Category Archives: Language
Q is for Quote
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Confucius. Einstein. Gandhi. Descartes. Socrates. Churchill. King. Wilde. Mandela. If it’s got a penis, the assumption is that it has some sort of insight or wisdom that no one else has ever demonstrated and that we should write down and attribute and even use as a measure of our own insight. Most of these select and immortalized words are attributed to males, but I also find that males are much more likely than females to throw what I have come to call ‘scrote quotes’ into prepared speeches and writings, but even into random conversations, as well. I started paying attention to this back when I was an undergraduate student and I would attend meetings for the lab I worked in. Some of the male students loved talking and dropping little nuggets of so-called wisdom that wasn’t their own – either quotes or factoids about sciencey stuff – and I began to suspect that they were making shit up in order to score points with the rest of us. And over the years, as a student, as a work team member, as a teacher, and as part of various social groups, I saw a common theme that went something like this:
- Males talk too much and too loudly,
- Males are pathological interrupters, especially if the person speaking is female,
- Males are more likely to attack what other people say, especially if the speaker is female, and
- Males put more stock in what other males say even if it is clearly bullshit, and like to scrote quote.
We all understand well the male belief in their own deservedness for simply being male, regardless of race, and their over-confidence, in general. This helps to explain their disproportionate oral presence in groups. They don’t really understand the concept of not having a voice. But why the devotion to other males? Why do they like to build up other males and even to quote them? Or maybe the question should be is scrote quoting just knee-jerk devotion to the brotherhood or a more calculated attempt to look intelligent or sensitive or insightful or humanitarian? Perhaps it is both as males seldom quote women or reference women’s contributions to the intellectual community, even if the women are acknowledged experts or intellectuals.
Regardless of the intention, male speech in general and the quoting and pseudo-intellectual posing of some males in particular elicits eye-rolls in me, and if I were the kind of person who could pull off a smug sort of snort, I’d probably do that too. Needless to say, as I’ve become more separatist in my lifestyle, I’ve avoided mixed-sex discussion groups, and I’ve almost completely stopped reading books by male authors. I did read a fairly well-done non-fiction book by a male on the history of salt a few years ago, but male fiction is pointless to consume, and I don’t feel I’m missing anything by putting to stop to men’s thoughts entering my world. That might bring gasps of horror from a lot of people. But would it shock the same people to know that my first 18 years were almost completely devoid of female-authored writing other than the requisite Judy Blume novels and the Nancy Drew, girl detective series?
But back to quotes. Do women really say nothing worth remembering and recounting? And do what men apparently say actually mean anything? I’ll dive in a bit with some examples, but before I do that, let me just say that I consider famous quotes to be a bit like modern art – and I’m saying this as someone who appreciates skills and talent and hard work and who doesn’t put this genre of art into any of those categories. It is a bit of a cliché to say, upon viewing a modern art installation: “What’s so great about this? I could do it. Hell, my 5-year old neighbour could do this.” But it is true. There is no skill in painting a canvas completely black or placing a bunch of laundry soap boxes in a random pile. Anyone could do it. But one person did it and became famous, and among a certain community of people, the installation is ‘genius’ because of the person who did it and the context it was done in, and perhaps the political or social climate at the time. In a similar fashion, most quotes are said hundreds, thousands, and even millions of times by people around the world at different times, but it became famous and attached to one person because of who the person was, and the context it was done in, and perhaps the political or social climate at the time. Women are just as likely to have said something supposedly noteworthy as a male, yet most of the time, it is male voices that are heard and acknowledged. And of course, males are notorious thieves of everything women create. We know this. But words. Can we ‘own’ words? In a male world, indeed. Everything can be owned and attributed.
What purpose do quotes serve? Lots of reasons, apparently. They supposedly preserve intellectual observations. They give a false sense of validity and non-fiction to religious teachings. They warn us to follow rules. They inspire and motivate. They serve as humour, but in a way that diffuses anger and deeper thinking about serious truths. For me, sometimes I read or hear a quote and it just doesn’t have the impact that it seems to have for so many. I’ll provide a few examples of scrote quotes that fall flat for me, before I get into lady-quotes.
Who doesn’t love Einstein, the world’s favourite quotable male intellectual? But I just think his words are nonsense at worst, and obvious, at best. For example:
“Learning is experience. Everything else is just information.” and
“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.”
I just don’t understand why these inspire people. So many seem to hear them and say “whoa, that’s so true” to themselves. But many intellectual and inspirational quotes aren’t that deep or analytical and end up just stating the obvious.
I find religious quotes to be hilarious. The ones taken directly from religious texts and presented as words spoken by real people or people who are conduits for a supernatural being are ridiculous. It would be like me quoting a character from Harry Potter and pretending it means something profound, like: “It was the wand-maker, Ollivander who said in the Philosopher’s Stone: ‘Curious indeed how these things happen. The wand chooses the wizard.'” and then looking at my audience in a knowing way and trying to make a profound statement about destiny. There are also quotes from the so-called shepherds who seek to rally the flock. MLK is a great source of inspirational nonsense. For example:
“Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”
Yikes. Sounds deep, but it is just a clever way to justify non-thinking. In reality, he is describing living. Faith is more like falling asleep and dreaming you’re climbing a staircase to what passes for heaven in your religion.
And a good scrote quote that masks a problem in cheap humour comes from Jim Carrey.
“Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes.”
The original quote is something like “Behind every great man is a strong woman”, which of course is supposed to acknowledge the unsung heroines in a man’s life – wives and mothers – and serves as a verbal Valentine’s Day. But Carrey’s quote and the many other humourous spin-offs out there are effective, not in attacking misogyny, but to make us laugh ourselves back into complacency. Carrey will likely be called ‘feminist’, but he is still part of the problem. Women can laugh at the truth, but they’ll keep on supporting their men, putting up with the nonsense, yet still reaping the benefits of heterosexuality.
Speaking of fake-feminism, let’s get into lady-quotes. There is a new genre of quotes called ‘feminist quotes’, which consists mostly of heterosexual women saying obvious and fluffy things about girl power or problems with men that they are complaining about, but are still willing to put up with in exchange for a better economic outlook and social standing. Almost zero percent of these feminist quotes are actually feminist. Woman speaking does not equal feminist. These women’s words are remembered and quoted because their words have little substance or may have substance, but the speaker doesn’t walk the talk in their lives. They aren’t threats to men, in other words. We don’t pay attention to women who actually say something important. That is key to remember. Here are a few examples.
Michelle Obama is a good source of inspirational, ‘feminist’ fluff. The perfect politician’s wifey.
“There is no limit to what we, as women, can accomplish.”
There is no substance to these words and only inspire a ‘duh’ response in me, followed by: “But we have heterosexuality, misogyny and male violence that impose artificial limits and then convince girls and women that those limits are real and natural.” But she wouldn’t be allowed to say that, would she?
And then we get some good old lib-fem nonsense from icons like Madonna:
“I’m tough, I’m ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, okay.”
As you may have noted in my last post, I’m not big on reclaiming slurs. I don’t find this quote inspirational, although I suppose I can appreciate the message that we shouldn’t give a shit what people think about us as females. But given how Madonna has marketed herself, she is 100% a conformist and thus does care about her audience thinks of her. There is a mismatch.
And then we get to actual feminist quotes. In my opinion, one of the most quotable feminists that has ever existed is Andrea Dworkin. I think I’ve read most of what she has written and have listened to recordings of her speaking publicly. This is a woman who saw truths and related them to us and she was hated by many for it. She is not the only quote-worthy feminist, and I include a slide-show of quotes in the side bar of my blog. But here I’ll include a few Dworkin quotes that mean something to me.
“Any violation of a woman’s body can become sex for men; this is the essential truth of pornography.” and
“Men often react to women’s words—speaking and writing—as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women’s words with violence.“
Really, there are so many uncomfortable truths, truths I’d never heard anyone speak before I read Dworkin. And what she said during her time could be applied 500 years ago and it can still be applied today. Does this not exceed the current standard for most of what passes for famous quotes?
Conclusion
For me, the measure of a good quote is this: does it speak a truth that is not immediately apparent and that makes you think about things that might be uncomfortable or difficult? Further, is it something that is not commonly said by many across time and place? There is a place for motivational slogans and addages, but to attribute these to a single source, especially to a male who is not as remarkable as he and his followers think he is, is not quite right. Let’s not lump unique quotations in with the ‘right time, right place, right sex’ phenomenon known as modern art. Words have to mean something and quotes have to touch something deeper.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative.
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. ⚢
O is for Offensive
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
It seems like these days
~ John Rich, from his dumb song “I’m Offended”.
No matter what ya say
Someone’s losin’ their ever lovin’ mind
It’s like they’re lookin’ for a reason
To have their fragile feelings
Hurt every single time
No offense John Rich, but your song is kinda dumb and a bit reductionist. The first few lines, which I included here, have a ring of truth to them, probably by accident, but I don’t believe that this is a recent phenomenon – and I’ll get into that later. I didn’t include the rest of the song, but I’ll just say that I think Johnny-boy missed something crucial. It is entirely possible that he doesn’t know what ‘offended’ means – I mean, it’s country music, which notoriously caters to simple thinkers and religious hypocrites, and he is a male, which means he’ll never be censored, even if he is truly offensive (which he is – don’t watch the video for this song). And besides, his man-solution is to pour beer on the entire problem, so how seriously can you take this song anyway? In my experience, alcohol makes everything worse, especially in combination with an emotional male.
So what does ‘offensive’ actually mean and is there some kind of objective universal standard for determining whether you should be offended or whether you are just oversensitive?
As a basic definition, to be offensive means to inspire feelings of extreme anger, insult or disrespect in another person or group of people. The offensive content could be as casual as a comment or behaviour, or as official as an article or book, a piece of art, or a policy. Note that offending a single person in a private setting and offending people, usually strangers, publicly are a little bit different, even if the word used is the same, and I’ll get into both of them later. For both situations, however, I’ll say here that offensive status is subjective – feelings are subjective, by definition, as we all know. But for general public offense, it is the public majority that defines that which is offensive. Note that even if the majority believes something is true or moral, doesn’t make it so. So a person who offends the general public may in fact be correct in what they say, highly moral, and contributes more to the greater good. The majority may rule, but it doesn’t necessarily make them good people or correct in what they believe and do.
So let’s break this down into giving offense and taking offense.
Giving Offense
Intentional Provocation. There are those in this world who enjoy riling people up by saying inflammatory things. These are mostly men and say, the occasional NPD woman – those who need to antagonize in order to feel a sense of power and control over others. Males are generally untouchable when they say things to deliberately hurt people, and interestingly and unsurprisingly, they also comprise the vast majority of people who tend to comment on and complain about people being offended. Men often comment on their victims using terms like ‘oversensitive’ or having ‘fragile feelings’, and this is typical of people who are untouched by oppression and who lack empathy and insight. Personally, I don’t think oppressors and perpetrators of crime should be defining the offensive acts and actual crimes they commit. For example, rapists shouldn’t be defining what rape is and is not, and males should not be dictating how females react to offensive and antagonistic male comments and behaviour.
Unintentional Offensiveness. Every single one of us offends at least one person some time in our lives without meaning to. That seems to be the nature of complex human interaction, and it is usually due to either misunderstanding, ignorance, or just a difference of opinions for the average offended reaction. And of course, we all know actual oversensitive people – yes, that does exist – so it is always possible to say something innocuous and have it offend someone who is reacting based on a personal trauma or mental health issues.
The important thing here is to deal with the offense you’ve given in an appropriate way. If you actually said something inflammatory out of ignorance, then the best policy is to apologize and learn from it. But much of the time, the unintentional offense-giving is not worth that much attention, especially if you’re a woman. Like I said earlier, people can get offended at just about anything, so unless you either want to shut up completely or to spend your entire life apologizing for everything you say and do, it’s best just to put on a brave face and hold your ground. The best policy is to be aware of whom you’re speaking to, and only speak about things you know about. This tends to be a big problem for men, as they tend to bullshit and make things up in order to cover up their insecurity, gain control over situations, and garner admiration from other people. Hint to all men: you have two ears, but only one mouth. You seldom use the former and overuse the latter. Please fix.
A note on offense-giving. Sometimes, it is not the content, but the speaker that makes the material offensive, and this is shown most clearly in reactions to male and female speech. A male and female can say the same thing, and only the female will inspire offense. Female speech will provoke a greater and more violent reaction than will male speech. A female will experience more serious consequences for less provocative speech than will a male. If you cross even slightly provocative speech with female status, not only will people be offended, but threats and other violence can ensue. We see this all the time with women who call themselves feminists. Feminists are universally hated, and are always considered ‘offensive’ by the majority of the population, although ‘offensive’ is the very least of what they are called and what is done to them.
Taking Offense
The Legit. Yes, offense is real, but as I said, there is no objective standard. It makes it difficult to know whether your feelings are legitimate, and of course, it is therefore easier to be manipulated by the more powerful if you choose to let people know your feelings. If you’re offended by a person you know, this is little easier because you should have some defined parameters of mutual respect within your relationship. It might, however, be difficult to address your feelings with the person, especially if your relationship involves a power imbalance. If you are offended by public material, there is not much you can do about it, especially if you are in the minority. For example, the majority of people may accept femininity and the assorted practices women adhere to religiously, but you, as a gynocentrist find femininity rituals offensive because they force women into a position of subservience and humiliation. Even if you are 100% correct in feeling offended, you are in the minority. Voicing your opinion will bring a rain a heterosexual shit down on you, mostly from women who enjoy their slavery, sadly. So what can you do? Well, you have a choice. You, of course, can do nothing – just accept that which you cannot change and keep doing what you’re doing. Or, you can voice your opinion without giving into the majority. Write articles, make videos or podcasts. Ignore those who will try to take you down and provide logical arguments for why the material is offensive. You may actually help a few people, even if you can’t take the offensive practices down.
The Woke. I hate this word with a passion, but it is what it is… I’m talking about politically and socially motivated people who feel a need to react to everything. Sometimes there is a kernel of reality in their feelings and reactions, but then they take things too far. I’m talking about people who, one day, for whatever reason, start to see reality, but then they start to colour everything with their new political viewpoint. They muster up offense, tears and anger for absolutely everything, and start attributing causes and motivations for these things, where often none, or something completely different, exist. They may have started with good intentions, but they end up getting caught up in looking good instead of doing good. Unfortunately, a lot of these types have set their sights on feminists in recent days and have done a lot of damage in erasing feminist material on the internet.
The Oversensitive. Unfortunately, there are truly fragile people out there – people who suffer from a mental illness, or who have been deeply traumatized in life. But also unfortunately, these people often like to hang out in public forums where they are exposed to all the garbage the internet has to offer. Now, men will tell them that they should get the hell off the internet if they can’t handle the turds that men drop. While I don’t agree with this and think it is disgusting that men dictate the environment of the net, I do question the desire of a fragile person to put themselves deliberately in places where they know damn well they will be hurt or ‘triggered’. Anyhow, legitimately fragile people tend to be offended regularly, and when they choose to enter feminist circles, they can do a lot of damage when they lose control. I wrote a little about this in a post on Oppression Olympians.
The Cognitively Dissonant. These are the folks who can’t handle the truth, and I myself tend to fall prey to them as I am an unrepentant truth-teller. They tend to claim offensiveness when really, they are just having a hard time dealing with the fact that their beliefs and actions don’t match or they feel guilty about something they do. Note that there is a difference between telling an unnecessary truth in order to harm someone (for example, something men do to women all the time to take them down a notch), and telling a truth because it is really important for the dissection of faulty thinking, lies, and misleading information. A lot of gynocentrists and even liberal feminists fall victim to accusations of disrespect and offensiveness when they dare to question a patriarchal practice, when really, all they are doing is pointing out a truth that makes people uncomfortable.
Are We More Fragile?
I’m going to say yes and no here. I think it is quite possible that people may have been more easily offended in the past. I can’t speak for cultures outside the West, but it seems that there were so many more social rules in the past than there are now, and you could cause offense and destroy your social standing by simply wearing the wrong outfit or addressing a person in the wrong way. But of course, these days, we are all very socially aware, and it is equally possible to be destroyed by very simple words or actions. So while standards of acceptable behaviour have changed, the ‘fragility’ of our feelings probably hasn’t.
But of course, it seems we are more fragile these days, which is why so many people, especially men, comment on it. Like with many social phenomena, loneliness being one that I’ve commented on before, I think media and social media have helped to highlight both the phenomena and the things that we are supposed to care about. And of course, with media, and social media especially, what we hear about is very sensational and misinformed. Things get blown out of proportion and people get emotional because they are told that they should in order to be a good citizen or on the right side of history or something like that.
The take-home message here is that offense-giving and offense-taking are real things, and it is a normal result of complex human relationships and communication, and sometimes, power imbalances. It’s probably a good idea to sleep on something that offends you before you decide to react to it. And finally, it is also a really good idea to question why you are offended by something. Is it an issue you have that is triggered or is it a legitimate social or political issue that requires you to speak out?
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
N is for ‘No’
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Indulge me for a moment, if you will. Think about language, your native language and other languages that you function in. Think about individual words, specifically. If you could choose a word that is more important to you than any other, or falls within the top 10 important words in your life, what would it be? In choosing this word, consider those that give you a sense of or even actual freedom, safety, choices, closure, boundaries – anything that makes your life better. There is no right or wrong answer here; in fact, this may be something you’ve never thought about before. It’s not something we are ever asked to consider, as females. It’s selfish, you see. And if you are female, this might be an extremely difficult exercise simply because we seldom have control over the important things in our lives, especially the things that define and control us, namely language. We are also seldom asked our preferences or opinions on things that matter. Control over language and how the world works is the domain of men. As our creators -and I mean creators of the boxes we live in – they have always known us better than we know ourselves. At least they tell us that. It must be true. They define the experiences we are allowed to have, the crimes committed against our bodies, and what we are allowed to do, think and say as females.
Today, I’m going to consider an extremely important word, a word that is more important for females than it is for males, as we generally aren’t allowed to use it — without consequences. The result of using this word can range from simply being ignored, as if we didn’t say anything at all; to being misinterpreted, as if what we said was somehow different than what we really meant; to inspiring rage and violence in the person at whom the word was directed, as if by speaking our true minds and believing we are allowed to have boundaries, we are intending to harm others. It is truly bizarre and frightening, and it is a sex-specific phenomenon, meaning that males don’t experience it. It also has interesting sex-by-race effects and sex-by-trans effects that will be discussed below.
So, today, N is for No.
I think women don’t realize just how little they matter, and how little their opinions and speech matter. To men, but also to the women who serve men without question. Our erasure is so constant and normalized that we just don’t notice how often we must repeat ourselves, how often we give in to something we don’t want despite having expressed our opinion, and how often we decide to censor ourselves because subconsciously, after years of abuse and erasure, we know that what we say won’t matter or will lead to violence. But you have to wonder. Why is so much effort put into putting women in their place if they don’t matter?
Let’s look at some common scenarios. All females have experienced these many times, although most may not realize how often. As a regular reader of this blog, you are probably quite aware of how much power your ‘no’ has in this world.
Ignored
Women and girls are ignored all the time, but as ‘no’ is a very important word, this is a serious problem. As children, we are forced to endure touching, pinching and kissing from relatives and random strangers marvelling at how cute we are – even when we say ‘no’, or use body language that demonstrates ‘no’. It continues on through school. So many of us are bullied – it’s not oppression; kids are assholes, generally speaking – but for girls, sometimes the bullying can go on to become sexual abuse where we learn that it is pointless to say ‘no’ because nobody cares or pays attention. And on the rare occasion that a girl reports her abuse, she is usually ignored, or written off as an attention seeker or a liar. In adulthood, we are passed over for opportunities and promotions. We are ignored in meetings, and some of us wonder if school bullying was just preparation for the sex-specific degradation, harassment and sometimes terrorism of the workplace. We learn that saying ‘no’ has no impact. The workplace likes the ‘yes-girl’. The only way to get attention is to laugh at the rape jokes, the gay/lesbian jokes, and to pretend everything is great. The quickest way to fall off the radar as a serious employee is to say ‘no’ to what is going on.
Heterosexuality depends on women’s needs being ignored. We talk endlessly about compromise, but as many of us come to realize, men have defined compromise to mean: women sacrifice (i.e., shut the fuck up and submit) and men are catered to. Having had several, what I consider to be ‘normal’, relationships with men in my long-gone bisexual days, I realize, looking back, that my needs meant nothing. I don’t think I even knew what my needs were, as I was well trained to cater to males, see my needs as ‘selfish’, and ridiculously, to call it ‘equality’. If I did express myself, it was ignored or written off.
Deliberately Misinterpreted
When I was a teenager, there was an article in our local newspaper featuring a black and white photo of a couple of male university students at a hockey game holding up a hand-painted cloth banner that read “NO MEANS YES!!!” This was 1980’s-1990’s rape culture at its best. It wasn’t really anything new in the minds of males, but at this point in history, it had become a new ‘women’s issue’. But the males from the photo didn’t get in trouble or anything. Why would they? Men and boys have been raping women and girls with impunity and bragging about it since time began. Who cares? But it was an interesting, but simple, insight into male psychology and how they make rape okay in their minds.
There is this strange belief that men have and that men have been writing about for ages under the guise of ‘literature’ and ‘science’ that women secretly/actually want to be raped. Oops sorry, not raped – because that implies a lack of consent under male definition of their crime against our bodies. Men believe that women want to fuck. They want to be fucked violently. They want to be taken in animal-fashion and treated like shit. Women like to be hit and called all sorts of horrible things. We get turned on by this stuff. But to express these deep wishes goes against morality or something like that. So we have to say ‘no’. But see, when we say ‘no’, we really mean ‘yes’. We don’t want to say ‘no’, but we have to. So it is up to males to take the upper hand and see through our psychological games and just force us… I mean ‘help’ us to get what we truly want.
But do they really believe that, or is it just another bullshit male attempt to put the responsibility for their crimes on their victims? Some women have been convinced by these male arguments – convinced through faulty logic, gaslighting, and prude-shaming, rather than slut-shaming – and these women have become the sluts of the liberal feminism movement, which I’ll discuss below.
The whole ‘no means yes’ deliberate misinterpretation happens ALL the time for women. Whereas males need only say something once, and they are taken at their word, even when the word is ‘no’, females constantly have to repeat themselves to have a slight chance of being heard. I always have a sardonic chuckle when misogynists drag out that standard male reversal about women being ‘nags’. I would argue that men nag infinitely more than women, especially about sex and other self-serving wants and especially when a woman says ‘no’ to them. It is the basis of what I have termed ‘consensual rape’ – which is, at its most basic definition, the manipulation of a woman into saying ‘yes’ to penetrative sex that she doesn’t want. The ‘yes’ can be obtained through many means, including the deliberate misinterpretation of her initial ‘no’ (or multiple ‘no’s’) and protracted nagging, guilting and shaming.
‘Causing’ Violence
The first two reactions to a woman’s ‘no’ are bad, but this third category is very serious business. Men don’t understand and often make fun of female risk-aversion. They don’t understand female timidity in speaking up or acting out. In general, male speech is not met with violence or the opposition that the most innocuous of female speech and behaviours are frequently met with. I’ve described in other posts where males have reacted to my facial expression and/or my tone of voice with death threats and other threats to my safety. You see, I made them threaten me. I made them hurt me. All my fault.
Saying ‘no’ to males, and even some females, can incite riots, rapes, and murders. Not hyperbole, folks. I guarantee you that you know at least one woman who has been harmed after saying ‘no’ to a man. Not just no to sex – it can be absolutely anything. Men react poorly to female clerks in service businesses, to waitresses, to female flight attendants, and any female who cannot provide him with what he believes he is owed. And if a man pays money, it is so much worse. If he has laid out money, he believes a woman does not have the right to say ‘no’ to him. You see this with prostitutes, especially, but you can see evidence of this in any environment or industry. Men are much less likely to react violently to male workers. I believe this is partly the in-built woman-hate that all males have, and partly knowing that attacking a male can be dangerous. Women generally a) won’t fight back, b) physically can’t fight back as the playing field is not fair, and c) aren’t protected under law like men, the religious and racial minorities are.
Many women know all of this on a subconscious level and will self-censor or submit as a result. We see female workers frequently treating male customers better than females. This is in part because we know that males are volatile, and predictably unpredictable, and we have learned to submit to them and treat them with kid gloves, as governments won’t do the logical thing and exert controls over male behaviour. There are other factors that play into treating males better than females, but male irrationality, emotionality, violence, and poor self-control are the main reasons male customers are treated better and are less likely to meet with ‘no’, especially by female workers.
Further, within heterosexual relationships, many women learn that denying their partner can lead to violence. Saying ‘no’ can get you beaten, raped or killed. Long ago, in my bisexual days, that kind of shit sent me out the door faster than exposure to a bad odour, but many women trauma-bond with violent men, and then make increasingly bad decisions, including putting themselves in financial bondage to them and breeding with them. They learn to live with the violence and self-censorship, in other words.
Intersection
a) Sex x Race Intersection
I am NOT an intersectional feminist. It’s not that I don’t believe in interactional effects – if you knew the details of my educational background, you’d realize just how laughable it is to suggest that I am intersection-blind. I just think that intersection is derailing to feminism as it creates oppression olympics and blame hierarchies, and denies some women the right to be heard and to have boundaries. I’m going to highlight an example of intersectional misogyny that has been censored. I don’t centre it in my feminism, of course, but I do talk about it because it is an incredibly taboo topic.
If you are a white woman in a Western country, you will be very aware that you have to be nice and submissive and helpful to everyone. Otherwise, you are a bitch, rich, privileged – probably also a white supremacist, all kinds of evil. Many white women take this liberal-promulgated scapegoating to heart, feeling guilty for everything, and even virtue-signalling constantly and publicly to prove how repentant and unevil they are. It just makes things worse. As a result, white women are not allowed to say ‘no’, especially to people who are not white, and even writing or speaking about one’s own true and personal Twilight-Zone-esque, mind-fucking and degrading experiences of racist misogyny is called out as racist and is conveniently censored in order to maintain the perfect scapegoat. Note that white men do not experience this denial of the right to say ‘no’ and are 100% allowed to have boundaries. And women in Western cultures who are not white do not experience this either, at least to the same extent.
During the first 6 months I lived in the US when I was 24 – before Canada took liberal American social justice warrorism to heart – I had my first of many, many experiences with this kind of victimization: the denial of my right to say ‘no’ because of my sex AND race. I was an impoverished, foreign grad student teaching at a university catering to mostly wealthy undergrads and big-league athletic hopefuls. My first experience was with a black female student of mine who showed up unannounced at my office just as I was leaving for a meeting. She demanded that I see her then and there – outside my office hours and without an appointment. Pure entitlement. I said I couldn’t. But before letting me finish, she launched a high-volume, abusive tirade, the content of which I can barely remember as I wasn’t used to Angry Black Women that early in my stay in the US. As a woman from a race that is NOT allowed to say ‘no’, have boundaries or opinions, or even get angry without being slurred and shamed into oblivion, I actually believe this woman’s display and treatment of me was an act of privilege. After three more decades and a shit ton more of experiences like this one, I’ve come to understand that the privilege to get angry, even over nothing, is a black privilege, and of course, a white male privilege. I WISH I were allowed to express even half the anger that blacks and white males are allowed… Anyhow, if this racist misogynist woman had waited two seconds instead of immediately denying me my right to have boundaries and the right to say ‘no’, she would have been offered the chance to make an appointment with me. And you know what? I still gave her an appointment after I had to waste time calming her down, and I never did receive an apology.
b) Sex x Trans Intersection
I have almost exclusively interacted with females who identify as trans, and they are generally harmless as women generally are. Although I have always made sure to keep things light in the conversation department, as crazy ideologies can inspire violence and who knows if these chicks are on testosterone, which fucks with the brain and increases aggression. I have been in proximity to males who think they are women, and as a rule, I stay the hell away from them. They are generally mentally unstable, incredibly entitled as males and as self-appointed Oppressedest People Ever TM and in doing female parody, show themselves to be incredible woman-haters on par with men’s rights activists. Dangerous combination. We’ve seen the damage they do to women, especially to lesbians and feminists, however. Women are NOT allowed to say ‘no’, to have boundaries, to speak biological and scientific truths in public spaces, to speak truth about trans crimes against women, and lesbians are not allowed to say ‘no’ to sex with these men without being called murderers and bigots. I’m waiting for the day they are rightly seen as domestic terrorists. It is what they are.
Adventures in Cultural No-ness
I’ve said it before, and I’ll likely write a whole post devoted to it sometime later, I believe culture is just the set of traditions and rules governing how misogyny manifests in a socially acceptable way in a particular part of the world at a particular time. Culture is the stuff of both fantasy and religion-like obsession. It is protected and untouchable – unless it is Western culture, that is. It is the stuff of nationalism and army-building. But really, culture is bullshit. It is just local, socially-accepted woman-hate rituals and traditions at its very core. Think about it some, and you’ll find that all the quaint things you discover about foreign cultures all trace back to the control of women and girls. Modern uses of the word culture (company culture, sub-culture, counter-culture, etc.) still describe rules and traditions governing a group, but do not quite have the same sacrosanct importance that standard usages hold.
I’ve lived, studied, worked and travelled around the world, and I’ve seen and experienced a lot of fucked up shit all rooted in culture and misogyny! Let’s explore a few cultural curios with regard to culture, language and the use or non-use of ‘no’.
a) Sluts Can’t Say ‘No’ – New Depths in Western Misogyny
I get so tired of liberal, usually, but not exclusively, white feminists talk about how much better it is for women in Western countries. I disagree. As I said, culture is the manifestation of misogyny in a particular time and place. It changes over time, but it never, ever goes away. Unfortunately, the changes tend to confuse people, as change is a word that is so often mistakenly conflated with ‘improvement’. So in Western cultures, women have been hoodwinked into thinking that things are so much better. But are they? Things have been sliding backwards over the past few decades in the US (and leaking into other Western countries). I think things are worse in the West than they have been in a long time.
In an earlier section, I referred to today’s Western slut-feminists. It’s hard for me to put those two words together, but honest to goodness, there are women who believe that fucking as many men as they want is an act of feminist liberation. I met one in Canada two years ago. I think I wrote about her before; the poor thing was so confused that she was dating a man whom she met on some app, and he was ignoring all her ‘no’s’ to his sexual advances. At this writing, I have no doubt that she has been date raped, and she has probably reframed the event as a slutty, feminist success rather than truthfully as consensual rape.
When women say ‘no’ and a man keeps pushing and pushing and guilting and shaming and nagging that woman until he breaks her down, she gets tired, annoyed, or confused, that is rape. He will make sure that she remains confused afterwards, or even better, that he can convince her that she wanted it. And Western women and girls are falling for this. This is one of the pillars of liberal feminism. Saying ‘yes’, even if you start by saying ‘no’, or you are feeling ‘no’ inside but are too ashamed of or worried about looking like a loser or a prude by actually saying ‘no’, is liberation. Saying ‘yes’ is liberation. Even if you don’t want it. Even if you are worried about getting pregnant. Even if you are worried about contracting one of the male sexual diseases. Even if you end up hurt because it doesn’t end up just being penetrative sex, but a nightmare out of porn or the BDSM handbook.
But you can’t rape a slut. And that is what this is all about. It is male liberation, not feminism. You cannot rape a woman who says ‘yes’. And guess what, the oppressed women in Afghanistan and whatever favourite African nation you like to cite are not clamouring for this kind of female freedom…
b) The Country of No ‘No’
I’ve alluded to this before – there is no single, specific word for ‘no’ in Mandarin Chinese. I lived in Taiwan and China for many years and found this quite curious and frustrating. In addition, there is no single word for ‘yes’. ‘No’ ends up being more like ‘don’t want’, ‘don’t have’, ‘is not’, etc. You basically take the verb in question and put a negative in front of it. I found it much less impactful than a single word that you can use in any situation. But of course, as a woman, does ‘no’ really have much impact at all? I think, like in any country, it comes down to your anatomy. The language is developed around your anatomy, and language is inherently sexist as men control it. And the anatomy of the person using a particular word is more important than the word itself. So what passes for ‘no’ in Chinese has about as much impact used by a woman as it does in any country when a woman speaks her ‘no’ in her language.
c) The Country of the Impolitic ‘No’
I won’t say too much about this, as my experience is less with the country than with my relationships with people from the country. And that country is Japan. I dated a Japanese for a few years, and what I gathered from stories and interactions is that while there is an explicit, single word for ‘no’ in Japanese, it is impolite to come right out and say ‘no’. When dealing with the Japanese, they seem to be agreeing or saying yes to you, and at first you are amazed at how easy they are to get along with, but quickly, you come to realize that a game is being played and you do NOT know the rules. Japan has a very complex and confusing culture, and while seeming courteous on the surface, interactions end up feeling rather duplicitous and insane to an outsider who prefers a more direct and honest and time-conserving way of dealing with people. And conversely, they may tend to see outsiders as crude and rude. The Japanese I have known who refuse to live there tend to be social outcasts who can’t stand the hierarchy and intense social pressure to conform and kiss asses they don’t actually respect. And with all the brutal and cruel television game shows they have as well as the disgusting cartoon rape porn, you have to wonder what the fuck is going on there.
I like origami and Japanese food and the sense of esthetics that you don’t see in any other country or culture, but you couldn’t pay me enough to live in Japan. Nevermind the earthquakes and nuclear contamination…
d) The Country of Double ‘No’
I am currently living in an ex-Soviet country where not only do they have a single, explicit word for ‘no’ in their local language, but they use it constantly AND they almost always say it twice instead of once. I’m serious. I am learning a bit of the language so that I can function, and no matter where I go, I hear ‘no, no’. And I hear ‘no’ much more than I hear ‘yes’. And they have 3 commonly used words for ‘yes’ and I recognize them easily in conversation. I wish I knew enough of the language to know what they are talking about and saying ‘no’ to though. Why do they say ‘no’ so much??? I’ve never encountered this in any of the other languages I speak or cultures I’ve spent time in.
I have little experience with Russia or Eastern Europe, so I don’t know if this is part of what seems to an outsider to be a rather gruff and abrasive set of cultures. I worked with a bunch of Russians in 2021, and although they weren’t super friendly, I seldom heard the word ‘нет’ to the extent that I hear the word for ‘no’ here in this particular place where I am, so there is something going on that I don’t yet understand. More exploration is needed. But it is nothing like any Asian culture I have experienced, and the cultural rules are very different with religion being a heavy influence.
Okay, I’m starting to veer off the path, and that means that I need to end this post. But I want to leave you with the following thought:
Language is important. It is inseparable from culture. As a woman, you have no control over such an important tool for your survival. Think about the words you use and the effects they have on your ability to get what you need to stay alive and safe. Are you allowed to say ‘no’, how many times do you have to say it to be heard, and are there repercussions for defining your boundaries? The purpose of language is to get what you need, but men control language. What does that mean for women? For you? And finally, think about why men and their female supporters put so much effort into making sure women’s words aren’t heard. Perhaps, we matter more than we’ve been led to believe…
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Just Call Her Crazy
Every so often, I get a flurry of traffic to this site (or more frequently, a particular post) from the manosphere. I don’t consider myself a mover or shaker in the feminist world, nor has it ever been my goal or expectation to be so. I’m not an activist, I don’t for a minute think I, or anyone else, for that matter, can make the world better. I don’t promote myself or advertise, and I don’t allow comments on this blog. I write for myself, primarily, and secondly, I’m out there for anyone else looking for reality-oriented, non-mainstream, woman-centred writing, especially that talking about issues NO ONE will touch because they don’t fit into today’s political agenda. There are very few true female liberationists these days, alas. So basically, I’m small beans, and that’s the way, uh huh, uh huh, I like it.
But, like I said, every once in a while, I’m found, and it tickles me. Sometimes, the referrees are proud, semi-literate, and rather low-intelligence misogynists, such as those from rationalwiki (site that tries to debunk pseudoscience, which I approve of, and to destroy feminists, which I don’t, but these are insecure males, so what do you expect…?) or kiwifarms (internet cretins of the ‘chan’ variety; mom’s-basement-dwellers). Occasionally, I’m referred to on more mainstream liberal ‘feminist’ sites, such as Feminist Current. And then every so often, I show up on some obscure political sub-thread on one social media site or another.
And I say welcome. I don’t personally care whether people agree with me or not because it is important to be exposed to other viewpoints. The vast majority of people don’t realize (or don’t want to acknowledge) that is not possible for a women’s liberationist to have a voice on mainstream social media. We are immediately censored if we don’t virtue signal, or support male agendas (especially if they are ‘oppressed’ groups of males), or suggest that women are oppressed – or these days, just state the most basic fact that women are human females and you can’t opt into or out of that category. So I suppose some are surprised when they head on over to this site and suddenly find my viewpoint, which they certainly won’t read anywhere in the e-homes (especially Reddit or Facebook) where they normally spend their time. And I think some of these folks are probably disappointed that they are not allowed to drop turds in the form of comments, letting me know that I am ‘wrong’ or ‘confused’ or:
CRAZY.
As well as your male-supporting mother and male-dominated society, including school, the police, entertainment, etc.
Yeah, crazy. Super logical argumentation technique that I call ad feminem (because it only applies to women, thus not ‘hominem’). People – men AND male-supporting, heterosexual women call women like me ‘crazy’ all the time. It isn’t anything new. Throughout history and across cultures, men have done a whole host of horrible things to women who haven’t fallen in line, who haven’t behaved correctly and like other women who haven’t agreed with everything males say, who have spoken publicly about the reality that everyone knows exists but won’t acknowledge, and ultimately who have scared them in some way. That has not changed in millennia. And it is effective. Women are the only group of people on earth who can have their entire existence dismissed with the application of a single word, a single categorization. She is ‘crazy’, therefore, you should ignore every single word she says or writes. Calling a woman ‘crazy’ can even effectively negate any victimhood she experiences, especially if it is a sex crime (hate crime), and especially if it is committed by an Oppressed Male ™.
In reality, very few women are actually what could be defined as ‘crazy’. And of the women who have been punished and continue to be labelled and punished, I’d bet you that few to none are clinically crazy. Frustrated, angry, questioning, yes. And outspoken. And that is what this really comes down to. Like I wrote in a past post about the criticism of female voices (see the Shrill section of Shrill, Bitter, Humourless, Prudish Man-Hater), it is all about trying to silence women who speak truth or who fight for female human rights. Things all males and all racial and religious groups are allowed to do and have and be. In Western cultures, ‘crazy’ women have fought so hard to win freedom from waterboarding on dunking stools, being forced to wear Scold’s Bridles (imagine wearing 14 lbs of metal fixed to your head with a spiked metal prong forced into your mouth for hours on end), stripped and paraded through town strapped to a dung wagon, etc. We aren’t taught about women’s slavery and torture through history in our own culture, so people assume that white women were born ‘free’. Nope. My foremothers – the craziest of the ‘crazy’, hated by all – are the reason the woman-hating, cock-sucking dudettes of today have the freedom that they DO have (and who still choose to be with men and criticize outspoken women…). And yet, women still aren’t free to speak. Women are still censored. Women are still called ‘crazy’. Often with no prompting at all, but especially when they dare to talk about women’s history, women’s current status, women’s liberation, rape statistics, the fact that 99% of violent crime is committed by men and that it might suggest that there is a biological basis for that universally observed fact, and more.
To not enthusiastically say ‘yes’ to men and everything they STILL think they deserve to take and have from women is to be crazy. And in all honesty, if you look at some of the shit these labellers believe in themselves, you start wondering if they themselves are the crazy ones.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
I is for Innocence
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I’m only willing to hear you cry
Because I am an innocent man
Billy Joel
Well, that was a creepy and patronizing lyric from Billy Joel’s An Innocent Man – the flagship Not All Men! song – where Mr. Joel chastises a woman for not spreading her legs for him because some man in her past abused her and she is still traumatized. This is the ubiquitous shaming that all women brainwashed from birth into mandatory heterosexuality go through throughout their lives. How DARE you not trust a male not to rape you, beat you, shame you, degrade you, use you, or kill you! How dare you shut down the fuck machine after being raped! You must have a victim mentality, or you are just fucking crazy or something. He is saying: “How DARE you include ME in a group of people (males) who has, for every second of every day for MILLENNIA, oppressed women and girls on the basis of sex. I am a Good ManTM – an Innocent Man.” Notice, though, that the Innocent Man here doesn’t feel sympathy or empathy for the woman. Rather, he is telling the abused female that she should feel grateful that he is tolerating her lady-bullshit because he is not, in his opinion, a rapist or abuser. Magnanimity or what?!? But the subtext is that, of course, he wants his needs served by this whiny bitch because he has likely dropped a reasonable amount of time, attention and cash on her. Maybe he’ll be so good as to let her cry for 5 more minutes before he really loses his shit.
Sorry, buddy. Not a single one of you is innocent of oppressing females, even self-righteous gay dudes. Even an oppressed male has at least one female under his boot. Woman and girl abuse is built into the patriarchal system of every country and culture in the history of the world.
So, today, I is for Innocence. This post is part of the on-going Alphabet Series.
A few months ago, I put some feelers out on saidit.net amongst the small blackpilled crowd there to inspire some feedback on the topic (you can check out my saidit post and the various comments here). There are some very intelligent women there, as well as some real woman-haters, and as expected, I got some feedback from the former, while the latter ignored me completely, as they always do 😉 So, a shout out to ahhale, lilith, CosmicFarmPrisoner, and tallowcandle for their intelligence and contributions. I’ll make some references to points they’ve made throughout this post, but leave the general attributions and thanks here.
There were so many great I-words to choose from. I selected Innocence a while ago, and I can’t remember what in particular inspired that choice, but I considered a few others. I is also for irrational, which is one of the many, many characteristics that describes males well, but that is always projeted onto females as a sign of their ‘deficiency’. I is also for illogical (ditto on the projection); irresponsible (um, ditto), ignorant (ditto, and I covered this topic a bit in two 2015 posts: Naiveté, Stupidity, and Ignorance, and in Well Read and Willfully Ignorant); impotence (male ‘problems’, oh no!!!); and inclusion (touched on in my Alphabet post on Diversity). And since this writing two years ago, I’ve added I is for Identity, Individualism and Infantilization – check them out on my YouTube channel or my website.
Anyhow, I’ll do the following here today. I’ll define innocence (according to men), and talk about it in terms of the legal system (designed by men), and moral system (designed by men), and I’ll dig into why this is such an important central, but mostly ignored, theme in male domination. And by the end, we’ll be abe to conclude whether this is even a useful concept for women.
Male-Defined Innocence
If you look up the word ‘innocent’, you get the following:
- the state, quality, or fact of not being guilty of a crime or offence;
- the state of not having responsibility for or direct involvement in an event, yet suffering its consequences;
- naiveté; purity, or the lack of guile or corruption; and
- used euphemistically to refer to a person’s virginity
So, we’ve got the realms of legality, morality, and sex. And they are not mutually exclusive, nor are they applied equally to males and females, which is only because males control language and the realms where it is used. The legal system, including in places where lawyers are over-abundant and yet continue to earn more than most people, is still a joke, relying not so much on evidence, as on rhetoric and perception and the skill with which they can be manipulated. Moral systems, STILL mostly based on the whole caveman level “man good, woman evil” way of thinking and STILL protected by circa Dark Age religious and supersitious, anti-woman conventions, ensure that the concept of ‘innocence’ in the non-legal sense, is an intrinsic part of every culture. And the whole virginity and sex thing, which applies SOLELY to females, and is propped up by moral (religious/superstitious) traditions, even in places where religion in the conventional sense doesn’t have a presence.
So let’s dig in.
1) Innocence, Legally-Speaking
the state, quality, or fact of not being guilty of a crime or offence
Now, I’m not going to attempt to do justice to this area of innocence. While I am a qualified librarian at the post-graduate level, and I did take a course in law librarianship, I am decidedly not a lawyer. I don’t have much interest in, and certainly no faith in the formal legal system. I’m more of a ‘vigilante justice’ proponent, myself, when it comes to dealing with male crimes, especially because males are seldom held accountable for the shit they do to women and girls. Male guilt, even when we know the scrote is 100% guilty, is seldom punished because of how legal systems are designed. Canada, like some countries, presumes innocence until guilt is proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. And this holds even if we know damn well a male is guilty because he is caught raping in the act or he was stupid and arrogant enough to record himself raping someone on video and then posted it online. Often, there are technicalities or rhetorical manipulations that interfere with achieving justice. Facts and truth don’t really matter. And here we get at the difference between ‘legal innocence’ and ‘actual innocence’. If a male is found to be legally innocent (aka ‘not guilty’) of a crime, it just means the prosecution wasn’t able to convince verdict-deciders of guilt. He may not have ‘actual innocence’ (aka he did the crime), but for one reason or another, the justice system failed yet another female victim, just as it was meant to. In crimes against women, male innocence usually comes down to ‘he said, she said’ as well as our social contract not to ‘ruin a man or boy’s life’ after he has ruined the life of a woman or girl.
Another murky area centres on mental competence. To be deemed competent, such that a person can stand trial, an accused has to have an understanding of how the law works and the difference between right and wrong. And we determine competence all the time both inside and outside of court rooms. And it is problematic because even if you can show that a perpetrator isn’t fully able to understand what is going on, he can still be dangerous and a massive future threat to women and girls. We see this with, say, the mentally retarded and mentally ill, drunk or drugged-up males, and with boys under the age of majority in the location of the crime. The hoi polloi will generally gift males in these categories with automatic ‘innocence’ designations, and you’ll get the usual bullshit about the need for educating or supporting or rehabilitating the deficient in question, which of course, never has and never will work.
In the court room, it is really hit or miss. Legal experts tell us that it is very difficult for someone to successfully be excused from regular court procedings on the basis of mental health interference. I don’t know. This might be true. Men try it all the time. We just had a case in Canada, where Armenian-Iranian, autistic, publicly self-admitted incel, Alek Minassian, tried to sidestep criminal responsibility for driving his van into a crowd of women in Toronto and killing 10 people. He tried out the whole “autism made me do it!!! Waaaaah!!! I’m innocent!!!” gambit. But in a strange stroke of luck, the courts decided the autism didn’t cause the mass murder (um, no kidding…). He has been sentenced for 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder. One victim has since died. Apparently, we know he understands right and wrong because of his online rants about killing women. Men tell us all the time that hate thoughts and hate speech don’t lead to hate crimes. Yeah right. Anyhow, the female judge was, in my opinion, lenient. Minassian was given a life sentence with a chance at parole after 25 years. He was given 20 years for the attempted murders, although they are to be served concurently, which is pointless. So this means that this human garbage will likely be out in public at the age of 50, vigourous enough to kill more women. I love liberal, woman-hating Canada.
Another little story, as I’m feeling all digressy today – an amusing bit of racism (legal? who knows?) I experienced in Taiwan years ago. I was at the end of a job interview, and the interviewer offered me a position and let me know that they would be withholding several months of my pay. I looked at her and asked “Why?” (my favourite question). She explained that foreigners couldn’t be trusted, so they felt justified in holding their legally-earned compensation hostage until they decided they felt ‘safe’. I replied with “Guilty until proven innocent?” She smiled at the smart, white monkey, and said, “Yes.” I stood up, said, “Thank you,” and left her office without another word. She literally called me more than 20 times a day for a few weeks, which, I discovered is a strangely common ‘thing’ with the Taiwanese, who are an unexpectedly aggressive and nasty culture of people. I never answered her call once and eventually, she went away. If you ever decide to work in Taiwan, be warned. They are racist as fuck, and can smell innocence of the third type from a mile away.
2) The Sticky Spot – Are Women Responsible for the Suffering of Females as a Class?
Still within the realm of the law, but also ethics, and which is also sometimes murky as hell is determining the role of a victim in crimes against herself, her children, or other females. And I reference the second part of the definition of innocence:
the state of not having responsibility for or being directly involved in an event, yet suffering its consequences
I think a lot of people confuse the concepts of responsibility and deservedness when considering female innocence, so I’ll start off by saying that females don’t cause male violence, nor do they ever, ever deserve male violence, even if they themselves are the worst kind of human. I’d prefer female crimes against women and girls to be dealt with within a council solely consisting of objective women, but that is just a fantasy I have.
But can we answer the question of whether females support and contribute to the system of male violence? Absolutely. Think of it this way: if women fought back against males as a group, patriarchy wouldn’t exist as the formidible system that it is. As it is, women tend to accept and enable what males do, and even actively harm other women and girls in order to gain approval from men. So there is definitely a major responsibility that most women refuse to take for perpetuating a bad situation. Participating in heterosexuality, femininity, breeding, enabling sons and hobbling daughters are the top ways to ensure that violence against all women and girls continues. All of this behaviour is political, meaning that actions have meaning and implications for others. Your behaviour doesn’t exist in a vacuum. And most important is not you, individually, but the fact that your male-supporting behaviour harms little girls who have no choice about their birth into patriarchy, and lesbians and women who don’t particpate in heterosexuality, but who do so much of the hetero cleaning and patching up. The only way to stop men is to deny their supply of pussy and emotional, intellectual and physical gynergy. If you are supporting male systems, you are not truly innocent of crimes against females as a class. But like I said, you also don’t deserve male violence. Is this clear? Please take responsibility for the harms you aid and abet, even if you are not the one holding the gun, so to speak.
3) Innocence, Morally- and Experientially-Speaking
naivité, purity, or the lack of guile or corruption
I’m going to try not to venture into the sex stuff in this section, even though, for females only, moral innocence is entwined with sex. Males define females as sex and sex parts and sex servicers, primarily, so it makes sense that female ‘innocence’ cannot be separated from sex.
Thanks mostly to the religions of the world, innocence is a central theme of childhood (again, I’m going to try not to touch on pedophiles here in this section – well maybe a little). There is this strange, magical or ethereal quality attached to the ‘innocence of a child’, perhaps because it is human to have regrets, and regret tends to result from wearing rose-coloured glasses and the normal failures of memory to recall things accurately. Part of this mystical childhood innocence, of course, stems from adult male fascination with possession and destruction, and pedophelia is all about control and power and revelling in causing suffering. What could be sexier to a male than possessing and destroying a magical being? Anyhow, philosophers, psychologists and others attempt to describe this quality called ‘innocence’ as various things from the objective, untainted perspective children have, to a filtering mechanism allowing the individual to engage or disengage with topics of uncertainty. I find it all a bit bizarre, myself, but then again, I don’t wax poetic about my childhood or childhood in general. It wasn’t magical, and I was happy to leave it behind.
In some camps, there is an implication of sullying when innocence is lost. The idea of pure vs corrupted – and this tends to be associated with entertaining vice of any sort, not just sex – is strongly associated with subjective morality and heavy-handed value judgements. At what point is innocence lost according to most people? It usually depends on the sex of the person, the particular activity engaged in, and sometimes whether the activity was engaged in willingly or unwillingly.
To me, what is called ‘innocence’ is just a lack of life experience. I’m not even going to include education in this because it doesn’t guarantee the gaining of experience or knowledge. And I generally don’t attach any value judgement to innocence. I sometimes run into normal-intelligence adult people who seem to me to lack a basic understanding of things that most adults seem to/should know about. So sometimes, I start to wonder whether people really are just inexperienced, perhaps a little clueless because of personality or specific aspects of cognitive ability, or just willingly ignorant. Personally, I like people who are willing to try something/anything once (unless it involves infringing upon others’ rights) and to learn from that boundary-pushing. I don’t think you can talk about things you haven’t experienced with any kind of credibility, so perhaps I do have some value judgement in that I think ‘innocent’ people aren’t really that interesting or useful or able to contribute to learning/teaching/problem-solving. But I don’t find most moralizing all that helpful – I think I get by better than most using my very simple principle of trying not to trample on others’ rights – something akin to the religious ‘golden rule’ that, ironically, most religious people completely fail to achieve in the most basic of ways.
4) Innocence, Sexually-Speaking
used euphemistically to refer to a person’s virginity
Okay, as the definition was taken from a typical male dictionary, we see reference to ‘person’ when we know damned well that the ‘people’ whose virginity matters is female people. In some places and times, a male might be criticized for still being sexually innocent – he should be out raping like there is no tomorrow, right? But he isn’t cast out of society or devalued in a serious way if he hasn’t raped by a certain age. For females, however, their cunts define their basic value as a person, and once that hole has been filled, their value plummets. Their ‘innocence’ is lost. (Shit, is ‘innocence’ just a hole? she jests…) I wonder, more seriously, in the case of female virginity, whether innocence is another way of saying ‘lack of suffering’. I truly believe that once exposed to the demands of males, females’ lives become infinitely worse in so many ways.
There may be justification in rooting the concept of female sexual innocence, not only in religion, but in pedophelia. Males have always been obsessed with conquering, controlling, and taking things away from females, including possessions, bodily autonomy, ideas and products they create, and in this discussion, their lack of exposure to suffering (or ‘innocence’). It is something to think more on. I also have noted that many pedophiles (and rapists of adult women, for that matter) have insisted on their own legal/moral innocence by implying that the female child or adult woman was the guilty and/or beguiling party. It wasn’t rape because the little girl or woman begged for it, or even worse, made them do it. Um no.
The idea of ‘soiling’ a female has been a concept, well… forever. It still is in most parts of the world. In more ‘liberated’ places, there may be constraints placed on level of soiling, depending on how many dicks have come a-knocking, or at what age virginity was lost, whether soiling was done by rape-rape or consensual rape (aka consensual sex), etc. But the common theme across time and place is that dick devalues women and girls. Now notice that the filth is caused by the presence of the penis – this is what has always confused me. If the penis is the cause of the contamination, then why isn’t the penis vilified? A female is ‘clean’ until the filth touches her, and then she is forever tainted biologically, socially, and sometimes, financially. Shouldn’t all males, simply by having a filthy penis (including newborn babies, logically) be vilified, devalued and cast out? I daringly posed this question to a group of high school girls I was teaching in Central Asia, and I got some vigourous head nods from a handful of them. It was encouraging.
But all of this makes sense to me. I am female separatist and therefore make my decisions based on logic and ethical reasoning as much as I possibly can. If you want to keep your body free from sexual disease, male violence, and other problems, you need to stay completely away from cock altogether. I mean, it is a no-brainer. Males spread disease and cause other problems for women’s and girls’ systems. So I do devalue the penis, based on facts and logic. But to maintain their power, males must rely on lies and illogic. Smoke and mirrors. And completely simplistic, dichotomous thinking. Virgin/whore. Pure/tainted. False dichotomies represent the world in which women live, and the very thin (imaginary) lines between male-constructed lady-categories maintain male power in the following ways:
a) They put women into unnatural and alien dichotomous categories (neither of which is actually a good place to be) based on factors usually completely beyond female control;
b) They use these categories to morally, and often legally, justify a whole range of horrific treatment against women, including rape and other sexual abuse, physical abuse, denial of economic opportunity, incarceration, torture, and death;
c) They pit women in different categories against each other to prevent any possibility of female solidarity (i.e., threat to male power).
Conclusion
Do women need the concept of ‘innocence’ as it pertains to their own bodies and safety? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding NO! There is no group of females that deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted or vilified because of value-based categories they are forced into by males. And it is a concept that has only served to police women’s behaviour, thoughts, precarious place in society, and their very ability to survive. Away from heterosexuality, innocence has no meaning for women. Even as a concept in the justice system, it would have little use if women could live separately from males. Away from males, women would be involved in so few serious crimes (mostly as victims, but also as perpetrators), that legal proceedings would likely just involve mediation rather than imprisonment. And innocence would have little meaning. And ‘virginity’ would be meaningless. Away from males, I actually think sexual activity would be so much less important or defining than it is when males control the show. So NO! to innocence.
But we all know where our use of ‘NO!‘ has gotten us throughout time.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
C is for Censorship
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Get ready for a fun topic. It is complex. It can be looked at from different angles. And it can affect women in a variety of ways all at the same time!
That’s right. C is for censorship, ladies, and you don’t have to have spent the better part of a decade living and working in a communist dictatorship like I did to have experienced a form of censorship personally.
I’m going to consider briefly what censorship means in the publicly accepted sense, and then I’ll discuss other forms that are especially relevant to women, but that are seldom considered to be censorship or taken seriously for one reason or another.
First, what is censorship as defined by the world who cares about such things? It is:
The suppression or prohibition of any words, ideas or images that are considered by the powerful to be obscene or amoral, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Okay, thank you scrotals of the Oxford dictionary. Let me just jump in and say this: censorship is about power and control no matter what kind of spin you put on it. All of the reasons men give for censorship are usually spun as some sort of protection of target groups such as women and children, but usually end up controlling those same groups even more. If actual protection of vulnerable groups were the true goals of the censoring bodies, there are more effective and respectful ways of doing it. So, no. It is all about power and control and the only protection is of the ones who wield that power and control. And who are these controlling bodies? Most often, they have been governments and religious institutions, but increasingly today, they are companies/corporations (e.g., publishing groups, media outlets, or social media giants), large organizations (e.g., the Boy Scouts, Planned Parenthood, Pride), schools (at any level), and even social groups (just look around you at the local level). The important thing to note is that censorship is dictated by men and often helped along by handmaidens of the patriarchy.
Protection can often be called ‘cultural sensitivity’, ‘public security’, ‘obscenity safeguards’ and the like. It is worded in such a way to discourage opposition by blackening or questioning the morality of or implying paranoia or conspiracy theorist tendencies in anyone who suggests that the reasons are actually more about control than doing right. There are occasional instances where there is a legitimate attempt to protect the vulnerable or to quell legitimately violent groups through censorship, but as mentioned above, whether this is the correct way to ‘protect’ is up for debate. But the ethics and morality game can be highly personal for most people and the decision about who is allowed to speak and be heard often comes down to very biased decision-making.
So let’s talk a little about recognized censorship and then about other manifestations of censorship that happen, more often than not, to women.
1. Recognized Censorship
Dictatorial Systems
I’ll tell you from experience that it is a serious mindfuck living in a dictatorship as a person who didn’t grow up in one. If you have read anything by Kafka, anything by the various absurdist writers, ‘1984’, etc., then you have had glimpses into some of the situations you might find yourself encountering in communist or fascist countries. Think lots of rules that don’t make sense, with a complementary and necessary underground system of ways to get around all the rules. Lots of contradictory nonsense and red tape that prohibits people from getting shit done or even bothering to pursue things. Lots of threats of consequences that aren’t quite articulated or clear, but that are universally understood to exist. Serious, multi-multi-level heirarchies and knowledge/skill silos such that you can never find the right person for your question or need, and no one seems to be able to solve a problem without 50 other people being involved. And constant non-answers or very circular-logic type answers to very simple questions, especially ‘why’ questions. You have to learn to go with the flow, or you leave, or you stay and go mad. Those are the options as an outsider.
Despite the fact that dictatorships are really dangerous phenomena that destroy lives, they are actually very weak systems. This applies equally to political dictatorships as to small unofficial dictatorships like traditional hetero marriages. And no matter the size, all are dependent upon the absolute control of and power over all the lesser members by the dictator (or husband, in the case of marriage). Because the systems are so weak, the dictator needs dependent members to be voiceless, powerless, ignorant, subservient, and with limited freedoms. Dependent members are mired in mindfuckery and rules, require permission for basic things, and are limited in the information they can access and generate and how much they are allowed to communicate, and the scope of their communications. Many topics are off-limits, especially those that call into question the power of the dictator or make them lose face or even appear to be the slightest bit weak. And this censorship coupled with the threat of serious repercussions for over-stepping are necessary to keep members in line and the weak system appearing unassailable and functioning better than a ‘free’ (or what one might call a democratic) system. Give power to the dependent members, and the system cracks and falls apart. Guess why the divorce rate is so high in Western countries… (hint, marriage wasn’t a female invention!)
In political dictatorships, whether left- or right-wing, the most censored groups are always the ones who have the potential to do the most damage because of their sheer numbers (e.g., women, the poor), they threaten traditional values (e.g., gays and lesbians; minority religious/cultural groups), or they aren’t ignorant and can’t be brainwashed easily (e.g., academics or educated professionals). So you see these groups frequently threatened, silenced, disappeared, and used as scapegoats. Nevertheless, in a political dictatorship, ALL people are at risk for punishment if they say something that falls within the set of taboo topics. And for those who think that the US is a political dictatorship, get fucking real. The sheer amount of material that is publicly generated and individual- or group-attributable that insults, criticizes, humiliates, and borderline-threatens the President (the supposed dictator) and that is NOT censored or punished is proof positive that Americans live in a ‘free’ society. Censorship exists, but it is highly group-selective. And btw, corporations are fast becoming the censors, not the government (e.g., think of the recent censorship of Trump by Twitter – that was corporation-driven, not governmental). So that is something to think about.
Religious Influence and Obscenity
Religious people spend a shitload of time thinking about sex and trying to control every aspect of people’s existence that is remotely tied to sex. The religious have been some of the most amoral people in history, ironically, while trying to enforce their own ‘moral’ systems. And censorship is the name of the game coupled with a very heavy system of punishment, including rape, torture and murder. And this applies to every established religion out there. It is not a surprise then that the most cited rationale for power and control masked as ‘protection’ has fallen under the auspices of censorship on the basis of ‘obscenity’. The prohibition of the teaching of sexual education in schools, forced conversions of gays and lesbians, the banning of all manner of books and art from libraries, galleries, museums, and school curricula, to name a few practices, are common manifestations of censorship.
It is actually interesting when considering ends and means that serious feminists and some religious groups may on the surface oppose certain manifestations of ‘art’ while completely disagreeing about why they oppose it. The former oppose ‘obscenity’ on the grounds that it supports and normalizes a patriarchal system that embraces rape, female slavery, human trafficking, poverty, drug addiction, and child abuse, while the religious are just woman-haters that think depictions of the female body, etc. are filthy and are a prime example of why women (not men) should be controlled. And the hoi polloi ignorantly and erroneously groups feminists with religious fanatics, which probably partially explains why many feminists who oppose pornography and prostitution are incorrectly called ‘prudes’, a term that originally was used to describe ‘sexually repressed’ religious people. Being opposed to rape and forced sexuality has nothing to do with prudery or repression; quite the opposite, in fact.
2. Censorship No One Cares About
There is no country or major organization where some form of censorship doesn’t occur. But there is a difference between the censorship that the free-thinking world accepts as a human rights abuse and the censorship that is ignored or just plain old accepted as “the way things are and is it really a big deal anyway…?” One thing you’ll notice about recognized and pooh-poohed censorship is that the former is usually applied to the entire population without egregious prejudice (i.e., in China, censorship applies to all people on all the taboo topics), whereas unrecognized censorship most often occurs in hypocritical, democratic First World countries that typically tell the world that they value freedom and honesty while erasing targeted, ‘dangerous’ populations. This is likely why so much Western censorship is dismissed/ignored – if it doesn’t apply to you, you don’t think it is a problem. And guess who is less censored than everyone else in Western societies? Men. So if censorship isn’t happening to men – the shot-callers and reality-definers in every single country – then it doesn’t exist (and we say misogyny is less serious or doesn’t exist in Western countries…) Also note that all freedom-loving countries typically have small, but extremely loud, groups of people who complain incessantly about having their rights taken away, but who are usually the most privileged/entitled members of the entire population (males, trannies, religious right-wingers, etc). The actual censored are not loud because they are actually being censored so that no one ever has to hear from them, duh. And if they do make it to public awareness, other tactics, such as painting them as ‘crazy’ are employed. So let’s look at some examples of censorship in ‘free’ countries that people typically don’t acknowledge, accept or are even aware of because it is so effective.
Patriarchy and HIStory
Despite the fact that every civilization throughout time was built and maintained and expanded using female slave labour, women seldom appear in history books or history curricula in schools. Strangely, growing up and going to school in Canada, I learned more about the short-term oppressions of aboriginals in Canada and Australia, black slaves in the US, and and persecuted Jews in Europe during WWII than I learned about the lives, experiences and history of my own foremothers in Canada, let alone the women who were my foremothers in Ireland and Scotland. I certainly wasn’t taught about Western homosexual oppression either. Why do I know more about the suffering of blacks in a foreign country than I do about the women from whom I actually descended who suffered and survived so that I, myself, exist today? Why is my history as a woman so much less important than basically everyone else on the planet who is not a white female? And why the fuck does no other woman question this about her own ancestors, regardless of race or ethnicity? Why is this not strange to women? Why in historical records do we know how many sheep and horses a European male owned, but we don’t even know the name of the wife who slaved for him and suffered his dick and often his fists every day of her life? This is systematic and long-term censorship of female existence. It exists in other cultures as well, but I am speaking for my own. And it is completely unacknowledged.
Speaking solely of my European-descended sisters, why aren’t girls taught about rape and the laws surrounding it historically in our culture? Why aren’t we taught about the origins of marriage and why it is the only legal form of slavery left on the planet? Why aren’t we taught about the things men were legally allowed to do to their wives? Why aren’t we taught about the witch trials in Europe and why they targeted women primarily, and about other witchy persecution of women on other continents (North America and Africa) and why these things happen separately in other places in time, but look eerily similar? Why is the only thing we learn about women the date we got the right to vote in our own country – and why is this presented as the sum total of female achievement in history? Why don’t I know what daily life was like for women of different classes other than what they wore? Why is there this overwhelming assumption no matter where you are in the world that women’s lives have never really been that bad, the implication and ‘evidence’ being that if it was so bad, why didn’t women do anything about it??? Why is the assumption that half the world’s population just barely existed with nothing to contribute, nothing to say and were perfectly happy to have it that way, as if it were meant to be?
There is no cultural or historical female pride in our school systems or in society that is encouraged, promoted, admired and valued in the way that every single ethnic, racial and religious group out there gets in Western cultures. Girls and women don’t seem to see the big deal in being completely ignorant of their history, the history of their FEMALE people, and there is no actual concern that they are not represented in history books, the written and taught narrative of the human race.
Coming from Canada, where there is a strong tradition of female writing and where the female writers are much more impressive and prolific than the males, why were there no Canadian female writers (let alone female writers from other countries) in my English curricula? Seriously. English was the only subject Canadian children of my generation had to take every single year of their formal education, including in our five years of high school in my province. No female writers taught in a country rich with award-winning female writers. That is censorship. Erasure.
When you are not exposed to the works, thoughts, contributions, and history of your people (in my case, white women of Canadian, Irish and Scottish descent), how can you strive to be something? How can you know where you came from? How can you know who and what you are? How can you appreciate what your foremothers did and struggled through? How can you know how little progress has been made – and perhaps that last question gives me the answer as to why girls aren’t taught about their history. We’d see how little we’ve actually progressed as a sex in the so-called socially and politically ‘advanced’ First World.
If girls and women are censored, there is nothing to compare their current conditions to, and nothing to blame their oppressors for. Hell you can’t call them oppressors if there is no record of female oppression!
Trans Tyranny: Censoring Lesbians, Scientific Women, Feminists
There are a lot of ways to tell that male trannies are men. One of them is their use of censorship to bolster their very, very weak power base. Like in any dictatorship, their claims are not logical or proveable, are rooted in serious mental illness and personality disorders, and are all about power and control, which is what all males pursue on some level. Like typical dictators, they attack those with less power than themselves (women) rather than go after those presenting legitimate threats (straight men), which confirms that they are seeking power rather than pursuing anything real.
These men have been very successful in getting other powerful bodies (governments, legal, educational, and social organizations, etc) on their side in the censorship of the little opposition there has been to their nonsense, and I suspect that the only reasons they have been so successful is a) because they are men, and b) the opponents being censored are considered politically and socially unacceptable to everyone. Who is being censored? Women who uphold the scientific / biological facts of how sex (not gender!) works. Women, especially women with daughters, who believe women and girls have a right to private space away from biological males with male socialization. Women who know the facts about male violence against women, who know the data concerning male trans violence against women, and who know the psychological literature on why males gravitate towards transing, and who have read extensively the social media masturbation of male trans talking about the things they do and want to do to women and girls. Lesbians who are no longer welcome in the LG groups they were fundamental in establishing and maintaining, and who are vilified for not wanting to be raped by male trans who insist that their cocks are magically ‘female’. Women who acknowledge how little legal control they have over every aspect of their bodies and female status. Women who oppose the further erasure of their rights and status and the censorships of important words like ‘woman’, ‘vagina’, menstruation, and vocabulary that cannot be separated from the female experience.
And on and on I go. Not many women speak out. The censorship is swift and because of the violent nature of trans and their supporters, can be accompanied by violence. Women can lose their jobs for speaking up, which is censorship. Women can have their blogs shut down, which is censorship. Women are no-platformed at speaking events, which is censorship. Women are destroyed and banned in social media, which is censorship.
And no one acknowledges this in our fucking awesome ‘free’ democracies run on male supremacy. In many ways, in my opinion, I think dictatorships are better than what we have in the West simply because the lies and hypocrisy and selective (but unacknowledged) censorship are much, much worse in the West. But really, both are male systems, and should be eliminated. And before you say it, no, eliminating the censors is not censorship.
The Rise of Liberalism, Political Correctness, and Selective Censorship
Speaking of hypocrisy, we come to the liberals. Liberalism has been a building political movement in many Western countries for a while. Forget political party names for now. A Liberal or Democratic party member in the US is not the same as a Liberal or Democratic party member in Canada, for example. Likely, your country has among its choices, some religious, right-wing group, and some hypocritical, equally nutso, science-abusing, faux-human-rightsy, identity-politicking, left-wing group. Both come from a place of woman-hate (although they pretend they don’t – the former talks about ‘respect’ and ‘tradition’ while the latter talks about women’s ‘freedom’ – all bullshit). So let’s just talk about political leanings, rather than affiliation.
Liberal groups protect themselves from criticism by cloaking their bullshit in superficial human rights jargon. To criticize them immediately makes a person look like a misanthropic, sadistic, murdering, Nazi-type, even when the latter is an actual human rights activist pointing out a hypocritical liberal talking point. These folks fool many by their gung-ho-ness and superficial, at-the-ready mantras and slogans, but they are arguably quite a bit more dangerous than a typical conservative, who puts considerably less effort into trying to appear other than what they are (usually insular, narrow-minded bigots who don’t truly believe in evidence or science). Bascially, you have to work more to figure out what is really going on when a liberal speaks or acts.
Liberals are typically anti-racism warriors, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, except that they do it only when it doesn’t threaten their lifestyles, and they do it at other people’s expense. What does that mean? First, they paint everything as a racist issue in order to censor legitimate criticism, even when there is nothing racist taking place. Second, they don’t really understand what racism is or why it exists, so they censor certain groups of people (for example, white women, who do experience inseparable racism-sexism both in their home countries and abroad) and actually make it impossible for these groups to have a voice when it comes to reporting racist-sexist crime. And think about the language they do censor in various media – American television will bleep out ‘fuck’, but not ‘cunt’ or ‘bitch’. And you never hear racial slurs in American or Canadian television, while female slurs are a given on most episodes of most series out now. I’ve also noticed the new (and increasing) occurrence of male children calling adult women ‘bitch’. Selective censorship meant to denigrate women and empower males of all races. Third, liberals are possibly worse racists than the purported racists they attack, using groups for political gains rather than to help them (think of all the times liberals trot out the poorly understood plight of Muslim women they don’t even know personally in order to censor the speech of white feminists – ‘at least you’re not a Muslim woman’ is almost a cliché now).
One of the most digusting things liberal Americans have done recently is sexist, racist and a massive, but unacknowledged act of censorship. Planned Parenthood decided to remove Margaret Sanger’s name – the FOUNDER of Planned Parenthood – from the NY clinic. They’ve decided she is racist and a eugenics mastermind. This woman made it possible for today’s women of all races and ages to get an abortion and access to birth control, so whatever masterminding she may have attempted, it obviously didn’t work. Rather, Planned Parenthood would not even exist if not for this woman’s bravery and selflessness. I mean think about this. She was born in the fucking 1800’s and fought for women’s right to have the tiniest bit of control over the consequences of their marital, incestuous, workplace, acquaintance, and stranger rapes. This, at a time when women really had little choice about getting married and raped and being forced to breed for their entire lives. And fucking PP decides this heroine has to be erased, shunned, CENSORED. Fuck you Planned Parenthood, you ungrateful, disgusting, woman-hating turds. My rage when I read about this recently could have set a city block on fire. I don’t give a shit what Sanger believed in the early 1900’s. I think there is something arrogant and ignorant about imposing today’s morality on the long dead. Sanger’s contributions to the world outweigh any personal beliefs about anything. She was still a breeder, which I personally don’t agree with, but I won’t censor her contribution to female well-being because of that. Women had no choice about breeding at that point in history, and most if not all believed that it was their sole purpose in life. Today is a different story, however, and I have no problem with holding women responsible for their breeding choices now. Anyhow, liberals are often worse censors than conservatives, and represent the hypocrisy of ‘free’ democratic countries in the same way that conservatives represent dictatorships. Both are garbage, male-defined systems, but if I had to choose, based on experience, dictatorships are so much easier to navigate as they threaten everyone equally and without pretense. But we won’t have an alternative as long as men exist, sadly.
Self-Censorship Resulting from Narcisstic Abuse
On a different note, but equally important on the topic of censorship, especially for women, is something we’ll call ‘self-censorship’. Very basically, this just means that you prohibit yourself from having a voice. This is one of the major outcomes for people who have survived years of narcissistic abuse, especially as a child. It can also be a specific outcome for women who have been outspoken on EXTREMELY unpopular topics, such as women’s rights, rape, etc. and who have not protected themselves from online public assault. One thing I will say is that all men as well as women who haven’t experienced this kind of abuse will immediately dismiss self-censorship as something that is ‘all in one’s head’ or ‘issues’, the implication being one of weakness, the crime of victimhood leading to a victim mentality, or some other misogynistic bullshit that is uniformly applied to women who have beeen abused and who haven’t ‘bounced back’ with vim and positivity. Ignore those assholes. Psychological abuse is the least acknowledged, but one of the most brutal forms of abuse and can literally destroy self-identity and the ability to properly take care of oneself.
Imagine being a child with a narcissistic (NPD) parent and you grow up in an environment where you are constantly antagonized; everything you say and your very reality are doubted and questioned and negated; you are punished for the most bizarre of things without warning; you are humiliated publicly and/or within family/friend circles; you are given the silent treatment or had love withheld for reasons you can’t discern for days, weeks or longer; you are blamed for things you didn’t do; you are guilted, manipulated, accused of lying or being cruel when you are not; and more. And defending yourself ALWAYS makes things worse. Imagine what that does to a child’s sense of self. One of the things the child learns to do is to make herself as invisible as possible, to avoid saying anything definitive, to do anything possible not to be a target or rock the boat. This can happen to adults in adult relationships too, but for a child, we are talking about the crucial identity formation experiences that are necessary to grow into a functioning healthy adult with a solid sense of self. As an adult surviving childhood abuse, you have no confidence in what you believe, often can’t make decisions, and usually avoid saying anything resembling an opinion if you even have one at all. Sometimes, you do have an opinion, but the idea of expressing it is quickly quelled as you start doubting whether it is real, valid or valuable. This is self-censorship.
Wrap-Up
There is a ton of other forms of selective and unacknowledged censorship that I could discuss here. For example, male language traditions (mankind, Man, manpower, chairman, name change for women in marriage, etc.) is a large topic that is designed to exclude women from every aspect of life, while pretending to include them and that it isn’t really a big deal. Censorship and erasure are very big deals, especially when you consider flipping the situation to favour women. Then you find out what men really think about censorship.
But I won’t get into more here as this topic is truly massive. What people don’t really realize is that the censorship of women on so many levels is so enduring, relentless, and pervasive that it isn’t noticeable. People accept things that, if they thought about it and paid attention, just aren’t right, and that wouldn’t be accepted by racial, ethnic or religious groups or by men. As a lone woman, you cannot change this system, but you can allow a woman her voice in your daily life by reading female authors, supporting women’s comments on articles or in social media, listening to female speakers, and giving the little girls in your life the chance to be heard and believed.
~~~
Previous posts in the series:
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
A Reminder That There Isn’t a Difference Between Sex and Sexual Violence
Just in case you still refuse to believe that when it comes to men’s minds, there is no difference between sex and violence, I present the top 3 results when I plugged “battered women” into my search engine of choice this morning. Note that as search engines have become more politcally and economically powerful, our top search results are always targeted advertisements instead of what we are really looking for. And sometimes what women are really looking for is help in life or death situations…
I can’t make this shit up. I was confused at first, and then I realized how perfect it was. I had looked up the exact term: “battered women” and first in the search is an ad for a heterosexual dating site geared towards getting women to be more proactive about finding a rapist. Whoops, I mean boyfriend/husband. I couldn’t have created a more perfect example of how men think.
A male reader (or a cocksucking woman) might see these results a different way as this example is so blatantly male stereotypey to be suspect. Is it possible a woman like me managed to subvert the male logic algorithms for the entire search engine and show women what heterosexual dating really means??? No. Fuck no. Women like me wouldn’t be that cruel and sardonic to an actual battered woman looking for help online. We are fine with criticizing women who choose to fuck men (including bisexuals) and who call it feminism or ‘natural’ or ‘freedom’, but we would never make a nasty joke targeting a woman actively looking for help after being raped and/or having her head bashed in by a male who luvs her.
For all y’all who love the idea of targeted marketing, this is a sweet little example of what it can do for you. Male brainpower at work!!! I love the internet!!1!
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
B is for Bisexual
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Didn’t think the alphabet would make it past ‘A’ (see A is for Antagonism here)? Not to worry, B is here, baby. I had a bit of a hard time choosing the b-word, and I ended up choosing and then rejecting a few possibilities, which is probably why the post took a little longer to get out than I had planned. There are so many good b-words to choose from, and no doubt, they’ll end up being the topics of other posts. For example, b is for bitch (the obvious choice, but I’ve written about this slur before here and here, for example), backlash, butch, breeder, brutality, BDSM, brainwashing (don’t worry, I’ve got a series on this delectable topic coming), bullshit, blow job, bias, and more.
But today, B is for Bisexual.
To be honest, I am not sure why I haven’t written about this before. I did a little triptych on sexuality in the past, and I really should have discussed bisexuality within its confines, rather than just acknowledging it as one of the boxes men put women in when rating our level of humanity and dictating options for our identities. Perhaps the goddess of writing intervened and knew I’d need a topic for my alphabet series. Who the hell knows. Point is, I’m doing it now, so buckle up. But if you want to pause and gear up with some light reading from the sexuality writings, and to get the gist of my perspective, the relevant posts are as follows:
Part I: An introduction to male omnisexuality and why heterosexuality is even a thing at all.
Part II: The sex drive and sexuality – human obsessions and two misunderstood and badly abused concepts. Also a brief consideration of homosexuality, asexuality, and forced sexuality.
Part III: Women and forced sexuality. A discussion of female needs, the fact that nobody acknowledges them and why that is the reason we don’t understand the first thing about female sexuality still to this day.
If you don’t feel like veering off at this point, then I’ll just summarize my foundational thinking as follows:
For women, sexuality as we know it now and have known it throughout time and place, is completely constructed. Constructed by men, and embraced by women through their programming. Constructed female sexuality has mostly been categorical, meaning that women are put into boxes according to what men want to do to us and what they want us to do. Men have constructed ‘rational’ / ‘scientific’ and religious explanations for the boxes they put us in to prevent us from figuring out what we actually are naturally, and to inspire us to hate the few women who reject categorization. In reality, our sexuality, if we have any (the true question), should be based on our own self-defined needs, rather than our anatomy or what men need and want. No woman has ever been able to do this outside the influence of male dominance, so my argument is that we haven’t a clue what natural female sexuality looks like at all. Even lesbians are strongly influenced by hetero programming, and I believe they don’t behave completely naturally either. I’ve discussed what natural means in another post, and my opinion is that if you have to construct an entire, rather brutal system geared towards keeping women in line and servicing men ‘happily’, then heterosexuality in women isn’t natural at all. Nature happens without force, intimidation, or indoctrination. Honestly and truly. So men construct our reality and they construct a system of lies and half-truths to support female hetersexuality as being natural. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary, however, which I’m not going to discuss in this post. I will say I’ve been reading some of the scientific literature that clearly demonstrates that despite how women define themselves, the vast majority have sexual reactions to females (google it yourself). There is plenty of work to be done there – I still think you can program sexual reactions to anything (basic learning theory in action), which is constantly evidenced in the development of weird sexual fetishes, and I’d argue that women are trained from birth to react sexually to males and violence. The sexual reactions to women that scientists see are likely a mix of natural proclivity and the result of a constant bombardment of female sexualization coupled with the modern day rewarding of female compliance with male sexual fantasies.
But let’s get to bisexuality***. If you try to look up this term/category, most human rightsy sexuality web sites will try to turn it into some long, drawn out definition, almost as if trying to set these folks up for some uber-victim status with a little mystery and sexay-ness thrown in for good measure. “Look at us. We are so hard to define. We break all the sexual molds. No one understands us and we suffer from so much prejudice and bigotry. The alphabet soup acronym should START with B, although in public, we’ll say T is most important… Whine, whine, blah, blah, blah, I want to look at tits while I suck this dick, goober goober.” And it’s usually women who are the whiniest about this oppressed bi status, and there is a good and legitimate basis for that (not the whining, but the sex bias), which I’ll get into later. But bisexual people are a perfect example supporting the theory I have that the loudest victims and victim-groups tend to be non-victims or comparative non-victims with a lot of power (economic, legal, etc.) and free time. Other examples of loud non-victims also include male trannies, rich white males, rich black males, males in general, the religious right in any country, etc., etc.
***[And note that I am writing this from the perspective of a woman who for most of her early adult life used the category ‘bisexual’ privately, and sometimes publicly, until I accepted the fact that I’m not sexually attracted to men. I’ve never been ‘heterosexual’, so I can’t understand what that is like. If I am forced to ‘identify’, I use the terms ‘lesbian’ or ‘gay’. I have found that many people, even those who define sexuality very simply in terms of sexual attraction, still can’t resist injecting their definition with political and social implications. I think you can’t get away from that in this world, and as a result, no definition can adequately describe what women likely are born to be, naturally.]
For an easy definition of bisexuality, just think ‘bi’ = two and sex = attraction to. Many seem to include actual sexual engagement in this definition, probably because it is so much easier to offer up as proof of a sexuality. Attraction is hard to measure unless you hook someone up to a machine. So according to today’s definition, bisexuals basically are interested in and get it on with both males and females. There is some talk of ‘pansexuality’, but this is a bullshit made-up liberal term based on the idea that there are more than two sexes – WHICH THERE ARE NOT.
Male Bisexuals
A quick word about bisexual men. Nothing about this surprises me. As I said above, I believe males are born omnisexual, which simply means that men get turned on by and will penetrate anything and everything unless something or someone stops them. The only reason most males (publicly) gravitate towards heterosexual designations is because of 1) woman-hate; 2) innate power and control issues; and 3) servitude/extra perks. First, the idea of ‘taking it’ like a woman (aka being penetrated) is an insult because men hate women, so being gay or bi means you are like a woman and that is unacceptable in all cultures because women are garbage. I’ve unfortunately spent a lot of time with men from different cultures, and I can tell you that even the most adamant of straight males from both liberal and very conservative places are curious about and even obsessed with anal sex, although most will insist that their own buttholes are off limits. I suspect that to most men, for a woman, a hole is a hole is a hole, so a female’s anus and vagina are just things to be filled by men. So they can see see themselves as heterosexual while still engaging in what is seen by the world as a ‘gay’ act.
The second part – power and control – is more complicated. Men like easy victims who won’t fight back or rat them out. Inanimate objects are ideal for male masturbation, but men don’t get the satisfaction of controlling or overpowering say, a sock or a hole in the wall or their kid’s stuffed toys. Animals give the sense of overpowering and control that men like, but they can fight back and hurt their rapist, and as well, men don’t get any servitude from them other than say, a dog fetching slippers. Children, like animals, are easy targets, can give the satisfaction of control and power over them, and while they usually won’t bite or fight like an animal, there is the possibility they might report the assault to a grown-up. And no servitude perks. But women? They make the perfect masturbatory devices for men: raping them allows men to enact their hatred of them upon their bodies and minds; they are controllable and over-powerable physically and mentally; they seldom report rape (and are not believed if they do report); and they are easily programmed from birth to accept slavery as desirable and the way things are supposed to be.
The third element of heterosexual gravitation in men is that women will also provide cleaning services, baby factory services, emotional services, intellectual services and more – all making men’s lives easier and ensuring the greatest possible chance of male success in the world. So while men will screw all of the above in private, there is the most to be gained from publicly proclaiming hetero status. Bisexual men are slightly braver in that they are willing to admit they do men too, but they also get the status that owning a woman allows in all societies. But generally, it isn’t men who whine about bisexual prejudice as men never suffer as much as women, regardless of the bias involved.
Female Bisexuals
I’m going to come out and say this as bluntly as possible, and it will be offensive to some and that is more than perfectly fine. There is no such thing as a truly bisexual woman. Omnisexual men, yes – I’ve explained this already. But I don’t believe women are naturally wired to want men. I believe female heterosexuality is nearly 100% constructed / programmed / conditioned (pick your term). So bisexuality doesn’t make sense either, especially given that pretty much all bisexual women mostly latch on to men (I remember some feminist I read quoted a study that the typical bi-female sexual stable constists primarily of men. And I believe that that is standard hetero brainwashing kicking in rather than anything natural, as materially, there is so much more to gain from being male property than to have an equal relationship with a woman.) I also think there are a few kinds of bisexual women, and I’ll discuss two primary categories.
- Brainwashed women whose hetero programming didn’t work perfectly
So as was mentioned, most bisexual women have more male partners than female ones, and usually end up having a primary or significant-other relationship with a man. Women are usually ‘side dishes’ that don’t provided the economic, legal, and social perks that relationships with men do, but that provide emotional and sexual satisfaction that is missing from the typical hetero relationship. Bisexual women are, somewhat understandably in our rape culture, generally massive cowards who will hide behind hetero life when it suits them (e.g., to avoid sexual or physical danger, to get jobs, to have a higher standard of living, to appear ‘normal’ in social situations, etc.) and trot it out when they want to look cool or liberal or advanced or open-minded or ‘above’ heteronormativity (even though they are still exceptionally heternormative themselves, ironically). Or just to temporarily satisfy their natural attraction to women.
2. Brainwashed women who use other women to pick up men and get hetero cookies
Bisexual men don’t make out with each other to pick up women, but ‘bisexual’ women often try to pick up men this way. Do you not find this curious? If you are a hetero or bi woman reading this, do a little self-examination at this point. Do you regularly watch gay male porn? Do you regularly masturbate while imagining dudes fucking each other? Do you get off on the idea of inserting yourself into a gay male sex scenario and announcing that your pussy is there and things can actually get started now? If you say yes, you are a liar and are likely being contrary on purpose. Women – hetero, bi or lesbian – do not cream their shorts at the idea of infiltrating a cock party. And gay men aren’t sitting around wishing for some pussy to spice up their sex lives. So why do so many bisexual women feel the need to put on a show for men?
Well, first there is no bisexuality going on there. These are thoroughly programmed hetero women who are just trying to please men in the only way they know how. I wonder to myself whether these women actually enjoy what is going on. I really think that most women don’t fully experience what they are doing or analyze what’s going on. I think most women’s brains are trained to see themselves through men’s eyes.
Oh, in case you are wondering, when I called myself bisexual back in my early ears, I fell into category 1. However, I know I was less successfully brainwashed than the average woman, as I woke up relatively easily, I think, and realized that I hated men on a fundamental and very natural or primal level. The in-depth self examination I had to do in order to deprogram myself was painful and is ongoing. It’s interesting to realize that all my childhood crushes and attraction (I hesitate to say sexual) experiences were with other girls. I see the time I spent dating both males and females as an experimental phase, much like I’ve experimented with drugs, and eaten things like calf’s brains and dog, but of course, much more complex and psychologically fucked up. After I started training myself to live in my own body and mind and to experience things from my own perspective, it was overwhelming to realize that I saw myself, went through experiences, and even had dreams through male eyes. Being back in your body and mind is a really disarming thing at first. It affects everything you do, but you realize that hetero sex, (aka intercourse, aka rape) is a horrible thing to endure, absolutely pointless from a woman’s point of view, and more than that – extremely dangerous to your body and mind. You look back on what you did in the past, even in the name of experimentation, and it is hard to understand how you participated, if you can call it that. I think you have to dissociate as well as outsource your validation needs in order to allow males to use your body and to keep going back for more. This is a longer discussion, but the point I’m trying to make here is that bisexuality is just another male construction, or possibly even a female construction, that allows one to follow one’s natural tendencies a little while still remaining acceptable to patriarchal society.
A Few Major Bisexual Complaints
Bisexuals have a LOT of complaints. I’ve read a lot of bi commentary, and I don’t understand most of these complaints, even having spent many years as a bisexual. I’ll address a few here.
1) We don’t fit in anywhere. Heteros hate us and gays/lesbians reject us.
Any prejudice you experience is because of woman hate. The heteros hate you because you are not upholding patriarchy – you males are not raping women enough, and you women are not being raped enough. Gays and lesbians might reject you because of your hetero privilege, which you still have because most of the time you are being hetero. Lesbians especially, who live at the bottom of the human shit heap, are not interested in having male diseases passed to them by careless bisexual women, nor are they interested in investing in someone who will fuck them and then prance off when she has a chance at an economically attractive and socially acceptable hetero lifestyle opportunity if (when) it comes along (especially if said bi wants to breed). It is not possible for a powerless and ubiquitously hated group (lesbians) to have any kind of power over you or dictate your freedom in the world. It amazes me how many self-indulgent articles there are on bisexuals blaming lesbians for everything wrong in their lives. You may experience bias rooted in woman-hate, but you also perpetuate it. Self-examination needed.
2) People tell us we don’t exist.
Remind you of anything? The trans pull the same shit. Nobody is denying your existence. You are human, you exist, and you can believe whatever the hell you want. I am likely one of very few people who will say that I don’t believe that bisexuality is a thing. Males yes (although, like I said, I call it omnisexuality). Women aren’t wired to put their bodies at risk or enslave themselves. Sorry.
Do you deserve more attention in the LG-alphabet group? If so, why? You have the best of both worlds, really. You get to CHOOSE what and who you do. Gays and lesbians who are committed to a publicly displayed sexuality are so much worse off than you and are more based in reality (and less whiny) than the bisexual community. While gays and lesbians might be able to pass in hetero society based on appearance, they certainly can’t pass socially unless they show up solo to events or never, ever speak about their personal lives. So, in my opinion, I wouldn’t include you in the gay-lesbian activist groups, just as I would exclude the trannies and the queer, Hitler-youth brigade and any other post-modernist bullshit “I’m different! Look at me!’ groups. Make your own fucking group. And stop trying to force lesbians to accept you. Nobody should be forced to fuck you. That is called rape. (Hint, this applies to trannies too, who keep trying to force lesbians to be with them.) No one owes you a fuck in order to validate your claims of specialness or outsiderness.
3) People assume we are pedophiles
This one is legit, but like with the most valid complaints, the reason they happen is because of woman-hate and the anti-gay sentiments that exist everywhere. You aren’t assumed to be a pedophile because you are bisexual. So-called straight men, who comprise the vast majority of pedophiles in the world, are never assumed to be so. Gay men are. Lesbians get this too, to a certain extent. In reality, there are very few true female pedophiles. The same 1-2 weird incarcerated female high school teachers with teen boy student lover docu-dramas, coupled with tons of television sitcom episodes focusing on this topic are covered to death to promote the idea that women are equally likely to be pedophiles as men. Not even close to being true. This is a whole nuther topic. But suffice it to say that if you are lesbian or a female bisexual, you may experience fear on the part of women with children. Not so much by men – men will sexualize you for THEIR sexual purposes rather than assume you are going to attack children. Myself, I experienced this with my sister when I confided in her that I was bisexual in my mid-20’s. She had a 4-year-old daughter at the time, and after my quiet announcement, she never let me be in a room alone with my neice ever again. I’ll repeat that it was not the bisexuality that was the problem in my sister’s mind, but the lesbian part of it which was the motivator for the irrational and hateful reaction.
Conclusion here. Bisexuals can be very touchy and defensive. And loud, if they are ‘out’. Like the trans. Much more so than you ever experience with gays and lesbians. While the latter tend to be much more secure in their sexuality once they’ve chosen to come out, bisexuals’ reactivity is more likely to be a product of a constructed victimhood, hard-to-pin-down identity, and comparative privilege (I hate that word, but I don’t have a better one right now) over actual victimized groups. Their predation within oppressed groups (i.e., trying to force lesbians to want them sexually) likely creates a little cognitive dissonance concerning whether they are more victim or predator or both.
Anyhow, like with the whole silly, but scary, trannie movement, I wish this one didn’t take up so much retail space…
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
A Is for Antagonism
Story Ending Never’s Alphabet Series is now on YouTube in audio form. Come get your dose of weird Canadian accent 😉 You can listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Happy new year. Does it feel like a new year? In many ways, no. This effing Virus is well into its second year now, and many of us are bored, depressed, not too hopeful, wondering when things will go back to normal, or whether we’ve got a new normal. Some of us are seriously isolated. Myself, I haven’t had an in-person conversation with another human that lasted longer than 5 minutes in months – I’ve noticed that people, especially women, seem to have a serious aversion to speaking to middle aged and older women. We’re invisible. But it’s more than that. It almost seems like there is a discomfort and dismissal on the part of those with whom you are trying to engage. It is hard to explain. Strangely, everyone seems to want to engage with weird men of any age, even when they stink to high heaven, are narcissistic, talk too much or too loudly, are offensive, and add whatever you want to the list. Seriously. I just can’t understand why it is more attractive to talk to some repulsive, self-centred pervball, but not to a friendly female who isn’t gaming to rape you or suck your energy with unbridled egomania and scrotal tall tales of imagined accomplishments and prowess.
In addition, I’m finding it really hard to catch the eye of fellow sisters while out for a walk on the street or walking trails – something I usually try to do no matter where in the world I am. I get the distinct impression that there is this bizarre notion that connecting with fellow humans, even just through eye contact, somehow puts you at risk for contracting The Virus. I used to live in the place where I currently am, and it’s not an unfriendly place, generally. But it feels very different here than it used to. Paranoid. And no longer a community. Selective disconnect.
Anyhow, I’m totally off track, but my excuse is that it is my first post of the new year, so some preamble was warranted. I wanted to kick off an hommage – or perhaps I should say femmage, as I love franglais and neologisms, both – to Sue Grafton and her Alphabet series. Years ago, I fell in love with Kinsey Millhone, private detective, with her minimalistic lifestyle, low income, and creative tiny house living space. Her only fault was her constructed and frankly unbelievable heterosexuality – she really never came across as anything but asexual or lesbian to me, but luckily, you could just flip a few pages to skip over the luckily sparse sexual content (thank you 1980’s – it would be a different story today à la 50 shades of shit).
We’ll see how far I get. I’m kicking it off with A is for Antagonism. There is no recurring character, and this isn’t a novel. And jeez, there is no mystery in what I write, despite the fact that most women just don’t seem to be able to figure out why men do what they do and why they themselves just can’t stop spreading their legs for them. Mystery is not the same thing as willing ignorance and cognitive dissonance, let me tell you. Open your eyes to reality and the privilege you orbit is no longer possible. Case closed!
Now before I get into it, there are tons of A-words I could have chosen here. A is for asshole, assault, aggression, arrogance, affirmative action, ‘alleged’, abortion, and more. But I chose antagonism, a highy underappreciated word.
So let’s go. Very simply put, antagonism is active hostility or opposition. Think of someone who seems deliberately to disagree with everything you say, or someone who pokes at you, saying provocative things that seem deliberately geared towards riling you up or getting some sort of reaction (anger, tears, defensiveness, etc) out of you. Interestingly, in literature, the ‘antagonist’ is typically seen as a villain, nemesis or chief opposition to the hero of the story, designed to cause problems or allow for a plot to exist at all.
I want to talk about antagonism in two specific, but not necessarily unrelated, categories: Male communication styles and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
- Male Communication Styles
Let me draw from one of my ESL lectures on language and communication – I tell all my students that the purpose of language is to try to get what we want or need. It is one of human’s most basic and useful tools. If you don’t communicate, you don’t get what you need, from trying to find food or a toilet in a new place to trying to get a job. Now, to understand how males typically use this tool outside of toilets or getting directions, let’s cover a few truths. a) Males are both wired and socialized to believe that they deserve. Everything and anything they need or want becomes crucial and deserved. b) Males are also wired and socialized to be aggressive, so getting what they believe they deserve is best achieved through aggression of one form or another. c) Most males realize on some level that they aren’t important, have less to offer the world than females, and could be done away with without serious repurcussions in the long run (obsolescence). Most males can’t articulate that, but they know it on some lizard brain level and use aggression and a focus on ‘deserving’ to cover up their biological inadequacies.
But back to language. All of the above factor into the way males often communicate, especially with females they see as threats to their fragile egos in an attempt to prove that they are important, and better, and deserving, and not obsolete. An aggressive communication style is often used on perceived superior women (e.g., intelligent, educated, non-naive, older, uninterested, extremely attractive, and/or sexually unavailable women) and is usually manifested as antagonism. Now, some men use antagonism as a bizarre, but often effective (why? ask a hetero chick, cuz I don’t get it…) means of flirting. But antagonism is most often used by men as an attempt to disarm women, to steal their energy, and to divert their laser focus away from the inadequacies and flimsy lies and exaggerations of said male. Men will question and/or disagree with and/or dissect every statement a woman makes in a conversation. He will pick apart decisions she has made and is describing to him, and criticize everything about it in an attempt to make her defend herself or even fall apart. He will goad her to prove every detail she states, often expecting citations of studies or data. He will often ask her to recite lists of things to prove the extent of her knowledge on a subject and pounce on any error she makes as proof of her inadequacy, even a subject on the outskirts of the topic of conversation.
As I look back, I have have had sooooo many interactions of this sort with males through my life. Now, I’m not surprised – I am often a threat to men as I am smart, educated, well trained in pscyhology, sexually unavailable, I see through bullshit easily, and if I am feeling brave and devil may care, I can give better mindfuckery than I get. I am a massive threat to all insecure men who think they deserve and are used to most women giving them literal or figurative blowjobs for existing. Interestingly, the abusive male living in the house I was renting in when I first moved back to Canada spoke to all the women in the house using this style. I remember one specific conversation involving him, myself, and one of the cock-whipped hetero women, where the male kept picking at the latter over something she did that she was telling us about. She accused him of being jealous, but I countered with an accusation of being antagonistic. Only a month or two later, after he started making threats against my physical safety did I start putting the whole shebang together – which brings me to my second category of antagonist.
2. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
It’s important to note that while many males employ antagonistic communication styles with women, most of these guys do not have NPD. Antagonism can just be a way that males deal with their usually subconscious awareness of their inadequacy and obsolescence as males. Also, note that narcissism and NPD are not the same. You can be a narcissist (very self-centred, vain, selfish) without a personality disorder (ingrained personality pattern that disrupts your day-to-day functioning and relationships). Both males and females can have NPD and thus can be antagonistic, but there are almost double the number of male NPDs than females (likely more because we accept narcissism and abusive behaviour in males and thus may not suspect that a male is anything but normal), which makes sense if you understand the disorder and the biological reality of males. As an aside, published research shows that young people, males, blacks, and, to a lesser extent, other minorities have higher prevalence of lifetime NPD than do older people, females, and non-Hispanic whites. You can google all that if you are interested – myself, I’m not getting into the whys and implications of race or age relationships with narcissistic disorders here – my focus is, as always, on male bullshit and how it affects women and girls. I have a great deal of personal experience with NPD family members, and what I will say is that the abuse they dish out is worse and more damaging to the core self than physical abuse. Most survivors of narcissistic and physical abuse will also tell you that. I’ll write more about my NPD experience in another post.
Antagonism is a chief trait of narcissists, and specifically, those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). The arrogance, constant arguing, and pathological need to exploit people are warning signs that you are dealing with a very dangerous and destructive person with a problem that is likely never, ever, ever going to change no matter how much you try to help them.
Conclusion
Regardless of whether you are dealing with a weak ass male with ego problems or a true blue NPD, my advice is to get away as soon as you can. If you are stuck in a relationship (family, work situation) with them, you have a decision to make: develop strategies that will allow you to reduce the effects of antagonistic attacks (or avoid them as much as you can), or get the hell out. I always do the latter, but it comes at a very high cost. Worth it to me, but you have to weigh your options according to your own needs.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
A Karen to Dance To
Inspired by radfemspiraling‘s Friday music recs and recent post on Karens, and a song that came up through my earbuds while I was on my daily trek through the empty streets of coronavirusland.
Karen Carpenter. A literal Karen rather than what was talked about in the post referred to above, but hey.
So I’m marching around, enjoying relatively perv-ball-free streets, and into my ears flows the following, which I hadn’t listened to in years and years.
What do you get when you fall in love?
A guy with a pin to burst your bubble
That’s what you get for all your trouble.
I’ll never fall in love again.
I’ll never fall in love again.
What do you get when you kiss a guy?
You get enough germs to catch pneumonia.
After you do, he’ll never phone you.
I’ll never fall in love again.
I’ll never fall in love again.
You get enough tears to fill an ocean
That’s what you get for your devotion.
I’ll never fall in love again.
I’ll never fall in love again.
Sorry, the video is really just an audio version.
Well, I laughed and laughed right after the part about catching diseases from men. I wrote something to that effect recently. Now, this song was written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, and being male, they originally wrote the lyrics with the sexes reversed. Poor hurt men – as if men can fall in love, right? And of course, women are the source of disease – like how they’ve always blamed prostitutes for venereal diseases. Anyhow, the song was made famous by Dionne Warwick, and she reversed the sexes – probably more out of not wanting to appear lesbian than fighting the power. And honestly, it makes more sense and rings truer when a woman sings it. Men don’t really love or cry over women, unless they are crying because their slave is gone, and they don’t want to go to the effort of procuring another.
Just because I felt like it, I decided to write a few of my own lyrics for the more modern survivor of male love and attention. I took the fall in love lines out to conserve space, but you know they’re there.
What do you get when you fall in love?
Stockholm Syndrome with a side of shame
That’s how it works in the hetero game
What do you get when you fuck a dude?
Chlamydia, AIDS, or a yeast infection
Knocked up, and finally, his rejection
What do you get when you deny the trans?
Death threats, rape threats, no-platforming
Loss of your space unless you confirm him
Feel free to come up with your own and then you can dance and sing along.
Let’s get back to Karen Carpenter. She was a superstar, but undervalued. Unfortunately more famous for her death from anorexia (what some racist, sexist black women have called ‘white girl disease’, even though it is very common among many Asian girls and women, as well) than for her amazing musical talent. What a lot of people don’t know, is that she was a kickass drummer – better than most of the famous male drummers out there. She was forced by the producing powers in her life NOT to drum, and to focus more on the lady-like singing. Women have always been cut out of most aspects of music due to the unseemly nature of playing an instrument that might require body movements or facial contortions.
Her joy was in drumming, however.
I include below, this incredible video of her in her element. You see joy in her that you don’t see when she sings. And it boggles my mind how her clearly decimated body is able to put so much power into communion with the several drum sets on stage. Please try hard to disregard the creepy, douchey brother presence. He can play the piano well, but there is something odd about him that I don’t want to examine too deeply.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
The Female Equivalent of Emasculation?
Well, my goodness, I haven’t written in a year-and-a-half. That was not intended, but it has been a stressful and odd, but ultimately productive time since the summer of 2018. I became busy self-empowering and exploring and working through a lot of China-rage. And as I may have alluded to or come right out and said in past posts, I was actively seeking to get my ass out of mainland China. And by gum, I did it!
China was becoming a scarier and scarier place over time. As a Canadian, I began fearing for my life – I was even threatened by a Chinese male colleague at the college where I was working part time. Google the Huawei debacle if you’re interested and find out how the US put Canadians in danger. It’s great being a chess piece on an international game board used by psychotic capitalist dictator (Trump) on the one side and psychotic communo-capitalist dictator (Xi) on the other. Long story short, China began arresting Canadians right left and centre, and even more scarily, revisited an already sentenced and jailed Canadian and changed his sentence to execution in retaliation. Americans were oblivious, as usual, but my Canadian friends were sending me regular messages urging me to get the hell out of China. That’s not why I left, but the timing was appropriate. And now that China has developed another nasty virus to export, I’m even happier that I’m not there. Hopefully, that will be contained. We’ve just seen the first international death (in the Philippines) from the Chinese coronavirus.
I’m in the US, currently, but I may, in my next post, discuss why it really is not the place I fell for many years ago. Especially as a woman. But I’m getting off-track here. Forgive me, it has been a while.
I wanted to discuss something that has been on my mind plenty in the past, and now again, since I’ve been back in the US amid whiny black, white and other non-white men. And that is this thing called ’emasculation’. It is a word that inspires an immediate and instinctive chuckle in me, for a few reasons. First, in the literal sense, I love thinking about men losing their dicks. Personally, I think all baby boys should have their dicks removed at birth. The Jewish had half a good idea – they didn’t go far enough. It wouldn’t harm males at all, and it would solve so many of our current problems. Messes in the bathroom on the annoying end of the scale of male problem-causing, and rape on the most serious end of male scourgedom. Men seem to be so much more obsessed with anal sex anyways, so it would be a favour to them to refocus their attention on their butts instead of their dicks. So yeah, literal emasculation sends thrill chills up and down my spine.
But when men talk about emasculation, most of the time, they are talking about having their rights as men privilege taken away. By women – that is the important part. It’s pretty much just over-emotional over-sensitivity – something most feminists call ‘butt hurtness’. But the scary part is that this feeling – and remember it is only a feeling, and an irrational one at that – fuels a lot of the violence and hate that men have for and enact on women. Boiled down, man believes he owns the world (and women) and is owed respect by all women. Pretty much anything can ’cause’ a man to feel emasculated. All you have to do is just stand there as a woman and if a man feels that you have dissed him in some way, you have emasculated him. But really, it is any word, behaviour, look on your face, thing you’re wearing that can be irrationally understood by men as being an attack on him as a man. I think it is connected to his ‘intuition‘.
A man really has to subscribe to the religion known as gender to feel emasculated. And that means he believes intrinsically (even if he says the opposite publicly) that men are superior to women in all ways that matter. He also has to believe that there is a different set of standards for women to adhere to, and which includes, serving men. The standards would be degrading for men to have to follow, but they are perfectly acceptable to force on women. Again, he may not publicly admit he believes this, or may not be intelligent enough to even articulate it to himself. But the fundamental belief in the inferiority of women drives the whole irrational over-sensitivity machine that men seem to constantly experience.
So let’s turn this around. Is there an equivalent to emasculation for women? Short answer here is a resounding ‘no’. The gender religion negates this possibility. Let’s explore why this is so. [I did write a post on the close link between infantilization and feminization, which is related, but not exactly what I’m talking about here.] There are actually women who get pissy if you take away their ‘woman essence’ as it is dictated by men and embraced by female hetero sheep, but it isn’t an equivalent. I’ll give some examples below.
So for men, a feeling of emasculation means that he believes his right to intimidate women, have economic, sexual, political, legal (insert anything else here) power over women has been taken away. Example: a woman earns more than her husband, therefore she is emasculating him (his economic power as a man over her as a woman is taken away). He is justified in getting angry and blaming her for his irrational feelings, and if he wants to beat the shit out of her, well, can you blame him????
There isn’t actually a word for this phenomenon for women. That should tell you everything you need to know. Degradation – and that is what this feeling or state is all about – is ACCEPTABLE and normal for women. Women don’t have power. Women don’t have privilege. So they aren’t there for you to take away and women can’t feel like they have lost something. Only a member of the master class can create these feelings in themselves because they have all the power and they know it on some level. And most women don’t believe they are superior either – that is key. If you aren’t factually superior, and you don’t believe you are superior (even if you can’t articulate your feeling of superiority, even to yourself), then you can’t feel like something has been taken away.
Now, let’s come back to those women who truly subscribe to the gender religion. There are women who feel like their societally-contrived gender role is being taken away – usually, it is a response to ‘feminists’ who are actively fighting against gender roles and the forced inferiority of women by men and their henchwomen. For example, these are the women who get angry when people call them the more humanizing and equalizing ‘Ms.’ instead of ‘Mrs.’ because marriage is supposed to be some kind of achievement (instead of an institution firmly rooted in female slavery). They are also the women who get angry or disgusted when women wear pants suits instead of irrationally showing up at work exposing their legs in skirts (why is it only important for women to expose their bodies in the workplace…??? Can you imaging a man showing up to a business meeting in assless chaps?) And there are millions of examples of this weird pissiness at opposition to forced femininity. Gender role adherents will feel like their ‘womanhood’ is being attacked. Their right to be weak and helpless and feminine and exploited, as if that is the very definition of what a woman is according to a god or Nature (which, of course, it isn’t – purely MANmade). And encountering these types of women is confusing, frustrating, and ultimately sad and harmful to women as a group. And of course, this symptom of Stockholm Syndrome isn’t a true equivalent to men’s irrational feeling of emasculation. The only thing natural about it is that it is a normal and non-threatening response of the colonized mind to rationalize harm by male power. Otherwise, women would have to fight men for their freedom to leave gender in the dust. That can get women killed, beaten, raped, etc. Easier to nod and smile, wear the flipping pink skirt suit, and attack one’s fellow slaves regularly.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
It Ain’t a Party Until Something Gets Broke
Language Corners. Phenomena popular in, but likely not limited to, China, most often take the form of loose to semi-structured informal events where people gather to practise speaking a particular foreign language. I have years of experience participating in ‘English Corners’. For many years, I was forced to organize and participate in Corners at the places where I worked. They were horrible. Students would come to be entertained rather than learn and participate fully, and to ask me the same boring questions about whether I could use chopsticks and if I loved China. But I’ve managed to live in a few large places where locals organize Corners for anyone who wants to participate and that aren’t dependent on the attendance of native speakers. Nanjing, former capital of China, has a long-running (well over 25-30 years now) and excellent English Corner that meets in a local park at night once a week and is attended by people of all ages and abilities and walks of life. It is quite fabulous.
The city where I currently work has a number of language Corners. Some are held at universities and some at public parks. I’ve attended several, and as might be expected, some are better than others. I once attended one that seemed to attract aggressive and annoying men seeking to perv on the young Chinese girls who attended and to engage in antagonistic and exhausting ‘conversation’ with yours truly. Mostly though, if I attend an English Corner at all, I attend the private one held by the enthusiastic students at my own campus. They’re good kids, and I’m the first person to preserve and foster any natural desire to learn and better oneself. You can’t buy curiosity, and it is hard to find in this world in this day and age.
Recently, I’ve been motivating myself for a major life change. I’m really thinking about moving to France as early as next year. It is a work in progress. I speak passable French and I can think in the language, but I have to admit, I am far from bilingual and years of disuse has done a number on my grammar and vocabulary. Years in China hasn’t helped. But I recently discovered a local multi-language Corner. The bulk of the participants attend to practise speaking English, but there are small groups of people there wishing to speak Korean, Japanese, Spanish, and as luck would have it, French. Needless to say, I am ecstatic. I made a pact with a friend of mine to attend every week with her- she wants to work on having more intellectual discussions in her already excellent English. And I need to reawaken and tone my French muscles.
The other night had a decent turn-out. Some weeks, there may only be one other person wanting to speak French, but there were three native speakers from Africa this time in addition to a few regular Chinese attendees I’ve gotten to know. Unfortunately, they were dudes, and to my great surprise and dismay, they were part of a large international group of special forces soldiers in China for a year-long training program. Creepy, scary, and weird. China is training the world’s elite, state-sanctioned rapists and murderers now!!! Anyhow, I stuck with the group until the Africans started asking the locals why there is no young Chinese pussy available to them. Apparently, everyone has a boyfriend!!! These black dudes may be here for military training, but they are definitely also here to fuck local bitches and possibly to find one to marry. Barfo. I am so not interested in heterosexual female slavery or men of any colour (sorry, liberal feminists, it isn’t just white men) whining about not finding a line-up of women on their backs, legs spread waiting for them.
I left the group to look for my friend among the ESL’ers.
And I found her in a weird situation. It was a small group, and a Chinese guy was lambasting her in an aggressive stance jabbing the air with his finger in an accusatory fashion. You know this type and this move. Very male, very threatening. So he notices me approaching, turns on me, and with no preamble, salutation, or welcome, immediately gives me a task. “YOU are going to settle this for us.” Now, I don’t like being told what to do, especially by men, but as my friend was involved, I asked what was going on instead of just turning around. From what I could gather, they had been discussing ‘single life’, which I think was one of the topics of the evening. I am not sure what exactly my friend had said, but dickface had gone on the offensive. I think she must have challenged his heterosexual assumption that women’s bodies were the property of men and that to be single was a female crime against humanity. He was speaking loudly and started describing her as a ‘gentleman-lady’, which was supposed to be an insult, in addition to insulting her intelligence and existence.
I stopped him and concluded that she had won the argument hands down. That made him mad. He looked for ways to put his natural violence and anger upon me. He accused me of being American (classic move for many anti-Americans as if it is some sort of point-scoring argument), to which I suggested that he wasn’t very smart if he was making stupid assumptions that ended up not being true. I’m not American. Then he started suggesting that obviously we were lesbians and should kiss. He kept saying that over and over, which I think was at the root of his original anger at my friend. It was positively immature and scary behaviour. It was also clear that my friend, whom I later found out had been further attacked by the other males in the group for other incomprehensible reasons, was forced into a position where she was trying to defend herself. I’ve been there. When you’re 21, and for most women throughout their entire life, you are constantly forced by males and some male-focused females to defend your human status. A few of us manage to learn that self-defense is futile. You can’t win nonsensical arguments. And men love the fight. They gain energy. You lose yours to them. You are derailed, and often, your small confidence is further shaken. You shrink and eventually give up trying to be human. And there is always the fear that there will be violence. Not just verbal violence.
So I decided to start the fucking party. I’m not 21 anymore, and I don’t believe men can or even want to end their violence. Every second you give them is a waste unless you are taking them down with certainty. I have various strategies for dealing with assholes. You have to be careful, though. You have to know who you’re up against and how dangerous they are. Sometimes you can you embarrass them. Sometimes you can intimidate them. Sometimes, you just have to walk away and find a safe place. But regardless of douchebag type, I always recommend never entering a pointless argument where you’re put on the defense. It’s like arguing with a religious person – they don’t come from a place of truth or fact, and have massive power behind them that will put society on their side if things get weird for you. So this guy? Stupid, a coward targeting a very young woman, and possibly violent if alone with him. But in a group setting, he needed to be controlled and dismissed. So I took the upper hand. I pointed out that he was rude and aggressive and not very smart, and that I wasn’t going to join a group discussion with a shameful person like him in it, and I moved to take my friend with me. He put himself on the defense, trying to negate my statements about him, which was exactly what I wanted, and he soon realized he couldn’t win against me since I wouldn’t engage. He walked away with a buddy of his. Lack of easy prey made English Corner much less appealing, apparently.
Now what made me really angry was that no one would speak up against him. Quietly looking on as he destroyed a young woman was apparently just dandy. This is very Chinese. People do not defend or help one another here unless they are family. Everyone else is persona non grata. I’ve seen it in countless situations, myself. But it happens everywhere, every day. A Chinese will literally let someone they don’t know die on the street in front of them instead of help them. And I’m not making it up. Every month or so, some embarrassing cell phone video or news story shows up online shaming all Chinese because someone let a child hit by a car die on the sidewalk without help, or some homeless old person dies of neglect despite pleas for help, or a foreigner ends up saving some local person drowning in a lake as a heap of Chinese look on apathetically. So, I was angry, but not surprised that an entire group of adult people said nothing while this man got progressively more aggressive and abusive with a young woman.
The guy walked away, and the group re-formed. And suddenly, everyone was telling me that they had seen him at another English Corner behaving in the same way. Ha! And the best part – everyone was insisting that he was not from China!!! Excuse much? Of course he was from China. I’ve met a shit ton of Chinese dudes like this one. Domineering, argumentative, aggressive, and mansplainy. And all I could think was ‘why hasn’t anyone stopped him?’ as this particular Corner is generally known for having some sort of decorum and civility thanks to the volunteer organizers supposed vigilance. But this happens to a certain extent in all cultures. We make excuses for men. We allow them to dictate proceedings. We allow their violence, their aggression, their abuse. They can’t help it, you see. Especially if their targets are women. Women are expected to shut up and put up. And to keep the love and support flowing while pretending that nothing is wrong.
I’m perfectly happy to break an ego or abusive cycle if the life of the party is a homophobic, racist misogynist.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
What about Women? Forced Sexuality – Part III
This is Part III in my exploration of the human obsession known as sexuality. The other parts are:
Part I: An introduction to male omnisexuality and why heterosexuality is even a thing at all.
Part II: The sex drive and sexuality – human obsessions and two misunderstood and badly abused concepts. Also a brief consideration of homosexuality, asexuality, and forced sexuality.
Part IV: Added a few years later: let’s talk about the second loudest (trans win for loudest… and craziest) self-proclaimed victim group forcing their way into the LG-alphabet soup. Bisexuals! Real or constructed?
Although their actual life-or-death needs are exactly the same as those for women and are exactly four in number – food, water, sleep and shelter – in their natural proclivity for violence, power and control, men have elevated ‘sex’ (defined as dick servicing) to a life-or-death need. It isn’t. No man has ever died from lack of sex.
Using standard male logic, men will try to argue that women should be made available to them, either through unpaid or unequal barter-based sex slave relationships (girlfriend, wife), or through paid rent-a-sex-slave situations (prostitution) because without it they will a) become more violent and agitated, in general, b) will lose control and rape, and c) it is magically ordained by some sky-god or by Nature. The conclusion (threat) that follows from this (non-) logic is: “let us rape you or we will rape you harder, and cause lots of other problems as well.” And a lot of women will believe this ‘men have needs’ illogic and give in to what, in a nutshell, is coercive or manipulative rape. There is all sorts of mindfuckery that accompanies the threat so as to paint rape as an expression of love and to paint women’s reluctance or denial of service as some sort of cruel punishment or selfishness or prudery. Coercive or manipulative rape, the most common and least acknowledged form of rape, will be discussed in another post.
Simplicity vs Complexity: Men and Women
Men are easy to understand. Get a handle on understanding the motivations of power, control, selfishness, violence, and high emotionality within a limited range, and you’ve pretty much got them down. Even their omnisexuality and why they choose to gravitate, for the most part, to declared heterosexuality (despite what they do behind closed doors) is very, very easy to understand.
Women, on the other hand, are much more difficult to pin down. And there are a few very good reasons for this. Part of it may be that we are more complex beings to begin with. Men often say this as a criticism, but that only speaks to their inability to understand complex systems and their failure to control us completely. Our inner lives are deep and rich. We understand things on so many more levels. We are detail-oriented as well as big picture thinkers. We think both concretely and abstractly. We are connected with nature on a fundamental level and yet our minds and spirits soar beyond all horizons. We are more in touch with our instincts, and at the same time, have the capacity to override our lizard brain gut reactions and act with logic, compassion, empathy, and compromise. Yes, we are complex beings, and in this way, are usually hard to put into the categorical boxes that men design for us.
But there is another reason women are hard to pin down. Unlike men, women are not allowed to be natural. I wrote a whole post on the interaction effects of nature and nurture and how only women are not allowed to realize their natural selves, forced instead into a male-defined, simplistic, discrete system of stereotypes and categories. Our exploitable natural qualities are reinforced and used against us, while the natural abilities and tendencies that threaten the male dominance structure are punished and suppressed. In reality, we have no idea what a natural woman is. We don’t know what female power looks like. We don’t know exactly how strong female energy burns. What we do know is that the way men force us to define ourselves is not only inadequate, but completely unnatural and self-destructive. And we do know that the natural woman has not predominated because we are not violent by nature. You can’t fight natural male violence with reason, logic and intellect despite what many feminists say.
So What About Female Sexuality?
I have a young, female friend here in China who suggested to me recently that all women are lesbians. She is 21, she has no sexual interest in men, she is not sure if she is sexually interested in women, and she is trying to figure out what she is. This is what everyone who doesn’t succumb to hetero brainwashing wrestles with. What are they? You MUST be sexually attracted to something. It is mandatory. But what if you aren’t? When I talk to my young friend, I know she is drawn to women. She feels comfortable and safe with them. She likes to experience a rich, deep perspective on the world that only women can give. She has, at an enviably early age, discovered the joys of reading women’s writing – mostly from other countries as Chinese women don’t have much of a voice in Chinese literature. Like myself and other women, she has realized that men’s writing offers little. It has no depth, no nuance, no intellect, and too much literal and figurative violence. You cannot recognize yourself in male writing if you are a woman who has escaped or started to escape your heterosexual programming.
So, is my friend a lesbian?
Unfortunately, we are forced to define ourselves through our sexuality, thanks to men and their simplistic way of thinking. It can be very confusing to those who don’t fit into boxes and those who haven’t embraced their programming completely. So using male language and self-concepts, being a lesbian primarily means you get sexually turned on by women. You can still hate women, hate yourself, support harmful gender parodies, and be completely unable to connect with women on all levels but a sexual one. You can be a complete misogynist and still be a lesbian as long as you lust after girls. And ironically, you can connect with women in many ways, but be excluded from the lesbian team if you don’t connect sexually with women. Although I don’t think men are smart enough to have engineered this sad situation, through their violent sexual machinations throughout history, this genital obsession and sex-based club formation has become the perfect way to divide women and keep men supported.
In order to really examine women’s sexuality (if it exists naturally), you have to remove the male voice from the equation entirely. Nothing a man does, says or thinks ever truly helps women understand their natural selves or their needs or desires. I have never, ever, ever met a male who doesn’t include himself, his ‘needs’ and his desires in his plans, opinions, reactions and interactions. Men cannot talk about female sexuality without thinking about themselves, even if they cloak the language in something that seems objective on the surface. Women are too quick to hand out blow jobs to male people who pay some kind of faux lip service to women’s ‘choices’ and ‘freedom’. Men are not objective. Remember, they have too much to lose from women discarding them and discovering their natural selves and their true freedom. And as predators, men are expert manipulators. So, to explore women’s natural state, you have to remove male influence, the male voice, and the male threat. It is very difficult to do. We are not taught to think about ourselves, and male people of all ages have a way of tapping into the altruistic and/or sympathetic parts of our natural selves and derailing us from taking care of ourselves.
To explore natural sexuality, you have to examine needs. What do women need? Forget those asinine women’s magazines which are basically outlets for the male voice. Women don’t need to feel sexy or beautiful. Women don’t need a closet full of clothes or the right colour lipstick. Women don’t need the ‘right man’ or flowers on her birthday or a special night to focus on her orgasms instead of sucking her master’s cock.
First, women need food, drink, sleep and shelter. Those are the basic survival needs. After that, we start talking about needs related not to survival, but quality of life. Women need love, affection, human connection, acceptance – all of those things related to human interaction and relationships. And to escape from male language control, when I say love and affection, I’m not talking about sex or orgasms. I’m talking about feeling loved and appreciated and having emotional exchange, all free from threat, duty and coercion. I suspect all men and most women don’t truly understand what this means as we have been so corrupted by male thinking on what love and relationships are.
Women also need dreams, goals, confidence, aspirations, inspiration, motivation, hope, and empowerment. Again, these are needs related to quality of life – those things that make life worth living, and that make having consciousness make sense. These are not related to the material world or to sex. And while no one dies from lack of love or lack of empowerment or dreams, they will likely live in a depressed state with plenty of physical and mental health problems. This is how most women currently live, and I’d argue that it is because of forced heterosexuality and living in the male system that relies upon it. Forcing women to submit to men deprives them of those needs that make life worth living. And all of their energies instead are poured into ensuring that men not only achieve all of these personal needs, but they also have an abundance of them to draw from any time they wish. Further, introducing a sexual element to a relationship, especially, but not only with men, redirects energy away from women having their own quality-of-life-based needs met and into ensuring the male partner is well cared for and sexually catered to.
The best friendships I’ve had with women have been those that tap into quality-of-life needs, and those friendships, if they break down, are always because of the intrusion of a demanding parasitical male. Hetero-programmed women are hard to be long-term friends with, I’ve found, for this very reason. There is always a parasite lurking, whether it be a husband, a new boyfriend, or a male child. Marriage and breeding paradigms – systems invented by men to support male supremacy – have always served to divide women, break down female friendships, and redirect female energy into male goals and success.
Friendships with men, regardless of their age, have never genuinely addressed affection needs or empowerment needs. Males in friendships have their needs addressed, as they siphon female energy. And I can’t think of a single friendship with a male that didn’t end up destroyed by sexual propositions or downright sexual harassment, sometimes after years of supposedly platonic interaction. By design, I currently have very few males in my life. One of the last remaining ones, a former student here in China, 21 years my junior whom I’ve kept around only because I have had some success mentally desexing male students and seeing them only as ‘students’, just ruined our two-year, ongoing interaction last week by announcing that he is ‘in love with me’. It was so utterly disappointing and confusing, especially because I am open about not being interested in men, and I stupidly thought I was immune from most sexual predation from men because I’m 45 and I don’t feminize. I’m not sure if there are mommy issues going on or the idea of converting the possible ‘lesbian’ was irresistible. Regardless, the teaching point here is that there is no such thing as an exception when it comes to men. They are all predators. They make everything about sex. And no woman is safe. Ever.
Oh and in case you are snarking, “What about gay males? They are basically women…” Don’t worry, they are all male, and thus, they are predators and consumers of women, too. I personally had a gay male friend in college who eventually told me in all seriousness that he would try to go straight to be with me. Weird, and believe it or not, I didn’t take him up on the offer… Nevertheless, while that may not be a normal scenario for all fags, they still do their best to steal female emotional energy, treat us as verbal punching bags (aside from blacks, fags are some of the worst hate-speakers towards women), use our bodies (to determine gayness or as rented baby factories), and to fight their human rights battles (think the AIDS epidemic), while not returning the favour, especially for lesbians. So fuck them, but not literally 😉
So back to the question: what about female sexuality? Are women sexual beings? I suspect this wouldn’t be an important question if men didn’t exist. I don’t think sex would take on even a fraction of the importance it has now if men didn’t exist. I don’t think relationships would form and break up on the basis of sexual activity and attraction if men didn’t exist. I think without men, women would take physical pleasure in each other, but it wouldn’t form the basis of relationships, and wouldn’t be the stuff of obsessions. Life would be rich, complex, layered. As it is now, everything is sex. People kill themselves and each other over it. Half the population is enslaved because of it. Without men, there would be so much less pain and destruction. With men in the picture, women are not naturally heterosexual. Nothing about heterosexuality is naturally good for women; it is destructive. If women were naturally straight, programming would not be needed. Violence would not be needed. There is so much effort (violence, threats, propaganda) put into turning women into men’s willing sex and labour slaves, it is impossible to argue that heterosexuality is natural for women. I think women are naturally drawn to women, but I would define ‘lesbian’ differently than it is currently understood in system of male dominance. There may be a sexual component, but the affinity is based on more complex things that override any kind of central sexuality.
In short, I don’t think male language and thinking are adequate for describing what women are naturally. Categorical male thinking and vocabulary – heterosexual, bisexual, queer, homosexual, asexual – may be fine for describing men (I prefer omnisexual as a more accurate description of what men are), but not for women. Ideally, women need be released from male control and male demands for sex so that they may discover what they need and to realize and embrace the quality of life no woman has yet achieved, but so very clearly deserves.
♀️ 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. ⚢
The Pen and the Sword: Best Mates for Life
This post consists of some background to my most recent survey on rape, which is still open to participants (click the button below):
The survey was designed to explore people’s understanding of and beliefs about rape. The content of the survey was drawn from collected data and research, a wide range of reported personal experiences, news stories, and myths and propaganda propagated through various entertainment outlets. If you plan to take the survey – and it would be immensely appreciated if you did – please click through before reading further. My personal views are not important to the survey, and I don’t wish them to colour participant responses.
After years of thinking and examination of the number one influence on and limitation to my existence as a girl first, and later, a woman, I have to conclude that any discussion or consideration of rape must begin with a discussion of language. Indeed, any thinking on hierarchy, power dynamics or control mechanisms (which is where rape finds its roots) must take into account the role of language.
Humans vs. All Other Creatures
In considering the differences between humans and other mammals or any creature for that matter, there are some significant differences that set us apart. And note that this is in no way a comment that humans are superior to animals, as I don’t believe that for a second. Each species has its strengths and weaknesses, which makes hierarchy-development a rather stupid and pointless endeavour. In considering humans, language and the capacity for deep and complex self-awareness set them apart from all other living things on earth. Other creatures may have systems of communication and a limited ability to reflect on simple behaviours, but none rivals human capacity. That is not a judgment, just a fact. Dolphins don’t conjugate verbs and chimpanzees don’t chronically and masochistically self-sabotage or even commit suicide over lack of purpose or meaning in life. Non-humans also don’t develop systems of ethics or morality – even misguided, faulty ones. These are uniquely human ‘achievements’ and are only three of many, many examples of the complexities of human language and self-awareness.
Humans are also the only species capable of malice. Now, note that I am not talking about survival instincts. Men and silly women who defend men often argue that male violence is just a reflection of the instinct to survive and is comparable to the killing that any other species does. This is classic male logic designed specifically to try to justify violent male behaviour. Some of my Chinese male university students will state without blinking that we ‘live in a jungle’. Now, I do believe that males are naturally violent. They are wired for it. But as I’ve written before, as humans, we also have self-awareness, and it is this unique and incredible ability that allows humans to override violent impulses. But, as humans are also uniquely malicious creatures, instinct and deliberate cruelty frequently play off each other. No creature other than the human (male) kills for pleasure. And no creature other than the human (male) tortures other living things. There is no evolutionary or ‘survival’ purpose for killing for pleasure or for torturing. I’ve met a lot of men who try to argue with seriously twisted logic that there is a need for these things. This is when I back away, and wish I had a weapon at the ready in order to do like all other creatures do out of instinct – remove a dangerous threat to one’s survival. But, alas, human females are the only creatures on earth who are NOT allowed to defend themselves.
And this is where language enters the scene.
The Role of Language in Power, Control and Hierarchy
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Language is one of human’s oldest tools. Like all tools, it can be a beautiful mechanism or system used to do wonderful things and inspire the best in all of us. But like all tools, it can also be used to destroy everything in its path. In the hands of men, language is frequently used to express male ‘love’ and ‘creativity’, which as most women eventually come to find out, are dangerous things and not at all what female love and creativity are.
As human males have come to realize, weapons alone will not get you sustainable power. Sure, you can overwhelm a perceived enemy, but it is really difficult to maintain that victory for any period of time without a much more powerful weapon. That weapon is language. Language is, in fact, a much more powerful weapon than any ‘sword’. But they work together. Just as it is hard to sustain control with only swords, it is also difficult to gain and keep power with only words. We’ve all heard that common description of successful evil dynamic duos: ‘You have the brawn and I have the brains’ (cue the Pet Shop Boys here…). Well, that is an apt description of the sword and the pen. Employ the brute force, overwhelm the enemy, enact the mindfuckery of the brutalized population that only language can achieve (e.g., “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”), and then all future brutality just becomes an accepted part of the system. Those few who see beyond the language mechanisms and refuse to believe have no leg to stand on, and find themselves very much alone and often questioning their own sanity.
Whoever Controls Language Controls the World
As a tool and building block of control and power, it is safe to say that if you aspire to megalomaniac status, you need to master language. I don’t mean that you should learn to speak several languages. I mean you need to learn how to use language to manipulate people and situations, and to obscure facts. You need to weaponize language. You need to see where language has its greatest influence. My Oppressor Triangle discusses a few major centres of influence, but there are other arenas. Language has had its greatest influence in the areas of politics, law, economics, academia, and the health care system (industry). These areas don’t function separately. There is much overlap. The language enacted in the political sphere can and does affect all other spheres of power, for example.
The question becomes: who controls language? And the answer is: men. Men have always controlled language. And they control it as much today as they have in the past. It’s not a race thing, as much as some people might wish it to be so. It is a MALE thing. If you are a big picture thinker, if you think internationally across time and place – and really, you have to be if you are ever to hope of ending oppression – you have to accept the truth that males control language, and as a result, they control everything. If you get bogged down on other group affiliations, you’ll change nothing. Only the truth can set you (and everyone else) free.
How do we know that males control language, and as a result, the world? It’s pretty easy. You have to take an overarching look at lifestyle and living conditions and determine who overwhelmingly benefits and who overwhelmingly is denied choices and freedoms. Look at any country. It is the same no matter which country you look at and no matter which race is being considered. Who is the poorest group? Females. Look at any field of research: who is studied meticulously and who benefits from the research? Males. Look at entertainment in any country. Who makes the most money, and who is hired based on talent rather than physical attributes? Males. Who is human trafficked most often? Females. Whose social justice complaints actually make progress? Males of all races and orientations. Who receives the poorest health care, and the most needless and harmful surgeries? Females. Who has been hurt most by the field of psychiatry? Females. Whose bodies and decisions about bodies are controlled by the state and institutions like religion and marriage? Females. Who is barred from politics, employment, education, and safety on a regular basis? Females.
And more. So much more.
There are data to back up each of these. Easy to find. Google, government web sites, academic journals. I’m not doing that here. This is not an academic journal article. And it is tedious to state and restate everything that has been said by women a million times before. What I find important here is the theory that it is language and the control of language that facilitates control on every other level.
Language and Rape
Men have been raping, torturing and killing women since they realized they could. It has nothing to do with evolution or survival. Any man who tells you that it does is dangerous and you should get away from him before he hurts you.
Male control of language has had its greatest impact on the one thing that has allowed them to maintain control over women. Rape. Without rape, men don’t have a hold over women. Control the language surrounding rape, and you control the crime itself – or whether it is even considered a crime, or who can commit it, or who is responsible, or who can be raped. We know that women have no power, and certainly have no control over language, because rape is so rampant and that they are on the receiving end with little ability to avoid it or seek justice for it.
It is only relatively recently that rape was even considered a crime, and only extremely recently that rape was considered to be a form of torture. In Western cultures, the rape of a woman was considered to be a crime against the man who owned her. And it could only be committed by a male who did not own her. She herself, as a rape victim, was deemed dirtied, rendered an embarrassment, and often tossed out like so much garbage from family and community. Even today, rape victims often end up in prostitution or suffering from mental health problems that leave them unable to self-actualize, let alone take care of themselves properly. The propaganda and brainwashing campaign that all societies provide to women to get them to accept rape as reality, as normal, often succeeds in neutralizing female protest to unlivable conditions. Rape is a crucial part of Western entertainment – drama as well as comedy – although Western men are not alone in their enjoyment of female torture. Many women will suppress their experiences or deny that rape even happened. Rape victims who don’t follow the rules are often punished by society, and frequently by other women who prefer to lash out at other women than to name the real problem.
In non-Western countries, rape has gone through equally horrible control by men. In some countries, raping girl children isn’t considered rape. Elsewhere, rape cannot occur within a marriage or family. In others, rape has only occurred if a woman can get a handful of male witnesses to support her claim. No, women aren’t in control of language at all. Anywhere in the world. I mean, no woman would ever set up the linguistic, social and legal hoops/barriers to proving rape that are currently in place in every corner of the earth. We aren’t that masochistic or stupid of our own free will.
Men Can Be Raped, Toooooooo!
Likely, in response to women calling more attention to rape and violence against women, men retaliated. Men always retaliate. They are allowed. There are always repercussions to women gaining even an ounce of freedom or power or justice. And language is always at the centre of any retaliation. And there is always violence to back it up.
So recently, men decided to change the language surrounding rape. They decided that rape no longer meant ‘male forcibly entering a female through her vagina using his dick’. Suddenly, males could be raped! And further, women could be rapists!
These revelations served a very, very important purpose. You see, if you can show that a crime or negative circumstance ALSO affects men, it is no longer a sex-based inequality or a hate crime. Men no longer are forced to be held responsible. Men are no longer predators. They are no longer deficient in some way. If you can show that they suffer tooooo or that women are doing the same evil deeds tooooo, then men no longer will be examined as the sole source of a major problem or epidemic. Once males can name themselves as victims, all focus can ‘justifiably’ be removed from women and recentred on men and boys. All we need is one male victim to negate the suffering of millions of women. And all we need is one female predator to negate the predation of millions of males. That is the male control of language at work. Change one word or one definition, and you can change the lives of millions. Control is regained.
Predictably, women got on board with the rebranding of rape, as they usually do when males find new ways to name themselves as victims, to detract from female victims, and to blame women for something. Women are usually the first ones on board with helping men hurt women. And men are experts at painting themselves as victims and martyrs.
Rape, in the minds of many, now also means a woman ‘forces’ a male to pop a boner and stick it to her. And strangely, rape now also means a dick forcibly entering an anus. But the thing is this, even if the former is forced, it is not rape. It may be a sexual assault, and if so, it needs to have its own label. The latter is NOT RAPE. It actually already has its own label. It is called forcible sodomy. Women are also frequently forcibly sodomized by men, more often than men are forcibly sodomized by men, and often in addition to being raped. But ignoring and/or broadening existing definitions has achieved its goal. We’ve taken the focus off what men do to women. And sex crimes are no longer seen primarily as the domain of male perps. Congratulations men and the dangerous women who support them.
Letting Victims Define Crimes
I wrote a short piece in the past on the problem of letting perpetrators define their crimes. Interestingly, it is only with male violence against women that this is allowed. As in my example in that previous post demonstrates, it sounds ridiculous say, to allow a thief to define his crime. But we don’t bat an eye when men get to define crimes against female bodies.
Women need to be allowed to define the crimes against them. As it is, so many victims fall through the cracks because currently, men define what happens to women. Men control women’s and girls’ bodies, and that is a serious issue.
There are several problems with how we deal with rape and sexual assault – besides our unwillingness to name men as the primary perpetrators of sex crimes and the sole perpetrators of rape. One is that we don’t have enough clearly defined categories of crimes. We also have too many barriers to victims coming forward. And finally, our punishment system is inadequate and doesn’t take into account that a) crimes against women are hate crimes, and b) men who commit sex crimes are more likely to commit again than any other type of criminal, even after being ‘punished’ (i.e., no man ever, ever, ever rapes once). Personally, I want all rape, sexual assault, torture and murder of women/girls by men punished by death. This has nothing to do with deterrence (which we know doesn’t work), or revenge (which is a male ‘logic’ thing), but everything to do with protecting future victims. It does not make sense that victims and potential victims have fewer rights and considerations and access to safety than hate-crime-sex criminals. In other words, only a dead rapist can’t rape again.
Other things to consider:
- Many women don’t report rape if their attacker is seen as ‘at risk’ or ‘vulnerable’. This includes non-white men, immigrant men, homeless men, disabled men, unemployed men, etc. It is a mixture of fear and compassion that drives women to negate their victimhood and protect their attacker.
- The burden of proof should be on the perpetrators, not the victims. Men should have to prove that they did not rape. In no other crime is the burden of proof on the victim. This exists ONLY because rape is a sex-specific hate crime committed by MEN against WOMEN, where males, who are in control of language, get to define the crimes they commit. Rape is the only crime where all the perps are male and all the victims are female. And men don’t want to take responsibility or stop raping. This needs to change.
- Consent has always been a problematic issue. It is rooted in property disputes. Bodies should not be seen as property. Further, in no place on earth do women come to the table on equal footing with men, and as such, they cannot give free and equal consent in any agreement with a male.
- Orgasms are erroneously seen as evidence of consent thanks to 2-dimensional male thinking on sex. Females are trained from birth to see servitude as a duty and a pleasurable activity. Orgasm has nothing to do with acceptance or lack of coercion.
- Many people believe that rape must involve weapons or threat of bodily harm in order to be considered rape. I’d argue that most rape is of the coercive or manipulative variety. I’d bet all of Donald Trump’s money that almost all women have ‘sex’ with the men in their lives (including husbands) because they fear abandonment, rejection, cheating, emotional and physical beatings, etc. All women know on some level that male love can turn on a dime if they don’t live up to the constantly changing expectations.
- Male children are born with a weapon – their penises. They learn about how to weaponize their dicks early in life thanks to parents, television/film, porn, and school. I’d argue that if they are using their dicks as weapons, then they need to be treated as dangerous. Sex predators never stop. I don’t have a problem with killing sex predators who are children – innocent child, my ass. And I also have no problem with holding mothers and fathers responsible for the crimes of their boy children. Rape destroys girls’ lives. No girl ever ‘gets over it’. I know I’m nearly alone in wanting boy sex predators eliminated from existence, but you’re deluded if you think predators are ‘born’ in adulthood out of nothing.
- I think statutory rape needs to be rethought. It’s not that I believe that girls are capable of free and equal consent with a boy the same age. No female of any age is ever on equal footing with a male of any age. This one is a hard one for me though. It saddens me that children are fucking. I truly wish girls were kept separate from boys for the duration of their childhoods so as not to have opportunities, educations and futures destroyed by the straight mandate and public school crash course in fuckholery and blowjobbery. One final note: Adult males who fuck girl children and teenagers need to be shot. Period.
- ‘Sex workers’ / porn actresses – paid sex is rape as far as I’m concerned. There is a lot of disagreement on this. And people get mighty pissed when a feminist suggests that sex work is abuse, not work. Abused people often lash out and get defensive when they feel attacked (even if they are not being attacked, but rather someone is trying to help them). All I can say is that women would not sell their bodies if men didn’t exist. It is almost always done out of desperation and/or resulting from childhood sex abuse. These are the conditions that make rape easy peasy to dress up as legit in a capitalist, male-serving society.
- Drugs and alcohol are convenient get-out-of-jail cards for men, and eternal damners of women. It is no coincidence that males joke about helping women relax with a drink. ‘No inhibitions’ is just man-speak for ‘no credible defense’ in a rape trial.
This really is a huge issue. So much more could be written. But it is some background to my survey. Again, if you wish to participate and let your thoughts be known, it would be very much appreciated. The link to the survey is below.
♀️ 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. ⚢
‘Out There’ Women
We live in a world where men are allowed to follow their thoughts to the very end and announce them in bold caps, surround sound and techni-colour.
How?
Men are the censors, the thought police, the free-speakers, the fuckers, the threat-issuers, the policy-, law-, and rape-makers, the law-breakers, the judges, juries and executioners, the johns. The Free.
This is how they turn their fantasies into reality. This is how they turn their crimes into rights. This is how they turn their mediocrities into merits. This is how they turn their hate into freedom.
Women are not allowed to speak freely. We must support Dick or shut up. If we don’t shut up, we will be shut up. Women may not state the facts. Women may not question the status quo. Women may not ask ‘why?’ Women may not fantasize in response to what men put out there in the name of ‘free speech’, in the name of our annihilation, in the name of their orgasms. Women may not defend themselves.
It is a rare woman who dares to follow her thoughts to the end, and she pays dearly. A few applaud her bravery within earshot, eyes gleaming and then darting, careful. A few more silently support, nodding in privacy and anonymity. And the majority wish her harmed, silenced, erased, dead. Sometimes, they get their wish.
I wish to see, hear, read more women who are ‘out there’. Daring to follow their thoughts to the end. Speaking the unspeakable – women’s words. Daring to be seen, heard, read… potentially silenced. But ultimately, daring to be believed and joined.
~~~~
Lordy, I have FINALLY found myself on YouTube and made a recording of this post. Only 7.5 years later 😉
By the way, ♀️ if you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Perfume and Shit
During my first go-round in graduate school in the US, my closest friend was this brilliant, quirky, and tortured Dutchwoman. Through her and other Dutch I’ve encountered, I, the over-polite Canadian, came to appreciate their delicious bluntness. I’ve since found that they have a just-so way of putting things that hits the nail on the head without destroying your thumb.
I’ll always remember something my friend said that has since had great application in various situations. While she was speaking literally, her words provide a great metaphor.
We were talking about bathroom habits for some strange reason, and I think she was commenting on what she believed was the American tendency to spray perfume or some other artificial smell after doing one’s business in the bathroom. She said:
“I don’t know why people do this! I’d rather just smell your shit than a mixture of your perfume and your shit.”
The implication, of course, is that you can’t cover up reality. And to follow: why should we try? It doesn’t actually work.
I’ve found myself coming back to this simple, but brilliant, comment on the recent human tendency to put a positive spin on political/social/research conclusions and theory. And recently, I’ve been reminded of it in critiques of certain feminist conclusions about the state of things. Conclusions and theories are discarded with the sweep of a hand simply by calling them ‘pessimistic’ or ‘depressing’. It’s not even a valid argument. Something may well be depressing, but that is unrelated to its veracity. This kind of dismissiveness can show up when feminists rightly point out that men have behaved as vicious sons-of-rapists for millennia, and if they wanted to change, they very simply would. Dick supporters will start in with their “That is too pessimistic! Too depressing to contemplate!” spiel. They insist that men can and will change if we just reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. They just need our bottomless female understanding, coddling, and education. But smart feminists have pointed out that men already have been sucking our helpfulness dry for a long, long time. We’ve done all of the above and then some. To no avail. Men don’t want to change. And they never will change. And hell, yes, it is depressing. But it is true. The truth usually isn’t roses and puppy dog kisses. The truth is slavery and rape for women and girls, ad infinitum.
And there are other arguments/theories/conclusions about the state of things and the state of things to come that receive similar reactions. To be honest, it is much the way many women are treated when they try to talk about their experiences of rape and assault – their reality – people don’t want to hear it. It’s too depressing. Too… real? You can lose friendships, family ties, and partner-relationships if you try to talk about your depressing reality (been there a few times, myself).
Why can’t people handle truth? I think this is subject matter for a future post. I want to get into suicide and death and such. People absolutely hate those topics and I think they are very important. Not only does each person have to face reality eventually, but we are soaking in effects of the male death drive and all that implies from the day we’re born. Ignoring it gets us nowhere but a world of hurt.
I prefer the Dutch approach. I may not want to smell the shit, but I’d rather smell it than have my brain confused by the conflation of two incompatible scents. You can’t spray optimism on the toxic air of Patriarchy and expect to find a viable solution or ‘hope for the future’.
The Waste of a Gift
The following will be really, really hard to understand if you are a man, especially a man living in a Western country run on ‘democracy’ (there has never been a true democracy, so I put that in quotes).
If you have lived in any kind of dictatorship – and by that, I mean a real dictatorship, not a ‘democracy’ that many men will call dictatorships because they don’t get to abuse or rape women as freely as they wish – or you are a member of an oppressed group, such as women, LGB, or racial minorities, then this might be easier to understand.
In the semi-free societies that result from a ‘democracy’, people have rights or what we conceived of as (morally, legally) protected categories of behaviour. There is no set list of rights, and in fact, there are rights we likely haven’t conceived of yet simply because we live in a male-dominated society that has different priorities for human life than, say, a non-sadism-based society would have. You see, rights are not innate or natural. Rather, they are symptoms or markers of a civilized society. The more advanced a society, the more numerous and more equally applied to all people these human rights are. Likewise, the less civilized or advanced a society, the fewer rights are allowed for everyone equally. In a sense, rights are a gift to be shared by all members of society, not to be taken for granted or abused.
Even within our currently semi-free societies, these rights are not equally allowed or protected. The ruling class – specifically, men, since all societies are currently male-dominated – will be more protected than other groups, and they will often take liberties in defining those rights for themselves and in restricting those rights for other groups (first and foremost, women).
The most troubling thing about the most ‘advanced’ societies that actually build rights into their governments’ legal mandates is that the most powerful people (men) don’t see rights as the communal gifts that they are. They see them as more like property or collectibles that individuals can own. And instead of using them for good or for further social and intellectual advancement of their society – which I see as the primary goal of human life – they use them to further agendas of hate, violence, dominance, oppression, and self-centred pleasure.
If one uses the right of ‘free speech’ as an example, we can see blatant abuse by the dominant class (men, of all colours). The abuses take the form of silencing the speech of women, while promoting the voices of men. Redefining oppressed groups’ (especially women’s) non-violent speech as hate and violence. Defining or including hate and violence against women (e.g., pornography) as speech, when clearly it isn’t. Using speech as a weapon, rather than, say, rhetoric, to actively and deliberately hurt groups of the least powerful people (women) who have done nothing wrong.
These instances, and common ones at that, are abuses of a gift. And it is shocking to me that when the powerful (men) are fortunate enough to have access to a gift, the first and central things they want to do with that gift is to destroy people (women) who have no desire to harm them.
Please think, men. You abuse the gifts you have, and in that way, you hurt ALL of society in many ways you probably haven’t thought of.
A Whole Lotta Beauty and Nothing Else
I teach a few different things in China. My least favourite course is ‘advanced oral English’. First, there is nothing advanced about the abilities of the majority of students – ‘advanced’ is just a word that, in typical Chinese fashion, is for appearances only . And second, I am not an orator. Decent teacher, yes. Orator extraordinaire, no. Oh, and third, trying to have a heavily interactive class when the standard number of students in a small, participation-based university class is 50 is a waste of everyone’s time.
If I must teach communication methodologies, I prefer to teach writing. But if I had my druthers, I’d be teaching a variety of other things within the analytical realm.
Anyhow, I’m in the middle of two weeks of the dreaded speech-making unit. This is where I give a choice of topics (ranging from easy to requiring more insight and imagination). One of the topics requires these 18- to 23-year-olds to think about what they want their lives to look like in 20 years.
If they choose this topic, inevitably, they talk about the family they want. If you can believe it is possible, the Chinese romantic narrative is even more boring and standard than the Western one. Everybody says almost exactly the same thing. I have never, ever, ever met anyone here who wants something different than the rest of the 1.35 billion people.
While it is depressing to hear the young women spout the romantic dream that is the curtain that hides their impending slavery, it is worse listening to the men. And sadly, most of my students are men. Even though I spend an entire class talking about how to describe personality or character, and get them to brainstorm adjectives, they ALL describe their future wives in exactly the same two-dimensional way, and unsurprisingly, there is never a reference to character unless it is to imply that she exists to wait on him and provide children, which is still not really ‘personality’. They describe Future Wife as ‘beautiful’ and that is it. She has no substance. The only thing that matters is that she is beautiful. One of the better speakers did say: “I don’t like girls with strong opinions.” So there you go.
Interestingly, when I teach the class on character and do the brainstorming exercise, most of the students include beautiful, pretty, or cute on their lists, and I do the requisite explanation that physical attractiveness is not a personality characteristic. And although you could, in English, call someone beautiful and refer to their personality, that is not at all what people are thinking here when they put it on their list of personality traits.
When describing men, there is a much richer palette. Men are allowed to be intelligent, talented, creative, hardworking, diligent, responsible, etc. Oh, to be multifaceted – dare I dream?
If you do manage to get people to describe women in any detail, you get a more intense and benevolently misogynist list than you get in the West – today’s Western woman might be called strong, but what is meant is that she is a sexual being with all that entails regarding character (wild, masochistic, uninhibited, slutty, etc). It’s just as superficial, in my opinion. In China, it is all naiveté, innocence, and purity – these are all ideal ‘girl’ qualities. The ideal woman is ‘a girl’ – she acts like, looks like, and thinks like ‘a girl’. It’s so ingrained in the culture – even trying to get people to refer to females over 18 as women is really hard to do. They have no problem calling 18-year-old males ‘men’, though.
I decided I have to stop assigning this topic for speeches. As my educational techniques regarding women and personality and human status are clearly not working, I am now going to give my barf trigger mechanism priority.
In another post, I’ll tell you about a) Chinese misogyny in hero/role model discussions and b) how my writing classes approached their assignment on short fiction.
That’s Some Arsenal You’ve Got There, Gentlemen
Part one: That’s Some Toolbox You’ve Got There, Ladies.
In the previous post linked to above, I talked about several of the tools and techniques women have at the ready in order to survive as slaves in a patriarchal system. These are the mechanisms that lead women to:
- accept abuse, rape, heaps of discrimination without complaint;
- seek out and stay in romantic relationships with men where anything can and does happen (keep in mind that no relationship between men and women is equal);
- comply and perpetuate Patriarchy by attacking potential allies (non-compliant women/feminists) and indoctrinating children in the ways of gender; and
- fail to notice the millions and millions of daily messages, large and small, direct and indirect, aimed at women to let them know that they are members of the sex class, meant to serve men, and undeserving of freedom or respect.
That post was about defense. This one is about offense. I want to talk about the tools and mechanisms – or weapons – men have in their arsenals to reinforce their supremacy by keeping women in line. Note that ALL men are given starter arsenals as boys, and most grow up to add more vicious and effective weapons as they get older – even the liberal, so-called ‘Nice Guys’.
I’m not going to talk about physical weapons like guns or knives or physical violence like rape or beatings or BDSM torture. These are obvious. Instead, like in the previous post, I’m going to talk about psychological warfare and what men do to mindfuck ‘loved’ ones, acquaintances, and strangers.
In case, you’re prepared to jump in with a standard, knee-jerk “But women do it tooooooo!” whinge-fest, please note that a) this post is not about individual women attacking individual men as DOES happen, but is not a systematic problem, and b) this post is about class warfare – by men as a class against women as a class. There has never been a war waged by women against men. If so, there’d be millions of dead and maimed men out there. As it stands, the only ones killing men in any number are MEN. So zip it and read on!
Offense Mechanisms
Note that some of the defense mechanisms talked about the the previous post can be used by men as attack mechanisms. Projection, for instance, can work the following way in the hands of a man on the attack. As a rule, men have a socialized, underlying hatred of women. Many men will project their hatred of women onto the women themselves claiming that women actually are the ones who hate men. This is the current chant of the MRAs (morons’ rights activists), and is why terms like ‘feminazi’ and ‘man-hating, lesbo feminist’ exist without evidence for them. Men’s hatred is turned into women’s hatred to make men feel justified in issuing rape threats, actual rape, beatings, and psychological warfare.
Gaslighting
This is a form of denial, but it is denial used to attack or manipulate. By refusing to admit that something is true, often repeatedly, the attacker causes their victim to begin to question their perceptions and lose confidence. The more off-balance a victim is, the more likely she is to remain in thrall to an abuser. The victim is increasingly likely to overlook often outrageously bad behavior, especially if they are in a relationship.
Example: On an individual level, imagine a newbie to the BDSM scene. She feels like what she is experiencing is abuse, but her dominant repeatedly says it didn’t happen or reframes her experience as something entirely different – submitting isn’t abuse, it is freedom, it is love. It is actually she who has the power. He invalidates her perceptions and she comes to doubt herself. She becomes primed for a deep commitment to submissive status.
We also see this in the low incidence of rape reporting – we can apply gaslighting to women as a group. Women are almost never believed when they dare to speak out about being raped. As a result, women as a class, often doubt their own experiences of rape and don’t bother to speak out. Women are not believed, so most women believe their experiences aren’t real.
Infantilizing
I’ve devoted a post to this topic, so I’ll keep it brief here. Infantilizing is the treating of woman as if she were a child or as less capable or intelligent than she actually is. You can also infantilize girls by treating them like younger children and over-protecting and denying confidence and agency. Infantilizing goes really well with gaslighting. Imagine being treated like an idiot over and over, and then if you dare to complain, you’re told that you’re imagining things or are oversensitive. You eventually come to believe that how you’re being treated is perfectly normal and you become an ineffective and relatively useless adult with no confidence and always second-guessing yourself.
Pathologizing
It is common for those who don’t conform to mainstream expectations to be pathologized. If someone doesn’t meet expectations, there must be something wrong with her. She needs to be fixed, medicated, given therapy, subjected to surgery, controlled and brought to heel.
Example: The current craze in pathologizing is, of course, centred on sexuality. These days, women need to be ready for sex and thrilled about it 24/7. Of course, sexuality and sex are still defined by men for men, so the perfectly reasonable avoidance or lack of desire on the part of women to engage in something that will not benefit them in any way (and is actually dangerous in many ways) becomes ‘a problem’. Instead of seeing and accepting it for what it actually is – a normal response to sexual slavery and erasure – women are labelled ‘frigid’ or ‘depressed’ or something that indicates that they aren’t fulfilling the expected role. Out come the drugs, sex therapy, psychological abuse, demands for polyamory, and porn.
Shaming and Guilting
Very simply, the act of inspiring feelings of guilt or shame in someone to get them to do something they don’t want to do or to back down on requests for fair treatment.
Example: Men love to push women to the edge and over it in relationships, and inspiring shame or guilt – some of the first powerful feelings young girls experience in all cultures – is a very effective way for men to get what they want. Men often play the victim. Their lives are so hard, and according to them, women make their lives even harder with their nagging and unreasonable demands for respect or consideration. It is these techniques of shaming and guilting that inspire the following: “If you loved me, you would…” and the demands almost always entail some demeaning, degrading, brutalizing, unfair sexual performance or concessions on the part of the woman.
Shaming and guilting (in addition to spreading lies and misinformation) are the key tools in the Pro-Choice movement’s assault against women who need abortions.
One-Upping
A tool used to silence another person by claiming greater victimhood status.
Example: This has recently become a very effective tool in our modern age of oppression status. Everybody is being oppressed. It is a common tool used by men of colour against white women who rebuke their rape or harassment attempts. These men will scream ‘racism!’ or society will do it for them if the rape attempt becomes public knowledge. It is one reason I didn’t report being violently raped by my Arab Muslim boyfriend 8 years ago. ‘Islamophobia’ is a buzzword right now, and current Liberals can get enthusiastically on board with the idea that a white woman is using her poorly suppressed Islamophobia/racism to make a false rape claim but have an incredibly hard time believing that a man has raped a woman.
Some of these men know exactly that is what will happen when they scream racism – it is a joke and a get out of jail free card since racism is taken seriously, but misogyny and violence against women are not. For others, they truly believe they are being oppressed when a woman refuses or fights against their violence. Men of all colours (and SES, religions, etc.) are taught from birth that they are entitled to pussy any time they want it.
Others argue that this is also what is happening with some of the male-to-female trans community trying to silence women by one-upping them on the oppression scale. By using male tactics of aggression and claiming status as ‘women’, actual women are forced into silence. Again, some of these folks know exactly what they are doing, while others may wear oppression as clothing and truly believe everyone is hurting them personally.
The most egregious examples of one-upping occur when a white dude with no true difficulties in life claims victimhood status that is more important than a woman – any woman. This happens CONSTANTLY (see MRAs, for example).
I truly can’t count the number of men – white and non-white – who have silenced me by shouting me down with examples of how they perceive themselves to be the most unfortunate victims on the planet. It has been especially effective when coupled with guilting.
Hope / Manipulated Forgiveness
Hope, is probably one of the most powerful forces out there. Giving someone the impression that things will get better can erase the effects and memories of an incredible amount of abuse.
Example: The most common scenario is that of the battered spouse/girlfriend. Despite the well-known mantra of psychologists and statisticians that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, the battering male will erase this idea by promising that he will change. And he seems to… until the next time he beats and rapes his wife/girlfriend. It helps that women are programmed from childhood to forgive.
Bestowing the Backhanded Compliment of ‘Otherness’
I have an entire post devoted to the concept of ‘other’, and there is a section on how men psychologically manipulate women into enabling them and accepting misogynistic abuse through a sort of backhanded flattery: they are not like all the other girls. Women can feel special and ‘loved’, but eventually may come to realize that this status can change immediately if they dare to question the flatterer.
—
There are many more psychological attack devices that men use against women to keep their system of dominance firmly in place. This is just a taste.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Well Read and Willfully Ignorant
You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.Ray Bradbury
I’d go a step further with that quote. After all, it was said by a man, so he doesn’t see the whole picture. I’d say, the best way to prevent a group of people from existing, from contributing to a culture is to prevent them from writing and/or being read. Most people don’t read or take seriously those women authors who are allowed to be published. And most women are not allowed to be published unless they are willing to tell men’s version of the truth. So essentially, the world doesn’t get to read what is not allowed to be there. And that is the story of women.
There are tons of people who don’t read. They can read, but they just don’t. Can’t be bothered. It’s too much work, and requires too much sustained attention, I reckon. I was watching a documentary about the future of reading, and I recall a PhD student commenting that she had to retrain herself to read proper articles in a focused and analytical way after her modern immersion into social media skim-reading. I imagine that an actual work of literature must seem a sisyphean task when you normally spend your day ‘reading’ Twitter and Facebook feeds.
Even among the supposedly superiorly educated Chinese (according to people who’ve never been to, let alone worked in, China), reading non-mandatory books is not common. Last year, I brought in a pile of English language books from my own collection of modern literature to my writing class full of English majors here in China. I’d told them that to become a better writer, reading was a requirement. Only two of my students borrowed books. No one else even attempted to look at the books. Disappointing. But unsurprising. Only occasionally does a Chinese student tell me that they both read and enjoy reading non-mandatory books. It’s all about texting and reading other people’s constant status updates – just like in the West. How is this interesting?
Regarding documentaries, I know plenty of people who’ve never watched even a single one. And those don’t even require a fraction of the attention that a book requires!
But of those few who do read – and I’m talking about great works other than Fifty Shades of Shit or Maxim (seriously, I once dated a British dickface who told me with a straight face that Maxim was the ‘thinking man’s magazine’) – they are still woefully and willfully ignorant of topics and authors who should be a required part of school curricula. The tired old classics are standard, and those classics are written by penises for penises. For most school children and college students, women don’t exist on paper or in politics.
Women authors of literature and feminist philosophy and politics are unsurprisingly absent from school curricula all over the world. Dangerous thinking relegated to Women’s Studies programs, I suppose? As I mentioned, the classics are priapic, but even the edgy or avant-garde have a phallic bent. For many students, misogynists, J. D. Salinger and George Orwell and their social and political commentary have possibly appeared on school reading lists, but who but an English major in Canada has read Margaret Atwood (who is actually a better writer than both of those men)? And everyone knows who Karl Marx is, but Andrea Dworkin’s vast collection of work remains in obscurity in danger of complete obliteration.
But all of these works are available in the public domain, at least for now. There is no reason not to read, not to know.
There is something I find very interesting. I think about my liberal-minded male friends, the few of them I still keep around, and I know they read. They watch documentaries. They learn stuff. They know stuff. They can talk about a number of topics with a level of understanding. And they have one thing in common. They know zero, nothing, nada about women, women’s struggles, the women’s movement, the status of women today. About the movement that concerns half of the world’s population directly and the other half in an important way – they know bupkis. They can talk about other social movements. They know something about racial struggle.
Some of these men, once they come into contact with struggling groups, go out of their way to learn about what these people go through. One friend in the American TV and film business, upon meeting Albanians who had fled their country’s turmoil, went out of his way to learn about the history of their country and plight. But when he was casting actresses for one of his films, he couldn’t figure out why they made sexual overtures to him (other than the idea that all women are sluts always looking to service men). The idea that the film business requires female actors to ‘consent’ to rape in order to get jobs and how that came to be (female subordination/male domination) was completely beyond his educated mind. He got angry when I tried to tell him what many people have said about ‘his business’, the film industry, as an outsider. Yet, while I don’t work in entertainment, I am better read about the plight of women in film than he is. I’ll bet you money that he hasn’t read Rose McGowan’s recent whistleblowing of Hollywood’s widespread sexual assault of its female acting population. He doesn’t have to know about it. He benefits from women’s slavery and to know about it means he has to take responsibility and change the way he does business.
This is the willful ignorance of supposedly intelligent and educated men. The one group all of these men actually live in close proximity to, and sometimes in the same home with – women – they know nothing about. They can’t be bothered to learn about what their close female friends and loved ones have endured and continue to endure. Women don’t matter except when they stop delivering that which is taken for granted. They are objects. They serve men and men’s struggles. The struggle of men is assumed to be the struggle of women. There is no struggle outside that. The concerns of racial groups, religious groups, and gay people matter because men are members of those groups. Women aren’t men, so their continued slavery does not matter.
But these knowledgeable men do know about what the fun-feminists are doing. Oh yes, they are well aware of topless events in the name of political reform. They do know about slut shaming and the movement to embrace sluttiness as a defiant, ‘feminist’ response. They know those powerful ‘feminists’, the Suicide Girls. And by knowing about this kind of stuff, they think they have their fingers on the pulse of feminism. Women just want to fuck more! That’s all. And men don’t need to know more than that. They don’t need to explore the history of struggle. To look for real information might push them out of their comfort zone. Fun-feminists have given ignorance their stamp of approval as per historic male agenda.
Willful ignorance is dangerous. And it comes from failing to read. That failure to read starts at the school level with the censorship of books written by and about women. And it continues through college and into the world of work and survival. We destroy our culture by promoting willful ignorance, by de-emphasizing reading, and especially by negating the contributions of women writers. After all, you can be well read by today’s standards, and still incredibly ignorant by choice.
What’s This Internet Contraption Doing to Women?
I don’t necessarily think that the hatred men have for women has either increased or decreased over the years. What appears to be the case (and one could say this holds for every aspect of societal evolution over long periods of time) is that how the hate manifests can appear to intensify. The hate levels and proportion of infected hater population can stay the same, but the manifestations of the hate can appear to escalate in horrificity. With globalization and improvement in modes of communication and information sharing, there has definitely been a change in the spread of hatred towards women.
A handful of years ago, whilst living in rural China, a local teacher explained to me that the internet made people bad. It is still a commonly held view in China that information censorship is a good and necessary thing. My immediate reaction was to oppose her view. I like freedom of speech despite that the principle does not yet serve the oppressed like it does oppressors. We just don’t live in a world where the principle is applied equally. Oppressors (men, religious people, straight people, breeders, etc) use freedom of speech to spew hatred and perpetuate violence, while those they oppress (women, atheists, lesbians and gays, non-breeders, etc) are often censored. And I think the definition of ‘speech’ is often twisted and abused in order to include and protect violent acts like pornography that serve to hurt the oppressed and make money for the dominant class.
Communication tools can be harmful and beneficial at the same time. Unlike the Chinese teacher, I don’t think there is a simplistic and direct, one-way, causal relationship between tools and people’s goodness or badness. That is not to say they don’t influence each other. They do. I would argue that there may be more harm than good being done, but then again, I don’t think any society in our world is set up to reward good behaviour to the extent that they do bad behaviour. That is Patriarchy, and it’s not a good system for most people. The internet was created as a tool to serve Patriarchy, and while some have managed to do good things with it, it still serves its masters: men.
Anyhow, back to the people.
Assholes existed before the internet was created. Awesome people existed before the internet was created. And then came the internet. Assholes became more assholish (perhaps a few stayed the same or reformed). Lots of people found ways to become assholes thanks to this thing called ‘relative anonymity’ – one key, defining element of the internet. And many awesome people became more awesome. Some people used the internet to learn and self-improve, or help isolated people organize and overcome various hardships. Other people found convenient and rewarding outlets for their hate and self-indulgence that they never had before, or found ways to make money off peddling hate. In short, like any other tool, it is impossible to label the internet as good or bad. It made some people better, had little real effect on several folks, and it made lots of people worse. And of course, people had an effect on the internet in a myriad of ways. Cause and effect are hard to discern.
Let’s get back to the woman-hate problem.
Woman hate has existed for a long, long time. The internet has provided a means for that hatred to manifest in disturbing ways. And these manifestations are colouring human interaction in the meat world, which then continues on to affect the online world. Now, the internet has:
a) provided a common, virtual space for men to meet and bond regardless of race, age or religion in a new kind of brotherhood of hate,
b) provided a platform for manifestos and other writings advocating for hate of and violence against women that can be accessed by anyone in the world. Unlike in previous times, ‘publishing’ is no longer limited to those who can write well or think well, or who are connected enough to find a respectable publishing outlet, In essence, any dickface can jizz online and be read by millions of other dickfaces,
c) increased men’s boldness and willingness to hurt women by allowing anonymous hordes of dudes to e-threaten or e-gang rape a woman who dares speak in public. The kind of repulsive hate speech you can easily find online is like nothing we have ever seen before. These dudes far outspew historic sex-based hate writers, such as de Sade. Previously, men had few places where they could go to bond with other men over rape and sexual violence (e.g., strip clubs) and were limited to private hate at home, in the office to a certain extent, or during the clandestine paid rape of a prostitute. Before the internet, men who couldn’t find support for their hate may have suppressed or localized their violence, and may have even questioned themselves, out of fear of repercussion and lack of support. But these days, group think and group acceptance has increased male boldness and made it easier to let loose on women violently, both online and off.
d) provides unlimited access to free or inexpensive depictions of horrific sexual violence (e.g., porn, ‘edgy photo art’ and BDSM sites) for many who never before had access, including young boys. The latter are getting their sex education primarily from sites fetishizing gruesome sexual violence against women and girls. And pairing this ‘learning’ with boners and orgasms (previously not possible in public, but now possible anonymously at home) is unnervingly effective.
There is plenty more to say on that, but I’ll stop at four.
On the positive side of things, the internet has:
a) allowed abused women who have been socially isolated by patriarchal structures such as marriage and poverty to find support, strength and the courage to escape in online support groups,
b) allowed women who haven’t found a community of like-minded women in the real world to find hope and support in online communities,
c) provided knowledge of and access to feminist literature that cannot be found in most libraries due to censorship of women writers/radical material or bias towards providing published penis’ pointless pontification,
d) allowed marginalized radical feminists an outlet and a voice in the form of blogs and web sites that they themselves can control. Men still try to attack them and derail them, but women can choose how much to interact or allow on their sites. They can also choose anonymity and still speak to promote positive change. This is impossible in the real world, and many women have stayed silent in the past due to very real, constant threats to their safety at the hands of men and sometimes patriarchy-supporting handmaidens,
And of course, there are other ways women benefit from the internet.
How does it balance out? Impossible to say, exactly. The positives are encouraging and do provide help to individuals, although I doubt women are taking advantage of it in the way they need to to effect real change on a societal level.
The negatives are disturbing, and I’d hazard a guess that one of a few things will eventually happen.
1) Violence against women will become so normalized that we’ll regress as a society and end up with a repressive something-or-other akin to what Margaret Atwood depicted in her classic novel or the way things went in Iran, post-Revolution.
2) Western men will become so addicted to and distracted by the pornification of women that more controlled and focused societies (aka China) will easily take over global dominance. China is no picnic in terms of women’s status, but they are definitely not as obsessed with porn and normalized, widespread depictions of rape as the West is.
3) Highly unlikely, but I dream – women will finally wake up, get out of their Bibles and off their dance poles and say, “Enough is enough. Time for revolution. Either you’re for human rights or you’re against ’em. Pick yer side!” and shoot the whole place up. Not for the imposition of another dominance structure such as matriarchy, but for liberation from sex-based oppression.
I root for #3, but I suspect #2 is the most likely scenario. As I mentioned in another post, I increasingly find myself in the position of having to explain the American porn and sex obsession to my Chinese undergrads, Masters and PhD students. It’s what they’re learning about and are confused about in Western entertainment.
I love the internet. My life would be incredibly different and much smaller without it. But I worry. It depresses me to no end that so many men have used such a valuable and amazing tool for the most disgraceful, shameful, boring and base of power fantasies.
Otherfucker
Yeah, there’s cussing in this one, too. Delicate flowers, beware.
As American television and film degrades further and further into a moronucopia of misogyny, sensationalism, sexual violence, and self-centredness, I sigh.
Racism, homophobia and the disgusting slurs that go along with them are getting the attention and derision they deserve, and we’re removing them from media. That’s good shit! Still a ways to go, but it’s on the agenda.
But for women, the misogyny and the slurs that go along with that are getting worse. I can’t watch a mainstream American tv program without hearing someone call someone else a ‘woman’ as an insult. This isn’t 1950’s “girls can’t do math” bullshit. This is a constant stream of insults and ‘jokes’ that have at their heart a deep hatred of women. Yes, today we have a disgusting, disturbing, demeaning downward spiral of woman-hate normalized through popular media that the entire goddamn world watches (trust me – I live in China and people are learning the ways of English communication, and how!), internalizes and regurgitates. And women are signing on enthusiastically in order to get jobs and keep roofs over their heads. I sigh.
Anyhow, today, I’m talking about motherfuckers. Or rather, the term ‘motherfucker’ and how to replace it with something that makes more sense. You see, like most other overeducated Canucks raised by filthy-mouthed parents, I love a good cuss. Stalking off and swearing my head off has probably saved a number of people a good, well-deserved beating or murdering. But as part of my aggressive self-removal from as much Patriarchy as I can manage on my own, I’m analyzing the language I use. We’re all guilty of throwing hate around without thinking about it. Lifelong self-reflection is a good, good thing. And as I tell my students, language is at the root of everything.
Anyhow, I’ve never understood what ‘motherfucker’ actually means. The English language is filled with slurs designed to insult people, and the majority of them are based on the universal hatred of women. Want to insult someone? As I mentioned above, these days, all you need to do is call them a woman. Voila! It’s so simple, even a moron can do it.
And so, we have delightful terms such as ‘motherfucker’. I’m not going to get into all the origins of this shitty word – there is a nice little mansplainer over at Stack Exchange who does a fine job and I recommend taking a gander at his needlessly long explanation that begins deliciously with the mansplainy: “Most fortuitously for you”. Dinkus. But at least, if you are patient enough to wade through it, you’ll get the gist and I don’t have to do it here.
I don’t use the term anymore. Consciously. As I said, we’ve all internalized misogyny. And I don’t use it despite the fact that I despise my own mother as an individual for the constant abuse she heaped on me as a child, for teaching me to absolutely hate myself, distrust acts of kindness in others, and for her rabid misogyny, racism and homophobia. (Don’t worry, Dad’s a fucking asshole, too, but that’s a separate post). I don’t hate women or the general concept of mothers. So I’m not going to insult someone by using such a stupid fucking slur against women.
As I love wordsmithery and neologisms of the non-internet-meme sort, I’m test driving the word ‘otherfucker’. Lemme explain.
First, I’m very interested in the word ‘fuck’. I won’t explain my whole rationale here. A lot of feminists oppose use of the word, but I have to admit, I think it sums up male thinking just about right. And for the most part, I use it to mean exactly what I think it means (fuck off, Princess Bride-quote fappers!) I use fuck to mean: to do something self-serving to another person and often without their enthusiastic acquiescence. It started in the realm of het-sex (“Did you fuck that bitch last night?”), but it’s pretty spot on for many other arenas where someone exerts dominance over another and the other can’t avoid it. And of course, it has plenty of other uses that derive from this.
Which comes to ‘other’. I assert that it is pretty hard to fuck someone you don’t consider them an ‘other’. If you hold someone in esteem as an equal or better, it is usually someone you relate to and don’t consider to be ‘other’. And the idea of ‘fucking’ them whether in the sexual sense or not, is not within the realm of consideration.
Hence ‘otherfucker’. So if I call you an otherfucker, I’m saying that you are exerting unrequested dominance over a person you don’t hold in esteem and they can’t get out of it. And that’s not something you should be proud of, you otherfucker!
Damn! That felt good to get off my chest. No murders today!
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Moron of the Day
If only there were only one moron per day, we all could rest a little easier. But alas, they exist everywhere and the more moronic they are, the more they feel they need to speak.
Anyhow, some background to the moron I managed to run into online, mid-coffee, on this lovely Saturday morning.
The internet is a strange place. Unlike in the real world (for the most part), online, it takes about 3 seconds for one to start out in one place with specific intentions, and then somehow end up in the middle of one of your worst nightmares. And so it happened today. I was googling something, and magically found myself on a pro-capitalism site run by a moron that sums up capitalism in his sidebar in the form of a busty, be-bra’d bimbo holding up an ‘I’m your biggest fan’ poster. Capitalism can only exist when women are enslaved. Good job, Captain Obvious. You made your point without having to even speak!
But that is not the moron I’m talking about – although he does qualify. Morons tend to attract further morons, and no place loves morons more than comments sections on moronic blogs.
Click to the ‘About’ page. And moronic comment gold! Especially this one, whom I will call Dumbass.
I have never found a liberal to admit they are wrong or concede to a debate especially feminazis. They just keep just keep doing attack after attack and unless the fight was physical, it would never end. These liberals today are radical extremist and we have to bend to them is what our society preaches. How come society did not tolerate and still does not tolerate Nazis but embraces radical liberals and feminazis?
We’ve got the classic Liberal hate. But that shit is meaningless to me. Generic American Liberals are frequently as stoopid and misogynistic as Conservatives or Libertarians. And those labels are often meaningless and defined differently outside the centre of the world (aka the USA).
No, I’m talking about the misogyny, which is naturally part of the set meal when you go for the Capitalist Dude lunch special. First, we’ve got usage of the meaningless term ‘feminazi’. It’s so overused that it’s getting old. Although we all know it is an insult directed at women, the term doesn’t actually make sense. And as Capitalist Dumbass so blatantly displays through what I’m sure he feels is a Clever Intellectual Question, he doesn’t even understand what Nazis are. This is what happens when a) you’re not properly educated, b) you’re privileged (person who got into a university simply because he had money, pasty skin, and a penis, but alas, no brain), and c) you can’t keep your damned mouth shut even when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
To answer the question posed by Dumbass, We don’t/didn’t tolerate Nazis because they committed genocide, targeting Jewish people, gay people, and non-White people (some of whom overlapped). You know, human rights abuses. Radical Liberals and ‘feminazis’ – or let’s use the correct word, Radical Feminists – fight for human rights. The former may have any number of oppressed groups at its focus or may focus on protecting the environment rather than oppression, while Radical Feminists focus on liberating women from sex-based oppression, while supporting intersectional issues (race, class, orientation, etc.). So to make it clear for Dumbass, Fighting for human rights is a GOOD THING. Genocide is a BAD THING.
But I’m not sure if feminists are ’embraced’ as, Dumbass asserts. His comment is representative of the majority of men in the world and some women, and their hate speech – and it is hate speech to the letter – is tolerated and even embraced.
In short, hate-spewing, capitalist windbags – even genocide-supporting ones – are still tolerated and even embraced. Feminists are derided, threatened, and harmed daily, unprotected from hate speech (although women don’t classify as an oppressed group anywhere, so legally, hate speech directed at them isn’t hate speech and cannot be prosecuted). They are not embraced.
—
ps: I’m not linking to this web site because a) I have no intention of driving traffic to it, and b) through the magic of the internet, you’ll find it or one of the countless millions like it within 3 seconds all by yourself. Besides, I included a hint above 😉
Let’s Kick Things Off
Let’s face it. It is NOT easy being a woman in this world. It never has been, and still isn’t. When compared to all other oppressed groups, women have been enslaved the longest, progress towards their liberation has been the slowest, and it is the group with the largest number of its members refusing to fight back, remaining brainwashed into compliance and self-sabotage. Misogyny has lived and still thrives in all cultures, all nations, all eras, and all age groups.
Misogyny is so ingrained that most people don’t even notice most of it. When it is noticed, many people rationalize it away or develop defense mechanisms to cope with it. Even egregious examples of woman-hate are held untouchable, and those who dare to expose it are attacked mercilessly, even by the oppressed themselves.
Even in this supposedly enlightened day and age (a common way to view one’s current times, despite all evidence to the contrary), the willingness to see women as full human beings doesn’t exist. Those who fight for this very logical wish to be human are castigated, seen as evil pariahs, and likened to the most psychopathic mass murderers in history.
Internet feminism has served to get the word out there. It is still a dangerous, exhausting business, however. Women who speak and who have opinions are universally hated and are at the receiving end of some horrific backlash. I’ve noticed so many feminist sites start up and then die off after a few years. My guess is that having to constantly deal with the ignorance and hate and violence of men online in addition to that which every woman endures in daily life eventually breaks the writers. Part of the problem, I posit, is allowing discussion. Discussion is important for women, but opening up a forum for this online also attracts evil in the form of ignorant men (and some women who don’t want to accept reality). Constantly moderating and being bombarded with idiocy and violence is very psychologically difficult. Only a superwoman could remain immune. And so, my current policy is to write, but disallow comments/discussion. It is for my self-preservation. Writing is healing and intellectual, and getting the words out and repeating the message trumps any secondary need to interact, at this point. If someone reads and learns, that is a bonus.
I link to other feminist sites (in the sidebar) where discussion is possible to varying degrees. Each writer chooses her level of willingness to interact with men who, generally speaking, are too emotional, impulsive, and illogical to realize that they should just be reading and learning.
Story Ending Never 
Male Student Comment of the Week
Sep 11
Posted by storyending
Not that I feel bad about disabling comments on this blog, but now that the university semester has started up, any pause that I might have had has definitely gone out the window.
You see, I’m forced to listen to the stupid shit my overwhelmingly large classes of male students say. It’s China, it’s traditional, and my classes are almost completely populated with young men. Blech!
The comment of this past week came after asking students to work together to describe where they were from. I put people from the same provinces together, and within the province of my university (as most students stay in their home province for schooling), I grouped people by town.
And of course, there were the standard, meaningless Chinese comments. “People from my hometown are very friendly.” Which, by the way, I guarantee you they are not – people hate outsiders here in China – even among Chinese people – and parents teach their children not to talk to or help strangers EVER. Only family and those in your guanxi (business-social network) count. Outside classroom assignments, my students tell me what their parents really teach them about strangers.
And then of course are comments about girls and women.
The comment winner this week jizzed out the following.
“The girls from my hometown are very beautiful. The men from my hometown are very hardworking. So if you want to get married, you should come to my hometown.”
And this is the general worldwide view of women. It’s not just China, of course. Women are there to serve as eye candy, fuck-holes and baby factories. C’est tout! Despite the fact that women almost always work several times harder than any man on the planet (for anywhere from less to zero compensation), it is the men who are always deemed hardworking and smart and strong and interesting and funny and good leaders, and and and just so fucking multifaceted.
I’ll say it again, I miss having predominantly female classes. The women are just as brainwashed by dick-think, but they say much more interesting things when they have a receptive, non-punishing, woman-supporting audience (me). Only in these classes have I ever heard young Chinese women speak the unspeakable: “I don’t want to get married.” I always give them a loud, enthusiastic round of applause when they are brave enough to speak their minds on female slavery.
Share this:
Posted in Education, Language, Male Privilege
Comments Off on Male Student Comment of the Week
Tags: beauty, brainwashing, China, comment, traditional, university