t really special in any other way. So why do their opinions on serious issues matter so much to the hoi polloi? I mean, most of them aren’t especially intelligent or worldly. Even if they’ve managed a university degree, intellectual work, thinking, analysis, etc., wasn’t the primary goal. Jobs geared towards fame and fortune tend to attract people who want attention, so the narcissism factor tends to run high. So I ask again, why would we place such value on the opinions of self-centred, out-of-touch, I lie-for-pay types? Does everyone really need a hero, and the loudest asshole wins the role?
Who is Daniel Radcliffe? Feeding-hand-biter. Misogynist. Mediocre actor. And bit of a tosser, really…
Again and again, we follow the uninformed political rantings of ridiculous screenies, and not to beat a dead horse, but the latest is the schlock coming out of the mouths of wand-wavers, Daniel Radcliffe and his cohort. [Jeez, I told myself I would never write on this, but the topic just won’t go away…] Please stop talking. Please stop attacking the woman who made you rich and famous. You aren’t even touched by the trannie issue. Women are. Let women who are on the ground dealing with this shit day to day take the lead and put the issue in its place (the toilet). Your opinion means less than nothing. Go back to your mediocre acting. I, for one, am boycotting all future films put out by tossers like this one.
So tired of the trannie issue, but it is far from being done, and the worst is yet to come for women who dare to trust established science and defy the crazies by speaking in public.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Can Anti-Woman Slurs Be Eliminated?
I seek to address problems that make people uncomfortable, and I talk about issues that even most feminists won’t address. I plan to do the same here. I’ve been wanting to write this one for a long time. It is an exploration. Stuff to think about. Impossibilities, likely.
The Question:
Is it possible for women to achieve what racial and religious groups have – to make discrimination a no-no; to achieve federal human rights protections; to have crimes against them designated as hate crimes; to eliminate group-targeted slurs from daily public, media and entertainment usage; and to legally make language used against group members into hate speech?
Men Succeed, Women Don’t
Unfortunately, the group we call ‘women’, despite being the largest and longest oppressed group on the planet is missing something crucial that every single other group has had and that has worked to their advantage. Men. All oppressed groups in history, except for women, have had male members. And note that men who think they are women – trannies – are not women, but oppressors of women and mentally ill men. They don’t count among us despite what they force us to call them, and they should never be included in the class known as women. They are a class of men, and they are oppressors, not the oppressed. We know they are men because of their XY chromosomes, of course, but we also have evidence that they are men because we see how quickly they have changed policy to destroy and further oppress women. No group of women ever has achieved or ever could achieve what trannie men have. In fact, no actual oppressed group that includes men has ever stayed oppressed for long. We know the ‘why’ (because men have power and women don’t), but it is not entirely clear ‘how’ (how do men exert power so effectively?) this can be. We can consider some of the following possible explanations for how men succeed in overcoming oppression while women don’t.
1) Men tend to resort to violence to get what they want. Women tend to cower and submit when they are threatened. Programming from birth ensures that boys’ aggression and violence is deemed natural and acceptable, especially when acting in self-defence, while girls’ aggression is punished and any self-defence is absolutely NOT allowed and often turned around to appear as unnatural, and even persecutory aggression.
2) Men are more respected, in general, regardless of group affiliation, and it is easier to get what they want because of the normalized and universal respect for cock, even oppressed cock. Having a cock automatically gives you a voice in public. Vagina is universally hated – you can’t respect what you hate, and consequently, most believe on some level that you can’t oppress what you hate because they deserve what they get, and so women’s progress is barely measurable. It further helps that male hate is often called and accepted as ‘love’, so they can argue that their oppression of us is actually a demonstration of love. Note that having a vagina automatically disallows you a voice in public unless you are a cock proxy – directly supporting a male dominance agenda, in other words.
3) Men are very good at getting on board with self- and group-serving agendas and can achieve a sort of strength-in-numbers kind of situation when they perceive themselves to be oppressed. Women, on the other hand, very seldom support one another, let alone push for policy that would benefit themselves as women. Feminists have never achieved a critical mass, as a result. It is hard to win freedom from men when some of the most aggressively opposed are women themselves. It has nothing to do with an inability of women to organize en masse. No, women are actually better able to plan and get organized than men are. Rather, women are programmed from birth to support males and hold females under suspicion. Women will fight to the death to keep men doing the horrible things they do with impunity. But ask a woman to support a feminist? Get ready to have your head cut off and paraded on a pike. Even some feminists eat their own.
4) Men tend to expect others to sacrifice for them, are very protective of their own perceived rights and freedoms, and have a very strange conception of compromise. Women tend to compromise easily. They also tend to sacrifice, but instead call it compromise just as they have been taught by their male-serving mothers and male culture, in general. In this way, rather than stand up for themselves, women are more open to propaganda, guilt-tripping, and oppression. Expecting rights and freedoms as women is seen as selfish and greedy and uncompromising.
5) Oppressed men, with very little effort, tend to collect numerous fawning women to support their cause, doing grunt work, sacrificing their bodies in violent situations (cannon fodder), acting as warning systems, spies and saboteurs, providing free food and cleaning services, bolstering and building male confidence and egos, and acting as free prostitutes to service the troops. Men, on the other hand, don’t support women’s fights. Superficial supporters always have their own agenda (getting laid, scoring political points, etc.). Most actually tend to suppress any female efforts to liberate through violence, threats, abandonment in relationships, denial of free speech through no-platforming and refusal to publish, and denying female activists a place in academia and other influential areas.
6) Giving men rights and freedoms doesn’t hurt other men or affect economies detrimentally. The world economy we have known throughout history has, on the other hand, been completely dependent on female slavery. Male freedom (which isn’t an ethical freedom, but debauchery and inhumanity) requires female slavery. Capitalism cannot exist without female slavery and neither can communism as men have envisioned it. To give women rights and true freedoms and an escape from male tyranny would require a complete rethinking and reconstruction of the world economy. This scares men of all colours, who for all of history, have called their male privilege their god- or nature-given rights.
Personally, I believe that as long as males rule within the system we call ‘patriarchy’, a group that doesn’t contain males cannot succeed in achieving human rights and freedoms or be taken seriously politically, legally, socially and economically. But while lack of male membership is a major factor in continued female oppression, there is one other significant contributor: any oppressed group that supports, colludes with, and literally sleeps with their oppressor will never be set free. And no group save women has ever done this. I mean, can you seriously imagine blacks joining a neo-Nazi group and calling it freedom and equality and contentment – the natural order of things?*** And there isn’t a single underprivileged group, save women, that would be denied the right to live apart from oppressors in their own community. These days, even women’s associations and events are attacked and forced to accept either infiltration or disbandment. But women are brainwashed from birth not only to ignore the dangers men pose to their well-being and contentment, but to embrace rape and slavery and humiliation and call them something else entirely. For those few who reject male domination, there is absolutely nowhere on the planet that is safe and free of men, male influence, male violence, male domination, and of course, the colluding, cock-sucking henchwomen who attack them for saying ‘no, thank you’.
***I did know a super-scary black dude in high school who joined the local skinheads, but that was only so he could beat the shit out of gays and lesbians as part of a cowardly group at every opportunity instead of as an individual – it wasn’t to support a white agenda.
In short, as long as the majority of women agree to unequal rape-based relationships with men and to breeding male children – and note it that isn’t true agreement since they are oppressed and programmed, and thus don’t come to the table on equal footing with men – ALL women will be oppressed by men. And it is this fact that keeps male power in place. If men can argue that women agree to their circumstances, then there is nothing wrong with it at all. To men, and to brainwashed women, agreement means free will/choice. And of course, no two things could be more falsely equated. Remember that brainwashing, programming, and social influence are powerful tools, especially when they are implemented at the most vulnerable stages in one’s life, such as in childhood or in desperate situations involving poverty or serious illness/injury. [Brainwashing, programming and social influence within the patriarchy will be dealt with in another post.] Those who manage to escape their programming, such as separatist, asexual or lesbian, non-breeding feminists, are very threatening to the system, and so the silencing of these opponents through several means is swift and brutal.
Lady Slurs Are on the Rise
If you listen to music, watch films or television, tune in to any kind of hard or soft news outlets, read magazines or other material – basically live in the world, in other words – you *may* have noticed that brutal language attacking women, including slurs (i.e., bitch, cunt, slut, whore, pair of tits, broad), denigrating comments (i.e., run like a girl, acting like a woman, bitches be shopping), and callous jokes (the various iterations of the 10-dollar whore joke), are on the rise. More than likely, like the majority of people, you’ve just become desensitized to it. It’s much like not noticing that the violent, sensationalized content of public materials has escalated. Interestingly, racism in the media is on everyone’s radar – racial slurs produce a very physical ‘cringe factor’ in most people – but the woman hate has not only escalated, but has become business as usual, accepted and parroted even by the targets of the hate. And the abuse comes from people of all races. In music, blacks are the worst perpetrators, but in television and film, everyone participates. Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, the targets of the violence and hate, especially in television and film, are more often than not, white women.
Blind as most are to escalating woman-hate, many people might respond to valid observation with something like:
- what’s the big deal?
- they’re just words – they don’t hurt anyone
- women are too sensitive
- women use them tooooooo!
- you’re exaggerating (crazy, bitter, stupid, or some standard dismissal of female truth-telling)
- you’re a man-hater, obviously
And my response is: if it really is no big deal, then why are slurs against all other groups termed ‘hate speech’ and have been removed from all public media and entertainment and can get you into serious trouble if you’re caught using them in public? Why is it legal to use a female slur in a business name, but not a racial slur? Why do some American television stations bleep out the F-word, but not the word ‘bitch’? What might it mean that women have internalized woman-hate and use the hate-speech themselves against themselves and other women? And why is pointing out real examples of woman-hate itself an example of women hating men??? Logic fails, all.
See, slurs are a big deal. Words have meaning and power, and a tool of control. Those who control language, control everything. And throughout time – and today is no different than any other time period – men control language and thus control women. Male hate speech against women poisons every aspect of women’s lives. Hate in language translates into hate in behaviour. When hate is condoned or written off or normalized, women suffer. Do you want to be interviewed by some man who sees you as a bitch and a cunt and masturbates to violent rape-porn? Do you think he compartmentalizes? No one is capable of separating the messages they internalize from how they treat others around them. And the fact that the hate is escalating, as evidenced in the language we hear and use, is very worrisome for women, indeed. It is a very big deal.
What’s on TV?
Media and entertainment are important propaganda machines existing under the guise of relaxing fun-times. People are much more likely to absorb messages, if they are delivered with humour or drama.
I was just watching a British television show that had been recommended to me by one of my more advanced Chinese university students interested in socio-technology (or techno-sociology, you pick). In the very first episode, the man who is playing the Prime Minister calls one of his white female employees a ‘stupid bitch’ and then proceeds to try to strangle her and then punches her in the face in front of a male employee. And I thought American entertainment was bad. Nope, woman-hate comes from all countries, all races, all religions, all ages. Some of my weirdest memories of blatant sexism during my childhood hetero-bitch programming years came from horrible British television (The Benny Hill Show, anyone?). But they are not alone.
On the American side of things, in the 2017 season of Veep, a political comedy starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus (whom I enjoy as an actress, but who saddens me in this role), was an episode entitled “C–tgate”. The episode partially revolved around the female president trying to figure out which of her staff had called her a ‘cunt’. In 28 minutes, the word cunt – probably the worst, most demeaning, single-word slur in today’s usage and possibly in the history of slurs – is used 15 times. Note that never once in the 6 seasons of this show has the slur ‘nigger’ been used, nor any other racial slur. Liberal, or conservative for that matter, television doesn’t use the big bad, notorious, racial slurs. Never once is the Chinese-American presidential candidate ever referred to as a ‘chink’. Never once is the Mexican-American woman who eventually becomes president ever referred to as a ‘spic’ (or even a bitch or cunt, for that matter). Cunt and bitch are words to use against women, primarily, but not exclusively, white women. And it is hard to imagine an entire television series devoted to a bumbling black president who is constantly undermined and continually racially slurred. Can you imagine an entire episode called ‘N-rgate’? It would NEVER happen. On the rare occasion that a racial slur is used, it is to call attention to racism and to use it as a teaching point about respecting men and women of colour.
Go back a few years, and take the American series ‘Boston Public’ which followed the work and personal lives of a bunch of teachers working at an inner city high school in Boston. In the first season, the white female teacher is called bitch constantly by everyone, and a violent, racist, misogynist, black male student spray paints ‘bitch’ on her blackboard, calls her bitch in public and then SPITS DIRECTLY IN HER FACE, none of which he is held accountable for. But the woman – the actual victim – is called racist, of course, and she spends the rest of the series feeling white guilt and accepting abuse and slurs from all the black characters as well as the white males on the show. Misogyny, which is more common on that program, is never addressed as a ‘teaching point’. It is just what women should accept. And white women are expected to accept abuse for what white men have done in past generations. THAT is the teaching point. Men are violent. Women pay the price so that men can continue enjoying the good things in life.
If you want to get your ‘bitch’ on in an older, but immensely popular series, watch the 15 seasons of ER like I did during a short, but intense period of boredom and misogyny research this summer. It was brutal. I don’t think I’ve heard the slur, ‘bitch’, used so frequently in a television series. Interestingly, there was only 1 official racial slur used in the entire 15 years of programming. A white supremacist used a Latino slur ONE TIME. For jokes, everyone was fair game, but the bulk of the jokes were about women, then gays, and a few racial jokes tossed in here and there. There was a shit ton of sexual harassment as entertainment. If you think women don’t internalize this hate, you are dead wrong. Now that my own eyes are open to patriarchy and brutal misogyny, every time I hear slurs, rape jokes, and sexual harassment, it is a slap in the face. It blows my mind that every single girl grows up swimming in this shit. And most girls and women never understand why they hate themselves so much, why life seems so much more difficult than men’s. Why they have no confidence. Why depression and PTSD occur much more frequently in women than in men. Why they are afraid and feel like they need protection. The propaganda serves to weight the chains around our necks and bodies and primes us to accept abuse from all men around us, and even to call their hate ‘love’.
The Slurs and What Men Mean When They Use Them
A little while back, I wrote a post on where the bitch and the whore came from. Let’s explore a little further to find out what men mean when they use the most common slurs. Note that anti-woman slurs are often used to insult men. The men aren’t really being victimized – simply being called a woman is a bad thing. Even men who ‘love’ women hate to be called or compared to a woman. That’s love and respect, right?
Slut
Honestly, this isn’t a word that I have much connection to or use for. I don’t recall ever hearing the word used when I was in high school. Skank, yes. But I never heard the word slut used. My parents never used it either, despite their frequent use of colourful language. The word has supposedly been around since 1450 to, very basically, describe a woman who behaves exactly the way men always have and always will without consequences. It is the essential representation of sexual double standard. I’m not sure there is a another word that captures the double standard like ‘slut’ does. Use of the word has led to ostracism, poverty, rape, beatings, and death for millions of women across time. While men designed the word to hurt and control women, it has also been used to drive a really fucked up wedge between women by essentially putting them into categories of ‘good’ (marriage-rapeable) and ‘bad’ (prostitution-rapeable and the unmarried stranger-rapeable). The term has been applied by men even to ‘virtuous’ women out of revenge or sadism to serve the male agenda. And even women themselves have used the term against other women, sometimes out of jealously of a perceived, but false, freedom or power of another woman. The simple application of the term to a women has had, in the past, the power to destroy her life completely. You really can’t say that about any racial slur. No one has ever been destroyed by words quite like women have.
Sadly, when women embrace this word, it changes something in the brain’s logic centre. Women who see themselves as sluts, proud or not, suddenly don’t know what to do when they have been raped. Can a slut be raped??? What is rape? Does he have to hit me since I seem to fuck anyone who expresses interest? Am I allowed to say ‘no’ since I have embraced the word ‘yes’? There is no handbook for women trying to navigate the liberal male agenda.
Every once in a while, you hear the word applied to men. ‘Male slut’ pops up once in a while, but it really has no impact on men, their reputations, their relationships, their jobs, or anything. Men might even laugh if they hear it, and it is doubtful they would find it offensive. It is a clear demonstration of who holds the power when you cannot reverse the offense with the same negative outcome.
Personally, I don’t see any use for this word, even if redefined or attempts at reclamation are made. I think we focus too much entirely on sex and sexuality, and would love to see this word fade away because of lack of use rather than repurposing. But after nearly 600 years of use, that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.
Whore
Prostitute is a rather recent and slightly more narrow term for a woman who sells her body to men. ‘Whore’ has been around in several languages (e.g., hore, hora, hoer, huora) for centuries (likely 16th century) to describe prostitutes, sluts, and women with very apparent sexual desires. The shortened ‘ho’, most likely from black American male slang, has been popularized as a way to refer to women, in general. It is most often applied today in the way that slut is. You also sometimes get constructions used to insult men, such as ‘son of a whore’. It’s actually still an insult to women, but men love playing the victim whenever they can.
Bitch
This slur is used so often, I’m beginning to think it is a new replacement term for ‘woman’. In fact, I think the trannie dudes have taken over the word woman, and actual women have now become ‘bitches’. Black American men did a great deal of damage in repopularizing the word as a slur to use against women (circa 1990’s).
Bitch has a lot of usages. You can call anyone a bitch, yet it is still an insult to women. The term comes from female breeding dog and it was specifically used to insult women, dehumanize, and to designate one of her few allowed roles. Today, it can mean:
- woman or girl, in general
- woman or girl you don’t like or have anger towards
- a woman or girl who has stood up to a man and pointed out his privilege, unethical dealings, crimes, etc
- a woman or girl who is confident and does something that a man or boy might do but would not be insulted for, or even would be commended for
- a female boss, or woman in any kind of position of power
- someone forced to do your bidding and who will remain under your control
- (in prison) a weak male who will be forced to submit to sexual assault
- a man who displays emotion and who makes other men (and sometimes women) uncomfortable (e.g., “Stop crying like a bitch.”)
- ‘son of a bitch’ – used on men to mean something like asshole, it is still a slur on women above all else
- (verb) to complain – the implication is that women complain and should not, even if it is warranted
- ‘bitch slap’ – physical abuse to be used by men on a woman who is not acting the way he wants her to
- a thing you don’t like (e.g., “That was a bitch of an exam.”)
Cunt
Probably the worst thing you can call a woman. It is not as popular (yet) as bitch, but it is on the rise. It is an abusive slang for vagina, but when used as a slur, it has similar meanings to that of bitch. It is generally not used on men as a female slur, however. Less commonly, it can be used to describe a situation that isn’t liked (a cunt of a meeting). The British and a few of their colonies unfortunately use the word, but in a non-negative way to refer to one of their dude-bros, as they might use ‘mate’ or to a random dude.
As mentioned above, the American series, Veep, will likely have a normalizing effect on this slur, thanks to devoting an entire ‘humourous’ episode to calling their first female president ‘cunt’ over and over and over and over…
Like a Girl
If a girl or woman is behaving naturally, then there is nothing wrong with what she is doing. There is nothing wrong with how girls run, throw, speak, walk, think, etc. If they are acting naturally (i.e., not gender-programmed into looking stupid or under-performing or trying to be ‘sexy’), then their actions will be efficient and effective. With behaviours that require skill, both boys and girls might perform poorly without training. The thing is that more effort is put into training boys. When equally trained, both boys and girls are effective. So the insult to males about performing like a girl is more about the very female-hate that prevents girls and women from being trained or even accepted as different than male people than any kind of natural ineptness. It also highlights the universal insistence that male performance is the default and thus the correct way, even if it isn’t correct at all.
Note that many of the ‘like a girl’ or ‘like a woman’ insults are actually projections. For example, ‘stop crying like a little girl’ (or screaming or tantrumming) doesn’t make sense because boys cry as much, if not more than girls. They also throw bigger tantrums and make more fucking noise than any girl I’ve ever encountered anywhere on the planet. And plenty of other claims like failing to use logic, or being bad at math – all of these are projections as well. Women tend to be better at logic than men and are equally good, if not better at math.
Body Parts and Animals
Female slurs are the worst in the world simply because women tend to be dehumanized more than any other group. They are reduced to their body parts, and they are referred to as animals. It is how women are treated both verbally and non-verbally in daily life and the workplace and in marriage, and it is how women are represented in language. Women are referred to: ‘a pair of tits’, ‘tits and ass’, ‘broad’, ‘cunt’, ‘pussy’, ‘fish’, ‘twat’, ‘legs’, ‘sugartits’, ‘piece of ass’, ‘cow’, ‘bitch’, ‘sow’, ‘heifer’, ‘filly’, and much more.
Black Men Succeeded
Some time ago, black men reclaimed the term ‘nigger’ and made it their own. The slur, rooted in Latin, Spanish and French from the word for ‘black’, lived for a short spell in a limited geographical region as a negative term for black people. It is no longer accepted or acceptable for use in public or in entertainment. It tends to be used only when a racist character is portrayed or when black dudebros are talking to each other. I won’t attempt to explain who gets to use it, or how, or why, or in which circumstances. I’m not a black dood, and mostly, I don’t really care about the intricacies of what men do to and with each other. All I can say here is that black men successfully got ‘nigger’ removed from the entire Western consciousness except as a term with punch-in-the-gut impact and out of mainstream derogatory use, with the support of the liberal white community. That speaks of some pretty serious social, legal, and political power. You can’t claim you lack power or status if you are able to get a slur thrown out of the public consciousness and usage. I mean, seriously, do you truly understand the implication of this? Controlling language is the ultimate evidence of power. But we’re talking about men here. And likewise, there isn’t a single racial or ethnic group that hasn’t succeeded in getting racial or ethnic slurs put on the chopping block – in Western cultures. But those groups contain men, and all men have power. Women of these groups benefited as well, which is probably part of why women of colour seldom side with white sisters under feminism. On some level, they understand they’ll achieve more power hitching a ride with men, even if those same men are making their lives miserable, acknowledged or not. White woman have no power, and neither do women of any other race, so gravitating to male people makes sense to those who don’t think, won’t think, or can’t think in more than a limited, short-term, very concrete way. If women could get over cock and band together, they’d be a force to be reckoned with in their discovery that unified female power can conquer anything and is a long-term solution to rape and the threat of rape. Why do you think hetero-brainwashing is so intense…?
So we come back to the question: is it even possible for women to eradicate female slurs from public usage and consciousness in the way that all racial and ethnic slurs have been tarnished and banned? Women are universally hated and feared – even by themselves! What would have to occur to instill the same cringe factor into even hearing (nevermind using) the words bitch, slut, whore or cunt to take down a woman? As it is, hearing or using those words generally brings power to the user, and I would argue, a feeling of smug satisfaction at denigrating a woman who is the recipient of those slurs. I would further argue that the power and satisfaction are even greater if they are hurled at or heard directed at a white woman.
But let’s get one thing straight. There are more slurs directed at women than any other group in history. And the slurs against women have a longer history than any racial/ethnic slur. Further, slurs against women have carried more damage to women than any racial/ethnic slur has ever had on a racial/ethnic group member. And another thing, all slurs – racial, sexual, religious, anti-gay – were designed and defined by men, the controllers of language. Not women. The origins of all harm lie in men. Use of slurs can bring satisfaction to women, but they benefit men most of all by their continued use.
Possible Solutions?
1) Eliminating Usage of all Slurs and Offensive References
As I said, those who control language hold the power. To be able to change an entire culture’s treatment of your group speaks of massive social, legal, and political power. It is actually quite impressive and astounding how completely racial and religious slurs have been completely removed from English-language entertainment and public usage. I’m so often puzzled at those anti-racism warriors who speak of their lack of power. They live in far-off decades or centuries, methinks. They haven’t performed a modern-day reality check and taken a look at who really has power. And just as important, who really doesn’t. Women of all colours are the powerless. And so many of those ‘oppressed’ men hold massive power over women of all colours. They are often some of the worst perpetrators. How could women possibly go about removing from public and common usage an entire vocabulary of hate that is larger than that any other oppressed group has ever been attacked with? I suspect it is not possible. No group of women has ever had the political, legal, economic, or social power to control language, let alone achieve basic human rights. And I doubt they ever will as long as women keep sleeping with men – those creatures who slur them, demean them and hurt them in the name of love.
2) Criminalizing Usage of Slurs and Offensive References
Men tend to get their pubes in a twist when women even hint at criminalizing male bad behaviour. The idea of women defending themselves and forcing men to be held accountable for their actions is taken as some kind of irrational attack on male ‘rights’. All men believe they have the right to rape, demean, threaten, slur, harass, molest, objectify, and kill women and girls without anyone batting an eye, and to live freely to do it all again the next day. Actual cops have been known to admit that if they prosecuted men for all the horrible things they do to women, most if not all men would be in jail. Racial, anti-gay, and anti-religious crimes are easier to deal with as they are much less common, because men belong to those groups, because these groups are ALLOWED to live separate from oppressors, and because men fight back, while women don’t (and aren’t allowed to anyway). Crimes against women happen all day, every day, to all women. They are so frequent that even the victims accept their victimization as ‘just another day’ or ‘business as usual’ and trudge on burdened by fear, depression, PTSD, and other psychological problems that manifest as pain and debilitating disease. And while sticks and stones break bones, language is still the most powerful weapon out there, able to dehumanize and demoralize. If language didn’t have power, hate speech would never have been created to protect the religious, the non-white, and gay males. As it is, women will never succeed in achieving enough power or respect to warrant protected legal status with regard to hate speech, let alone bodily autonomy.
3) Redefining the Offending Words
I think it is safe to say that anti-woman language isn’t going anywhere. I’m curious to see whether women can achieve what the all-powerful black man has achieved: to take possession of offensive language, redefine it and keep it within their own group, likely to eventually fade away with increasing educational opportunities. To successfully take control of lady-slurs, we’d have to do something to the language to give it the cringe-factor that, say, the word ‘nigger’ produces in all people. For women, this is a near impossible thing to achieve, I believe.
Slut: A small, but vocal, contingent of liberal, white women in Western countries (and the men whose dicks they suck) has tried, but failed, to reclaim the word. While their basic premise is correct – women should not be judged differently from men when it comes to how many or few partners they have – the way they have gone about it has served to hurt white women (not women of colour – white women) and to keep the liberal male agenda securely in place and with more ammunition. You see liberal men, who also want to control women, have told us that our freedom lies in fucking as many of them as possible, and for free!!! The shame lies not in eschewing virtue, but in withholding our pussies from the world, from being prudes! And this small group of young, brainwashed, white women has enthusiastically swallowed this self-serving male agenda and proudly call themselves sluts. And by embracing this male philosophy, men can say that ‘well, women don’t seem to have a problem with the label, so I guess it’s okay, yuk yuk yuk.” Notice that more men will support a slut walk than an anti-pornography protest, and the reason is that a slut walk is as pro-male as the very problem these women think they are fighting, while the latter protest is pro-woman, anti-slavery, anti-violence and at its very core, feminist. I’m not sure that this slur can be repurposed as it cannot be separated from it’s original meaning and to do that, you’d have to end heterosexuality, which would effectively render the slur meaningless and it thus wouldn’t require reclamation.
Whore: Like the word ‘nazi’, this word has become overused and misused through people’s ignorance, rather than effectively repurposed or redefined. ‘Whoring’ yourself in order to get ahead at a traditional job just sounds wrong, and smacks of ignorance and dismissiveness of the sexual slavery women have had to endure since time began. The slanging of the word, thanks to black American men, into ‘ho’, has not helped women at all, but rather, increased its casual, demeaning usage in everyday life. The word, like ‘slut’, was created specifically to hurt women through classification and shaming. I’m not sure that it can be redefined. And when men make demeaning changes or redefinitions to words designed to slur women, it achieves nothing for women. Often quite the opposite.
Bitch: This word wasn’t originally created to slur women, so there may be hope there. There has been some redefinition by women that I would argue isn’t that effective. Calling oneself a ‘bitch’ in a proud sort of way has sometimes come to mean ‘badass’. [Here is a prime example of this usage – skip down half-way through.] I can’t imagine calling myself a bitch in order to convey bravery or guts. Whenever I hear a women use that term to describe herself, there is this weird implication of sluttiness or sexiness that goes with it that is really repulsive. I think it is also a bad idea to retain the word ‘bitch’ to describe a woman who stands up to men because it can still be used by men easily to slur women for behaving normally (i.e., unprogrammed).
I think a good repurposing or redefining of a slur should have at its goal, the fading out of its usage. It should have a definition that men don’t really understand as it isn’t connected to them in a simple and concrete way. If they don’t understand it, they will be less likely to use it (one hopes). And it should also feel bad to women if they use it to describe themselves. It shouldn’t be a source of pride.
The way I understand a bitch (I have redefined it for my own understanding) is as a woman who serves men and male agenda, and who hurts women. The former is actually one of the less common male definitions (a submissive object), but what should be stressed is that a bitch hurts women. These are the women who ditch their female friends for the boyfriend or husband. Women who give birth to sons and make sure they grow up to know their privilege. Women who feminize themselves and their daughters. Women who support marriage. Women who blame and/or don’t believe rape victims. Women who oppose lesbians and asexuals. Women who hate the feminists who fight for their rights. These are bitches.
Most women don’t really think about how they treat other women. They probably can’t articulate that they hate their sisters – except for those clueless, but dangerous, women who say ‘most of my friends are male, and I’ve never really gotten along with women – but they are trained to do so from birth, despite it being a completely unnatural thing. I really believe that if women were made aware of their woman-hate, they would be shocked and might be motivated to self-examine and to change their outlook on sisterhood.
Cunt: This word is much less used than bitch, but it is on the rise. I think it can be repurposed in the same way that bitch can. It is a more extreme version of bitch. A cunt is a woman to purposely tries to hurt other women and girls. A cunt is a mother who abuses her daughter. A woman who turns a blind eye to a daughter-molesting husband, boyfriend or relative deliberately or in willful blindness. A woman who defends a rapist son or family member and heaps blame upon his victims. A woman who holds a girl down while her clitoris is cut off in the name of Allah. A woman who calls herself a feminist, and then in her personal definition of ‘woman’, commits ideological genocide when she tells us only women of colour are women because the percentage of white women in the world ‘isn’t large enough’ (try using that argument with Native Americans when defining ‘person’ or ‘human’ – their percentages are lower than that of white women). Women who physically attack the women their husbands are cheating with instead of getting rid of the husband. These are cunts. Is there any help for these women? Unlike bitches, they are likely aware of their actions and their actions are often deliberate and cruel. There is no excuse for hurting another woman unless she is physically trying to kill you. And I believe in holding attackers accountable. Change has to happen in the language and cognitive processes of all women first. Perhaps, if women become more self-aware, we can eliminate newly-defined words altogether. But really, who knows if women can ever transcend male hate and the internalized woman-hate they are inundated with from birth.
4) Juxtaposition as a Tool to Highlight Misogyny
This is especially relevant for media and entertainment, but can be used in every day conversation. Now, this one would be hard to implement in media simply because it opposes the male and liberal agenda, and thus won’t be allowed to happen. Women don’t run media or entertainment outlets for the most part, and those few that do tend to be liberal and completely on board with male-defined ‘female freedom’ policies. Implementing this experiment in daily life would prove hard and would likely get women killed because misogyny is an accepted part of how the world runs. But just to explore the possibilities, here goes.
For every anti-woman slur or reference made, a racist slur or comment or violence against men must also be made. So when you hear “run like a girl”, which is a nasty way of putting a male down by calling him some sort of subhuman, you must also use “run like a chink”. Or, for example, when the black male character says to the white female police officer, “hey, bitch cop”, she can respond with “hey, nigger rapist” and then shoot him in the head. The anti-black slurs are probably the best to use because blacks have been the most successful oppressed group in gaining political, legal and social power. Slurs against them will stand out immediately in juxtaposition to every anti-woman slur that is used. Where no racial slurs can be used, violence against men can be used. For example, a slur against a woman is used, and a man or boy gets kicked in the head or balls. The point of this exercise is to pair every denigration of women with denigration of a highly respected group (racial, religious, male) to question the necessity of the anti-woman material.
The big risk here is that people are too stupid to get it. Non-whites are respected infinitely more than women and girls. All races and cultures hate women and girls and embrace patriarchy and misogyny. All cultures have only flourished by enslaving females, forcing heterosexuality, and making sure that female persons learn very early in life to hate themselves and to accept abuse. To use racist slurs (or religious slurs or violence against men/boys) to highlight the frequency of anti-woman slurs may not work because stupid people or willfully blind liberal people would likely see the contrast as evidence of racism, anti-semitism or ‘islamophobia’ or ‘manhating’ rather than a highlighting of how much women are hated. Never underestimate how stupid and/or ignorant people are.
Conclusion
Will women ever control language or, at the very least, have enough power to stop male abuse of language and subsequent control of women’s lives?
Upon a great deal of consideration, I conclude that it will never happen as long as women accept and practise heterosexuality. You can’t be pro-women and sleep with the enemy. And if you need evidence, look at how every other oppressed group on the planet has broken free of their circumstances. They don’t live with, sleep with and fuck their oppressor, have their children, coddle their feelings, and support their policies. It really is that simple.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
My Request is Perfectly Logical if You Remove Your Head from Your Ass
Well, I guess I’m not gone for good. As I said, the story never ends. Sometimes, you need to take a break from it, though, and focus on other things. And focusing on other things I am. On mathematics. My story – the story – still goes on, however. I’ve been back in China for almost three weeks, and I’ve been been physically attacked by men twice already – one on my own small university campus – and I went through a terrifying racially-sexually motivated harassment episode by some drunk Chinese men on the subway who didn’t like the fact that my student was speaking English to me in a country where only Chinese is supposed to be spoken. Sigh. No, the story never ends…
But today, I’m talking about something other than Chinese racist misogyny.
So, I’m concentrating on brushing up on over 20 years of mathematics education for personal reasons, and I’m using some relatively good sites that serve my purpose well. One of the sites, in particular, has made sure to include female and non-Western names in the word problems. But still, the site is run by men, so while they can easily address racism issues, cuz all men can get on board with anti-racism, they still can’t get the anti-misogyny quite right. They still refer to many of the female characters as “Miss” and “Mrs.”. And I sent in a complaint with a very clear explanation of why these titles need to be removed from the material and be replaced with “Ms.” or “Dr.” depending on the circumstances.
I know, I know. No big fucking deal, right? I’m just a bitchy, hairly-legged, lesbian feminist cunt who is nit-picking details that don’t really matter because she can’t get a man to fuck her. Or something like that.
Wrong, bucko. And I’ll frame this issue in terms that people will understand easily and take seriously. Racism. People take racism very seriously (unless it is racism against whites, particularly white women). So let me offend your liberal sensibilities so that you can understand why marital titles for women are a big goddamned problem (STILL!!!) and need to be addressed like yesterday.
So imagine that all your math questions, when they refer to a black person, designate them either ‘house slaves’ or ‘field slaves’. There was no other possible job for them. After all, as we all know, blacks are only good for slavery. We saw that proved through a few years of slavery in the US, initiated by Europeans (especially the British) and embraced by black African race traitors/traders, and by American southern owners of plantations. So knowing this tradition and how effective it was in keeping social order and contributing to capitalism and southern wealth and PROGRESS (don’t forget progress), why should we bother changing anything in say, math questions? And also, keep in mind that during that particular period of slavery, black slaves took their designations and adopted families seriously. Being a house nigger was a source of pride and led to greater perks than if you just worked as a field nigger. And belonging to a prominent house/family, raised them up in the world too.
By now, your skin is probably crawling, and you’re probably denouncing me as some sort of race supremacist. And of course, I’m laughing to myself, because nothing could be further from the truth. If your back is up, then part of my job is done. Now for part two, which will be much, much harder for you to get because you, along with the entire world, hate women whether you realize it or not.
My point is that like black slavery, women have been enslaved, but with a few significant differences. First, female slavery is a much more serious and entrenched problem than any racial slavery ever has been. Without female slavery, the international system as we know it would collapse completely. You see, women have always been enslaved. Women were the first slaves, and they were (are) enslaved on the basis of their chromosomes, genitalia and biological capabilities (aka SEX). Men have only been able to accomplish what they have by stealing the intellectual, physical, sexual, and emotional services and energies of women through slavery and the ubiquitous threat of violence. The other major difference between racial slavery and female slavery is that the latter is the only form of slavery that is not only still accepted, but completely, 100% legal. To this day. Marriage, prostitution, exotic dancing, and everything that exists when sexual slavery is condoned are encouraged by ALL societies, and dog help you if you don’t comply. The above board female slavery system (aka ‘marriage’) is alive and well, with a whole commercial industry supporting it, and we still use the titles associated with this slavery. The ‘house nigger’ for females is the “Mrs.” – she holds a higher place in society than any other group of women, and although a slave whose cunt is owned by one man (unless you belong to a polygamous cult) and who can be legally raped by one man (her husband), has more social, legal, and often, economic, perks than does a single woman. The single woman – the ‘field nigger’ – is “Miss”. By her title, we know that all men can have access to her body any time they wish. When unmarried, she has no protection from a single master, unless she is young and lives in her father’s house, and any man can rape her with few to no repercussions. Although remember, like black female slaves were often raped by their male owners, girls today can be raped by their fathers. So what does ‘protection’ even mean??? Anyhow… most married women, like the proud house niggers of days of old, hold their title and predicament as a source of pride and status. Most hold the slave name (family name) of their masters, just like owned blacks did. And some women even say that they have an ‘M.R.S.’ degree (I still remember the gloating look on my uneducated mother’s face when she told me about her ‘degree’).
Note that there isn’t a single person out there who would shame or destroy a black person for decrying the period of black slavery as one of the most shameful periods in American history. Not so for women who denounce marriage, prostitution or any form of female slavery. It is not allowed. Women are still, as Yoko Ono once said, “the niggers of the world”. I would add that they were the original niggers, though.
I know I’m talking to a brick wall for the most part when I talk about why getting rid of marriage, slave designations/titles, and female sexual slavery are so important. I know that most people relegate me and uppity women like me to the category of crazy, feminazi bitches when we draw attention to parallels between racial injustices of the past and currently embraced injustices against women. I’m sure the anal canal is a comfortable, warm, tight, safe space in which to nestle one’s noggin, but keep in mind that the only thing that truly belongs there is shit making its way out of your body. But ‘head-in-ass’ disease is very common these days.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, there has been no response by the MALE writers at my math site in response to ending the endorsement of female slavery in their materials despite me having graduate education and work experience in test construction and question writing, as well as related experience in research showing the effects of sex stereotyping in content and pre-test-sitting instructions for female testees 😉 (Guess what? telling female test-takers that women are shit before they take a test leads to lower test scores for them, even when they are top of the class and excellent test-takers…) But, what the hell do I know about the effect of target content on special populations of test-takers, right…?
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Just So You Know
Just a quick post. Life has gotten extremely busy and exhausting lately, so there is little energy to write, and little time to think.
But I was cruising through my stats out of curiosity since one of my posts has consistently been getting traffic completely through Google searches, and I’d just like to report on it. It is fast becoming my most popular post.
Almost every day, someone performs a non-English and sometimes an English search that leads them to the post on being raped by a Muslim. They are looking for rape of white women, and they are looking for porn (video’ed rape deemed to be ‘free speech’ and ‘entertainment’) of white women by Muslims.
This was yesterday’s English-language Google search term:
muslim man and white girl porno online
Any asshole – including radical feminists who pander to ‘oppressed’ men – who thinks white women are privileged over anyone, especially men of colour, can go fuck themselves. You have swallowed liberal cock. Congratulations. Tastes good, yes?
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Shrill, Bitter, Humourless, Prudish Man-Hater
Not super-original, but I’m in a foul mood, and I feel like lightening things up a little. And nothing lightens the mood more than taking a look at the ‘insults’ that men hurl at women.
When a woman, especially, a feminist is called any of the following – shrill, bitter, humourless, prudish, or a man-hater – I really have to laugh. I don’t consider these insults, perhaps because I have a lot of interest in what words mean. Other than the last one – man-hater – all of the terms have broad application. They weren’t designed to hurt women, specifically. The insults that really bother me are those with very specific, woman-harm in mind. I’m talking b****, c***, s***, w****, etc. Those terms, which are becoming much more common, normalized, and publicly used in entertainment accessible to impressionable children, hurt women. They hurt women in the same way that the n-word hurts blacks. But racism is taken seriously these days – you won’t hear the n-word used as a slur in the past few decades of television or film unless you’re looking at a character who is specifically a race-supremacist or within an historical context. Woman-hate or misogyny, on the other hand, is becoming mainstream and embraced. Misogyny has always existed, but it is no longer buried under innuendo in the public arena, and this is reflected in the language. Slurs against women are hurled at females (or as a grave insult to men) in entertainment as comedy and or as hate by male and female characters alike, by all racial groups, and by characters of all ages. I was watching an American show the other day where an older black man forced his way into a white, teen-aged girl’s house, called her a ‘bitch’ with hate behind the word, and when she tried to stop him, he yelled out to the street, “Racism!!! This white girl is oppressing a old, black man!!!” Yeah. That’s where our world is going. Slurs against women are fine and dandy, and men of colour are often leading the pack as some of the most protected perpetrators. ‘Art’ reflects life which, in turn, is informed by ‘art’.
Now here’s the problem. The slurs that are really bothering women, especially feminists, these days, are not the ones I just talked about. Hell, call a lib-fem a ‘slut’, and she’ll take her top off and shake those titties at you with pouty lips and a defiant “yeah, I’m a slut, so what?’ look. No, what really gets women a-scampering these days is being called a prude or a man-hater. And even radical feminists will bend over backwards to demonstrate exactly how they couldn’t possibly hate men or want to stop men from putting their dicks into people.
Let’s break these suckers down, why don’t we?
Shrill
Shrill refers to a sound that is high-pitched or piercing. It is used by men to refer to their dislike of women’s speech. They even use the term to refer to women’s writing, so we know it may only partially refer to the actual sound. The content plays a major role, too. You see, strangely, the voices are more piercing or ‘shrill’ when women are trying to fight for their basic human rights. Personally, I’ve encountered very few women’s voices that you could categorize as ‘shrill’. Occasionally, I’ll run into one that is hard to listen to because it is high-pitched. But on the whole, for me, voices that are annoying or difficult to pay attention to are that way for more complicated reasons. No two are exactly alike. It can include geographically-based accent, pitch, timbre, loudness, and/or whether someone whines or slurs. And a bad laugh can make things worse. I find men’s voices equally or even harder to endure than women’s mostly, but not only, because they are so loud and the content is so boring. I remember years ago, participating in a weekly trivia group thing in grad school, and there was always this one dude sitting across the room who would drive my ears fucking crazy – like poison-ivy-itching crazy – with his freakish, weird, loud voice and laugh. If I’d had a steak knife with me… Anyhow, shrill is more about men not liking to hear about human rights for women than any objective qualities of women’s voices.
Bitter
I’m not sure if I’ve ever met a bitter feminist. I’ve met a lot of bitter men, that’s for sure. And I’ve also met a few women who are IN relationships with men and who defend the penis who are actually bitter. What does bitter actually mean? It refers to someone who is “angry, hurt, or resentful because of one’s bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment”. The bold is mine because it is the important part of this definition. Having a sense of being treated unfairly doesn’t necessarily mean you are actually being treated unfairly, and this is why ‘bitter’ doesn’t apply to feminists. Women ARE treated unfairly. Regularly. All over the world. For thousands of years. Women SHOULD be angry and hurt and resentful. Men, who often have hurt feelings and anger because they may not get what they feel they are entitled to (i.e., free access to as many women’s bodies and free labour and attention as possible), are bitter. They think life is unfair for them. But it is decidedly not. Bitter. Bitter men.
Humourless
Of course men are funny. To call women humourless is the funniest thing EVER. But seriously, men’s humour, which mostly relies upon slamming the oppressed (women) through rape jokes, cheap ho jokes, female biology jokes, or through boring, repetitive jokes about farts, poop, masturbating, etc., is not funny. Men are humourless. Women are funny. They really are. Now, we’d have a better sense of this if men didn’t control the entertainment industry. As it is, to become a female comedian, you have to be fuckably hawt first. Being hawt is unrelated to comedic talent, so we miss out on probably 98-99% of the funny women out there. Funny women who are not hawt are barred from speaking, performing, acting. I have my personal (growing) list of female comedians whom I like to watch and laugh with, two of my faves being Tig Notaro and Janeane Garofolo. If you like funny of the visual sort, I highly recommend Phemisaurus, who caters to women of the ‘man-hater’ persuasion. She makes me laugh and laugh. But there are many funny women out there. Many. Google. Look, watch, listen. And laugh. They are women and they are talented. And somehow, they don’t need rape, whores, shit, farts, or penises in the mix to do it.
Prudish
Oh, this one makes me tired. Countless rad-fems have spent time doing justice to the ‘we’re not prudes, we just think PIV (penis-in-vagina; aka ‘dude-sex’) is harmful’ argument. So I’m not going to go through the whole thing here. Femonade is a great resource for this, and FCM does it better than I ever could. There is a massive difference between hammering home (yes, I know the imagery I’ve created) the point that penises are the source of most, if not all, of women’s problems, and doing the religious, woman-hating, anti-sex, guilt-hate-shame parade. Feminists aren’t anti-sexuality. They wish for women to be free from men’s sexuality so that they can finally figure out what theirs is about. As it is, men define all sexuality, and it is all about serving men and harming women. Period. There is nothing prudish about wanting women to be free to be or not to be sexual beings on their own terms.
Man-Hater
Perhaps my favourite insult? Maybe. I also like the word misandrist, but most men can’t pronounce it and so don’t use it. Plus ‘man-hater’ is catchy – like a venereal disease! All I know is when men call women ‘man-haters’, it makes me laugh and laugh. Men are so fucking insecure. It is an unassailable truth that men hate women. We’ve got that down, right? And since they can only envision hate, it is impossible for women to exist in a state where they don’t hate men. Or perhaps it is this. Men know that if women treated them the way that men have always treated women, hate would be the inevitable and rational effect. Simply put: “We men treat you women like you are maggots on shit. How can you not hate us?” And craftily, men will use this assumed hate to justify more shitty treatment, anger, ranting, violence, etc. And really, whether we hate them or not is actually irrelevant. All men need is the belief.
But so what if a woman or group of women or all women do hate men? It is justified, reactive, defensive hate. And when we hate, we don’t follow it up with violence. In fact, most women will feel the hate burn, and then find excuses for men, allowing them to continue trying to destroy us. Men, on the other hand, have aggressive, unjustified hate for women that is the fuel for all the violence they do to us. We have done nothing wrong – except exist – they hate us and try to destroy us. And then they blame us if we speak up to defend ourselves.
So ‘man-hater’? Give me a break. Take a look in the mirror, assholes. Read the papers. Take a look at the women around you in a human, non-pervy way. You are more likely to see fear in women’s eyes than hate.
Conclusion
To women and feminists, especially, stop defending yourselves against male accusations in the form of ‘slurs’. It is a waste of gynergy. If you really must fight something, then fight the real slurs – the b- c- w- and s-words. The slurs that actually hurt us and are designed to do so.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Black American Men and the Air Crash Effect
Let’s talk about fantasy and reality, sensationalism and mundane facts, penis-loving and woman-hating.
The media loves a good story. The more gore and horror a story has, the more play it will get in the public eye. And the more attention it will receive. And the more distorted the facts surrounding the story will become. There will be a kernel of truth, and then the rest will be blown out of proportion and lead to the masses and very often the supposedly educated hordes going on an illogical rampage in a blood-thirsty, scapegoating frenzy, and society at large will adopt illogical, fear-based, hate-satisfying behaviour.
A good example of this phenomenon is perceptions of safety concerning air and auto-vehicular travel.
Many people are terrified of flying because they believe flying is more dangerous than driving or riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle. But if you look at actual data compiled by government or insurance organizations on number of accidents, number of accidents per miles travelled, the number of fatalities per million miles travelled, and odds of dying in a lifetime, you get a different story. No matter how you slice it, car travel is considerably more dangerous and the odds of dying in a plane crash (if you actually travel by plane – even a lot) are much, much lower.
But air crashes, on the rare occasion that they occur, are catastrophic and deliciously interesting. Being both rare and devastating, they end up getting a lot of play in the media. Car crashes, on the other hand are frequent, even deadly ones, so they don’t get worldwide (or even nation-wide) play. Let’s just say, if you want your name to live on after your death because you haven’t made it big by showing your tits in public (if you’re a woman) or perpetrating a school or workplace shooting (if you’re a male), your best bet is to fly and make sure your plane goes down. It works for Muslim extremists, so why not you? [Yeah, I said it. It’s true, so get a grip.]
Let’s call this ‘the air crash effect’: rare, extreme events get a) a lot of public attention, and b) lead to irrational conclusions. Air crash gets attention and people develop unjustified fear of flying.
Race and Sex: An Eye-Opening Comparison and the Stark Reality
Let’s apply this phenomenon to social problems. I’ll use a current, massive problem that has hit the radar in the US recently, but is having ripple effects in other countries. It is the old racism vs misogyny war.
Women are constantly silenced by liberal men (and women) when they attempt to talk about violence against women. This happens across history and in all countries. But we’re going to talk about the current American climate right now. The most common current argument is that cops are shooting black people right left and centre and that trumps the petty, indulgent, narcissistic claims of American women whose few rights are being fast eroded. So noticeable in fact that the UN has uncovered and given legitimacy to the claims of the deplorable state of women’s rights in what is supposed to be a country at the forefront of human rights. Women in the US are suffering and no one gives a shit or believes those few brave women who are speaking out, in other words.
At some point in the American collective subconscious, it was decided that women, who hurt more than any other group both in the US and on the planet, had to take a back seat to men of colour (many of whom abuse women, themselves). And the issue of the day is violence experienced by men of colour (specifically black men), and in particular, the killings of black men by police officers.
Now, before I dig in here, I want to be clear. I don’t use data reported by MRAs or right-wing or ‘concerned white male’ groups (aka: white supremacists). First, I don’t trust anything any and all men say about violence, regardless of colour. Second, I can’t stand MRA’s or any kind of racial supremacists or purists. Too much agenda, too much testosterone, and thus, lies, lies, lies – and even worse, the woman-hate. You never get racism without deep, frightening woman-hate. I don’t personally give a shit about which race ‘wins’. That is a male concern. Racism is a male invention and it is rooted in woman-hate. Men, concerned with who gets to fuck their slaves (women), get violent at the idea of men outside their racial group having access. That is where racism comes from. Men own the pussy of their own racial group and they’ll fight to the death to keep it that way.
So, back to the data. I prefer to look at the data that black activists themselves provide. They will either be accurate or exaggerated, and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, because it helps my argument, which I am basing in reality and on fact. According to black activist groups, fewer than 5 blacks (men and women) are killed by police per million (as compared with 2 per million for both whites and hispanics). [Note, I have found another more statistically-based site that offers raw data for 2015/2016 that 568 blacks were killed by cops in total in the US. Blacks are also the racial group most often armed with guns. Asians, for some reason, love knives more than any other – markedly so…] The majority are armed, mostly with guns, occasionally with knives. I have no reason to argue with these figures. I believe the activists. I am not a racism denier or cop apologist. And I don’t think people who are not committing crimes should be killed. If people are committing crimes, especially violent ones against women or girls, that is another matter entirely. Shootings of blacks by cops is a big deal and is widely reported in the news. Whether the cops are prosecuted is another matter.
And these killings are getting A LOT of play in the media, a lot of shouting and demonstrating by activists, and white liberals are completely on board and behaving the way they are supposed to by saying all the right things and silencing anyone who questions the data or anyone who would rather focus on larger social problems.
And so we get to those larger and longer-running social problems. We are getting to the car crashes. Violence against women. Cops killing black men is the deliciously salacious air crash, violence against women is the too common, too boring car crash. Let’s look at some conservative estimates (most women don’t report crimes against them, so these data are low-ball estimates of reality).
152,000 women per million are stalked. Remember, the number of blacks killed by cops is 5 per million. Also note that of all the women killed by their partners, more than 3/4 of them are terrorized through stalking first, and that is more than 5 women per million.
200,000 women per million are raped in their lifetime. Remember, the number of blacks killed by cops is 5 per million versus 200,000 raped women per million. And that is a very conservative estimate due to refusal to report, self-denial, mishandling and trashing of rape reports by law enforcers and hospitals, and doesn’t take into account multiple rapes by different men and repeated rapes by the same man/men. This figure is also conservative because of the very narrow, male definition of rape. And this figure doesn’t include sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other sexual terrorism. That figure would be 1,000,000 women per 1,000,000. And many of these women are living an aftermath that makes death look sweet and kind. Often, rape is the worst torture imaginable. Men can’t imagine. It doesn’t happen to them.
111,111 little girls per million are sexually abused by adults. The adults are almost always men and almost always men they know. 111,111 abused girls (who often go on to kill themselves, abuse drugs, develop mental illness, and fall into rape lifestyles of porn and prostitution) per million compared with 5 blacks per million. And this figure, unlike killings of black men, are hard to confirm or identify and vastly underreported.
15 women out of 100 rape victims will try to kill themselves because of what men, including black men, and cops of any race for that matter, consider to be harmless and natural and hilarious fun times. I think most rape victims at least think about killing themselves. And I think the figure is conservative as most women don’t talk about what has happened to them.
This is why I’m just not that concerned about a few killings compared to an insanely more prolific phenomenon. There is a REAL problem out there and that is men committing violent acts against girls and women. It is shameful and insulting to ignore, negate and erase the millions and millions of women suffering and dying at the hands of men of ALL COLOURS and including male police and men from all walks of life and all professions, from homeless men to male politicians and male doctors. It is insulting to erase the millions of women and what they suffer through in order to focus on a few very well-publicized killings of men. It is not my job to fight for (often) armed black men. I support innocent women and girls victimized simply for existing while female. A woman doesn’t even need to leave her home or even her bed to be brutalized.
Bottom Line
For most people, their thinking is greatly affected by what they read in or hear on the news. We have brains so that we can think critically, analyze information, ask important questions, and draw correct conclusions. Our media tell us what is important, and what is important has little to do with reality, facts, and statistics/numbers. Importance wears a penis. That penis has many colours, but it is still a penis, and reality is bent to accommodate and support that penis.
When you look at the numbers, the facts, reality, you see that it is still safer to take a plane than drive a car, and it is certainly safer and better to be male than female regardless of your race in this world. And in the specific example here, it is safer to be a black male than a woman of any colour in the US. Regardless of what liberals tell you and how loudly. There is no shortage of black men despite the fact they are being *constantly* killed by police (5 per million), but women are being raped right, left and centre (200,000+ per million) and living with the aftermath of that torture, the negation or erasure of their ordeals, and the physical complications for the rest of their lives.
Story Ending Never 
You must be logged in to post a comment.