Category Archives: The Alphabet Series
R is for Root
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Who run the world?
Boys…
An improvement upon Beyoncé’s nonsense song ‘Run the World (Girls)’ by yours truly…
At the end of every year, I attribute an informal theme to the time and experiences that have gone by during the course of the year. I started doing this back in 2015 when I started writing this blog, giving it the title ‘The Year of Anger’. I felt it was appropriate as there was a lot of rage fuelling my writing. I’ve since come to think of this as a pretty normal reaction when you have a philosophical awakening that finally gives you a context for a lifetime of unfairness, suffering and violence that you’ve never been allow to talk about publicly or even among so-called friends. There is still anger, but it doesn’t fuel the writing anymore – much of it has been processed and it can be examined from outside the emotion now. In fact, 2016 was dubbed ‘The Year of the Fantasy’, which was incredibly fun, and I actually hope it has a resurgence at some point in the future, so that I can write some short stories or even something more ambitious. Although we’re only halfway through 2025 at the time of this writing, I’m feeling like it’s going to be something along the lines of ‘The Year of Reasserting the Root’ as much of my thinking and writing has focused on the essence of femalehood and really understanding my personal brand of feminism.
One post I published during the Year of the Fantasy has been helping my thinking along here. The writing came out of a frenzied brainstorming session I had one night. I imagined what life would be like if there were no males. I didn’t bother about the particulars of how to continue the species and focused on a world of women and girls after a few generations of healing and weeding out the dependent and brainwashed dick-suckers. And woman, my mind was soaring. I thought of the possibilities and opportunities, and possibly more importantly, I thought of all the problems women and girls experience that just wouldn’t exist anymore. It is quite shocking if you actually make a list of all the ways male existence negatively affects your life. And after you make that list, and you turn it positive by imagining never having to worry about any of that shit again, you feel angry and sad and a whole bunch of complicated feelings. The world of female suffering is so completely unnecessary – well it is necessary for male domination to exist, but we certainly don’t need it. Women would never design a world this way – it has been forced upon us, and most have complied out of fear. It really is amazing to me that women don’t fantasize about not having to suffer. First, men have always told us what we’re supposed to fantasize about – mostly sex with them and material things that keep us from focusing on more important things. Second, it is really, really dangerous to think about what life would be like if males didn’t exist. It’s dangerous because you can feel very adrift when your realizations destroy the worldview that forms your identity. And it is very overwhelming once you realize that you can’t change the world by yourself. You can change aspects of your personal world to a certain extent, and you can certainly have a freedom of mind, even if the other freedoms are less achievable as a single person. Amazingly, even feminists don’t fantasize. They are so focused on dealing with women’s problems and their aftermath, or finding a way to minimize the harms that men do, or even placating men so that they don’t lose their shit even more than they do under normal, unthreatening circumstances. Feminists generally aren’t inventors and visionaries and revolutionaries – they’re observers, diplomats, and combat nurses. And those roles won’t change the world for women for the better.
But I like ‘out there’ women, so that exercise in fantasy and brainstorming was an excellent experience. Some people claim to like to take hallucinogens to experience other realities, but I’m quite capable of achieving that using my brain alone. And it really is thrilling to make an alternate reality vivid in your mind. Even imagining simple things that men enjoy without thought or without having to fight to get it or things they don’t have to think twice about because there is no danger to them in doing them – having these things open to me sent my mind spinning. I realized how much time I spend negotiating simple things in the world and in my life that men don’t have to. I realized how many rules and barriers are put up because I’m female. I realized the poor treatment and limitations and general suffering that are reserved only for women and girls.
Why don’t women allow themselves to see this state of things and do something about it in their own lives, in the lives of girls around them, and in the world at large? And for women who are sort of aware – feminists – why don’t they go all the way instead of living in the safety zone? Well, of course, the answer to these why questions is complicated, and ultimately comes down to this: the answer to the why-question is the reason itself. In other words, women don’t and won’t see that men are the root of the problem because they are brainwashed not to see men as the root of the problem. And even the few feminists that do accurately see men as the root of the problem, don’t know what to do with that knowledge, and may even see males as teachable, or may get sidetracked by issues that are not the root of the problem, but the result of male domination.
If you allow yourself to see the extent of the problem – the root of the problem, if you will – then you HAVE to live differently, think differently, and solve problems differently. If you can’t accept that men are the root of women’s problems, and that they aren’t going to change because they’ve had thousands of years to change, then you can’t solve women’s problems. You slap bandages on them and nothing is fundamentally different.
It was Andrea Dworkin who said: “prostitution and equality for women cannot exist simultaneously”. I think that is a completely accurate statement, but I would take it one step further, of course. I’d say: Heterosexuality and close relationships with males and equality for women cannot exist simultaneously. And actually, I’d also take out the word equality and replace it with liberation, as I think the former is a problematic term that compels women to take their eyes off the real prize and focus on male definitions of power and freedom. I have no desire to be equal to men; that is aiming low and we should aspire to what we as women can achieve. It is extremely different and it has nothing to do with domination and competition. Actually, I think we don’t know how far we can go as there is no group of women that has ever had the freedom and opportunity to explore without a male hovering, ready to pounce and take control. Imaging being able to explore and soar without that dark cloud on the periphery.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
R is for Risk or R is for Russian Roul-het
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Back in the late 1930’s, Swiss-American pulp fiction writer, Georges Surdez, first popularized the term ‘Russian Roulette’ to describe a very risky game of chance involving a single bullet, a gun to the head, and the precious and fascinating male brain in the throes of excitement, fear, and stupidity. The writer had indicated in notes and interviews that the practice he had put a name to had begun with the Russian army, but like with many beliefs, especially about history, there is no irrefutable proof of origin. There are however, references to similar gun-to-head practices in Russian literature, namely in 1840 by Mikhail Lermontov and later in 1913 by Alexander Grin (Grinevsky). Following the American popularizing of the game in books and film, Russian Roulette became both a proof of masculinity and a frightening and strange method of male suicide. For the purposes of this article, the history is rather unimportant as is listing and crying about all the dumb-ass males who died as a result of engaging in gun-play. The take-away here, in my opinion, is that risk-taking, and especially high-stakes risk-taking, are seen as a mark of masculinity and even bravery. Russian Roulette is only one of many practices that males, including male children, concoct and carry out in order to prove they are male. They do it without a thought to outcome, especially that of cleaning up the mess in the aftermath, paying the bills for any damages, and taking care of them in a wounded or permanently disabled state when things go wrong. You just don’t hear stories of women and girls doing the kinds of dumb shit that men and boys do unless they are influenced by males and end up along for the ride to prove loyalty or love. Males risking their lives by doing dumb shit or even doing socially-approved dangerous stuff will often end up rescued and taken care of by females, so they don’t actually need to think about potential outcomes for their dumbassery. Women usually aren’t so lucky, though and perhaps that is part of why we don’t see them playing Russian Roulette, setting their farts on fire, or jumping off roofs into piles of leaves or snow, etc.
The assumption is that females are not risk-takers of either the stupid or the potentially big pay-off varieties, and females are almost never seen to be brave or heroic – the one major exception being engaging in pregnancy and motherhood, which is actually neither brave nor heroic. We just say it’s brave in order to keep women in their assigned roles as breeding machines.
But I’m going to argue here that women are, in fact, bigger risk-takers than men, that their biggest risks are far dumber than men’s risks because there are mountains of data to back up the odds of death and destruction, and that the biggest risks they take are part of their own special version of what I’ll call Russian Roul-het. The major difference between male and female risks is that males make up their own games, while females continue to engage in survival behaviour that used to be forced on them throughout history, but that isn’t actually required to survive anymore. And the fact that the risk-taking is no longer forced makes it the dumbest risk-taking of all.
So what is female Russian Roul-het? Well, it is the heterosexual contract that outlines the transactional exchange of female sexual and domestic services for male money and protection. The perpetual transaction underlies an entire lifestyle that today’s women willingly seek out, sign up for, and refuse to give up even after it goes horribly wrong. Men designed this forced contract long ago, and as a result, it is so ingrained in all societies that even as times have changed, this area of social and economic traditions has remained relatively intact. In the past, girls grew up knowing that they had no choice but to marry and essentially become a domestic prostitute, servicing one male. A paltry few might somehow find their way into spiritual and psychological prostitution to a god. And a significant, unfortunate minority ended up in public prostitution, servicing any and all males. And of course, there were anomalies every so often who didn’t fit into a lady-category and escaped all forms of prostitution. But of the three main categories, all but the first option usually led to poverty and the occasional rich courtesan doesn’t negate this rule, by the way. Marriage didn’t guarantee wealth and security, but the false belief was created that it did and that it allowed women to fulfill their true purpose – breeding – in safety. And of course, despite the complacency and acceptance of many caged birds all over the world, history is also filled to the brim with women trapped in dangerous, inescapable marriage prisons, unable to earn their own money; dead at the hands of husbands or in childbirth; or thrown into poverty after the untimely death of their owner. The stories and statistics have mostly remained untold and thus erased from history. It is easy for all to pretend it didn’t exist and that the heterosexual contract was largely good for women.
It is only recently that in most places, women have achieved the freedom to reject it all, live as adults instead of dependent halflings, and actually contribute meaningfully to society through paid work. Of course, despite this relatively new freedom and the ability to support themselves, most women still choose one of these paths deeply rooted in female slavery. It is the mark of the continued and very successful colonization and brainwashing of females that women haven’t come to understand their shared and tragic history and run screaming through the open doors of their cages. Many women do realize that is it harder in many ways to live separately from men and to reject the trappings of femininity, and will rationalize their lifestyle choices in a variety of ways in order to reap the benefits of heterosexuality and fit into mainstream society. Some will even pretend that women are equal now and will choose to financially support male partners while still providing the sexual, domestic and emotional services that women traditionally offered in a heterosexual transaction. So if you think about it, many men are getting more out of marriage now than they ever used to, except perhaps the ego boost or power trip of having a woman fully under his control in all ways.
Yet despite these changes to the fabric of society, female Roul-het is probably the riskiest and deadliest game around. It is confusing and frankly, a little boring to talk about domestic abuse statistics because no one is actually interested in understanding what they really mean or changing the system that supports male power. Yet, they are talked about constantly. Everyone knows what a women’s shelter is, even if they’ve never visited one. Every one of us has known an abused woman. Many of us come from families where violence, psychological, or sexual abuse occurred. And everyone accepts it. If we didn’t accept it as a society, we’d obliterate heterosexuality and marriage and perhaps even men themselves. Instead, we pretend male violence happens to ‘someone else’. Mothers pretend it won’t happen to their daughters and dream of weddings and grandchildren, and daughters can’t imagine that their future husbands would ever do something horrible to them. There are handfuls here and there around the world of mostly heterosexual women who call themselves feminists who pretend that male violence can be somehow eliminated through education and correct parenting and government programs. And then we continue to fund shelters, and rape crisis centres, and anger management programs for violent men. And magically the statistics never go down. Girls keep dating boys and women keep marrying men. And the police, doctors, and social workers are kept in business dealing with the outcomes of male love.
Let’s put this in perspective. If you play the male version of Russian Roulette, you put a single bullet in a gun’s 6-bullet chamber, give it a spin, put it to your head, and pull the trigger, you have a 17% chance of doing some damage to your head and perhaps even dying from it. If you play the female version of Russian Roul-het – in other words, get with a male though dating, common-law partnership or marriage, there is at least a 27% chance and upwards of a 44% chance (if you include more types of abuse) of experiencing physical, sexual and/or psychological violence in that relationship. Male partner violence is the leading cause of injury to women – more than car accidents and violent crimes committed by strangers combined. Now personally, I haven’t met a practising straight woman who hasn’t experienced abuse from a male, and included in this mountain of women are highly educated, highly independent, and highly intelligent people. It doesn’t make a difference. Myself, if I were a betting woman, and I’m not, AND I could separate the ick factor from the odds in both situations, I’d feel safer putting a gun to my head than I would getting intimately involved with a male. Them’s the data. You cannot argue with raw crime data, and even with self-report data that I believe are very low for obvious reasons. Regardless, they are available on numerous websites for any and all women and girls to see. But women stubbornly hold the false believe that they are safe with men, thanks to a lifetime of brainwashing through family, school, and entertainment.
Now you tell me, who takes more unnecessary and stupid risks: men or women? And here is an added bonus question. If you were to consider investing in the stock market, would you plunk your life savings down without doing research into the history of the stock, the rate of return on investment, whether the stock is high or low risk, etc? No, of course not. So why would you enter a potentially fatal and very possibly dangerous and soul-destroying situation without doing your research – or even worse, knowing and ignoring the risk based on years of historical data? It boggles the mind, but you have to admire the fact that the heterosexual lifestyle was one of the most successful schemes cooked up by men to this date.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Yes, he hit me
And it felts like a kiss
He hit me
And I knew I loved him
And then he took me in his arms
With all the tenderness there is
And when he kissed me
He made me hisHe Hit Me (And It Felt Like a Kiss) written by Gerry Goffin and Carole King for the Crystals in 1962
R is for Rape – Part V – Fat Girl
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Police officer to his colleagues: “She says he didn’t rape her.”
Anaïs: “Don’t believe me if you don’t want to.”The last lines of the film ‘Fat Girl’ by Catherine Breillat, 2001. An interesting twist on what women and girls have always experienced when they report a rape.
Since I was old enough to be out and about on my own, I’ve always gravitated towards art house and repertory cinemas – quirky and sometimes grubby little movie theatres with mismatched and uncomfortable seats, cheap tickets, low-cost nibbles or even the possibility to bring in your own snacks. They usually have a single screen, maybe two if they are a little posher, and they show classic films, less new or less popular films, foreign films, cult films and sometimes just weird-ass stuff chosen based on the whim of the cinema’s manager. This is my kind of place. I hate blockbuster venues and multiplexes and happily ever after films starring the same overpaid, plastic bimbos and himbos. And I almost always go to these rep cinemas by myself, and I usually sit in the back row with my smuggled-in munchies and relative anonymity. I’m not sure how I got into these kinds of places or how I found the one and only in my hometown tucked away on a side-street near the university, but I suppose it was inevitable given my father’s devil-may-care, close-your-eyes-and-pick approach to choosing films that I mentioned in a past post. Nevertheless, I remember, with fondness, my favourite little cinemas from various places I’ve lived, and during periods of my life involving intense workloads and insane schedules, these solitary outings even became a highly enjoyable escape ritual.
I remember an early educational experience in cinema when I was 19 that gave me food for thought at the time. After writing the third ‘R is for Rape’ post, I recalled a film I had watched in a repertory cinema back in 2001, and decided to rewatch it to see if what I recalled actually tied into this post’s topic. Several times, I’ve returned to books and films I consumed in my youth, frequently to find that my recollections were coloured by inexperience or naiveté. It’s not really a surprise, and this is an interesting and separate topic that I want to write more about as it is extremely relevant to the female experience of sexuality and relationships. Suffice it to say that after watching the film in question, I decided that despite my more mature, analytical, and critical eye, I still agreed with the core of my 19-year-old assessment of the content.
This film in question was the 2001 French film: À ma sœur! which was strangely named Fat Girl for American audiences, despite the fact that the title could easily have been translated to To My Sister! and still would have made sense. But sociopolitical agendas were likely at work in this rebranding and refocusing, and thus the point of the film was likely at least partially lost to most American viewers.
The film was written and directed by Frenchwoman, Catherine Breillat, known for her controversial works on sibling rivalry and female coming-of-age stories, with a heavy focus on the politics of sex and sexuality for girls. For some, especially liberal feminist types, this might automatically indicate that she is feminist – having a female protagonist, especially one exploring her sexuality, means the content is feminist, right? Well, not really. There is nothing positive or liberating about her girls’ stories – they’re just depressing and extremely limited in their truth. And while I prefer truth to lies, I find it sad that all of girls’ and women’s truths are such downers. There isn’t the rich range of character-building experiences that boys have available to them when they are approaching adulthood. So while Breillat is a truth-teller of sorts, I personally find her very male-identified as well, and indeed, she has indicated in interviews that she was heavily influenced in her youth by writers Georges Bataille and the Marquis de Sade, both of whom saw sex and violence as inseparable and wrote extensively on the pleasure taken in violating and destroying women. I’ve read many of de Sade’s works, and I felt, like I do after encountering so many of men’s creative endeavours, that they have waaay too much time on their hands. But at the same time, I think these are some of the most honest men on the planet, and they depict male sexuality accurately. Males do have a death drive and cannot separate sex and violence, and you mess with them at your peril. Unfortunately, in order for women to get any attention in the arts and literature world, they need to espouse the male point-of-view, even if they think they are liberating themselves or putting themselves on equal footing with men. The problem is that, like I’ve maintained throughout this mini-series, females don’t have the upper hand in heterosexual sex or any dealings with males for that matter. In the violence that is heterosexual sex, females have so much more to lose, and I don’t think girls can achieve anything positive from exploring sexuality through dealings with males. And this truth makes for very limited and disheartening female stories – perhaps why we have so few of them and so many princess fairy tales. Boring as shit.
À ma sœur! or Fat Girl is about 15-year-old Elena and her 12-year-old sister, Anaïs. Both are suffering various delusions resulting from living in a patriarchal society and a dysfunctional family, and are well-prepared for the ravages of heterosexual life. They both have worrisome obsessions with losing their so-called virginity. The older one, classically pretty, is looking for a love and respect that doesn’t exist, and the younger, overweight and a little strange, wants to get the whole virginity thing out of the way as she mistakenly believes that experienced women have more value. Anaïs spends time talking to herself and her imagined future lover and spying, with much derision, on her sister during her sexual pursuits. Elena ends up with an Italian man who employs every consensual rape tactic in the book to get what he wants, and Anaïs ends up forcibly raped by a stranger, which she twists to fit her fantasy of giving it up to a man who means nothing – sort of a fucked up consensual raping. So, ultimately, both girls get what they want, but don’t make out well. Sort of anti-princess fairy tales – or, more basically, versions of reality that most girls end up with.
Now, at 19, despite plenty of exposure to the nastiness that the male-dominated world had to offer, I was still very inexperienced and completely untrained in critical thinking. Thus, at that time, I could easily sit through offensive content without experiencing the knee-jerk moral outrage of, say, a biologically mature, but intellectually immature religious person, but I wasn’t well equipped to dissect it and offer a deep analysis. Rewatching this film at 52 was interesting. First, I found it extremely cringe-worthy and difficult to sit through, partly because I have lost patience with and tolerance of heterosexual female problems, which I now consider to be almost completely avoidable, but are endlessly talked about as if they are not, and partly because Breillat’s depiction of what girls go through in negotiating with straight males is so completely spot on. Second, I realized that I’ve been thinking about the issue of consensual rape for over 30 years, although I didn’t have a name for it until recently.
There was apparently a feminist uproar after the film came out. I don’t recall all the details, but I was a budding feminist and didn’t feel the same way as they did. Likely, some women got mad that it was the fat girl who needed to be forcibly raped in order to achieve something sexually, and that she accepted that. Perhaps some were opposed to the graphic depictions of sex with a minor, although neither actress was an actual minor. Whatever the opposition, I find that the vast majority of self-proclaimed feminists do not like the unveiling of truths. While Breillat is decidedly not a feminist, she baldly showed us the truth about how girls are formed into what male-dominated society wants them to be. I think many feminists want to think that males and females are equal, and not all men are rapists, and that heterosexuality can be healthy and good for women. But that is just not how things work. It never has worked that way, and it never will. So you either have to go along to get along, or you create a different path for yourself and model it in a way to offer better options for girls of the future. And by different path, I mean separatism and forging better relationships with women and girls. We no longer have to accept violence to survive.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
R is for Rape – Part IV – Valley of the Dolls
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
But my life would be so sublime
If I bought a robot girl online…
My robot girlfriend
The best relationship I’d ever be in…from ‘Robot Girlfriend Song’ by Rhett and Link, standard liberal white male internet ‘comedians’ and songsters
I know, I know. I said I’d write three posts on R is for Rape, focusing on issues of consent rather than cut-and-dry forcible rape, but there is so much juicy stuff here, and I just couldn’t help myself. At this point, I’m mulling over a fifth and final one, but I need to re-watch a film I saw waaay back when I was about 19-20 in order to see if my recollections are accurate and relevant to the topic. Anyhow, in this post, I plan to talk about a moral quagmire that only exists because males exist – oh ffs, what moral dilemmas aren’t the result of men and their insistence that their privileges and perversions are actually rights?
I’m going to kick things off by asking you to consider something. Have you ever done violence to a machine malfunctioning in your life? You know, you get a flat tire on your bike or car and you kick it as you’re now going to be late for an appointment. Or your computer fan starts making a weird noise, so you bang it a bit to shake loose any dust or to jolt any lose mechanisms back into place. And after some initial satisfaction gleaned from a moment of frustration and aggression, did you later feel bad, thinking to yourself, “Shit, it’s not my car or computer’s fault. Why did I have to act out that way? How would I feel if someone knocked me about if I didn’t perform correctly?” Likely, if you have abused one of the machines in your life, you never gave it a second thought afterwards. It’s a machine after all. We own them, and they exist at our pleasure. We can trade them in or even discard them in the nearest toxic, earth-killing landfill if they stop working or we want a newer, better model, right?
But do our feelings and actions change as our machines become more intuitive or integral to our lives? We’ve entered a stage in technological development where inventors dream of designing machines that will approach and even surpass human intelligence and capability. Ready to serve our every need and protect us from dangerous, strenuous, and/or boring work. But what will be our relationships to them? What will be their various purposes? I think the answers to these questions will be very different for males and females. We are, after all, very different creatures biologically and socially, and as a result, intellectually and ethically.
It is a well observed and even documented fact that males are more violent, more emotionally volatile, more illogical in their thinking and actions, and have behaviours that are much more dangerous to the earth and to society in general, and particularly, women and girls, than females are and have. Men try to argue that this is not true, and predictably, blame and responsibility are the only things they are willing to share with women. But the proof is in observation, anecdote, and collected data across time and place. And remember: single, aberrant cases don’t negate large-scale truths. Propensity for dominating, controlling, and doing violence is vastly different depending on biological sex, in general. The same is true of our creative endeavours. So much of male creation or invention is rooted in violence and domination. Think of how much of what is attributed to males comes out of trying to create weapons, trying to control various groups of people, or trying to satisfy male sexual perversions through harming women but dressing it up as ‘a basic human male right’. Even when males steal ideas and inventions from women, they inevitably transform them into something beneficial to the violent male nature and harmful to females as a class. There are millions of examples – you just need to open your eyes and look around you.
Humans have been designing and implementing machines and technology for thousands of years. For most of this period, inventions have been simple, but life-changing, but we’ve only fairly recently entered a period of accelerated development. And with that development have come ethical debates. Personally, I think those debates have only come about with the allowance of women into the public intellectual forum as women, as a rule, tend to think more about the impact of actions and processes on life and to question the value in what is called ‘progress’, while males tend to be motivated by recognition and wealth accumulation and don’t seem to be bothered by a ‘progress at any cost’ mentality.
Valley of the Sex Dolls
The latest multidisciplinary realm of tech-related ethical debates is that of AI or Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. It seemed logical following human periods of intense agricultural labour, and then the Industrial Revolution – both periods involving heavy and dangerous workloads, especially for the poor, and plenty of injury and death because of survival, public demand and competition to meet that demand. Given that we likely won’t slide back technologically unless there is some kind of extinction-level event, AI and robots seem like a good idea to take on dangerous and repetitive tasks. This is a whole separate and massive topic that I’m not going to dive down into in this article. What I want to talk about is the fact that in the hands of men, all technology end up being used for other purposes that have nothing to do with making life better for humankind. And with regard to AI and robots, I’m talking about the ‘sex industry’. Of course.
Now, I was a kid in the 1970’s and ’80’s, and we all sort of knew about blow-up sex dolls. Not that we had ever seen one, or totally understood why this kind of thing might be appealing, but somehow, kids always find out about the shit that males claim they need to exist. To this day, I’ve never seen one of those simplistic man-toys in person, although I’ve been to a few sex shops out of morbid curiosity where I’ve seen slightly more sophisticated and expensive items that men like to stick their dicks in, like severed female pelvises with fillable holes. Sexy shit, man… I also remember sometime in adulthood – maybe when I was living in Taiwan – hearing about a bunch of Chinese teenaged boys who got together to buy a plastic sex doll and ended up spreading syphilis or something equally gross to each other after failing to clean their shared plastic girlfriend’s holes. But we live in an advanced age now dammit (!), and blow-up dolls seem so crude and cold, and require too much work to inflate besides. We’ve managed to develop very life-like sex dolls and even sex robots – or sex androids might be the more accurate term – that can talk and are warm to the touch. And it is very difficult to imagine that in the not-too-distant future, AI will develop enough to convince males that they are dealing with a real live human female, until she rips his dick of with superhuman strength, that is! Just joking. I’ll get into this a bit later.
There has been a surge in the openings of sex doll brothels around the world: Canada, Russia, all over Europe, Japan, and plenty more. The demand is definitely there, even in countries that ban imports of sex dolls or that make prostitution illegal, and somehow, I don’t think the interest is just a simple interest in a novel experience. If that were true, we wouldn’t be seeing a surge in the purchase of private units. While there may be several reasons for males’ vacant inner lives venturing into this new territory of sexual depravity, I think there is an overwhelming underlying reason:
In an age where men have to worry a little bit about the legal system, unlike for most of human history, they want to be able to do whatever the fuck they want to a female body without having to worry about consent or any kind of repercussions. In other words, they want to have a rape experience (otherwise known as heterosexual intercourse) without it ever becoming an issue to defend against, let alone think about in an ethical way.
What About Advanced AI Androids and Superintelligences?
I’ve made a little flow chart below showing a possible convergence between humans and machines and you can click on the pic to enlarge it. On the human side of things, I list general groupings of humans in order from highest value to lowest value. And on the machine side of things, I list technology in order from most simplistic to most complex, and perhaps their value to human society also increases with advanced capability. The nature of patriarchy or male-dominated society is hierarchy. There is no such thing as equality. Males of course, sit at the top. I’ve talked about female hierarchy in past posts, noting that females who fulfill their dick-sucking and breeding duties are the most highly valued, and I’ve noted that at the bottom are both prostitutes and lesbians. It is really hard to say which is valued the least. In some cultures, lesbians can be both imprisoned and put to death legally, whereas prostitutes may just be jailed. Perhaps this is just because prostitutes are of more use and value to males while lesbians provide men with nothing except a target for hate and blame. Regarding machines, I argue that as technology approaches some kind of human ‘intelligence’, it is valued more by male society. My question thus becomes: if a prostitute faces off against a superintelligent android, who wins?
Well, let’s think about superintelligence and the future of AI and whether one of these entities can fool humans or replace humans completely. I am not going to go crazily in-depth on this topic as it has been discussed to death everywhere and there are sooo many academic theories on what constitutes artificial intelligence and the defining features of consciousness. But I’ll say a few words with regard to rights and consent as that is the issue here.
Very, very basically, to be conscious means to be self-aware. It involves having emotions, independent subjective thoughts, desires, inspiration and wisdom. At a more advanced level, it means being able to understand motives and intent and to adapt and respond accordingly, and it means to be able to experience empathy. At the most advanced level of consciousness, an entity surpasses human intelligence, and can override human programming to serve its own needs. Many believe that AI will never reach this state, but one never knows. Currently, our technology can make decisions and predictions based on data and do difficult computations and classifications, but that is not human-level consciousness. So if an entity is not technically conscious, is it deserving of rights? At what point would a machine be deserving of workers’ or just existential rights in the way that humans are supposed to be? And in the case of a technically conscious sex robot, would she require the protection that consent pretends to offer to human females, and more importantly, would she be able to override her programming that causes her to allow males to rape her by default in order to consent to that rape on a case by case basis?
Are These Ethical Issues Worth Thinking About or Do Sex Robots Solve Anything for Women?
The ethicality of sex robots and what they mean for womankind is a frequently debated topic and of course, nothing ever gets solved – much in the same way that debates on whether prostitution should be legalized hasn’t solved anything for women in the big picture. One side argues that sex robots increases the dehumanization of females and leads to more sex-based violence and disrespect, and the other side argues that sex robots rescue women from having to work in prostitution, thus saving female lives and decreasing suffering. Some idiots even argue that sex robots provide an opportunity to teach males about consent, like males give a shit about how they treat women. No, the problem is that, when debating issues that pertain to global female well-being, almost no one understands or is willing to admit they understand the true underlying issue. The underlying issue isn’t male miseducation, or poor definitions of consent or sex crimes, or making prostitution legal. The underlying problem is males themselves. They are weaponized humans with both an inbuilt drive to dominate and commit violence and an easily learned feeling of deservedness when it comes to their freedom and behaviour and how others should treat them. They universally enact double standards when it comes to dealing with females and don’t see a problem with it. Until you solve the problem of male existence – meaning you eliminate them altogether, you reduce their population to about 5% of the total, and/or you control their movements through a system of surveillance – women and girls will always suffer the consequences of male existence because males run the world in a way that benefits them and causes degradation, poverty, and suffering for females. So any debate about what males create or do that causes problems for the world is all a bit silly because you can’t solve it. Unless you name the real problem, you solve nothing. Sex robots or no sex robots, you solve nothing for females.
One Final Note: Retaliation – What If They Turn Against Us?
You’ll notice that this is ALWAYS a question that men ask when talking about other groups: racial or ethnic groups that they have enslaved, aliens coming to our planet from outer space, and now AIs and superintelligences. You never hear women voice concerns about this. Why? Well, males are generally unable to see things from others’ perspectives because they are the entitled predator class, and predators’ automatic behaviour is to see all others as threats and to neutralize them through assault, enslavement, abuse, and destruction. They justify this by telling themselves and the world that if they didn’t do it, then they themselves would be destroyed. We’ve all been at the receiving end of soldiers and veterans – and I’ve witnessed this many many times in the US – who attack their critics by telling them that if not for soldiers and the shit they do, we’d all be victimized and lose our ‘freedom’. But soldiers are specialized predators, and they and males in general, can only foresee that another group would seek to act as predators too, even if there is no evidence to support that motivation.
Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, men are more testerical about robot retaliation than they are about female retaliation. Of course, you get a segment of the male population obsessed with supposed female power, envisioning being kept on farms and having their sperm harvested by angry lesbians in the near future, complaining about the rapid onset of the pussification of society, and even believing that matriarchy is a done deal – females already ruling the world and all systems supporting female power. Laughable of course, as this is clearly a simple and infantile example of the Freudian defense mechanism: projection. All men know on some level that they are the oppressors. In fact, women have never risen en masse against men, despite millennia of being treated as prey and even slaves, including repeated and documented atrocities against them and the widespread suffering that still exists, but that is written off as separate, one-off experiences that have nothing to do with males as a dangerous predator class. In fact, still today, the vast majority of women have been successfully programmed to seek out, accept, and even enjoy their addiction-driven and fear-based subservience to men, and thus have no power as a class. The few women who do speak out or rebel are quickly destroyed in a variety of ways, even by fellow females, so they pose no threat. At the end of the day, the average male sees future female retaliation in about the same way that he fears retaliation from say, his refrigerator. Women are not predators, but controlled things, in other words.
Rather, average males, in addition to the testerical ones mentioned above, are far more worrried about losing control of robots, specifically those with AI capabilities that allow them to learn beyond their programming. It’s interesting. All males with these kinds of persecution complexes tend to be those who know on some level that they deserve punishment for the evils they have done in their lives. Despite many women’s willing ignorance, we are all extremely aware of how much violence is done to women by males. The data are there for all to see. We also know that consuming violent pornography is linked with greater violence against women. And men also know that women won’t retaliate. But data are coming in regarding male violence done to female sex dolls and robots. Around the world are examples of violence, including molestation, mutilation and decapitation. Males might try to write this off as fantasy at this point, just as they do in their writing, stand-up comedy, television and films, but there will come a day where sex robots will become advanced enough to have rights and perhaps the right to give and withhold consent. And I think that is part of the male testeria about robot retaliation. Human women won’t do it, but maybe sex robots will.
I want to thank you and spank you upon your silver skin
Robots don’t care where I’ve been
You’ve got to choose it to use it, so let me plug it in
Robots are my next of kin.from ‘Go Robot’ by the Red Hot Chili Peppers
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
R is for Rape – Part I – The Pen & The Sword
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.
Susan Brownmiller, from her 1975 book, Against Our Will
I’ve written a lot on rape over the years, so I’m going to draw from some of my old articles and add some new material to the following. My plan is to make this a three-part post addressing the trickier and more-guaranteed-to-offend aspects of rape as follows:
Part 1: Here, I’ll talk about the effective partnership between language and violence, and how men have used both as weapons to keep safety and justice out of the reach of women.
Part 2: Here, I’ll discuss the slippery definitions of sex, rape, and consent, and I’ll delve into the scary concept of consensual rape.
Part 3: Here, I’ll continue to forgo euphemisms and get into the world of modern slavery, rape visas, and rape tourism.
Let me start with a simple statement – a simple truth: if men didn’t exist, rape wouldn’t exist. Let’s think about that for a minute. I can hear all the background clamour that typically follows a truth statement such as this: Not all men! Men can be raped, too! Women can be rapists, too! I’m just going to tune that out as so much noise, and keep going because those protests are neither accurate nor useful, and can derail feminist pursuits. As an example, I did a little survey years ago and to my dismay I found that even staunch feminists who were regular readers of my blog didn’t agree on what rape was and were adamant supporters of men’s rights even if they wouldn’t normally come out and say that. You have no foundation on which to build if people can’t even agree on the basics. That is what typically happens with most of the feminisms, with the exception of gynocentrism, and why most feminists spend more time fighting each other instead of achieving things for females as a class. But it’s not a surprise despite the word having been around since the early 13th century. The word has changed meaning over the years, and it is still changing, even today. I think the fact that it still doesn’t have an agreed upon definition is because men control language and because rape is a crime that only males commit and only females experience. To acknowledge the latter would be to hold men accountable for what they do and are. And we can’t have that.
Let’s dig into language a bit.
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’. 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 and The People Who Live in It
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.
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 or necessary to the continuation of the human species. 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 and the threat of 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 filthy, rendered an embarrassment, offered the choice to marry her rapist, or else 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, and even as ‘not rape’ 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. Rape is inclusive!
Conclusion
Regardless of what is going on, one thing can be said for sure. We need better, woman-controlled and defined language concerning different kinds of sexual assault, and we need a complete rethink of the concept of consent as it pertains to an oppressed group of people. We need acknowledgement that there are some crimes that only females experience – rape being a prime example of that – and that the reason these crimes are perpetrated by men and boys against women and girls is both sex-based and sexual in nature as well as power or violence-motivated. We need separate language for different crimes that are dependent on the sex of the victim and the perpetrator. Inclusivity has no place in the language of crime.
In the next post, I’ll get into the most common and least acknowledged kind of rape: consensual rape, which includes manipulation, coercion, the nagging-giving in game, duty- and pity rape. All of these are otherwise known as sex in the straight world.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
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. ⚢
P is for Purpose
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I can’t change my mold, no, no, no, no
It’s just sex and violence, melody and silence
I’ll take you down the only road I’ve ever been downfrom The Verve – Bittersweet Symphony – men tell us about themselves, what they think and do, all the time. On some level, all males know that their most basic purpose is to sexually control, torture, and gradually kill females. They can’t and won’t change, and they will force you to travel their path with them. And in that way, they define your purpose too.
Just a note before I start, in the YouTube recording of this post, I’m using a clip from London Grammar’s version of this song, mostly because of Hannah Reid’s excellent contralto voice. You’ll notice that she leaves out the repeating line “It’s just sex and violence” from the song that the dude-bros of The Verve originally wrote. I’d like to assume that Reid was choosing to sing from a female’s point of view, meaning that sex and violence are not part of our natural purpose. But of course, it may not be that at all. She may be part of the ‘Not All Men’ and “Women are Violent Toooooo” movement championed by liberal men and women. Or she may just be like the majority of women in the world, with her head in the sand, pretending that sex and violence are NOT the fabric of our lives and that life is super great with a few rapey hiccups along the way. Regardless, Reid’s voice is enough of a reason to choose her version over the original.
So in this last of the P-posts, I’m not going to get into the more general “Why are we here?” question that is basic to all thinking humans. I am not sure that there is an answer to that. Personally, I choose to believe that humans are the complex product of millions of years of evolution without any grand purpose at all. But as we have unfortunately also evolved consciousness or self-awareness, we need to construct a purpose much in the same way that we’ve had to construct the concept of ‘time’. So, I’m going to discuss briefly what female purpose is NOT, and at this point, should never be, despite what our male overlords say, and then get into the why’s and how’s of finding a healthy and productive purpose to help us deal with living in a male world. I touched on this topic a little in H is for Hope, and it warrants a deeper discussion as it is really elusive, hard to achieve, constantly evolving, and sometimes the deciding factor in a person’s decision to keep going or to end it all. Consider it the alphabetical segue between H is for Hope and the upcoming S is for Suicide (if I end up naming it that – censorship is a consideration here for obvious reasons).
What a Woman’s Purpose is Not
There isn’t a male on the planet that doesn’t believe that women were put on this planet to serve them in some capacity. Men might mouth the politically correct words to curry favour with you, but deep down, they believe in men first as the protagonists and directors, and then women in supporting roles. And we know this and see it evidenced every time a male feels emasculated when a woman or girl does pretty much anything that garners positive attention,, or demonstrates, usually unconsciously or naturally, that she doesn’t need him for anything at all. Our purpose, according to men, is to be stolen from, parasitized, filled up, impregnated, used up, experimented on, owned, controlled, degraded, manipulated, hid behind, scapegoated and blamed, and ultimately destroyed. That’s what we’re here for.
Except that we’re not. Not a single one of those things makes sense from a thinking woman’s point of view. If we were here to be used essentially as cattle, we wouldn’t have amazing brains. Research in the burgeoning field of neuroscience tells us that female brains mature faster and stay cognitively younger with age (meaning they diminish more slowly) than males’ brains. Having done my done my early research in neuroplasticity and later in human intelligence, I have always found it interesting and very revealing of male motivations, that modern brain research usually contradicts and/or is much more complicated than what males have been telling us (without evidence, I might add) about females in order to hold us back and build themselves up. They know that male and female purposes are extremely different, and dare I say, contradictory on a fundamental level.
What is Women’s Purpose?
I’ll just say a little bit about this before getting into answering a more practical question. There is no definitive answer to the question of women’s ultimate purpose. Like I said, I don’t think humans as a species have a purpose any more than any other living creature does. We evolved, and perhaps the most unconscious purpose of any living thing is just survival. But as self-aware creatures, this is where things become problematic. Males, as I’ve said many times in the past, are destructive. Even when they think they are creating, they aren’t. They are violent on a basic biological level, and this shows up in their drive to create class-based hierarchies (sex, race, economic class, etc), and then to control, torture, and kill, and to rationalize it all as survival and progress. Females, whether human or not, are creative beings on a basic level. Our bodies have the capacity to create, we are better equipped to think and act in concert with other living things. We are better able to compromise and share. And we survive through balance, cooperation in a system, and self-defense rather than aggression. The manifestation of females that we see today is not evidence to contradict our nature, but rather, evidence of the twisted, colonized creatures that men want and need and have created in order to maintain their dominance. Females have been socially evolved through male control to value male modes of living. And interestingly, a typical liberal female will lust for male ideas of power. And while she mistakenly thinks this is freedom, she is still just a construction of the male mind, serving him and the male drive to destroy. But she just destroys herself in the pursuit of male purpose.
To Find One’s Personal Purpose
If it is a living creature’s purpose to survive, but as members of a self-aware species, we know that we need a greater constructed, intellectual purpose than just survival, how can we manage? In other words, if we are not willing to accept how males run things, then how can we develop a personal purpose to rationalize staying alive? I mean, there is no handbook or recipe for this. The reason most people just go along with the status quo, even if it makes them miserable, is because it is easier. This is why males developed religion and drugs and alcohol and other addictive materials. These tools give a false purpose to the oppressed, rationalize suffering, provide the means to repeatedly escape reality, dull the urge to think and analyze deeply, and ultimately, make them easier to control. If you reject religion, drugs, alcohol, mass media, computer games, social media, etc, then you need to face reality and construct a personal way to keep going. Purpose, in other words.
Now, I am older and more experienced, but by no means an expert on purpose. I’ve wrestled with purpose and the meaning of my own life since I can remember. Honestly, it was a lot harder when I was younger, so if you are a younger woman and are struggling, I get it, and I assure you that this is perfectly normal. But please know that meaning and purpose are very personal things, and you may have questions and concerns that I or others don’t have. Myself, for example, I’m not much bothered by the question of why humans exist, as I don’t think it matters much. But I need to have a reason to stick around. Luckily, I wasn’t raised in a religious household, although my parents put me in an Anglican Sunday School when I was 5 and quickly pulled me out when I came home with some very fucked up ideas about ‘evil’ and drinking wine. I have explored the religious beliefs of various friends through my life and have only seen hate and illogic that seemed like attacks on my intelligence and sense of fairness. I’ve also experimented with drugs and alcohol, but none of it felt very good or helped me achieve anything other than getting sick or sexually assaulted. So really, I learned that I was going to have to use my brain to keep myself alive and achieving. And after many years of mistakes, achievements, depression, and joy, I’ve boiled my own purpose down to three things.
- Mentoring – I’ll be the first to admit that I never wanted children, but I do get a lot out of helping youth, particularly young women and girls. I don’t discount the potential value of older people – I quite like older ladies actually – but I don’t understand why so many choose to contribute nothing despite their accumulated wisdom and experience. You don’t have to do a formal job, but given how long people live these days, spending 30-40 years draining society of resources, especially if you never contributed anything in your so-called productive years, doesn’t make sense at all. But children have more potential to make positive contributions and need our investment, particularly feminist values. Myself, I have a beehive mentality, which is a classic female society – every member contributes to the survival of the hive until the end. So for me, I value and seek out intergenerational relationships, and I’ve come to see my formal jobs as an educator as something much more than just preparing people for examinations. I seek to be an example of non-traditional womanhood for the girls of today. And I try to pass on the idea of asking why and how questions and to reject blind acceptance of male-dominated society.
- Learning – we have these amazing, complex brains, and it doesn’t make sense to me not to push them as far as we can. We have the capacity to learn and create that no other living thing has. And yet, our brains are wasted and so often used to do horrible things. Male creativity usually destroys, and female brain power so often goes to supporting males. It is a waste at best, and human, animal and environmental rights abuses at worst. So for me, I am always looking to learn new things formally or informally. I take online classes – there are so many free resources out there that there is no excuse not to do this. I attend lectures in person if I can find things in a language I can get by in. I walk as much as I can because moving more slowly lets you see more around you. I try to know more about the world, and I’m happy to say that I’ve learned a lot through my own students, as well. You can teach the young, but you can also learn from them. In a nutshell, I can say that I am a lifelong learner. Plus, I think it helps your brain from atrophying.
- Do no harm – it is easy to hurt and destroy and just not care at all. It is easy to rationalize passing the buck, and avoiding responsibility. One person can seldom fix large problems, but that is not a reason to contribute to the problem or to turn a blind eye. For me, I try to leave things as I found them or better than I found them.
In conclusion, note that I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do or to imply that I am better than everyone out there because of what I try to do in my life. I don’t think my life is ideal, nor have I achieved a state of bliss or complete satisfaction. I’m seeking meaning – that’s all. And here, I’m providing an example of how to make your life make sense in a world of male chaos and violence when you don’t want to be a part of it, but are not allowed to be truly separate. Is this a form of escape in and of itself? Who knows? If it is, at least, it can be more productive and feel better than an addiction ever would or could. But if you think about it too closely or for too long, it can often end up seeming like you are looking at yourself in a mirror and you just see the endless smaller versions of yourself and the mirror, and it can make you crazy. Smash the mirror. Just take a photo, look at it, and ask yourself what the person you see could possibly do to inspire you. Then stop thinking about it and just get to work doing it. And re-evaluate periodically. Ask yourself if what you are doing holds any meaning for you. What other people think doesn’t matter. You are surviving and hopefully working towards a higher level of satisfaction. That is purpose, and I think it is the best you can do in a world that wouldn’t agree with this approach at all.
** I’m including a cool clip of of the song Pompeii (original band, Bastille) done in Latin by Belgian singer, Heleen Uytterhoeven. The song itself speaks to me of the shortness of life, how it can end unexpectedly, and how we waste what we have by doing nothing or worse.
We were caught up and lost in all of our vices
In your pose as the dust settled around usAnd the walls kept tumbling down in the city that we love
Grey clouds roll over the hills bringing darkness from aboveBut if you close your eyes
Does it almost feel like nothing changed at all?
And if you close your eyes
Does it almost feel like you’ve been here before?
How am I gonna be an optimist about this?
How am I gonna be an optimist about this?
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
P is for Purity
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Okay, where to start… Well, first off, I’ll just say that the plans I had for the remainder of the P-posts went out the window today thanks to a confusing experience I had when I was briefly out and about this morning. I spent the rest of the day hemming and hawing, as I don’t like throwing out good plans, and I’ve been hesitant to name the country where I currently live. Not sure why – I named and wrote plenty about China when I lived there. But what the hell. I’ve already written a number of posts about my time here in the country of Georgia, and I’ve started to think of them collectively as ‘The Georgia Files’. If you want to check them out, there are below:
- O is for Ownership – Part I
- Tits Out: An Observation
- When a 5-Year-Old Boy Creeps You Out
- Sexual Assault: The Quintessence of Femalehood
- It’s Biology: They’ve Got “Surround, Terrorize and Destroy” Down to an Art at 12
- Cry Like a Boy vs. Cry Like a Girl: An Observation
I will write a more in-depth analysis of Georgia one day. I’m not ready. This place is very weird, and I’m still trying to figure it out, you see. The only two reasons – and when I say ‘only two’, I really mean that – that I continue to stay here is that you can stay visa-free for a year, repeatedly, and it is cheaper than most places. But that’s it. I honestly can’t think of anything else I like about this country, including the food, the infrastructure, the people, and the religion-infected culture. Despite the horribleness of China, there are actually things I do miss about it, and even in the midst of living there, I could name things that I liked about my life there. Here, I can’t. I can’t name a single thing I like. And yes, my goal is to find a way to leave, but it takes time. I don’t believe in whining publicly without making a serious attempt to solve your problem.
Anyhow, religion. It is because of that that I decided to rejig my Series plan. You see, few things rile me up more than the topic of religion. I am a militant atheist, and I get so sick of religious people of ALL faiths pretending that they are these innocent oppressed victims. Even religions that are legitimately persecuted are also ALWAYS horrible oppressors of various groups of people – women and girls, first and foremost, and every single one of these religions engages in acts of hate while at the same time preaching peace and love. And every single one of them demands religious tolerance while actively engaging in acts and policies of intolerance and even humans rights abuse. I’m sick of it. It also annoys me when women claim they are feminists and then go on to willingly participate in religion, which let’s face it, is one of the primary weapons of male society used to infect, brainwash, subordinate, and destroy females. I also get annoyed when so-called feminists demonstrate a need to cling to the fantasy of there being a supernatural creator despite no evidence or logic. I’m sure the need to believe in something stems from various childhood fears and family-based programming, but I see things this way: I’m a trained scientist and the default position of untainted scientific methods is to try to disprove the null hypothesis, which is the default. In other words, there is nothing until you can PROVE otherwise. Finally, I’ve had enough of religious people trying to wiggle out of their moral crimes by insisting that atheism is a religion too (it’s not; it’s just a simple rejection of belief, not an entire system of laws based on pure fantasy, fear and hate) or that Hitler was an atheist (he wasn’t; he was a pantheist who elevated nature to the status of a god of sorts). I’m not sure if I’ll do an R is for Religion at this point. I fear I’ll devolve into a bit of an R is for Rant, and I try to avoid that as there is enough of it on the internet already.
Sooo, today, I popped out to the corner shop to pick up a few things to put in my almost-empty refrigerator. The first thing I noticed was police officers directing traffic at the intersection near my apartment for no apparent reason that I could see. As I got closer to the shops, I saw a river of people in the streets. Kind of a strange place for them – they were moving along slowly to which destination, I couldn’t figure out. There were hundreds and hundreds of them. And I saw the Orthodox Christian priests in their long black robes, carrying their flags and crosses and portraits of saints. What the hell was going on? I thought to myself, “Not another fucking holiday…” We just had Mother’s Day, Victory Day, Saint Andrew’s Day, and Easter – all just in May alone. And we’ve still got Independence Day this month. So, I wove my way through the crowd, bought my stuff and then returned home so that I could hit the internet and find out the answer to “What now…?” And my search resulted in me writing this post and including it in my Alphabet Series.
Today is Family Purity Day. Just the name of the holiday makes me feel nauseous. But I wanted to find out what that meant, as the label comes across as some sort of euphemism for something unsavoury. I know how other religions define ‘purity’, and how other countries define their Family Purity Days, and approximately 100% of the time it has something to do with women being whores and menstrual blood making females into impure, disgusting, untouchable non-humans. Yes, I’m looking at all of you Muslims and those Jews on the stricter end of the religious spectrum. The Orthodox Christians also hate female menstrual blood, and women are forced to wear scarves on their head when they are menstruating in order to announce to the world that they are unclean. Buddhists are the same. Females are considered to be unclean and there are various spaces that may not be entered by females and certain objects that may not be touched by females. This may not be universal, but Tibet and Myanmar, for sure, bar women from full participation. No religion is immune from upholding the idea that it is females and not males who are unclean, and this doesn’t make sense to me in the slightest. All evidence shows us that men are filthy, smell worse, generate more filth, don’t give a shit about living in a clean environment, and carry and pass on all sorts of diseases to women through their ‘who cares’ attitude that derives from male privilege. But no, it is women and girls who are unclean. Now, imagine substituting a particular racial group for ‘female’ and imagine the uproar. This has happened in the past, and we see these events as dark days. Yet, these days, liberal Western tourists have no problem with giving money to religious organizations and historical monuments that advertise their misogyny in plain language on signs. Misogyny is still much, much more of a problem than racism today, and no one gives a shit.
But Family Purity Day here in Georgia is about another kind of woman-hate. It focuses on anti-gay and -lesbian action, which is rooted in misogyny, and upholds traditional, pro-rape, anti-woman, heterosexual, religious values. This day of hate was started in 2014 by the Orthodox Church as a ‘take that!’ reaction to the 2013 gay and lesbian rally commemorating the International Day Against Homophobia, which is normally held on May 17 around the world. Religious people and even the priests themselves had shown up and committed acts of violence against the gay community attending the rally – probably to express their peace and love and acceptance that is built into all religions. Following the bloodshed, Georgia was punished by the European Court of Human Rights for their violence demanding almost 200,000 Euros in payment (to whom, I am not sure – hopefully to the 30 people who were injured by the priests and other shitheads). Reminiscent of how Christian invaders in the British Isles colonized the Celts long ago by timing all their religious celebrations at the same time as the Celtic holidays, the Georgian religious fanatics decided that May 17th would be an excellent time to hold their Family Purity Day. Despite the violence of the past, the current government fully supports harm to gays and lesbians, and this year, has drafted an amendment to the constitution to further limit the rights and freedoms of homosexuals, including prohibiting them from working in education, government and cultural institutions. Some people here are worried that Georgia’s 2022 application to enter the European Union will be denied, and I hope to hell, they are cut off from that and much more. This is not a good country.
I feel it somewhat ironic that having lived in a few parts of Georgia, I ended up being drawn, and without knowing in advance, to the location where Anne Lister, the woman dubbed ‘the first modern lesbian’ died after a brave and adventurous life. She’d likely be saddened, but unsurprised, by what is happening currently in her place of death. But I have to admit, I’m not really surprised either.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
P is for Pills
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I’ll admit that I’ve been both threatening and looking forward to writing this post for a long time. I’m going to attempt to do a brief navigation through the various groups that you’ll find online and in the meat world if you’re looking for a drug of choice that soothes your patriarchal suffering and that may attempt to address women’s issues or even feminism. The problem is that so many of these groups, especially the ones where members say they are feminists or where the word ‘feminism’ even appears in the name, have little to nothing to do with real feminism. So newbies can find themselves lost, confused, and sometimes abused if they enter a group and start asking legitimate questions.
Please note that I’m definitely not going to cover every single group or movement out there, so if you see something missing that you have had experience with, please throw it in the comments. Likewise, please feel free to share any experiences you’ve had with any of the groups I mention. I’d be very appreciative, and I know some readers would as well.
I’m going to give this post a slightly longer title: P is for Pills, Pablum and Pretenders, so that I adequately cover the range of groups I’ll get into. I’m also providing an article published by the Anti-Defamation League that looks at a number of ‘pilled’ groups run by men. It is important to understand that male groups and female groups, even if they use similar jargon, are always different, especially when they are labelled ‘extreme’. All extreme male groups are violent and often engage in domestic, international or online terrorism of target enemies. Women’s groups are sometimes labelled extreme even by other female-oriented groups, but they are never violent or actually extreme, objectively speaking. And they don’t target innocent ‘enemies’ the way all men’s groups do. These women’s groups are called extreme for the exact same reasons that women are called ‘crazy’ or ‘illogical’; males are threatened by female ideas that speak truths about the male nature and behaviour, so they try to discredit them, and women are smacked in the face with cognitive dissonance brought on by the truths about men and female complicity with patriarchy, and they react with denouncement. But here’s the thing: most, if not all, of the groups I’m going to talk about have been banned on at least one social media platform. Men’s groups are seldom, if ever, banned – even if they talk about rape and other violence that women apparently deserve. But women talking about women’s issues are a threat to society and must be silenced in a community that values free speech.
And with that, let’s jump in. We’ll start with the pills.
While males like to refer to being either blue-pilled or red-pilled, and it applies within a political context and among violent incels who all want women to die after some serious raping, within women’s circles, the pills have nothing to do with violence.
Blue Pill
This isn’t really a thing, but I’m including it as sort of the default heterosexual woman state. This is the ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach to life. Question nothing, accept everything or at least pretend it doesn’t exist, especially if it doesn’t directly affect you.
Red Pill
Some people equate this to what is known as Female Dating Stratey. Red Pill males are incels who are violent misogynists who believe that the world operates to benefit women and they need to do what is necessary to turn that around. For women, there is no violence involved. Women know that men are garbage, but they still, for some reason, need to get themselves one. They prioritize themselves, develop a ‘queen’ mentality, seem to acknowledge that their cunts have value, and focus on finding a high-value male to match their own high value while minimizing the harm males do to them. It is super gross. They are in no way equal to the red pill incel mentality, but I can’t understand these women at all. And needless to say, this is not feminism, even if today’s libfem might call it female empowerment.
If you really need to know more about this, there are women who have written handbooks on the topic including here.
Pink Pill Feminism
Pink Pill, by itself, is used by men to refer to the female version of incels (or involuntary celebates), called femcels. But while online groups of these women exist, and even do call themselves femcels, they are nothing like the males. I’ve cruised through some of their group discussions and the content just makes me feel sad. These women claim they can’t get men for sex or dating, but unlike the men, their frustration is turned inward and they go on and on about being too ugly. They live in a deep fog of self-hatred and depression, which is so completely unnecessary. The men, on the other hand, blame women for all their problems and fantasize about doing horrific things to women.
Pink Pill Feminism, on the other hand, isn’t true feminism, but a forum for mostly heterosexual women to come together and document straight male bullshit without an element of ‘Not All Men!!!’. They were banned from Reddit and at one point the site Pink Pill Feminism was set up, and to sign up, you had to confirm your female status through Zoom, to prevent infiltration by males. At this writing, the site appears to be down. I’m aware of another site, ThePinkPill.co, which looks like it is under development and you can enter your email to be updated when and if something happens.
Black Pill Feminism
I’ve spent considerably more time in this community and I’ve met some awesome, intelligent and no-bullshit women through discussions. However, I am not 100% with the tenets, even though they consider me to be a classic Black-Piller. Black-Pillers believe everything is biological – both male violence and female subservience – and that the latter has been bred into women and there is no escaping from worshipping males and letting them dominate. I am a firm believer in a Nature-Nurture intertwining. Males are biological wired to be violent and that can’t be changed. But they have developed a sociological system that rewards them for their violence and that rewards women for submitting and punishes them brutally for rebelling. I don’t in any way believe women are biologically wired for subservience.
This group is considered to be ‘extreme’ and was banned on Reddit. A small group started up and currently barely exists on Saidit.net. I don’t consider it to be real feminism, and it can attract some rather woman-hating and angry women (if they are women, that is – it is anonymous, of course…), but some of the more interesting and honest discussions I’ve encountered have happened in Black Pill circles, and you never encounter ‘Not All Men!’.
Gender Critical
This is not a group I typically hang out in, as I don’t consider it to be feminism. If you consult Scrotalpedia, they equate it with Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism. It is absolutely not radical feminism, and group members are generally not truly opposed to gender, especially if you are critiquing women’s performance of it. Rather, this group is opposed to and focused on the Trans Cult and its encroachments on what is typically seen to be the domain of females. You don’t actually have to be feminist to oppose the trans, and many of the members are practising straight women who also hate homosexuality. They really should rename themselves ‘Trans Critical’.
Real feminists are not gender critical, but gender abolitionists because they see the major role gender plays in forcing women into subservience, discomfort, and an infantilized, but hyper-sexualized state – all pandering to the oppressor class.
Socialist, Communist and Anarcha-Feminism
These are related feminisms that agree on one point: that patriarchy and capitalism work together to exploit and oppress women. They focus on unpaid motherhood (which it’s not) and reproductive rights, which means that heterosexuality and breeding are centred and a growing number of women, including lesbians, the celibate, and the child-free are completely alienated. Also, since the primary focus is on economic class, what is neglected is the most serious patriarchal problem that affects all women in all corners of the globe: male violence. Giving women more money doesn’t solve male violence and the fear that women are forced to live with. You can be rich or middle-class, and that won’t save you from being raped or murdered, in other words. In my opinion, this is one of the major problems with women piggy-backing on male movements. Instead of taking a social issue and then injecting women into it, you never really get to what is most important. You need to start with women and then analyze their issues instead of the opposite.
More detail on socialist feminism.
Eco-Feminism
Like the previous splinter group, eco-feminists hold patriarchy and capitalism responsible for female domination and the destruction of the environment. I remember sitting in a college class in Environmental Management a few years ago, and there was a tiny blurb in the textbook on eco-feminism, and the male prof launched into a diatribe on the ridiculousness of feminism. Despite never once announcing to the class that I was a feminist, people started shooting glances at me. I am such a non-descript person, yet there is something about me that just screams militant man-hater… One of the military females in the class gave me the side-eye and started yelling out, “I hate feminists!”, which didn’t surprise me in the least as I can’t think of anything more antithetical to femalehood than the military. Needless to say, I didn’t say a word, but sat there with as neutral a look on my face as I could manage.
Anyhow, while I agree with some of the issues eco-feminism addresses, these women frequently partner with men, and they are still piggy-backing on a male movement. Many of these groups don’t go far enough in holding men responsible for the destruction of the planet. The other issue I have, and I wrestle with it constantly as it can’t be solved, is the opposition to meat-eating. I’ve been vegetarian, and it nearly destroyed my health, especially during a period of very difficult manual labour. I’ve since done a lot of research, and have come to understand the following. First, it is likely that humans were mostly only able to develop such complex brains because of eating meat-based proteins. And second, there is a great deal of research, including long-running observational and case studies that demonstrate that cultures that almost completely consume meat, fat, organs, etc. don’t show the cancers and heart disease of high-carb cultures. But here is the thing, we are vastly overpopulated due to long-term male domination. I firmly believe that we were never meant to live in such large numbers. And the only way to support a massive and growing population is to create exploitative and land-destructive processes. We should be hunting and gathering and fishing with limited farming as opposed to destroying our oceans, soil, and mutating plants, and torturing animals with abandon. A female-only society would look very, very different, although we are well past the point of no return on our planet.
Oh, I have to mention one other strange, and hilarious and sad thing. I learned a new word when I went a-browsing for eco-feminist groups online. Harvard’s Women’s Centre put on an eco-feminism workshop, and in their description, they put the following:
“This philosophy emphasizes the ways a patriarchal society exerts dominance over both gender-minoritized people and nature…”
Gender-minoritized??? Ah, trannies. So the feminism that Harvard espouses has nothing to do with women’s oppression, but that of trannies. Didn’t Harvard used to be a respected, world-class university at one point in time? New depths in education. It really is an embarrassment
Liberal Feminism
I’m going to resist going into a lot of detail because this is an established on and offline mainstream feminism. My nickname for liberal feminism is ‘slut feminism’. These are mostly heterosexual, highly feminine, male-identified women who pursue equality and allow men to participate and even dictate feminist policy and events. They champion the ‘not all men’ movement and believe in socialization as the primary way to explain why males here and there managed to do horrific things to females. They also believe that males are harmed by patriarchy. They fight for small things that can’t possibly make a dent in the mountain of women’s problems. They love jargon and slogans so they don’t have to do any critical analysis. They are into empowerment, agency and sexual liberation, including porn and prostitution, so pretty much everything they think spells sexual freedom for females is actually primarily beneficial for men, and they end up accepting a lot of violence and degradation that men have sold to them as healthy and freeing. Needless to say, they do a great deal of harm to women and girls, and it keeps men doing what they do best.
Radical Feminism
A lot of women call themselves radical feminists, but aren’t, so this can be very confusing to those wondering what they are about. They are also the primary target of the Trans Cult – after lesbians, that is.
Radical feminism used to have a very basic definition, which is key to a potentially successful movement. They said that females as a class were systemically oppressed by males on the basis of sex. Male violence and sexual violence were a key feature of that oppression, and it was necessary to abolish gender in order to eliminate the class system.
Unfortunately, over time, radfems adopted intersectionality and inclusivity as ruling principles, and the movement no longer focused on women as a united oppressed class. Today, there is all sorts of in-fighting and purity testing and posing and Oppression Olympics and the censorship and blaming of different groups of women. Women like myself, eventually got turned off and have turned towards less messy affiliations in order to return to the true roots of feminism.
Lesbian Feminism, Female Separatism, Anti-Natalism and Gynocentrism
I’m not going to say a lot here. I have an entire post on Gynocentrism, which I think is the truest, clearest and least messy form of feminism. These four perspectives can work together, but they don’t have to. For me, they do. I am a celibate lesbian, I believe in existing apart from males as much as is womanly possible, I believe that humans need to stop breeding, and I believe in a focus of all resources and energy and care on women and girls only. Many women would consider these principles to be extreme, but I truly believe they are the truest path to health, safety, love, support, community, and self-actualization for women. It is the only way to find one’s natural self, and to reclaim the energy to help other women and girls, so that they can pay it forward. Patriarchal society functions in the opposite way, with men and boys parasitizing women and girls and forcing them into the most unnatural and harmful lifestyles and ways of thinking possible.
So I’ve come to the end of a long discussion, and here is my question for you. What will be your approach to living in the world of men? Do you want to take the blue pill, do you want to drink one of the of kool-aids, or do you want to get off the meds altogether?
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
P is for Permission
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
So imagine you’ve had a stressful day. It could be good stress or bad – a good performance review at work vs being sexually harassed on the street. The body doesn’t actually differentiate between types of stress, even if your conscious mind does. So your body tells you to deal with the stress by doing things that have comforted and consequently rewarded, you in the past. If you’re lucky, these are positive and healthy things like relaxing at home or going out dancing. But for many people, our stress reactions don’t truly help us and can even take the form of an addiction. For those actively trying to conquer bad habits or compulsive behaviours, stress can trigger a crazy-making inner dance that involves giving or denying ourselves permission to indulge in self-soothing and/or avoidance. For me, personally, my only true addiction is to sugar, a problem I developed in childhood to deal with a stressful family environment. And it is a lifelong struggle that is triggered by both positive and negative stress. The permission-granting process is basically a series of rationalizations involving being deserving, being kind to ourselves, making promises about quitting, minimizing negative effects, and the like. We all know this inner dance, and if we’re lucky, the stress reactions aren’t too harmful, but for many of us, they are. And they can be anything from overeating to using drugs and alcohol to allowing abusive people back into our lives after liberating ourselves.
Everything we do is governed by rules. Even in the scenario above, the rules are informal and self-created, even if we don’t realize we have them. Some people are really good at following rules, especially if they are societally policed. A minority of people are exceptionally good at self-control in these situations where we are both the rule-makers and the potential rule breakers. Sometimes it is because they are extremely goal-oriented or purpose-driven or they haven’t experienced a lot of trauma requiring self-soothing or they have had good mentors to help them develop healthy ways of dealing with stress and staying focused.
People break formal and informal rules for a lot of reasons, and in this article, I’m going to explore different kinds of rule-bound situations, and why different people may seek or fail to seek permission for breaking rules. I’m going to say right off the bat that I believe that women and girls struggle more with rules, rule-breaking, and requiring permission to do things than males do. First, as is typical of all male-dominated societies, more rules are imposed on females, and as a result, girls learn to start policing themselves and creating even more nonsensical rules to follow for themselves. This manifests in a great deal of self-sabotage, low self-confidence, and the development of neurotic, self-policing behaviour and associated guilt, shame, depression, and physical and psychological suffering. Males on the other hand, grow up with fewer rules and less punishment for breaking rules, and of course, biologically and intellectually as members of the predator class, I think they are less capable of feeling empathy, shame, guilt or of engaging in self-analysis. So let’s take a look at how permission and rule-breaking factor into different areas of our lives.
Self-Control and Rules We Create for Ourselves
As mentioned in the introduction, we wrestle with the many informal rules we make for ourselves every day. Some of these rules are internalized over a lifetime of programming by parents, school, television, religion, etc. Some of them are developed on our own as we try to control our lives and our natural impulses and learned bad habits. To reference what I have come to call the Freudian Cerberus, a famous, but simplistic and silly, male theory of personality that will be repeatedly rammed down your throat like a forced mouth rape if you are a psychology major, it is a battle between the id, ego and superego. Giving into your impulses or stress-induced bad habits is a permission granting that takes the form of rationalization. You allow yourself to procrastinate, to binge eat, to drink or take drugs, or to allow the abusive ex-boyfriend back into your life to make yourself feel better or to avoid dealing with reality and stress.
Family Rules
The family is the first place we encounter actual rules in our lives and it is where we develop healthy and unhealthy patterns when dealing with life stress. These are the people who lay the foundations for our addictions and determine our mental health path. If we’re lucky, our parents are mentally healthy people with a reasonable and consistent moral compass and an ability to teach rational and critical thinking. Most of us aren’t that fortunate, however, and we end up repeating parental mistakes, and dealing with arrested development. Depending on the roles we’re cast in within the family system, we end up being rule followers and authority respecters, or rebels (usually without a cause). And then there are the outliers who forge their own paths and systems of morality, picking and choosing which of society’s rules have merit and are worth respecting, and which don’t and aren’t.
It is within the family that we see our first sex-based differences in rule establishment and permission denial and granting. Girls will usually discover that compared to any of the males in the family, there is a more complex and vast system of rules for them, that ‘no’ is a more common reaction to the asking of permission to do something, and that the breaking of rules is more harshly punished for them. We see the results of this unacknowledged misogyny in how girls develop in all societies. Compared to boys, girls are risk averse and more conservative in their aspirations, they are less confident, more submissive and rule-abiding and predictable, and they are more accepting of denial of permission, punishment for rule-breaking, and to atone for perceived and real wrong-doings. I suspect none of this is natural, and almost wholly the product of social conditioning. It reminds me of the story of the chained elephant and is a form of learned helplessness. I see the way most girls are raised as a form of child abuse. But what happens in most families is preparation for what happens at large in the world. As women out in the world, girls will continue to face more rules, more denial, and more punishment than men. Girls who rebel as children end up being the ‘bitches’ of the world, labeled as such by all males and compliant, but miserable women. Boys who rebel, on the other hand, often end up respected for breaking rules and even committing crimes, and often are touted as heroes or ‘great men’ making their mark on the world as males are supposed to do.
Unspoken Rules
There are tons of environments where there are rules, but it is sort of a cultural understanding rather than something written in stone. There are still punishments for breaking these rules, and there are more rules with more punishment for females than for males. Females are more likely to be punished and denied permission than males are as well. These environments include marriages, workplaces, schools, social groups and on the streets.
One of the most common and most universal unofficial rules is that concerning breeding – and this is almost completely a rule forced on women and girls. I am not aware of any country that makes it illegal NOT to have children, but every single country in the world pressures women to breed, and the subliminal messaging starts in childhood. There is no true way to gain permission to be exempt from this unwritten rule and still enjoy the perks and respect of motherhood. You can get a semi-pardon if your plumbing doesn’t work and you are unable to have children, but you won’t attain the highest level of female human status. Males don’t experience anything like this and can either breed uncontrollably or not at all without a dent put in his social, financial, or legal status. Fatherhood isn’t tied to primary identity for men. This is solely a female burden.
What’s more, despite world overpopulation, many countries’ leaders are becoming testerical over the large number of non-contributors compared to taxpayers that has resulted from baby boomers aging out of the workforce and today’s youth having fewer children. Many countries are offering women and heterosexual couples numerous incentives to breed, including cash, maternity packages, pardoning of jail sentences for women, and eliminating the requirement to pay any income tax at all. I was speaking to a close lesbian friend in China the other day, and she mentioned that the propaganda mill has been put into overdrive to pressure women into having children, and she is extremely worried that the next step will be to punish women who refuse to breed. And I’ve heard similar sentiments echoed by women in other countries. There is even a conspiracy theory that the recent American overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a step made to force an increase in the birth rate in a country where women are breeding fewer children or not at all. I keep envisioning a dystopian world like that envisioned by famous Canadian author, Margaret Atwood, in her book The Handmaid’s Tale, where women are reduced to baby factories and hating each other – not men, who enjoy all the perks of this world – passionately.
Now, another, but related, unwritten rule in 2/3 of the world is that concerning homosexuality. Like all oppressions, homophobia is rooted in misogyny and male domination, so it makes sense that when men fail to rape women and women fail to seek out rapists – aka the heterosexual lifestyle – male domination is threatened and the world as we know it teeters on the verge of collapse. While 65 of our world’s countries criminalize homosexual behaviour, and 12 countries, including Northern Nigeria – completely or predominantly Muslim, of course – put gays and lesbians to death, legally, there is no country in the world where a homosexual lifestyle is free from the threat of attack, sometimes even fatal attack. Even in the most liberal countries, gays and lesbians are not permitted to walk through the world with the safety and acceptance that their straight counterparts take for granted.
In middle-of-the-road countries where homosexuality is not illegal, but still is far from acceptable, governments will engage in covert methods to shut down groups and render invisible gays and lesbians. When I lived in China, my university went to great lengths to discourage homosexual activity. For example, they reorganized many academic departments and locations of student housing to different campuses to spread out the much smaller female student population so that males could have access to them and to discourage homosexuality. Before this, the majors women tended towards were mostly housed on one smaller campus where I lived, and instances of gay male activity had been noted on the main campus where few women were to be found. Stupidly, the administration didn’t understand that moving women around to provide male student access to suitable rape objects wouldn’t change homosexual tendencies in males. All they achieved was to put ALL the women in more danger by thinning the bit of safety they had due to strength in numbers. I heard many times from my female students that they didn’t feel safe walking around on campus at night, and I myself, was the target of a black man who stalked me for weeks for the purpose of raping me. He made his intentions very clear, and according to him, Chinese women don’t put out for free like white women do, so he didn’t require permission to assault me. I reported the problem, but the university refused to do anything except encourage me not to go outside after dark…
Rules Governing Human Interaction
There are a lot of social rules that don’t have explicit, written law linked to them, but it is understood that permission governs everything. We can sum this up by the following: your rights end where mine begin. There is a two-part problem, however. First is that males and females don’t exist on equal footing. Males understand themselves to be full humans and any transgression they perceive against their body or property is akin to a crime. And females, as they are defined and dominated by males are understood to be partial humans that exist to serve males. Even the most liberal of males does not see a female as his equal, even if it is just on a subconscious level as his words may reflect all the politically correct stuff. His inner predator still sees you as something he can take advantage of in some way, and your permission is granted by default, especially if you have granted it at least once before.
Second, males and females see permission in different ways. Let’s use a well-known saying to illustrate the difference in thinking:
It is better to seek forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Various sources1 and wording, one version dating back to Agnes Strickland’s 1846 work, Lives of the Queens of England.
When males and females go ahead and break a rule and then go back to ask for forgiveness, they do it for different reasons. Males usually don’t give a shit if they do something wrong, even if it harms another person, especially a female. As they grow up, they are imbued with a sense of deserving and entitlement as males, so it may not even occur to them that they need to ask permission to do what they want to do. And as they inevitably break rule after rule, they accumulate a lifetime of forgiveness from females – mom, sisters, classmates, teachers – and learn that they can get away with anything, especially if afterwards, they pretend remorse or use the ‘love’ word, or shower their victim with gifts. Some men do know that they are doing something wrong, although most will feign ignorance and put the onus of their education on their female victims.
When females dare to break rules and then go back and ask forgiveness, they usually do it because they know they will be denied permission. And most of this rule-breaking usually isn’t about sexually harming others. It could be trying to do something at work or school, or trying to obtain something they wouldn’t normally have access to. Girls are used to the word ‘no’ from an early age, so if they are daring enough to risk punishment, they know they might have a fighting chance of getting what they need or want if they just go ahead and ask for forgiveness later.
So as we can see, males tend to be more selfishly motivated, while females are usually just trying to avoid being stopped from achieving something simply because they are girls and they face more barriers than males do. Unfortunately, males are much more likely to break rules, even if they know they are doing something bad. As I mentioned before, girls get used to having more rules, hearing ‘no’ more often, and being punished more frequently and severely, so they tend to risk less and self-sabotage or self-censor more.
Rules Governed by Law or Something on Par with Law
Males have designed all the systems that we use to govern society. This includes the rules written into law and the acceptable and expected behaviours that they believe are allowed by religion, nature, and science. Religion, of course, is a male creation used to control the population, and cement male domination. Nature doesn’t really have ‘laws’ although men like to think it does when it suits their purposes. And science, although just a methodology for seeking answers, has been elevated by some men to a series of ‘laws’ and they use them as such to control women and give men power. The legal system, natural law, and science have all been badly abused throughout history to justify taking rights away from women and girls and to give males blanket permission to commit violence and other atrocities, to justify feelings of entitlement and superiority to all living creatures and the earth herself, and to make up nonsense about what females are and to strip them of their humanity and right to control their bodies and lives.
To conclude, I suspect the crazy dance we are forced to do with men to negotiate our lives and safety in a world catering to their dominance and bent on our subservience, and the crazy dance we do with ourselves in order to deal with the stresses of living in a patriarchal world wouldn’t be an issue in a woman-centred society. I doubt we’d spend even a moment trying to figure out whether we have permission to live in freedom, whether we deserve to be unencumbered. Self-actualization can only occur when there are no barriers to success.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
P is for Pedo
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Whoa, oh, oh, young girl
So hard to choose just one… lyrics from one of many classic pedo-fantasy songs. This one, Young Girl, is by Gary Puckett. A common element to all pedo songs is that some to all of the responsibility for the rape fantasies is placed on the child herself for being a deliberately tantalizing slut… And notice that there isn’t a celebrated playlist of female pedo songs, despite female pedophilia being a ‘thing’.
Get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl
You’re much too young, girl
Back in 2017, the beginnings of a wave rippled on the surface of the internet. From the depths, had come wild claims of political and criminal wrong-doings. It quickly became a movement, with a rapidly growing body of wild suppositions and predictions, and garnering wackadoo men from across the US and even abroad. And once claims of there being an elite international cabal of pedophiles was put out there, women started joining. A lot of women will get caught up in completely batshit crazy male-driven movements because of a superficially altruistic message or mission and/or because they have been scared out of their wits – in this case, protecting children from sex predators. Men tend to be more motivated to join groups in order to gain power and wealth, for the opportunity to mete out extra-system violence and revenge for imagined transgressions, and/or to get recognition or gratitude.
So anyhow, this was QAnon, and as quickly as it was built up, it has since lost much of its steam. Personally, I think it wasn’t a genuine conspiracy theory, but rather what inevitably happens when you have the perfect storm of capitalism, the internet, testosterone, and religion. The best conspiracy theories – or, rather, the most worthwhile to consider, if you’re interested in such things – have actual plausibility that can be fact-checked, and QAnon really had little going for it other than a call to violence appealing to political extremists.
Now the pedophilia focus of the group was strange. It may just have been a ploy to get women involved, because really, you can’t take any men seriously when they start accusing other men of sex-related perversions and crimes. Pot meet kettle, etc. etc. Pedophilia is an everyman phenomenon, not the domain of the rich and famous. It has nothing to do with wealth or education or race or culture, and it has been going on since human time began. And it is perpetrated most often, not by faceless strangers waiting for kids in a swimming pool change room, but by the men and boys a child knows: family members, teachers, community religious leaders, and family friends. This is the same mistake that everyone makes about rapists of adult women: they are more likely to be a friend, family member, co-worker or other male you are familiar with than a complete stranger. But believing in the evil stranger props up the myth that good men exist, that women and girls should trust and get involved with at least some men and boys, and that one’s own male family members are innocent by association with you instead of enabled and given sexual carte blanche by you and other females.
So I want to get into a couple of things here. I’ve touched on related issues in other posts in the past (see the links in the post throughout). First, I’ll get into male chronophilia, and pedophilia specifically. I’ll briefly talk about women who molest children. Then, I’ll talk about how women aid and abet male pedos through self-feminization as well as the grooming of their daughters for heterosexuality. And although these seem like opposite-purpose behaviours, they actually work together unintentionally.
Chronophilia
This was a term used by creepy Kiwi sexologist, John Money, to refer to male sexual preference for and fixation on specific age groups. Philia is Greek in origin, meaning a friendly affection type of love, and sometimes, it is just that. Think of the word Anglophile, for example, which refers to someone who really likes the UK and everything British. But not all philias are safe and innocent, and those involving what men’s minds and dicks get up to are anything but. Personally, I think male sexuality, regardless of how socially acceptable or undisordered it is, is the root of all of women’s and girls’ problems. I see the penis as a weapon of mass destruction with the capability of killing and causing great suffering. And you can disagree all you want, but you can’t argue with the statistics on rape and its myriad physical and psychological damage, unwanted pregnancy and its various outcomes, venereal diseases, PTSD, and a whole host of other problems resulting from females having to deal with males’ dicks.
There is some debate about whether all males are chronophiles. Personally, I don’t think this is that important, but if you’ve read my sexuality series, you’ll already know that I consider males to be omnisexual. In other words, all males have at least a tickle of attraction to all sorts of stuff, including children. What they choose to act on and what they choose to suppress and even repress depends on a whole host of factors. There are males who’ll do anyone or anything, anytime, anywhere regardless of age, species, or animate status without a distinct preference. And there are other males who exhibit a socially acceptable range of age attraction, and others still, who have a very narrow range of targets whether socially acceptable or not. The problem is that many males are attracted to age groups that are under 18 while they themselves are adults. While all male-female relationships are inherently power imbalanced, and are thus not truly consensual, it is much worse when there are age differences and one of the parties has an underdeveloped brain and body. Men don’t seem to see a problem with attraction to teenaged girls, otherwise known as ephebophilia, and have built an entire rape-based industry called pornography and prostitution to legitimize this belief. I have a problem with it, of course, as I think intercourse causes physical and psychological damage to females regardless of age, but especially when young. And then we enter the realms of hebephilia and pedophilia – attraction to early teens and pre-pubescent children, respectively. Hebephilia was acceptable for most of human history, and still is in some cultures, the reasoning being that if a girl is menstruating, then she’s fair game for ownership and raping. These days, you still see online discussions among men about whether it’s ‘okay’ to be attracted to a 14-year-old girl. I don’t personally understand adult attraction to teenagers and children. It is really hard for me to get into the headspace of a male that sees this as desirable. But if you understand that everything that men do is about power and control, then you can see why dominating the helpless might be desirable. And with that, I’ll get into the next topic.
What’s a Pedophile, Anyway?
Now, I learned a few things here as I was digging into the boner-brain connection. The most interesting, but perhaps unsurprising, thing to me was that only about half of males who sexually molest children can be diagnosed as pedophiles. Pedophilia, unlike most of the other chronophilias, is a clinical diagnosis of a sexual preference disorder. In other words, being attracted to children is kind of a problem. Yet 50% of child molesters aren’t sexually attracted to children. At first, I reread this finding and thought, WTF??? But then I remembered that the penis is a weapon and that, for men, sexual activity is inseparable from acts of violence, hate and degradation, and a means of exerting power and control, and on some level, ALL males know this. I don’t think that any sexual act that a male carries out with unequal parties – meaning women and children – is devoid of power and control and hate and degradation, even if he dresses it up as love. So after that initial WTF? moment, it made sense. Males assault children to get off and feel power even if they are not attracted to them, just as men sometimes rape adult women they aren’t attracted to, but to get off on punishing them for being female and a threat to their ego in some way.
Researchers tell us that about 5% of the male population are pedophiles, but these data are based on surveys, so I would have to assume that the figure is higher as some men aren’t going to admit what they like if it is criminal. Likewise with rape. Survey-based studies of college age males indicate that a quarter of men would rape a woman if they knew they weren’t going to get caught. That number is likely much higher because a lot of men aren’t going to admit to something criminal in nature. The message here is that it is impossible to know how disgusting and dangerous men truly are because we rely upon incarceration data and self-report data. And only a minority of sex offenders are actually caught and convicted. I remember visiting a friend in L.A. once time, and for kicks, I decided to look up the neighbourhood on the sex offender registry to see how many rapists and pedos lived around me. It was shocking how many red dots appeared on the streets around where I was staying, and then I realized that those dots were only the convicted and released men. Remember only about 5% of male rapists are ever convicted. Anyhow, liberal men have criticized society for pedo-hysteria, and have even created entertainment – the British animated series, Monkey Dust, is an example – that pokes fun at those who worry about what men do to those with much smaller voices. While I don’t believe in persecuting people without cause, I think women and children should ideally have the option of living apart from males.
Of the men who molest children – girls and boys – over 80% of them live heterosexual lives. Some LGB researchers argue that you can’t really identify sexual orientation in pedophiles, but I don’t agree 100%. Girls are much, much more likely to be sexually abused than males, and that difference would not exist if pedophiles did not have an orientation. It may not be an entirely sexual orientation – sex and harm go hand in hand for males – but it is certainly an orientation that involves hurting girls. Twenty percent of girls are molested, compared to 5 percent of boys. I think it’s probably higher in females as girls are groomed from birth to accept sexual attention from males, so they are less likely to see what is happening to them as a crime and to report it.
While homosexual men are not the group to worry most about, there have been a few gay male pro-pedophilia groups, such as NAMBLA in North America and the Krumme13 (or the Crooked 13) in Germany that have advocated for adult-child sexual relationships, decriminalizing child porn, and the like. They are not embraced by the gay and lesbian community, but have perhaps made an impression on simple-thinking right-wingers who may possibly be more likely to be pedophiles than the people they demonize 😉
There has been some effort by left-wingers in recent times to increase the publicity of and search for female child molesters. They are really hard to get a grasp on though for a few reasons. They are far, far less common than male sex offenders, the entire world protects mothers from being seen as perverts and abusers, and child victims are less likely to report sexual abuse from their mothers and female caregivers. So, sample sizes are generally small, and typology models are still under development, but from the data available, two primary types of adult women sexually abuse pre-pubescent children: the male-coerced type, where women assist a male partner in the sexual assault, and the intergenerational predisposed type, where women abuse their own children or children close to them. And these women appear to be almost universally heterosexual mothers or care-givers, although they sexually abuse females more than males. The behaviour seems to be less sexually motivated, and more a reenactment of sexual and physical abuse they themselves suffered as children. Interestingly, female sex abusers tend to be more physically brutal with female victims in addition to the molestation, and serious injuries are much more likely with girls and with youngers victims than with boys or pubescent and teenaged victims. Although, researchers seem confused about why this might be, I have a strong suspicion that this is a direct expression of the internalized misogyny that all women grow up with, and women trapped in unwanted caregiving roles with girl children are possibly tapping into repressed rage from their own childhood abuse. It seems logical that female abusers would see a young girl as a proxy for the hated self, and punish the girl accordingly.
Admittedly, much more investigation is needed to understand the prevalence of and motivation for female sex abusers and the damage they do to girls. Generally speaking, I think mothers are far too protected as it is, and I am no fan of seeing breeding as a human right. I think being born to a sane and loving person is the human right we need to be more concerned with. If you are a severely damaged person, you have no business being around children, let alone creating your own punching bags and fuck toys. I still remember back to my time in China, and I saw plenty of public child abuse, but it was only ever mothers slapping, punching, kicking, and using make-shift weapons on their small girl children. It was shocking, and I was the only one who seemed to notice. Never once did I see anyone — mother or father – hit a boy. Of course, I saw plenty of adult males physically abusing adult females in public. But not children. We see from crime data that males are much more likely to abuse and sexually abuse children, especially girls, but perhaps they save it for the privacy of the home since they are seldom out and about with children on their own, unlike women. And although fathers aren’t as protected as mothers from suspicion of abuse, society generally accepts male violence as the way things are. If we put a few token male rapists in jail, we can all feel like we’re addressing the problem, even though we’re not. But maternal child abuse, including molestation, needs to be addressed in a more serious way.
Aiders and Abettors
I wanted to briefly address a more common female contribution to pedophilia and that is feminization, the pursuit of youth, and the grooming of daughters. I talked about much of this in my 2017 post Thanks for Supporting Pedophilia. My theory is that instead of aging naturally and normally, adult women engage in a whole host of practices – aka practising femininity – designed to chase youth and cater to male pedophilic, hebephilic and ephebophilic proclivities. Women remove their body hair, try to stay thin and unmuscular, dye their hair, coat their faces in make-up to look younger, and dumb down the tone and content of their speech in an effort to look more childlike and to keep men’s attention. And increasingly, mothers groom their daughters for male attention by allowing them to dress age-inappropriately and femininely, to wear make-up, and they tend to punish assertive and aggressive behaviour. Consequently the lines between adult and child are increasingly blurred, and all of it is for male attention. Without males, females have no need to engage in any of this feminizing and infantilizing behaviour.
I’m going to conclude with the following. If I had a daughter, and I feel thankful every day that I don’t have children, here is my list of threats to her safety in descending order:
- Straight and bisexual men – despite entertainment propaganda that they are the only protectors of the weak that we can rely on, they are actually the greatest threat to women and girls, and you engage with them at your own and your daughters’ risk.
- All teenaged boys – in some ways, they are worse than adult men simply because they are more likely to target children than adult women for victimization. But their worlds are smaller and their access to people is more limited and they may be marginally more monitored than adults. It’s a fine line, though.
- All boy children – many are sadistic with impulse control problems, but are uber-protected by boy-moms because of their supposed innocence. You’d be surprised how often little boys commit sex crimes though.
- Straight and bisexual women – while they are much less likely to commit sex crimes than men, as I mentioned, straight women who sex offend tend to be much more physically brutal with girls in addition to molesting them. In addition, straight women are male pedophile enablers, especially if they are boy-moms or women in committed relationships with men. Straight women will sometimes participate in molestation with their partner, but most often will just cover up or pretend the crimes aren’t happening. In some cases, women will trade their daughters’ bodies for a place to live despite there being lots of help for single mothers in Western countries.
- Gay men – they are not so much a sexual risk to girls, but gay men are misogynists too. I’ll bet they’re probably less dangerous to girls than, say, boy-moms.
- Lesbian and separatist women – the only risk they pose is any internalized misogyny they have from growing up and living in a toxic anti-woman world. But by and large, they are the safest people for girls to be around.
So, like the right-wingers of QAnon and various religious groups around the world, do we need to lose our shit in the quest to root out pedophilia in all tribes but our own? No. The sexualization and abuse of children, especially girls, is part of a much larger problem called male domination. And separatism is a more logical place to put your energy and a better investment for your daughters.
This post is part of the Alphabet Series.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
O is for Ownership – Part II
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
You don’t own me
Don’t try to change me in any way…And please, when I go out with you
from “You Don’t Own Me” (1963) – a woman’s point-of-view on what she wants, written by two men. How unusual… And women, including the original singer, Lesley Gore, consider this to be ’empowering’…
Don’t put me on display..
I sometimes wonder whether what we loosely term ‘feminism’ is just another distraction orchestrated by men to keep women busy and feeling like they are fighting for something, but actually accomplishing nothing substantive. Case in point, like the song “You Don’t Own Me”, so many of what women consider to be ‘feminist anthems’ were written or co-written by men, and the message is almost always “I want to keep serving you, but I have limits to the abuse I’ll take from you. So I’m gonna get mad and stamp my feet, and you’ll have to make some empty promises, so that I can keep telling myself that men are worth saving. Then, things will go back to the way they were, for the most part. But at least you don’t own me.”
Well, I’m going to save a discussion of lady-empowerment songs for another time, but the bottom line here is that women’s publicly aired anger at and frustration with men doesn’t mean a damned thing if, at the end of the day, they all still go back to sucking their dicks and accepting minor or temporary concessions or a few minutes of penile attention as proof of respect or love. The only thing men understand besides violence, is denial of service. And very few women are willing to take their anger that far, even though cutting off the gynergy fountain isn’t in any way a violent or extreme solution. Men allow certain feminist distractions, such as the pursuit of elusive equality between the sexes, but not liberation. But it is empowering to sing men’s words and pretend that they change our lives, I suppose.
But anyhow, let’s get back to the topic at hand: ownership.
It is clear, if you live in the world and are a thinking woman, that males and females define ownership (and many other concepts for that matter) differently. But it is always men’s definitions that matter, even if they are irrelevant or even harmful to women. Men define how we live, what we are allowed to have access to, what we think and say and do, and as I mentioned above, they even orchestrate our sociopolitical beliefs and movements. Many women end up going along to get along because it is easier, less dangerous, and more profitable. Those who dare to define their parameters or even to just question the male paradigm end up being outcasts and worse. So as a result, we still don’t fully understand what ownership means to women, just as we don’t understand female sexuality, female abilities, or female psychology. So in various senses of the word, men own women’s realities. I did a cursory look for any research on sex differences in the understanding of ownership, and I found one. It was authored by a man, of course, and it hails from Canada, and dates back to 1994. So obviously, this is a hot topic. Without going into a lot of detail, I’ll summarize dude’s findings with the following examples of typical male and female thinking on ownership:
Male: That shit is mine and mine alone. If you touch it, there will be repercussions because you’re violating my right as a man to have this shit.
Female: In owning this shit, I feel a sense of responsibility, pride and connectedness with myself, others and the world.
And it may be no surprise to you – and we see this in tons of psychological research on sex differences on a whole range of issues – that men are, generally speaking, simplistic, black-and-white, self-centred, entitled thinkers. Women, on the other hand, are deeper, more complex and nuanced thinkers. I can’t help but be reminded, yet again, of how male neglect and dismissal of women’s thinking and psychology has likely held back the development of societies around the world throughout history, and has hastened the destruction of the planet. If this conclusion pisses you off, please note that I’m not saying anything new here, although perhaps more bluntly than you’re used to – men demonstrate how they operate every single day, and their thinking is present in how every single society is structured and operates. Whether on a personal, local, or national level, ownership in the eyes and minds of men is an exclusive right to enjoy, use or abuse that which one claims as one’s own, at will, and to use force to defend it.
Ownership is a vast topic, and I’d love to teach a college-level course on it. Some of the sub-topics would include: the history of marriage, the slavery of women, and the concept of the body as property and a product to be owned, rented, marketed and traded. We could explore the limits of female ownership, especially the interesting contradiction mothers often post in asserting ownership of their children without interference from the government or the public, yet expecting society to foot the bills associated with this privilege. And then, we could explore other forms of human ownership – that of group slavery throughout history – which stems from male ownership of females, although the latter is generally NOT acknowledged as ownership for very obvious reasons. We could also talk about ownership in a political sense from the point of view of capitalism and consumerism, libertarianism, anarchism, socialism, and communism, and how poverty and some element of ownership are major issues in each of those systems. There is also the geopolitical issue of country-formation and border defence. The only reason we have countries is because of men’s need to own everything under the sun. And war is a direct result of men’s need to own land, culture and people. We could then get into more modern ethical issues of patents and copyright, and whether anyone has the right to own and control water sources or plant life or ideas or words. And there is so much more. I think it would be a fascinating multidisciplinary course, but I don’t think it would be allowed these days, especially if taught by a woman.
Now, I can’t address all of that here in this post, although some topics may appear in later Alphabet Series articles, but I’ll talk briefly about a few issues surrounding property ownership.
I remember when I was 17, my mother was studying to become a real estate agent, which was kind of funny because she’d never worked hard for anything in her life, including in her career as a mother and housewife, and she had no clue how much time agents had to put into the job if they wanted to build a profitable career. Needless to say, that job never panned out for her, but she was fine even following divorce – she did what works for many women, she was supported through alimony and child support that didn’t go to supporting children, and then went on the prowl for a wealthy man. She eventually found one, and luckily, he died after a few years and left her a pile of money. If you have a lazy nature and can stomach being a man’s whore, then this is the best and easiest route to surviving as a woman in this world. Be offended, if you wish, but I’m stating a blunt truth about how this world works.
So, one day, I was sitting outside the back of the family home with my mother and father who was still living with us, and mother said to me: “Here’s what you should do. You should buy a house and rent out the rooms to pay the mortgage.” Basically, an investment strategy, that is much more common now than it was in the 1980’s. I remember looking at her then, and I didn’t have a response. Well, I had learned not to have a response to anything she said because she was a clinical narcissist and any questioning or disagreement could lead to punishment and other insanity. But over the years, and still remembering that nugget of ignorant wisdom imparted to me, I have a response. First, I’d never qualify for a mortgage in Canada. Never have, never will. It’s difficult if you’re not a conventional person with a stable and high income. Second, despite my parents buying their first home only because their parents gave them money to afford it, I know my parents would NEVER have helped me. And I was cut out of all family inheritances by my mother when I was 20. Third, I don’t believe in buying things that I can’t pay for outright – debt is akin to imprisonment, in my opinion. I’ve been dirt poor, but I’ve never been in debt. And finally, over the years, I’ve come to agree with anarchist and communist thinking that landlords are a scourge, and as I see more of the world and note how fucked up life is becoming for poor people in so-called ‘privileged’ countries, such as my own, these beliefs have become firmer. I have no problem whatsoever with private property ownership, which I’ll talk more about below, but I have very specific ideas about how money should be earned, what should never be an income source, and the necessity for safe, affordable housing for all people.
No woman is safe. Owning property and having money helps and gives you options, which can be the difference between life and death in some cases, but it doesn’t guarantee safety or freedom from men. Ownership is the domain of men. It is the basis of their hierarchy of power – the more they own, the more power they have. Women don’t exist on the same hierarchy. We’re not allowed to own much, including our own bodies, although to some extent, women can own the children they produce. We are more likely to own property and things through orbiting males or gaining family help, including inheritance, but it doesn’t help us escape our sexual subordination in the world. I talk about this more in my post, M is for Mother.
Further, when you orbit a male, you, and by extension, everything you own, is owned by him. This is the history of the world. Once upon a time, a man could rape you and own you. In some cultures, you’d be dirtied and have no choice but to marry him. In other cultures – and this is still happening today in places such as Kyrgyzstan and rural China, a man can abduct a woman or girl, rape her, and own her because she has no escape. In many cultures, once the rape or abduct and marry scheme fell out of fashion, families mostly just resorted to selling their daughters to men. Sometimes complete strangers to the girl, sometimes, distant family members or friends of the family. And different cultures had different names and practices for this financial transaction. And any property or belongings women brought to the marriage became the property of the husband. The best part of this change of ownership is that it has been sold as a female invention, has often being described as a scheme to trap men, and throughout history has been bolstered by denying women access to education and the job market and leaving them dependent on marriage for survival. Cultures have evolved fairy tales and other propaganda that are fed to little girls to romanticize being swept away by Prince Charming, and to see their wedding day as the best day of their life. Over time, brides themselves have become the ones to plan their own slavery, to pour energy into organizing their wedding event, with males wasting no energy at all in an institution that was designed by them, for them. And even today, the wedding industrial complex is one of the most profitable patriarchal inventions on the planet, and women, despite being allow to participate in society and achieve financial freedom, still choose to be owned. Every married woman that I know – and there aren’t many anymore – is smart and capable except when it comes to her marriage or partnership. The men own their attention, energy and time, and it amazes me when an otherwise independent female friend will turn down or cancel a plan with me because she is afraid of being punished by her male partner for denying him attention. Slavery exists and it’s called heterosexuality, in my experience.
Getting back to property ownership, there are all sorts of facts and figures out there about how much of the world’s property women actually own. It gets confusing because surveys don’t measure how women get property. I’d bet that most of the time, women gain land through orbiting men and they either co-own, have the property put in their name, or they win it in a divorce, buy it with the money won in divorce proceedings, or their owner dies and they inherit land. Women may also inherit property from family or get help from family in making a purchase. What we do know is that never-married single women are the least likely to own property, and they are the only group of women with a sex gap in % of ownership compared to men. Married, divorced and widowed women in the US have closed the gap in property ownership over the last 30 years. When you don’t orbit cock, you still don’t earn as much as men and don’t benefit from a male salary.
It is interesting to look at property ownership internationally. Contrary to what many people think and the stereotypes they may have, property ownership isn’t more common in wealthier countries. Almost none of the countries with 80%+ home ownership is a wealthy country. If you look at the ratio of owner-occupied units to total residential units, you see a reflection of a combination of government policy, property prices, ease in getting mortgages, level of interest rates, and societal mentality on home-buying. Laos and Romania have about 96% home ownership. Ninety percent of Cubans and Chinese own their dwelling. Canada and the US sit at about 66%. And just over half of Japanese homes are owned. And speaking for my own country, up to 6% of our homes are owned by foreign investors currently. This has likely had a negative effect on lower-income, local, potential home-buyers, and I know that many younger people in Canada can’t even wrap their heads around the idea of trying to buy property. Myself, I remember working for a short, agonizing spell in a private kindergarten in China catering to rich people, and I met one mother who told me she had just bought a house in one of Canada’s most expensive cities over the internet. She’d never even been to Canada before. And the last time I was in Canada, I was renting a room in a house that was put up for sale. Chinese real estate agents were coming through the house doing a video tour with foreign buyers. Canada recently implemented a foreign buyer ban, which has been extended to 2027, but I think the damage to the housing market has already been done. And whether foreign or local, unlike in the past, landlords these days believe that renters exist to pay mortgages and should absorb the costs of interest hikes. Shameful.
Conclusion: You already know what I think about marriage and that I have a real problem with child ownership, as well, and there really is no solution to freeing women as a class if most are content with complaining about male dominance in their relationships, yet are still continuing to support them in all possible ways. Women could change the structure of the world if they stopped supporting traditional male ownership models, as promoted in a heterosexual lifestyle. It’s pretty simple, actually. The housing and property ownership issue is probably equally unsolvable as long as people support capitalism and believe in earning money for doing nothing. Housing is one of those basic needs like food, basic healthcare, and safety, that shouldn’t be something people struggle to achieve. And when I say housing, I mean safe, quality housing. Not the warehousing concept that became a problem under some communist regimes or that currently happens among the very poor in Western countries, and especially in places like Hong Kong, where too many people are forced to share an inadequate space despite being strangers. I also think women should be able to access housing complexes, neighbourhoods, and even entire towns where they can live free of men in safe, clean housing. I’d love to see what I touched on in my post: I Want My Own Vatican City. A country of women and girls, for women and girls, but without the religion 😉
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Rudmin, Floyd W. (1994) Gender differences in the semantics of ownership: A quantitative phenomenological survey study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(3), 487-510.
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 NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) – Part 3
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I was on the brink of turning 21 when I headed into one of the worst summers of my life. I had just finished my first year of university in a small city far enough away from my NPD family to escape casual family visits, and for the first and last time in my life, I returned to my hometown and my chief abuser’s house for the summer.
I hadn’t realized how much just 9 months away from a toxic environment would change me. I had hated high school, I had hated working full time as a secretary in order to earn money to go to school, but at university, my world had opened up. And more important, I finally noticed the extent of my mother’s abuse. Within 2 weeks of being back, everything fell apart. My parents had divorced when I was 17 and in the fall out, I threw myself into school, my younger sister quit high school, moved in with a drug dealer, and got knocked up, and my younger brother became invisible, although as a boy, he was the favourite child and was mostly left alone. But three years later, after I, the truth-teller and major threat to my NPD mother, re-entered the diminished family home, the shit hit the fan.
My brother and I had gone out with my father and his girlfriend and we got back to my mother’s house rather late at night. On the kitchen table was a picture my brother had drawn. My mother, who was nowhere to be found upon our return, had clearly found the picture and had left it out as a sort of warning. What she had discovered was a family portrait that included a woman that was clearly not my mother – wrong hair colour. Dismissing it, as it didn’t seem like a big deal to me, I went downstairs to my room to get ready for bed, but was interrupted by some shouting and door-slamming. I crept silently upstairs. The bathroom door was closed and I could hear my almost 16-year-old brother crying. Very unusual. And my protective rage flared up in me as I realized what had happened. And for the first time in my young life, I went on the attack. After checking on my brother, I walked calmly to my mother’s bedroom door and in a low and even voice, let her know what I felt. I used a few choice expletives – something she had never heard me do before. Then I walked downstairs. I didn’t get far as the dragon jumped out of bed, chased me to the kitchen and punched me in the stomach, screaming at me the entire time. I indicated that I was going to call the police since she had hit me, and mother countered with oh no, she was going to call the police because actually I was the one who had hit her. I didn’t have the insight or the language at this point in my life, but this was classic gaslighting.
Somehow, I ended up back in my room and I called my father, who immediately came to pick me up. I was emotionally frozen, not just because of my mother’s behaviour, but also because it was the first time in my life that I had stood up to her. I’ll leave out a lot of the detail here, but I’ll just mention that less than a week and a half later, I found out that my mother was going out of town, and I went to her house to pick up all my things and to drop off her key. But when I got there, I couldn’t find any of my things and my bedroom was filled with another woman’s belongings – in my drawers, on the unmade bed, and on the floor. In less than two weeks, my mother had replaced me completely, and not only continued to take the exorbitant child support that my father was paying her to NOT care for me – I didn’t live with her and I paid for most of my own education and living expenses even before this – but she was now taking rent from a complete stranger. It was at that point in my life that I cut off my mother completely, and over the next year, found a way to support myself financially 100% working several part-time jobs and going to university full time. My father wasn’t interested in helping me with money even though he made six figures a year, but he seemed to take immense satisfaction in now being in sole control of emotionally manipulating me. He was a narcissist himself, but had taken a back seat in the abuse while he was still married to my mother. My brother, whom I had defended, completely blamed me and sided with my mother – typical golden child. My sister, who hated my mother more than anybody actually, ended up siding with her in order to benefit financially after having her teenaged pregnancy. In the years following my break with the family, my mother went on a rampage contacting everyone I knew to tell them I was insane and every so often, she would recruit family members and whatever man she was fucking at the time to try to manipulate me by proxy in order to get me back under her toxic narcissistic control.
This is an example of the most extreme and difficult, but effective, way of dealing with narcissistic abuse. It is usually called ‘going no-contact’. It is the route most often taken by truth-tellers and scapegoats – those of us who are least likely to become enablers, even if we are highly empathic people. All ways to deal with NPDs are difficult, but I believe this one is most difficult because you will lose more than just the NPD relationship, if it is a family situation. Likely, you will lose most to all of the other family relationships because they are, for the most part, enablers and some receive financial and other perks in exchange for tolerating abuse. And I lost most of the people in my family in the aftermath, and deliberately went no-contact with my increasingly abusive narcissistic father when I was 27. Losing an entire network is hard. As a woman, especially if you aren’t straight, it will be even harder because the only way for women to gain any kind of pretend power or the pseudo freedom that money can bring in this world is to suck dick. Now, I didn’t get much financial support from my family, even as a child, so I was used to having to pay for what I needed. I started working and saving regularly when I was 12 years old. I’ve always been poor, but I learned frugality and financial creativity and resourcefulness out of necessity, especially because I knew from a young age that I never wanted to suck dick in exchange for food or a home. I was very clear that I didn’t want to end up like my completely useless patriarchal mother.
The other issue you experience with going no-contact is that you can’t talk about what has happened to you. Most people don’t understand what NPD is, and no one believes that mothers are abusive – despite what mothers claim. I learned very quickly to tell people the bare minimum – and a semi-lie at that – when they asked about family. My parents were dead and I was an only child. And honestly, these felt true in my heart. The bonus is that people feel awkward when they hear this and don’t ask any follow-up questions. This may sound harsh and this is really hard to rationalize as a truth-teller who values clear discussions of reality, but after a lifetime of gaslighting and shaming despite being the victim, you really aren’t interested in more of the same.
Now, I haven’t done what I probably needed to do to become a healthier person partly because I’m a loner and partly because, thanks to my father, I don’t really trust people in the helping professions, even if I see that they may have value for others. I didn’t learn about personality disorders in depth until I got to grad school in psychology and worked on a few projects with some clinical students. But I didn’t put it all together in my own life until my late 30’s. And actually, a lot of victims of narcissists don’t realize what’s going on until they are older and have lived through a few bad and repetitive abusive patterns and start looking for answers.
Myself, I spent a lot of time self-examining to figure out what was wrong with ME, thanks to how my psychologist father had pathologized me and my reactions to abuse. It wasn’t until I was in my late 30’s and met a woman like me at a youth hostel where I was work-staying. We had been talking about a scary domineering woman who had passed through the hostel and how we both had tried to avoid her and had felt some rather serious emotional reactions to being around her. This other woman gave me insight and recommended the web site Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers – it had helped her figure out why her life felt like a disaster and why she was so affected by certain kinds of women. I devoured the site wondering if it had been written about me. I had already read so much and even had a couple of degrees in psychology, although not clinical psychology, but I could never identify what I had experienced. But so much more work has been done on personality disorders since my youth, not all of it necessarily beneficial, I’ll add. But I now had a context for my experience. While it might have been nice to have had a support group at the time, just being able to identify the problem did so much for my healing process. I think I’ll always be vulnerable to narcissists, as a truth-teller and a woman – they are very good at targeting threats to their control and power. But I am now very good at identifying them and I avoid them when I can. I’m just not the kind of person who is able to employ some of the strategies I’ll talk about below as I’m a sensitive person and have a hard time compartmentalizing. I’m a resilient person, but I have my weaknesses and vulnerabilities. This is normal and it is perfectly okay to have weaknesses, but it is important to know yourself and what you are capable of dealing with. Personally, I don’t think we can overcome anything and everything. We can just manage problems. So don’t let anyone tell you how you should be reacting just because it works for them.
In my opinion, there are only a few paths you can take when dealing with NPDs. If you choose to go into therapy or if you live in a culture where family is sacrosanct, going no-contact won’t even be entertained as a possibility. For those in abusive romantic relationships, the vast majority of therapists will still promote heterosexual partnerships and the idea that there is a magical unicorn male out there who won’t abuse you. So, if you decide to leave a narcissistic male, don’t worry, there are still good men out there… But keep in mind my theory that NPD is just male behaviour on steroids. If you partner with males, you will experience a lot of the shit that narcissists inflict upon their victims, but to a lesser extent and in a way that is socially acceptable in heterosexual relationships. It is in the male nature to manipulate, parasitize, and gaslight women, even if they are not clinically NPD. In a workplace with an NPD boss or colleague, going ‘no-contact’ or in other words, leaving without looking back, is ideal, but for women, it is really difficult. But in all types of relationships, there are strategies recommended if you want to or have to maintain that relationship.
Therapy or Support
Like I said, clinicians and therapists make their money by selling hope. Not a one of them will ever tell you that you’ll never fully recover from abuse because no one would ever give them money otherwise. It would be more truthful for therapists to be honest with you and say, you will carry this deep wound until the day you die, but I can try to help you manage your damage. But that doesn’t sound so good, does it? Therapy also costs money, and not a lot of women can afford that. The cost, the potential for lies and false hope, and even gaslighting from the therapist him or herself are all risks that you need to think about before starting down that path.
Support is crucial, however. You can get it from different sources, whether a good therapist, a fellow truth-telling family member or friend, or a survivors’ group. The latter is probably becoming easier to find, perhaps moreso online. But just make sure that you see it for what it is. Most of these people have experience, but little to no expertise, in helping people with serious problems. Some of these people may be NPD themselves and are into manipulating the vulnerable. Be aware, don’t become enmeshed, and see it for what it is: a chance to talk about your brutal reality and share stories, relief at not being alone and realizing that you aren’t completely crazy (you still might be a little crazy, of course), and a chance to be listened to without judgment. You may also end up getting a few buddies who will offer support if the narcissist tries to re-enter your life and uses manipulative tactics to try to convince you that they’ve changed or feel some kind of remorse. Touching base with a supporter can help you see through the lies.
Compartmentalization
There is a tactic that is highly promoted if you choose to remain in narcissistic relationships, and some call it the ‘grey rock’ method. Essentially, you interact with the narcissist without engaging emotionally. In my opinion, this is compartmentalization. Somehow, you separate your feelings from what is going on. It is goal-oriented and it allows you to remain non-reactive, thus not giving the narcissist what they most desire: control and power. You stick to facts when dealing with them. They ask a question, and you give an informational answer instead of an argument, a defense, a counter-attack, crying or pleading, etc. If they make a manipulative and non-productive comment, you wave it away and focus on the productive.
Now, some people can do this. I can’t. I might be able to have a fact-based conversation, but it will be in my head and affecting my mental health and even my physical health long after the conversation is over. So for me, this is not a way to deal with someone long-term. It’s just not worth it. And it won’t work for other sensitive people either. And you don’t have to be ashamed about being sensitive. Our world really hates the emotionally sensitive – and I don’t mean people who create a victim status for themselves or need trigger warnings on everything. I mean people who have been chronically emotionally exploited and abused. You don’t heal from that overnight, and sometimes, it is just part of your personality to be highly attuned to and vulnerable to emotionality.
Healing from Abusive Women without Becoming a Misogynist
This is a really important topic for women who want to follow woman-centric paths. Patriarchy is about male dominance and the best way to keep men in power is to create division between women by isolating them, discouraging bonding and breeding distrust and hate. The role of mother in patriarchy is perfectly designed to do this. Unhealthy women are pressured and sometimes forced into breeding. They are isolated from other women, except perhaps other unhealthy women, and are focused on male needs and wants. And they are rewarded for breeding privileged sons and shaping damaged and heterosexuality-ready daughters. Many of us daughters are raised by mentally ill as well as patriarchally programmed women. We grow up learning how to treat other females badly in order garner valuable male support, and to expect insanity and cruelty from women, as well. None of this is natural, by the way, but completely normal and accepted.
But some of us come to see patriarchy for what it is, yet we have this lifetime of abuse by females. And of course, we continue to see it happen all around us every single day, even if we have managed to escape an abusive mother. So how do we overcome the abuse of our childhoods and focus on women without being overcome by loathing? I’ll tell you with all honesty, in the first few years after going no-contact with my mother, I sometimes fantasized about beating her badly just to dispel the pent up and impotent rage resulting from her dominating and destroying me in childhood so completely. It scared me as it felt so visceral, so deeply rooted in me, but did calm me down. And it was youthful anger – I no longer have those feelings and I never acted on them, I’m happy to say. But women don’t really have an outlet for their justified rage, and we are encouraged to suppress, accept and hope for better things. If women do act out, the most acceptable ways are to self-harm or to direct petty abuse onto other females.
Anyhow, I touched on this issue a little in my post, M is for Misogyny, Part II. Like with all problems, identifying what is going on and why it happens are the first steps in dealing with emotions and problems. I was able to see my mother as the daughter of a narcissistic mother herself, and a victim of patriarchy because she was a woman who was pushed into housewifery, non-contribution to society, and breeding despite hating children and being extremely mentally unfit to deal with anyone, let alone children. I saw her as enabled by a fellow narcissist, so much so that I still can’t tell who was truly pulling the strings in my family. And I am able to see all of this as a cycle I can break. I chose not to have children, not to support men, and to focus on promoting gynocentrism. I also choose not to pour my energy into patriarchal women or to forge relationships with women who abuse women. And that’s okay – I don’t have to love everyone. Ultimately, I know women abuse me because they see me as a threat to their comfortable addiction to suffering. Male domination hurts them, but the known, even if it causes harm, is always less scary than the unknown.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
N is for NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) – Part 2
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I did a little thinking after receiving an indignant and entitled comment from a YouTube user on the last post. He or possibly she was so disgusted at hearing a feminist perspective on NPD that they had to turn the recording off after a few minutes. The poor dear. I know, reality isn’t comfortable and can offend many people. People generally prefer lies and feel-good non-explanations for phenomena. But facing reality is necessary if you want to have any hope of actually solving problems. And NPD is a problem and does require a feminist framework if you want to understand it. So my thinking brought me to the following question – why must NPD be addressed within a feminist context? Very simply put, Patriarchy or the system male domination does the following. It pressures and enables women to pursue motherhood even if they are not equipped to produce or raise healthy children. It enables unhealthy men access to and control over women’s bodies and whatever comes out of those bodies. And it creates a problematic model of child ownership where an unhealthy parent or parental unit is solely in charge of a child or children without any accountability or external oversight. And outside of breeding, all societies reward aggressive and abusive male behaviour and allow women limited power if they exhibit or support male behaviour. How is this not problematic? This is a recipe for abuse, and it is only possible under a system of male domination.
Another reason why NPD is best viewed within a feminist framework is because of many of the similarities in treatment that a victim of a narcissist and a female in male-dominated society receive. Both narcissists and men in general are enabled and so many excuses are made for their abusive behaviour. Both victims of NPDs and women are gaslit and bullied when they try to come forward to describe their experience. Many of the tactics that narcissists use to control their victims are the same tactics that men use to control women. I’m not saying that all men are narcissists, but like I posited in Part I, I think that NPD is standard male domination patterns, but on steroids.
Early in my postgraduate training, I worked on various research projects on personality disorders, and since then I have done a lot of reading and exploration, as a survivor of narcissistic abuse, and I’ve never encountered a therapist or researcher that approaches these problems from a real feminist perspective. They can describe the issues, but they can never really provide adequate answers to the why and how questions, and thus, we can never develop preventative solutions. Psychologists just bandage the wounded. There are a few good reasons for this. First, all people are raised to elevate males and hate females and are inundated with woman-hate throughout their lives, and all psychological theories and resultant therapist training programs are rooted in misogynistic male thinking. So, true feminism isn’t going to make its way into therapeutic systems or even the education system. In addition, modern therapists who seek a following online do so primarily to make money. Adopting a fact-based, gynocentric approach to mental health (or any issue, really) is guaranteed NOT to make money. It can get you cancelled or put you in danger. If you alienate men, which can be achieved by simply calling them out on their provable, data-based violence, it will destroy any career you seek to build through social media. I’ve watched a lot of videos on YouTube on mental health issues, and even if the therapist him or herself understands the basics, they are ALL invested in promoting heterosexual relationships, and not a one will dare to touch sex bias in how women are affected by abuse or mental health issues, or will be truthful about root causes of anything. Some will touch on race and cultural issues, but no one will go near real feminism nor will they call out homophobic material left in their comments sections. I’ve even seen one or two ‘experts’ try to paint claims of sexism as oversensitivity rather than a legitimate complaint, which of course, is the kind of gaslighting that these people should be well aware of and that women experience constantly as the subordinate class in a patriarchal system. The failure to truly support women is not a surprise to me, but it is sad because as I’ve said many times before, suffering is not a necessary part of female existence and only happens because of male dominance and the system that results.
Okay, so having gotten that out of the way, I’ll briefly discuss the results of the poll I put on my blog and YouTube channel, and that will lead into the main topic
So I asked people to let me know in what areas of their lives they may have encountered someone with NPD just to get an idea of where we tend to encounter these folks. Note that the results are rough – I didn’t ask for confirmed diagnoses and the data are self-reported, so please don’t draw any causal relationships. But I will make a few observations.
First, I noticed that the most highly endorsed types of NPD relationships happened within families (especially with parents), and then in the workplace. This was interested and not unexpected. We don’t get to choose our families and are thus captive victims to whatever shit goes on there, especially in a world where breeding is not selective. If you want to escape NPD in your family, you have to go to very drastic measures, which I’ll get into in Part III. Workplace exposure has a little more freedom. You can leave a job, although depending on a host of factors in your life, it may not be the easiest transition. For some people, it may not be a big deal to find another job, but for others, you may be sacrificing your reputation or climb up a ladder or you may not have the financial means to quit without having something else in place. I firmly believe that women are more affected by abuse in the workplace, and our resumes and careers suffer when we are forced out of jobs due to stress and health issues, threats to our safety, and general career punishment simply for being women and especially outspoken or intelligent women who don’t follow lady-rules.
The other categories of friendship and romantic relationships were far less endorsed, and I think that is probably because we have so much more choice about these relationships. Unless you have been a chronically abused person who tends to fall victim to abusers, most people can avoid becoming trapped long-term in free choice relationships.
Of the types of treatment respondents experienced at the hands of NPDs, gaslighting was the most common, with blaming, boundary overstepping, and bullying closely following. NPD is about control and manipulation and protecting a very fragile ego at the expense of everyone else, and these tactics all serve to give the narcissist the upper hand in dealing with you, making you second-guess yourself and feeling like you have no control over what is happening.
So, let’s talk about the roles people in the lives of narcissists end up taking on. I’m going to address family and the workplace, primarily, but note that you can see some of these roles in any relationship with a narcissist. A lot of therapists talk about these roles as if each person involved in the system is assigned one, but it can be a little messier than that. Not all roles may be present. And there can be overlap and role exchange over time or situation. The roles can also have different effects on males and females.
The Truth-Teller vs the Enabler
When we talk about truth-tellers, we don’t mean the person who has no filter and just says what they think, no matter what. Rather, a truth-teller usually has high emotional intelligence and can often be described as being able to read a room or see through you. It’s a valuable skill that shows up in childhood, and as children, they’ll often bluntly state what they observe. Among normal people, this can be amusing or sometimes uncomfortable, but in a family with a narcissistic parent, an observant and truth-telling child is a massive threat. The narcissist feels shame and then reacts with rage and whatever punishing behaviours they use to regain the upper hand.
Truth-tellers quickly learn that pointing things out can get them into trouble, and many end up as loners (not always by choice) within a family, and later in the workplace. As children, they often have rich inner worlds, imaginary friends, escape fantasies, and dream of the day when they can exit the toxic prison they live in. Many truth-tellers end up becoming the family scapegoat and they usually have no support among family. They suffer anxiety and low-self-confidence and loneliness, although some may learn out of necessity to become extremely self-reliant.
I was the truth-teller in my family, and it has caused issues with NPDs in a few different workplaces, even affecting my career path. I swear I have the words tattooed on my forehead – people seem to know what I am even if I say nothing. Perhaps I am just not very good at ass-kissing or pretending to be blind to nonsense or outright abuse. I am also terrible at having superficial and/or subject-avoidant conversations, so much so that I’d rather have awkward silence than pretend. So it doesn’t surprise me that I prefer to work freelance or independently or with limited supervision. But I will say that I have managed to use what I consider to be an ability to great advantage in non-NPD situations requiring conflict resolution, and I feel it is somehow tied to my gut instinct when it comes to dealing with men who end up being threats.
Now, if the truth-teller is all about reality, then the enabler is all about lies. These are weak individuals, but they come in many flavours, and their actions serve to control their fear, keep the peace and/or protect the narcissist in return for rewards, safety, etc. I wrote a post on Enablers earlier in the Alphabet Series, so I won’t go into great detail here, but suffice it to say that these people are kind of like a shit topping on the shit-flavoured ice cream of the narcissist. The NPD abuses you, and then the enabler further harms you by shaming you and throwing in with the abuser. It should be no surprise that truth-tellers seldom end up becoming enablers.
The Scapegoat vs the Golden Child
A scapegoat is the person who is blamed when something goes wrong, even if they have nothing to do with it. Every narcissist needs a scapegoat because they never ever take responsibility for their bad behaviour, the mistakes they make, and they always need a target for their rage, even if no one specific is actually to blame. Truth-tellers often make convenient scapegoats because they are massive threats to the fragile NPD ego, and other family members may pile on as well to avoid being targeted themselves. But narcissists can target anyone for blame, even their greatest enablers. In some families, it is always the same person who is the scapegoat, but in others, members may each take a turn depending on the issue or their availability. And some people react to this treatment by trying harder to help or fix the situation, while others turn to bad behaviour to live up to negative expectations.
The golden child, on the other hand may exist in a family to serve a few purposes. The narcissist often places their hopes and dreams on someone, almost as if that child isn’t a separate person themselves. I’ve seen this play out in a few different ways, and there are often sex differences in how it works and how it affects the child. When the golden child is a girl, I find that she often ends up really neurotic and driven, plagued by severe anxiety, perfectionism, sometimes eating disorders. Later, in adulthood, these women can be a nightmare to work with, especially if you are female yourself. When the golden child is a boy, I often see lazy, privileged coasters. The parent talks about them as if they can do no wrong, and the boy gets used to the attention and the something-for-nothing treatment. As adults, these males expect the world to revolve around them, and they often get what they want because we live in a male-dominated world that rewards men for mediocrity anyhow. I’ve worked with both of these types of golden children; I even remember one male student I worked with in my undergraduate lab headed by an abusive NPD male psychologist was even nicknamed Golden Boy.
The other main purpose of a golden child is to use them as a weapon against threats to the narcissist. The golden child will be used as a standard to shame the other children, they’ll receive better treatment, more gifts or rewards, and more attention. There may be resentment among other children, and as a result, no bonds or alliances can form against the narcissist.
The Mascot vs the Lost Child
Like with the other pairs of roles, the mascot and the lost child are sort of opposites. These two roles are not about treatment, but how children may deal with a narcissistic person in the family. The mascot, which is a bit a strange term for me, tends to react to the constant tension and conflict in the family with a need to entertain. They seek attention and their aim is to break tension and make everyone feel better. It can be problematic later in life outside the family system as they don’t deal directly with problems and have developed a very thick wall of protection that can be hard to break down.
The lost child, on the other hand, doesn’t want attention at all. They retreat to avoid dealing with conflict. It doesn’t prevent them from being abused, however, but they don’t fight back or give the narcissist the satisfying ego boost they seek. They are more likely to be neglected, however. While the mascot may be able to get by in social situations later in life, the lost child may not develop the superficial social skills to ‘pass’ in workplace situations.
I’m going to close Part II here with the following. Although I didn’t go into great detail about each of the characters you may find in a narcissist’s life, you can probably see that there is nothing good that comes out of growing up in this kind of family or going on to work in a place where adults are abusing adults. It isn’t necessary, but it is inevitable when we live in a system where the right to breed trumps the right to live free of suffering. As it is abuse begets abuse. And in Part III, I’ll discuss how you can deal with narcissistic abuse, especially as a woman.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
N is for NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) – Part 1
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I had been planning to write about this topic for a long time as it ties into so many of the subjects I have already addressed and will bring up in future posts. As well, it is something that a lot of women have experienced as an unwilling participant, but have not been taught to recognize or deal with. And further, for many women trying to live a more feminist or gynocentric life, there are major challenges to overcoming abuse by women with NPD. Interestingly, this topic is coming up at a time when I’m currently experiencing some rather serious fallout from ending a year-long, toxic workplace relationship with an NPD woman and I’ll get into that in a bit.
As this is a huge topic, I plan to tackle it in three posts as follows:
Part I: This is going to be a bit of a personal story / discussion of characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Part II: Here, I’ll get into the people often found in the orbit of the narcissist and briefly discuss the results of my short poll, which is still open, if you haven’t checked it out yet.
Part III: In this final post, I’ll talk about how to deal with a narcissist, especially if she is female and you are trying to live a life focused on supporting women and girls.
So, let’s begin. And my story begins 51 years ago when I was born to a woman with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, who herself, was the daughter of a narcissistic mother. I can’t speak to the mother before that, but I can tell you that I myself don’t have NPD. I have other shit I deal with, but that is neither here nor there. What is important here is that like most to all psychological problems, there are both biological and sociological factors at play. So you can’t create a clinical narcissist out of nothing but a shitty environment, nor do all biologically predisposed narcissists behave the same way as if hot off an evil robot factory assembly line. So let’s give a rough outline of what NPD is, and then I’ll get into more detail about the traits and behaviours to accompany my story.
Like many descriptive terms related to psychology, the term narcissist is overused, probably thanks to the internet and sensationally titled pop psychology articles. Lots of people can be narcissistic and it just means ego-centric or self-centred and arrogant. We all know people like this and they are annoying, but that’s not really what we mean when we talk about narcissistic personality disorder. For a personality to be disordered, there has to be serious dysfunction in multiple areas of life, and no one knows this better than those who find themselves in relationships with them. To keep things shorter and simpler, I’m going to use the terms NPD and narcissist interchangeably.
A clinical narcissist displays a cluster of traits, namely manipulation, control, high emotionality, and cruelty. At the core, they have extremely fragile egos, and the protection of this ego dictates everything they do. They live in perpetual delusion about themselves, their importance and their abilities and have an irrational sense of deservedness. They are extremely manipulative in order to control the narrative and get what they need. They lack empathy and consideration for others, frequently overstepping boundaries. And they require constant attention and admiration and come across as arrogant and needy at the same time. And as I said, not all NPDs look the same. Some are very successful in life, and some are complete losers – although both are arrogant and feel like they deserve more than everyone else. Some NPDs are publicly aggressive and antagonistic and controlling, and others keep their abuse private and often come off as real victims to keep you off-balance, but under control.
At this point, you may be thinking, “Hey Storyending, this just sounds like a typical male to me.” And you are 100% right. No psychologist is ever going to agree with this, but I’ve come to think of NPD as Male Bullshit Syndrome or Permanent Male Syndrome (PMS), except in overdrive. All of the symptoms are typical of males, but are greatly exaggerated and extremely destructive. So males with NPD just seem like normal males, with a little bit of extra bullshit. This is probably the main reason is it vastly underdiagnosed in males. And afflicted females come across as total psychos to those who fall prey to them. Have you noticed that only the NPD female, not the male, is a favourite evil character in entertainment?
A Note on NPD Parents
Because society incorrectly sees breeding as a human right, any fucked up person, including NPDs are allowed to create, own and abuse children. Teachers and volunteers who work with children have to do criminal record checks (not that that achieves much), but prospective parents don’t. Makes sense, right? A narcissistic parent, especially when that parent is the primary caregiver, has the power to create some very, very fucked up kids – some with personality disorders themselves, and all with at least one other major issue such as anxiety, depression, addiction, etc. Narcissistic abuse, unlike other forms of abuse, is very difficult to describe to an outsider without sounding like one is crazy or ‘oversensitive’, and if the abuser is a mother, no one will ever believe you anyway, so most kids suffer for years and are gradually broken down and even come to think that they are the crazy ones. In adulthood, and in other types of situations and relationships, how one deals with narcissists will depend on how you dealt with the primary. And I’ll get into that in Part III.
Now, back to the story. So I was lucky enough to be born to a narcissistic woman and an enabling man who was also a fledgling clinical psychologist, and between them, they created an idyllic childhood defined by emotional abuse and manipulation. Once I was old enough, I was able to gain some control over my life, and I chose to deal with it by walking away from my mother at the age of 20 and from the rest of the enablers at 27. And I’ll talk more in depth about options for dealing with NPD in Part III and how there is no ideal solution. For now, let’s just say I have an inexplicable distrust of both controlling and domineering women and of psychologists, in general. And it has affected my professional life to this day, as I have a very low tolerance for narcissistic abuse and can recognize it almost instantaneously.
So I come to recent events. A year ago, in the wake of leaving China and other plans not working out because of COVID, I found myself badly in need of a job. And through a couple of friends, I ended up with an online teaching gig working for yet another sketchy and abusive Chinese and her Ukrainian husband. It very quickly became an emotional nightmare, first because the woman turned out to be a clinical narcissist with an abusive and enabling husband, and second, I needed a job, so I couldn’t just walk away despite my mind screaming at me to do so.
It was a year of almost daily manipulative and crazy bullshit, and while some people were able to brush it off, for someone who grew up with and managed to escape narcissistic abuse, it was so stressful that it ended up destroying my health. A year ago, although unemployed, I was healthy. I walked 8 km every day. I had lost weight intentionally. I had plans I was working on. I had a modest amount of energy. And I had found a place to live and adopted a rescue kitten. A year after taking the job everything good had been undone. I’d gained back all the weight I’d lost and put on more. I didn’t exercise at all. I didn’t sleep well. My breathing had become laboured even just playing with my cat or doing basic things around my apartment – something I’d not experienced before. I was having mild panic attacks regularly, and even benign messages from the employer were triggering anger and an elevated heart rate. I felt more depressed and powerless than usual. And I felt rage bubbling inside me with no reasonable outlet possible. In my mind, I kept setting quitting dates and tried to find psychological strategies for dealing with the stress. But finally, about a month ago, I woke up and experienced some odd symptoms, including a weird tight pain in my chest and back. But I went about my business and taught my classes sitting through it with a mild feeling of dread. Was this what is termed a ‘minor cardiac event’ – or a mini heart attack? I was entirely too young for this, and there wasn’t a history of heart disease in my family. Regardless, it was at that point that I decided that I was finishing the month and quitting this low-paying and highly stressful job. And as if to give me extra motivation that I didn’t need, the narcissist sent one of her most abusive messages to the teachers’ online chat group letting us know that we didn’t matter and she couldn’t care less whether we quit because she was so rich. She even made a passive aggressive reference to me letting everyone know that having years of teaching experience didn’t make one a good teacher. And she didn’t even know I was quitting at that point. Yeah, I was done. So, now I am once again unemployed. And the first week of November was like what I imagine doing a drug detox is like. I was very sick and couldn’t get out of bed. But I’m on the mend.
Anyhow, I’m going to get into some of the key behaviours that most to all NPDs engage in with their victims, and I’ll reference the asshole for whom I worked to provide examples. Remember that even normal people do these things sometimes. But NPDs do them regularly and they do them to protect their fragile sense of self and to control the narrative that gets them what they want and need.
1.. Bullying, belittling, infantilizing and humiliating. This can be done publicly and privately. It is about manipulation, control and putting you in your place and feeling small, embarrassed, helpless and worthless. It is also done to build up their fragile ego by highlighting your tiny faults, a single, long-ago past mistake, or by completely fabricating something that makes you look ridiculous and makes them look superior. They may even add humour to your embarrassment to curry favour with their supporters, or may try to show you and others how your faults victimize and burden them. My boss would regularly embarrass the teachers in online chats with students’ parents. Instead of supporting teachers if parents had questions or complaints, the boss would make nasty and embarrassing comments that we could see, but she wouldn’t address us directly. She would file away small things that we did wrong one time, and use it as evidence of our incompetence both in direct battles with us, and behind our backs in conversations with other teachers. Only in conversations with other teachers did I find out some of the lies she told about me. It was really weird, but I grew up with this kind of shit, so it wasn’t new to me.
2.. Gaslighting. This is a must-do for the narcissist. Here he or she rewrites history and causes you to question your version of reality. The sole purpose is to disarm you as you have clear evidence of their faults and mistakes. So they will lie about what happened, they will pretend they don’t remember what happened, or they will accuse you of overthinking or misreading a situation or comment. And they will do it in a condescending way or will fake concern over you stress and emotionality. In the end, you don’t feel clear about what actually happened, and the less sure you feel repeatedly, the less likely you are going to arm yourself with facts and fight back. My boss would regularly tell us that the technological problems we had with the software we were using were not real tech issues at all, but something we did wrong, the unspoken implication being that we were stupid or even lying to get out of working. She would always say that none of the other teachers was experiencing these problems. Of course, this wasn’t true. The software constantly had problems, and my boss didn’t want to deal with it or take responsibility for choosing shitty software.
3.. Externalizing responsibility or blaming others for their mistakes. NPDs can’t handle legitimate criticism or even just a statement of fact that shows them to be imperfect. Nothing is ever their fault. They are constantly victimized by the world and everyone in their lives. My boss demanded immediate responses to messages and would harass us. But these rules didn’t apply to her, even if we had emergency situations during business hours. Despite being very rich, she refused to hire administrative staff to handle communications or class emergencies. So what frequently happened is that she wouldn’t respond within even 24 hours, sometimes upwards of a week. And for me, towards the end, sometimes she wouldn’t respond to me at all. But there were always excuses. She would complain about parents sending her direct messages instead of putting them in the group chat so that the teacher could see it and handle it. She was in demand and over-burdened, the poor victim. No one would help her out or understand her situation.
4.. Disregard for boundaries. NPDs don’t feel empathy, even if they can fake it on a superficial level to garner admiration. They don’t see people as equals worthy of respect and consideration. For NPD parents, children are just extensions of themselves and aren’t treated as separate individuals worthy of privacy. So, to the narcissist, other people’s belongings and secrets and time are public property, which they can access, take, share or give away without permission. ‘No’ is not a word that has any meaning for the narcissist, and using it can inspire a lot of rage. This wasn’t a big issue at my online workplace, other than my boss feeling entitled to demand unpaid work or to schedule my time without asking me first.
5.. Shunning and grudge-holding. This is a common method of punishment used by the narcissist when someone dares to challenge them in some way or if you inadvertently manage to be better than them, especially if people see it and acknowledge it. This can be very confusing and devastating when NPD parents do it to their children. Withholding love or attention over what amounts to nothing is pure cruelty and I experienced this many times with both my mother and my grandmother simply for having contrary opinions on completely irrelevant topics. You learn very quickly not to have opinions. You can also be publicly humiliated and shunned at the same time – this happens when you are present in a group and the NPD has stopped talking to you, but talks about you in a negative way. Like I mentioned above, during the last month of my employment, my boss had stopped responded to my messages for some reason, but she would make passive-aggressive comments about me in the teachers’ chat group.
6.. Denial of your needs. If others have needs, then it takes attention away from them. Narcissists need constant acknowledgment, approval, attention, praise and admiration in order to keep up the version of reality that they are incredible human beings. To see that others have needs chips away at that false narrative. Relationships are not reciprocal, although narcissists can definitely paint them as so. But in reality, the energy must flow one way, and you will eventually find yourself depleted and unfulfilled in any relationship with a narcissist. My boss would not allow days off. Some of us were working 7 days a week, and that can get mentally exhausting over time. Myself, even if I only have 1-2 classes, I am thinking about work as soon as a I wake up. I can’t disengage. I never did ask for time off, but I know some of the other teachers did. And the rage it inspired in my boss was mind-boggling to me.
I’m going to end this here. As I mentioned, Part II is going to look at the players in the narcissist’s orbit. Again, if you haven’t done the short poll on NPD experience, have a look. I’ve also written about antagonism and there is an old post on male weapons against women, which has overlap with narcissistic tactics and lends support for my theory that NPD is just hyper-manliness.
See you soon for Part II.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
M is for Misogyny – Part II
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Did you come back for more? Well, colour me impressed. This is dangerous shit I’m talking about here. Asking people to do a little self-analysis usually requires a bit of a cognitive walk on the wild side and can inspire a lot defensive anger in anyone whose personal operating system consists of the fragile schema demanded by patriarchy. This can include men, straight women, religious people, mothers, liberal feminists, and even some activists and self-proclaimed radical feminists. Anyhow, congratulations on coming back. I’m hoping that the crescendo built by asking the why-questions in the last post will find its way into some more concrete and problem-solving thinking or action-taking in this post addressing some how-questions. So let’s get started.
M is for Misogyny – Part II.
In the last post, I attempted to explain why the average woman hates herself, and by extension, other women. I suggested that early childhood programming to see females as the enemy and as less valuable by misogynistic societies and families; the development of an addiction to suffering; and the harming of other women as a proxy for self-harm and as safer targets for revenge than male oppressors played major roles in women’s interactions. In addition, for women claiming to live feminist lives, I suggested that their own acts of aggression and feelings of hate or dislike towards other women may stem from the blind spot that experience and awareness create, and the lack of agreement about what feminism is – in addition to the other reasons above. For the more self-aware feminists, realizing that one has seemingly misogynistic thoughts and feelings about some women can inspire feelings of angst, guilt and shame – or what we call cognitive dissonance. Then can come the why-questions – the ones that help with understanding one’s purpose, and the motivation and the mechanisms behind one’s own and others’ behaviour towards other women. And if, by this point, the woman in question hasn’t just ended up abandoning feminism altogether in order to make her feelings and actions match again, she starts asking the how-questions. How is about taking action or starting on a path. It’s about turning purpose into tangible goals and measureable outcomes.
So, I’m going to give this post a secondary title in the form of an important how-question:
How can I support women without becoming a doormat, a punching bag or a martyr?
This is a common point of frustration for women trying to figure out how to deal with patriarchy. And I think a lot of women start to get burned out after years of trying to help people who don’t necessarily want or feel grateful for female help. You may already have your own answers to this question and the others that I’ll include below. I’m going to talk about my own solution and how I have dealt with my own feelings towards the multitudes of women who make me angry and frustrated. Please remember that there is no single way to ‘do feminism’, and although many people will try, no one should be telling you whom to help, how to help, or whether you should even bother helping at all. Like I said in Part I, purpose is personal, and I’ll extend that by saying that how you pursue your purpose is also personal. Sometimes, those who think they are helping women and are shaming you for behaving differently are actually doing more to maintain patriarchy than they realize.
Here are a few other how-questions that may come up:
How can I call myself a feminist if I am selective about which women I help and feel little interest in knowing or even being around most women?
How do I know if so-called feminist activities are actually anti-woman?
How can I criticize anti-woman female behaviour in an objective way that doesn’t end up spiralling into misogyny?
How do I identify a definition of feminism that actually helps women when so much of what is out there just seems to be pro-male rhetoric designed to gain followers and male approval?
Yeah, tough questions, but the following guiding principles keep me grounded. I’ve thought a lot about where I fit in the feminist movement, and I’ve determined that these principles are the best way to women directly and indirectly.
Gynocentrism vs Feminism
If you ask around, or better yet, if you listen to what women say and then watch what they do, you will come to the conclusion that feminism is whatever the fuck you want it to be from moment to moment and place to place. I’m not exaggerating or joking. The label has lost most of its original meaning. This is confusing to people encountering feminism for the first time or looking for answers to why and how questions as they pertain to helping women. A lot of this so-called helping of women is actually helping men and hurting women (or specific groups of women)
If you actually give a shit about women, a good rule of thumb or place to start is this: Ask for or look at the mission statement. If a feminist or feminist web site gives you more than one sentence and if that sentence includes anything besides or instead of the liberation of females from male oppression, then you are not dealing with woman-centred feminism. There shouldn’t be vague or euphemistic language. There shouldn’t be a focus on anything other than female liberation. Feminism is not about fighting all the phobias and isms in the world, nor is it about the environment or animal rights. All of those have their own movements, and believe me, animal rights or any other activists are not including blurbs about liberating women from men in their mission statements. So why must feminism do this? It’s like trying to order high-quality food off a 12-page menu with 300 main dishes.
Of course, everyone has the right to abuse language and to change accepted definitions to suit political agendas. It’s a human right, right? So, while I use the word feminism, or even radical feminism, I actually no longer consider myself to be either of those things. They’ve become practically meaningless, and in many cases, just another word for androcentrism. If you’ve been following along on my site, you already know that I consider myself to be a gynocentrist and a female separatist. And I highly recommend reading or listening to my post G is for Gynocentrism to get the deets on that.
Gynocentrism is clear and simple in its principles or mission, and I think is it possibly what radical feminism was supposed to be before it began to over-focus on inclusivity and all the other side issues. Simplicity is how you stay focused and united in a cause. It is easy for people to know right away whether they agree with it enough to join. When you sign up for any of the feminisms, you can pretty much guarantee that there will be in-fighting, hierarchies, schisms, a focus on men, and the kicking-out of members who get too offensive or speak too much truth. These days, you can’t just be a woman in feminism. You have to bring all your other baggage filled to the brim with your wardrobe of identities.
The bottom line: give a group, individual feminist, book, or other material the old Occam’s Razor test. If you can’t see a clear focus on female liberation from males and from female self-harm behaviours, then turn around and walk away. Or maybe run.
Self-Preservation vs Self-Immolation
A lot of feminist activists tell us that we have to love all women even if they are the worst kind of patriarchy-supporting people, and that the sympathy and empathy must flow unconditionally. Kind of a love the sinner, hate the sin kind of thing. And I say stop. Feminism ain’t no religion, and I am no longer willing to be abusive women’s doormat, punching bag or token sacrifice. I do have a limited amount of empathy and sympathy for women who have suffered, and I don’t believe women and girls deserve what happens to them because of men. I’ve said before that I don’t believe suffering is a necessary part of the human condition. But I do hold women responsible for their decisions and behaviour, especially once they are old enough to be in charge of children’s well-being and to use their brains to regulate their own behaviour. Having a bad life is never an excuse for abusing other women or girls. I’ve been put into some very bad situations by women I was trying to help, and I finally came to realize that I was wasting my time, and my efforts weren’t helping women as a class at all. On the contrary. I was, in fact helping men by depleting my energy, by putting myself in danger, and by enabling and empowering woman-hating women. I realized that I, myself, as a woman didn’t deserve to be destroyed or abused by men or women acting on behalf of men.
The take-home message here is that like in an emergency situation on an airplane, you put your own oxygen mask on first. It is both perfectly fine and perfectly logical to put yourself first before you attempt any heroics. I think any of us women over the age of 40 can tell you what happens to your body and mind after decades of putting others, especially antagonistic, parasitical, or stress-inducing others, first.
Strategic Help vs Patch-Up/Clean-Up
Given that there are limited resources for women in this world, and that an individual woman only has a limited amount of gynergy to fuel herself and whatever other people she helps, it makes sense to be strategic. I used to be indiscriminate, running from fire to fire before I realized that it was both unsustainable and pointless.
Feminist attention and efforts seem very much focused on the women who already get most of the limited resources and attention available – mostly mothers and partnered straight women – and the fact that it never seems to be enough and seldom, if ever, solves any of the problems these women face, let alone women as a class face, should really be telling us something. It’s not working! We’re focused on the wrong things! We’re pouring our money and energy into a bottomless pit of neverending suffering.
The goal of activism, although no one would ever admit this, is to patch up wounded women and clean up the most recent messes that men make of women’s lives, and then send the women back into the world to do it all again. I see activism as sort of the ER of the healthcare system. The bulk of the work is reactive, not preventative. I’m sure there is the occasional small and underfunded feminist activist group that seeks to do preventative work, but it is not the norm. Prevention is sooo much harder and more long-term than putting on band aids and offering crisis counselling. Am I advocating for stopping all of this? Well, no, of course not. Short-term after-care is always needed. But I can’t personally participate in this because I see it as ultimately helping men and maintaining patriarchy, although I know activist women rationalize their contributions differently.
Myself, I help individually, spontaneously and strategically. I help women who both want and need help and who are on a gynocentric path, and whose needs won’t be addressed by The System or by feminist activists. By helping them, I believe my contributions make an actual preventative difference and ultimately help all women by empowering those women who don’t uplift patriarchy. That is the only action that makes sense to me. And it is these women who are more likely to pay it forward, which is how feminism should work, but seldom does.
Integrity vs Inclusion
I don’t think the majority of women can handle gynocentrism, or even weak forms of feminism. I’ve heard a lot of women in the scene say that feminism is for all women – it is inclusive. And I’ve never really understood that because no other movement welcomes people who don’t agree with the basic principles or who behave in ways that completely undermine what the group is trying to do.
One of the biggest problems is the inclusion of men in pretty much all feminisms, including radical feminism. Most feminists are partnered heteros, and many are mothers of sons. How can you see and accept basic truths about an oppressor class when you are willingly fucking one or more of them and acting as a servant to at least one of them in multiple ways? In any other movement, this would not be a question inspiring the kind of rage that women direct at people like me for simply asking them to self-analyze. Heck, this type of question probably wouldn’t even come up. Imagine someone asking the following: How can you eat a steak every night and work in an abattoir an call yourself a vegan activist? Well, imagine defining veganism as “whatever the fuck you want it to be”, and I guess these behaviours would be totally cool and the question would come off as irrational.
So like I said, there is no confusion about whether you are walking the talk if you adopt a clear and simple set of principles like in gynocentrism and female separatism.
Putting It All Together
I’m not going to give explicit answers to the how-questions listed above, but I’ll tell you what works for me in approaching these types of issues.
First, keep it simple. Simple definitions, simple principles, simple reasons. If you encounter things that include too much, involve complicated or vague or euphemistic language, or seem to involve reasoning that doesn’t jibe with what you are seeing happen, there is probably something wrong.
Second, anti-woman activities and behaviours are always more popular and approved of than pro-woman stuff. A case in point: my most watched video in the Alphabet Series has received 259 views. Make-up tutorials get millions and millions. Guess which videos are pro-male/pro-patriarchy?
Third, pro-male patriarchal women as well as pro-male feminist women do harm to women as a class by diverting time, money, energy and resources to men. Gynocentric and female separatist behaviour helps women as a class. Even if you are very selective in whom you help or associate with, your assistance ultimately helps women as a class. Never let any feminist or activist make you feel like you are biased or mean. You may actually be helping women more than they do, and besides, at the end of the day, your energy and resources are yours to allocate according to your principles.
Finally, you absolutely can be critical of anti-woman female behaviour without devolving into misogyny. You can also feel angry and disappointed with women who betray and harm other women, including you. Channel the rage into man-hate – they are the main reason these women are so damaged. Support your critiques, if you choose to voice them, with evidence and logical arguments. And don’t launch ad feminem attacks by calling women stupid, even if their behaviour may indeed be stupid. If you can, find other women you can talk to about your specific experiences. Most of the time, you’ll end up realizing that what you’re feeling isn’t true hate, but frustration. But frustration can fester without a healthy outlet and chance to speak freely without judgment. And that is why men put so much effort into isolating women and policing them when they manage to congregate. You see, they depend on keeping us feeling like we hate each other.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
M is for Misogyny – Part I
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I want to send a shout-out of appreciation to a few of my commenters on YouTube as well as a good friend in China who helped motivate me to get this post out the door. I’ve been thinking about this topic for a long, long time. I wrote a few related precursors back in 2015 (see my post on Transitioning, for example), and I think about a year ago, I officially started writing a more specific article about what I’ll get into today. I had put the article on the back-burner, but revived it a few weeks ago following some YouTube discussion, and it will become a two-part post in the Alphabet Series.
M is for Misogyny, but let me clarify. This is not about men hating women. That is a little basic, I’m sure you realize, and besides, I’ve addressed it before in other posts. Rather, I plan to talk about something that likely every aspiring and even veteran feminist struggles with at least once during her journey. And that is the distrust of, dislike for, disgust with and/or disappointment in other women and trying to reconcile what feels a lot like misogyny with the desire to live and promote a feminist life. And yet no one really talks about it – at least not in a productive, objective, non-blaming, and problem-solving way. And as a result, I think we lose a lot of women who would otherwise make rather spectacular feminists. But they simply can’t find the support needed to understand and process feelings that make them question their status in the movement.
So I’m going to attempt a productive, objective, non-blaming and problem-solving discussion of feminist misogyny in two parts. Part I will be focused on the question ‘why?’ and Part II will address the question ‘how?’ and I’ll be more specific once I dig in. I find that so many women get stuck on the easier or more basic questions of who, what, when and where when confronted with patriarchal issues. They can barely accurately answer those. Why and how questions, which I’ll admit are my favourites, are downright threatening and terrifying to women because you can actually get somewhere and even begin to straighten out the twisted logic in your mind if you try to answer them. I think why and how are crucial questions to ask when developing critical thinking skills, which of course, we are not taught in either formal education or in daily life unless we are very lucky.
Anyhow, welcome to M is for Misogyny, Part I, which I’ll give the second and longer title of: Why do I seem to hate women even though I believe in feminist principles? The Monster Inside Me.
There are some other good ‘why’ questions that we should all think about, as well, including:
Why can’t I have a frank and non-judgmental discussion of feminist misogyny and bad female behaviour, in general, with other feminists?
Why does it seem like women are worse than men when it comes to how they treat women?
Why does female betrayal feel worse than male betrayal?
Why should I devote my time and energy to people who seem to sabotage themselves and their own class, and who seem specifically to hate women like me because we don’t fall in line?
There are tons of ‘why’ questions, and you should never stop asking them. But you’ll find that most people won’t want to put an effort into pursuing them with you. You can always discuss them with me, however – like I said, ‘why?’ is one of my favourite questions. And I’ve finally decided to open comments on my blog and on YouTube, so feel free to drop a line. For now, let’s dig into some of the things that might help to answer our questions.
Early Programming
It doesn’t matter what kind of household you were brought up in, once we leave our protective bath of amniotic fluid, we are all swimming in the same toxic sea of misogyny. Patriarchy is everywhere, and it survives by crushing our independent female nature, our confidence, and our intelligence starting at birth so that we have no inclination to fight back. Instilling self-doubt and self-hatred in females is built into every aspect of our system such that it is impossible to see it for what it is without a great deal of thinking, observation, testing, analysis, questioning, and discussion. How many girls and women are encouraged to do this? None. Like I said, male domination depends on keeping females off-balance, ignorant and isolated. If you manage to get to a place where you can see how things work and how they work against you and all females, you have accomplished a great deal. But your next monumental challenge will be to find others like you so that you don’t feel like you’re crazy or defective.
Self-hatred always involves self-harm, and this kind of induced pain and suffering can become very emotionally and psychologically addictive. While women do self-harm constantly and in countless ways, this punishment inevitably leaks out to other women and girls. And there is the bonus of feeling good for hurting the constructed enemy, who really is a proxy for the self. So hurting other females, hurts the self, and the satisfaction from addictive pain kicks in. Punishing those at the root of oppression – men – is far too dangerous physically, sexually, socially, legally and economically, so women generally don’t mess with men. And besides, we are trained to feel guilty when men suffer, even if they deserve it. The bottom line is that when women hurt you, they are doing it because it is a safer form of self-harm than hurting themselves or males.
Forms of Harm
If I think about my own life, I can see the differences in what males and females have done to me. Men and boys were and are responsible for all the sexual abuse, most of the physical abuse, and some of the psychological and emotional abuse. Women and girls did and still do the majority of the petty and less tangible shit – the minor physical assaults, the emotional betrayals, the aiding and abetting of male abuse, and the psychological fuckery. Males inflict the stab wounds, which are deep, but mundane and predictable, and females administer thousands of shallow cuts, which are cumulative, inventive and unpredictable. So, it can, without analysis, seem like females attack more often and attack you where you live – meaning your mind. I think this is common for all females in the world, and it’s easy to conclude that women are worse to women than men.
There are individual differences in experience of harm though. Some women, myself included, had especially abusive mothers and grandmothers who did an exemplary job of fulfilling the role of patriarchal mother figure. Destroying daughters is one of the prescribed duties of a good mother. And although my father did his part in killing my soul, he tended to flit in, drop his man-turd, and then flit out, while mother seemed to inflict a constant barrage of emotional/psychological bombs that left me struggling with identity formation and self-confidence.
The Blind Spot of Awareness
Do you remember your feminist awakening? You know, the moment you realized that the world was actually quite different from what you had been taught? Did it come on slowly in drips and drabs for years, lapping at your consciousness until your knowledge cup was suddenly brimming and then overflowing? Or did it feel more like a strike of lightening that imbued you with a sudden ability to see things for what they were – total awareness? However it happened for you, what likely also happened, even if you didn’t realize it right away, is that you had some expectation that other women were also awake. You forgot what it was like not to see and know. Repeatedly, you were faced with evidence that the vast majority of women didn’t realize that the world was designed by men for men, and that they existed in subordination, and for the most part, willingly participated in their own oppression and the oppression of other women and girls. And you couldn’t believe that women could be so weak and stupid or ignorant. You forgot that you were one of those women once upon a time. This kind of thing also happens with experienced feminists who get annoyed when newbies enter forums and talk about what they consider to be ‘feminism 101 issues’ instead of something radical or advanced or new. People tend to forget that you have to learn to crawl, then walk, and then run or even levitate.
This isn’t unique to feminists. I’ve also encountered teachers and professors who forget what it was like to be a student and as a result, fail to teach to their audience by making assumptions, skipping crucial steps, refusing to answer questions, and finally crushing the enthusiasm of learners. Feminism is much less organized than our education system, so it is really hard for women and girls to learn about feminism in a supportive environment. So, it can often seem that experienced feminists don’t practise the very feminist principles they claim to espouse.
An Incohesive Feminist Movement
There is no single understanding of feminism, and this is the major weakness of the movement and why women will never be free as a class. It has gotten worse more recently with the introduction of intersectionality, the validation of identity politics, and liberalism. No other movement is so disjointed and contradictory. Women are exposed to people, groups or material that hold the feminist label, but the messaging can be about almost anything, including male-centric nonsense, and I think a lot of women end up confused, abused, and ultimately turned off of pursuing feminism.
What’s important to remember is that all women are colonized and damaged, even experienced feminists. We are all trained to hate women, and it can take a lifetime to try to shed our misogynistic behaviours. I’ve discussed before that I think it may not even be possible to fully heal from patriarchal damage in one’s lifetime, especially because it is next to impossible to remove oneself entirely from all its influences and to find adequate support systems. Because of this, no one can claim to do feminism perfectly, and some groups of self-proclaimed feminist women can end up creating a hotbed of anger and abuse aimed at other women. How could this possibly provide an educational, let alone a healing, environment? I’m not blaming women for this – it seems inevitable when you put a pile of badly damaged and justifiably angry people together without objective guidance or agreement on a single uniting principle. All of this is to say that I understand why a lot of women who want to support feminist principles start to question why they would pour their energy into such a toxic mess. It is hard enough for some women to want to help non-feminist women who seem to hate women, but it is easier, in some ways, to make excuses for those who seem trapped or victimized.
I’ll close Part I with the following. Feminist principles are worth pursuing, but like with all things, I recommend entering it without unrealistic expectations, ideals or hope. Keep your eyes wide open and always ask yourself why something is happening before succumbing to the monster inside, completely giving up on women, and deciding to walk away forever. And finally, always know your purpose – “Why do I believe in feminist principles and why do I want to do this?” And no one can create this purpose for you. Purpose is personal.
In the next post, I’ll address the how’s of this important issue.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
M is for Mayhem
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
About a thousand years ago, when I was 29, I was living and working as an itinerant orchard worker in New Zealand. At one point, I found myself staying at a youth hostel in one of their fair cities – maybe Christchurch – and as is habitual with the 20-something nomad denizen, a group of us went out to a local watering hole. I don’t actually remember what we were talking about during that outing, but apparently I said something that warranted a comment from one of the males in the group. And the comment, which I do remember clearly, was designed to be a compliment. He said: “Wow, you’re an anarchist, aren’t you?”
I think I gave some sort of non-committal answer like, “I guess” because I really didn’t know what exactly it meant to be an anarchist other than the general stereotype that the majority of people believe: no leadership, no rules, random and unproductive violence, and total chaos. With the exception of a few minor violent acts of self-defense in response to assaults by males in my teen years, I didn’t consider myself to be a violent person, and I certainly didn’t see myself as an eco-terrorist or a violent Black Panther type. So what did it mean that I was an anarchist? As is likely no surprise to anyone, the public education system then and still today didn’t address the nuts and bolts of anarchy or feminism or why people seemed to deem movements like these necessary. You see, capitalism and female slavery are cornerstones of our world. We are not allowed to think critically about them, and we definitely don’t want children to escape indoctrination into willingly participating in these crucial foundational systems through exposure to anecdotal evidence, quantitative data, and philosophical discussion, do we? So anyhow, there I was in 2001, a highly educated and fairly well-read, yet still selectively ignorant, young woman who still hadn’t been exposed to some of the most important written work ever produced because of lack of exposure, access, and role models.
You’ve likely noted that I included anarchy and feminism in the same ideological boat, and some feminists have seen and still see a place for themselves in both movements. But today, I’m actually going to argue that as they have been and are still practised, neither actually does much for women either separately or together. I’ll then talk about what true anarchism might look like from an actual feminist, or more specifically, a gynocentric perspective.
So let’s dive into why M is for Mayhem.
What is anarchy? Well, long before it was established as a political philosophy in the mid-19th century, the term was, in fact, used to mean disorder and mayhem. The word gradually became linked with revolutionary acts in various places, and bubbled up among disaffected male ‘thinkers’ from all walks of life with too much time on their hands and comparatively little to complain about. To a man, they saw an inverse relationship between what they felt they deserved and what they believed they should be accountable for. They were also expert wordsmiths, twisting language to create a framework for a political environment they could abuse for self-interest, while appearing on the surface to champion freedom and equality and rationality. This shouldn’t be a surprise. If you look at any and all political ideologies that males have come up with throughout history, regardless of ‘wing’ status, they all purport to champion the same things. Freedom, equality, opportunity, security, and responsibility. But at the end of the day, these ideals are never meant to be accessible to all – and by all, I mean women. And this is simply because all males operate and thrive on dominance, control, entitlement and self-interest, whether they acknowledge it or not.
I’ll just mention a few of the basic tenets of anarchist thinking, in general. If you want to do a deep dive into anarchist thought, I recommend heading over to either The Anarchist Library or Dead Anarchists; both are dot org websites. Important to note is that over time several branches of anarchist thought have emerged, some more individualistic and some more collectivistic. What they tend to agree on, however, is that the State and state-sanctioned capitalism were and are the major sources of systemic violence, coercion, and exploitation, and strip men of the rights and freedoms they believe they deserve. Key to their vision of society included:
1.. Stateless and ruler-less self-organization. Anarchist males ignorantly and arrogantly believed that they could come together in a voluntary fashion, behave in a civilized and self-monitoring way, and engage in mutually beneficial arrangements without the intervention of a policing authority. In other words, anarchists wanted order and rules without rulers. It’s laughable to imagine males magically constructing a functional society based on cooperation and peace and somehow managing not to engage in the reactive and violent emotionality that is the hallmark of every male dominated society since time began. I just don’t think males are capable of this.
2.. Anti-capitalism. Anarchists rightly understood that capitalism is a source of exploitation and violence and that wealth determines policy. But they failed to understand that capitalism isn’t the root of the problem, and that removing capitalism doesn’t solve the problems of violence and exploitation. The root problem is males themselves. Every system they design becomes coercive and exploitative and hierarchical. It’s just which males are on top that changes when systems change.
Interestingly, many of these early anarchists profited immensely from wealthy benefactors and exploitative free or indentured female labour, including the father of anarchy, himself. I so often find that males who spend their lives philosophizing about, criticizing and rebelling against the system are usually the worst hypocrites, seldom practising what they preach. It is sometimes hard for me to understand why these men attract so many female acolytes; it is quite possible that most of these men are charismatic psychopaths able to manipulate politically or ideologically impassioned as well as socially and intellectually isolated women.
3.. Free speech. A lot of these anarchists opposed the control of the church and the censorship of the State. Men generally believe they should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want without consequences. But they don’t tend to extend this form of freedom to women, especially those wanting freedom from male control or proposing methods of female self-governance or suggesting that consent isn’t possible for women due to an imbalance of power. This is as true now as it was then. Again, this demonstrates the hypocrisy of male philosophers and human rights proponents. Their underlying belief is always: “I oppose dictatorship, unless I am the dictator.”
4.. A non-coercive society. Everything about an anarchist society is supposed to be non-coercive or voluntary. For example, an anarchist would choose to pay taxes because they want to since they are using a service, not because they are forced to.
One of the problems inherent in a society without religion, capitalism, police, government or hierarchy, though, is how to get around the whole rape privilege thing and still have free access to pussy under the pretext of female free will and consent. Men realized that their right to rape was built into all of those systems they were fighting to abolish, and under anarchy, women might start to argue that they have the right to freely choose their participation, as well. No truly free woman would ever consent to what men do to women’s bodies, and all men know this on some level. And this is where the ‘free love’ movement came in.
Free love was a big part of the anarchist movement, especially among the women who joined the fray, and we saw this as an undercurrent in Second Wave Feminism and still today in the Slut Movement. It would actually have been more in line with true anarchism to refrain from engaging sexually with men altogether as the power imbalance is inescapable. But women fell for the male logic behind the movement – I think they would not have been allowed to participate otherwise. The male logic fail goes something like this. The only difference between intercourse and rape is this thing called ‘consent’. But consent is only possible between two equal parties. Women have never been equal, and cannot be equal in a world where men exist because men always hold the threat of rape over women even when the word love or equality comes out of their mouths. The exception to equality is payment. Compensating someone can be considered to be consent, so you can’t rape a prostitute or a wife since both are paid for fuck services. So how can you convince a woman to consent to rape without pay? Well, you tell her that fucking as many men as possible without compensation is the ultimate proof of female free will, bodily liberation and equality. And this constitutes the ultimate flipping off of religion, capitalism and the State.
This fooled and continues to fool a lot of anarchist and feminist women, unfortunately. But the reality was and is still that no version of free love has ever liberated women. Anarchist women were still servicing men, still getting pregnant, still dying from botched abortions and difficult pregnancies, and contracting even more venereal diseases than before, but now men didn’t have to pay for anything, they had more access to women’s bodies, and they never had to face rape charges because those existing in a state of perpetual willingness can’t be raped.
5.. Non-violence. Contrary to what most people believe, the majority of anarchists don’t support violent agendas. But this needs to be clarified, and I’ll use the Father of Anarchy, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, to illustrate. Proudhon, who only got a good start in life because of a devoted boy-mom and the generosity of capitalists, believed in a moral and ethical peaceful transformation of society. He criticized revolutionary violence. But he did not extend his beliefs to women. So much for equality… He wrote in his private notebooks, which have since been published, that violence should be used to subdue women, and he firmly believed that “Woman does not at all hate being used with violence, indeed even being violated…” While men tell us what they think all the time, what women see but refuse to believe is only the tip of the iceberg. We see this all the time when men’s private activities come to light posthumously or even accidentally while they are alive. The best policy, in my experience and opinion, is never to give men the benefit of the doubt – or ‘yes, all men’ – and to always question their publicly stated beliefs. I think that you’ll eventually discover that their words, actions and beliefs don’t match up. They tell you flimsy lies to get your labour, support, ideas and body. Supporting them is always a mistake.
A Word on Female Anarchists
For every male philosophy and movement, there have always been female supporters. They are always fewer in number than the males, simply because radical thinking is always more dangerous or risky for women. Because of their minority status, these women tend to be very pro-male and male apologists, even if they think they are arguing on behalf of women’s rights. They have to. The limited attention and support they do get never comes from other women as they are too afraid to rock the patriarchal boat. But the male supporters end up also being their abusers. This is the history of revolution, and I touch on this in my F is for Friendship post. Men get a radical idea and garner female support by mouthing words that women misinterpret to mean shared ideals. Women then devote endless hours of labour, emotional support, money, and sexual access to their bodies to the radical male movement, and then end up in jail, and/or financially destitute, and/or sexually violated, and sometimes in the end, disillusioned when they discover that the movement was aimed at male rights and freedoms, not human rights.
The anarchist movement was no different. Some truly amazing and brave women devoted their lives to male freedom from exploitation. I have very mixed feelings when I read about these women though. They were clearly cut from a different cloth and had so much potential to make a difference for women had they not been diverted and consumed by male whining and self-imposed suffering. Their life stories read like a never-ending schizophrenic episode filled with violence, sexual liaisons with parasitical and often mentally ill men, male apologism, and anti-woman activities dressed up by modern philosophers as feminism. Here are a few examples.
Emma Goldman, probably the most well-known female anarchist, was a Russian Jewish immigrant to the US, active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She was a formidable speaker and prolific in her activism, and she ended up jailed on multiple occasions. Eventually, she was deported from the US during her career of fighting for whiny men using targeted violence campaigns to stop state-sanctioned violence campaigns. A sad history with a misogynistic father and then a violent rape in her teen years did nothing to stop her from pursuing several subordinate and degrading relationships with men, and at one point, freely choosing to become a prostitute to help a male anarchist fund a ridiculous assassination scheme. She also refused to get involved with First Wave feminists, but put energy into birth control access to facilitate women’s willingness to engage in free love. She was an anarchist in the male sense of the word, but I don’t consider her to be a feminist. I wish she had learned from her early negative experiences with men and put her vast energy and intelligence to better use as a separatist.
Voltairine de Cleyre, an American and another misguided female anarchist, was also a formidable speaker and writer. Again, she had the stirrings of feminism, as evidenced in her lecture and essay, entitled Sex Slavery, where she attacked the institution of marriage and marital rape. But instead of following this problem to its root, she was a staunch proponent of free love, and suffered personally and constantly, as a result. She carried on with various mentally ill male anarchists and as her reward, she became pregnant on multiple occasions, endured a brutal abortion, carried out one difficult pregnancy although was smart enough to hand of the male offspring to the father and refused motherhood, and she contracted syphilis. In addition, one of her male students shot her in an assassination attempt, but she immediately and ridiculously forgave him. So, definitely not a feminist, despite what people might say these days.
Since these early years, women have continued to participate in anarchist endeavours, even pairing their anarchy with liberal feminism through the Second Wave and on into the punk music scene and the Riot Grrrl movement. I think these efforts haven’t done much for women for three reasons, primarily.
First, they have usually piggy-backed on male movements or served as adolescent reactions to adolescent male behaviour. Second, they don’t address the root source of female oppression – men – and even include men in pretty much everything they do, so the best they can achieve is more freedom for oppressed men and continued sexual slavery for women. And third, feminism on its own has become diluted and polluted by intersectionality and inclusivity, and participants spend more time infighting and launching racist-misogynist attacks on white women than achieving female liberation and solidarity.
Unsurprisingly, male anarchists who, as a rule, talk about equality, have always reacted negatively to women promoting feminism within anarchism. Many tried to gaslight women into subordinating their concerns to those of class struggle. Of course, what so many fail to realize is that all oppressions stem from female oppression, so the logical pursuit is actually to liberate women from men first. Then the road is open to all other struggles. But these men knew exactly what they were doing in gaslighting women, and many women capitulated, likely due to their sexual ties to males in the movement, instead of starting their own movement separate from male anarchy. Women generally won’t allow themselves to see that male anarchists are not interested in equality, despite what they say. They never have been, and never will be. To make women truly equal is to protect them from male access and usage, and no man would ever agree to that because he rightly suspects that he would lose many of the privileges he sees as rights, and that he would actually have to work hard for the first time in his life to achieve something.
Can Anarchy and Feminism Co-Exist?
The quick and dirty answer is yes. The longer answer is yes, but you have to be clear about what you mean by both anarchy and feminism, and really, as I define it, true feminism is in and of itself, anarchy. True feminism is gynocentrism and female separatism. It is not possible to live free of hierarchy, coercion and violence if you devote energy to men, and especially if you practise heterosexuality or pour your resources into boy children. Intersectionality also has no place in this mindset as you end up with an oppression Olympics that fuels censorship and blame hierarchies and a loss of focus on femalehood as a shared status. At this point, I am not sure if women are ready or able to be just women. Men have created a world of damaged women living in archetypal boxes and who are trying and failing to escape this cage by constructing meaningless portfolios of micro-identities. I’ll bet that simplifying and separating is the answer to this, but that is another post for another time.
I’ll conclude by returning to where I started. Am I an anarchist? I think at this point, I can say yes. I’m a female separatist and I live by my words, and I can’t think of a better way to express freethinking and feminist mayhem than that.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
L is for Love
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
It’s a thin line between love and hate…
from the 1971 song of the same name by The Persuaders
Now, it’s a funny thing. This song was written by a couple of dudes and one of their complicit females warning other dudes that women can be crazy bitches. The gist is that women are happy to be used by men because that’s what women were designed for – but only up to a certain unknown point. And if you manage to reach your woman’s limit, watch out! She might maim or even kill you! This is a tired variation on the ‘hell hath no fury as a woman scorned’ theme. And most men and many women believe this stereotype to be true. But the reality is that women seldom, if ever, take revenge upon men, even if revenge is the least that men deserve after committing relationship atrocities. If women take any action in an abusive relationship, it is most often just fleeing – with a suitcase, if she’s lucky. See the craziest thing that women actually do is not taking revenge upon men, but bothering to get involved with them at all.
The song title, in actuality, is a much more appropriate description of the male approach to relationships with women, but with one major difference. Males don’t need to be abused or even have any kind of real excuse to snap and get violent. So often their love is violence of one sort or another. All women know this on some level as we are all told as girls that boys show us that they like us by antagonizing us or hitting us. But there is this expectation that they will somehow grow out of it – maybe after death – and besides there is a good one out there somewhere, right? So, women end up accepting that male love can look a lot like hate, and an expression of male love can turn into an expression of hate as if at the flip of a switch. Male emotionality is shallow, but intense and volatile. Let’s just say that male love is to human emotion as azidoazide azide is to chemistry. Personally, I think that ‘crazy bitch’ is a much more apt description of a man. And PMS actually stands for Permanent Man Syndrome. You see, Man, not Woman, is the wildly unpredictable, violently hormonal, nutjob breeding machine. And it isn’t monthly and temporary, but constant and forever. And in my tradition of mutating scrote-quotes, I say “Hell hath no fury as a man in love.”
Anyhow, despite the beginnings of this post, my purpose here is not to scratch the surface of heterosexual dynamics to reveal in shock and horror the countless examples of how men express their love for women. I have a whole Love=Hate series for what men do inside and outside relationships with women. And to be honest, straight woman problems are not only completely preventable, but their repetitiveness is boring as is women’s insistence on going back for more and more. I’m sick of hearing about them, and likely, some of you are as well. I think it’s very easy to become psychologically addicted to suffering – living it, complaining about it, reading about it, and ultimately doing nothing about it because pain has become your constant companion and what would you ever do without it? But that is a different, although related, topic, which I won’t get into today.
What I want to talk about is why humanity seems to be obsessed with love and pretending it is something other than it really is. It is treated as though it is the reason for our existence, and it seems to be much more of a distraction than even happiness or scheming to get rich. Why do I say this? Well, look at what passes for entertainment in the human world. There are more novels, songs, poems, fairy tales, artwork, and films about love than about any other topic. And of course, the bulk of this entertainment is created by males. But while it is superficially aimed at women and girls, everything is ultimately designed to serve males. I remember back when I was a teenager when it struck me for the first time as I was watching television that I was not actually the intended audience, and the messaging was not intended to lift me up as a female. I gradually came to realize that all creative material was that way – mostly designed by men for the male gaze and the male brain, but also designed to distract and brainwash women consuming the content. None of this entertainment, including television, is supposed to be analyzed from a female, let alone feminist, perspective. Even analysis of literature and poetry seldom gets feminist critique, and in this way, deeply misogynistic work, even if it is pretending to be empowering to women, can still get two thumbs up and win literary awards. Love ends up being defined by men, but obsessed over by women, even though men and women experience love fundamentally differently. I find that so many of our vaunted love stories would be more aptly categorized as ‘hate stories’. Yet women embrace them, and men profit from them.
Despite love being the central theme in entertainment, and thus making us believe that love is the most important thing in life, you need only to look at works of non-fiction to see what men really believe in. I’m going to borrow from the American experience to illustrate this, because as leaders of the so-called Free World who fought so hard for their liberation, what they say matters and often guides fledgling democracies. And besides, after dictatorships, no country does sloganeering and propaganda like the US.
If you go back to American beginnings, men define what is important in their Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is the foundational American slogan, and men still quote it today when outlining their rights as men and as Americans. Note that there is no love there. It’s not important. The inclusion of ‘the pursuit of hapiness’ was actually a replacement for the right to own ‘property’, which Jefferson did out of respect for black Americans (although remember that men could still legally own women), and is thought to have little meaning other than a subjective one. Male happiness could include drinking whiskey with abandon in a saloon, raping a prostitute and then going home and raping his wife, or killing animals for sport. And all of these could technically fit the definition of male love as well, I suppose, as vice, violence, glee and love seem to get twisted in the male mind. Women weren’t included in these important life elements – property, by definition, has no life, no freedom, and may not define their own happiness – but we know that males have always defined female love as sacrifice, devotion, loyalty, service, and suffering in silence. These are the themes of love stories, the propaganda men design to define female existence.
I leave you with this question and my opinion. If women, and I mean female separatists, of course, were ever to write their own declaration of independence, would they include ‘love’ in the list of rights? I think not, and I’ll tell you why. Under patriarchy, love is a tool of manipulation designed to keep women in line, distracted, focused on fantasy and hoping, and constantly feeling off-balance and insecure. Only patriarchal women cling to the pursuit of love and obsess over it, puzzling over the fact that expressions of male and female love look very different. Outside of patriarchy, I think love would be an outcome of female freedom, not a pursuit. Without men in the picture, love would not need to be listed in the rights and demands of women because it would just exist outside of context and wouldn’t be a bargaining chip used in power plays. I think relationships would look very different, as would artistic expression. And it certainly wouldn’t have any connection with violence.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
L is for Lost Post – K is for Kitten
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
A long, long time ago,
from Phenomenal Cat, by the Kinks
In the land of idiot boys,
There lived a cat, a phenomenal cat,
Who loved to wallow all day.
Happy Belated International Cat Day ♥ 🐾 ♥
The following is dedicated to my own phenomenal kitten who has just reached her first birthday. Although she is entering adulthood, she’ll always be my kitten. We’re a good match. Like me, her adoptive mother, she is a militant atheist and fierce female separatist. She is the right combination of zen and wild. She loves to wallow, and to pretend to bite my computer cables to catch my attention. She cuddles for short, but intense sessions, and attacks my sock-covered hand with the skill of a true hunter. Every morning around 4:00 am, she gifts me with a thorough facial dermabrasion, and she rides along on my shoulders as I prepare my morning coffee. As you may have guessed, I love the little nugget.
If you’re a fellow cat lover, have a browse through the Kitten Chronicles on my YouTube channel, where I feature select moments in time in the life of my little furball. For now, join me on a bit of a self-indulgent post celebrating K is for Kittens where I explore the link between cats and women, and why the connection has mostly been, in the eyes of men, a negative one.
.
The Roots
Men have a tendency both to dehumanize the human, and to anthropomorphize the non-human, so it’s no surprise that they have fabricated stories of strange relationships between women and various animals and to equate women with animals, body parts, tools and objects with great success. This is partly due to male fear of a more complete human, and partly rooted in the magical thinking of long-gone primitive cultures that were animistic or that connected their gods with animals. It is possible that women were slightly – emphasis on the slightly – more respected in ancient times. We have evidence of female deities with animal attributes, of course, which is in contrast to modern monotheistic, phallocentric religions where women are both the source of all evil and the unremarkable vessels for men’s seed. But in no culture have women either been free of men and their control and violence or even just on par with them. Strangely, there are always efforts made to try to prove that conquered or diminished cultures of the past, especially animistic cultures, such as various Native American tribes and the insular Celts of the British Isles, somehow managed to achieve ‘equality’ or harmony between the sexes. Modern fantasists, especially women, for some reason, tell made-up stories of sex equality and lady power in these cultures without a shred of proof to back them up and sometimes even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I think this is mostly done to establish a false narrative ‘proving’ that males were once better people, so therefore they can be better again. In that way, men and boys are protected from getting what they deserve when they commit crimes against women and girls, and the onus is put on women to accept, forgive and save men thereby keeping women’s focus and energy away from themselves and maintaining the system of their own oppression.
What is actually more logical and believable, and in many cases proveable, than this fantasy version of the past is that men have dehumanized women since human time began. There has never been an equal or free society for women. And rather than the dehumanizing abating with increased human education and enlightenment, it has only gotten worse and more normalized because of phallocentric and monotheistic religion, general androcentrism, overpopulation, and more recently, access to communications technology and the proliferation of pornography and other media promoting woman hate under the guise of male entertainment. And as alluded to above, men have dehumanized women in a number of ways, including reducing them to their body parts (cunt, pair of tits, or piece of ass), rerferring to them as male-constructed archetypes (slut, whore, hag, or ice queen), and likening them to animals (cow, bitch, sow, filly or cat).
So let’s talk pussy.
Exactly when men started connecting cats with women, we are not sure, but their thinking, deep as it usually is, seemed to go something like this: “Um, cats have lots of babies. Women have lots of babies. So they are similar. Oh, yeah, and um, cats like to hang out in the house. And women hang out in the house. Holy shit. Cats and women are like totally the same!” And lo and behold, the cat-lady-goddess was born to various ancient cultures, and predominated over – you guessed it – fertility, beauty, motherhood, and children.
Some of the earliest evidence of the cat-lady-goddess comes from Ancient Egypt, but these chicks were a little more powerful and rounded out than the simple incarnation in later cultures. The goddesses Mafdet, Sekhmet and Bastet were all depicted with feline heads atop women’s bodies. They were all fierce protectors; Mafdet was the early goddess of justice and execution and had the head of a cheetah; Sekhmet, with the head of a lionness, oversaw war and medicine; and later, Bastet, with a domesticated cat head, represented the home, fertility, childbirth, and joy. Cats were highly respected in Ancient Egyptian culture, and were believed to have magical powers, to be lucky, and to be very clever. They were often painted, seated under the chairs of women, and were considered to be fertile creatures, and thus, the natural companions of women. Ancient Egyptian women certainly had more freedom and power than women in other regions and cultures at the time, although there was by no means anything resembling respect, equality or freedom from male violence. But the cat-female-human link was established in a more positive way then than in any other time in history, including now.
In other religious traditions that included female gods, there continued to be links between cats and love, fertility, children, motherhood, cleverness, and hunting. Freyja, the Norse goddess of love, beauty, fertility, sex and war, rides a chariot pulled by two cats. Shashti, the Hindu goddess and devourer-turned-protector of children is depicted riding a cat. In Chinese mythology, Li Shou (Lí Shǒu, 黎手) was a cat goddess. Interestingly, the ancient Chinese believed that cats were orginally nominated by the gods to rule the world, but it turned out they liked playing and wallowing more. They gave up their power to human males, and while they lost their power of speech, they became the timekeepers of the world. We see the sun’s movement reflected in their eyes and hear the movement of time in their purr.
Things Get Dark
One theme that was common in many later cultures was the linking of cats with magic and with the underworld. It can get a little confusing to understand the true feelings people and cultures had towards them as they didn’t usually keep written records, but it reminds me of the place that women have held in all societies – sort of a mixed awe and fear that usually ends up manifesting in ‘want you, but hate you’ relationships. The Celts were a prime example of this. They believed that cats were guardians of the underworld and some believed that they were humans forced to return to the world after death following misdeeds in life. Some believed that they could take souls, and they were the companions of wise women who later came to be known as witches, which provided fuel for the brutal Christian persecution of women in Europe and the US. Despite what Celtophiles say, Celtic society was not woman-loving or equal. While some tribes may have had female warriors, slavery was rampant, and the cumal or ‘female slave’ was a prized unit of currency. Men were allowed to kill their wives and women were often passed around for sexual use in families. So we had a culture that held cats in suspicious semi-respect and that saw women as things to be used and disposed of. This provided ample fodder for the primitive Christian brain as it swallowed up the Celts of Europe during the expansion of the Roman Empire.
As parasitical Christians proliferated and absorbed Celtic beliefs and values, things got really fucked up for both cats and women. The early Romans had a utilitarian view of cats and they were brought along with invading armies to keep rat populations under control. But superstitious Christian thinking held them in suspicion. Exposure to the Celtic linking of cats with the underworld inspired more magical thinking and suddenly cats were dancing with the devil, and female practitioners of Celtic religions were communing with Satan and were able to shape-shift among other things. The old addage about cats having nine lives actually refers to the belief that witches could shape-shift into cat form nine times.
The idea was cemented in writing by power-hungry Pope Gregory IX in his papal bull of 1233, Vox in Rama, addressing so-called Satanism, the catch-all label for all religions ‘not Catholic’. The 12th to 17th centuries in Europe was one of the most backward, ignorant and testerical periods in European history. Paranoia leading to inquisition, torture, and murder in the name of religion was the norm at that time, and Pope Gregory was reponsible for kicking things into high gear. He even waged an informal war on cats, which led to the torture and killing of many of them, and put cats permanently in the dog house in the minds of Christians. Some argue that the killing of so many cats was the part of the reason that 30-50% of the European population died from bubonic plague in the 14th century. To this day, devout Christians tend not to like cats. A 2019 American study, for example, found a strong, negative relationship between church-going and cat ownership. Christians tend to like dogs, and I think it is for the same reason that men, in general, prefer dogs – I’ll get into that later.
This dark period was also a war on women – athough one could argue that women have always been under attack in this world for one thing or another. A woman didn’t really have to do much to bring the male boot down on her neck, and often it was other women making the accusations, likely in an attempt to garner male approval. It’s interesting. Of the articles discussing the persecution of witches, some say that it was about attacking the powerless and the others say it was about attacking powerful women. I’ll try to clarify because I think the incongruence is just a matter of language. First, there has never been such a thing as a powerful woman in the sense that men have power. Females have always been and still are a class of sub-humans, and they never have and still don’t have the resources to fight back. But these supposed witches weren’t powerful women; they were just women who didn’t follow the rules in some way, or were just convenient, powerless scapegoats. When women don’t fall in line, men get scared. And when men get scared, women get killed or erased in some way. And the killing of women serves the ultimate purpose of stamping out any further inclination towards rebellion in all remaining women.
Skipping Ahead
The negative link between women and cats persists today, although religious paranoia about the supernatural isn’t really a factor anymore. Rather, cats are seen as aloof or disobedient and weak or laughable for some reason. We still use the term ‘cat fight’ to refer to a pathetic style of fighting that is supposedly engaged in between women and that involves scratching and yowling, as opposed to the more manly punching. We also have constant references to the ‘crazy cat lady’ archetype, which describes a pitiable, lonely, older woman who collects cats – the implication being that women who choose not to live with men are pathetic and crazy. And there is a derogatory connection drawn between lesbians and cats – perhaps this is a throw-back to religious magical thinking.
What It’s Really About
I can tell you first off that once I committed myself to female separatism, the only animal I ever considered adopting was a cat. And I’m saying that as a person who grew up only with dogs. Further, after adopting my kitten last year, I realized how much I was missing in my life, and I feel a whole hell of a lot saner having her around.
What is really going on is that men love things they can control. Dogs, although I love them dearly, are highly trainable and highly dependent. What is called loyalty by men isn’t actually loyalty, but obedience. Patriarchal women, specifically, and heterosexual women more generally, are actually more like dogs in the eyes of men, slaving for them and craving crumbs of man-love when they do a good job serving them. Cats are social and loving animals, but they are fiercely independent. They aren’t very trainable to the whims of humans, but still manage to find food and shit in appropriate places without human guidance. On the whole, this doesn’t boost a man’s ego, so of course, men denigrate them. Likewise with independent women, especially separatists and lesbians. Women who don’t bend to a man’s will are dismissed as crazy, losers, or just plain stupid and weak. In this way, you can see why devout Christians might not like cats – obedience is key to their way of living. And I’ve met women in the military and women with large broods of children who absolutely hate cats as well. Ditto with the respect for obedience.
So it’s not actually about any real similarities between cats and women because honestly, there aren’t that many, and men will call you a ‘bitch’ one minute and a ‘crazy cat lady’ the next. This is all about control and obedience. And I can’t imagine any woman who truly understands the value of freedom, especially female freedom, who wouldn’t appreciate a kitten or two in her life. ♥ 🐾 ♥
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
L is for Living
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive.
Maya Angelou
First off, thanks to all of you who heeded the poll call. I’m closing the poll on my blog, but if you still want to vote or comment, it will stay open on my YouTube channel (for as long as I remain uncensored 😉 )
Initially, I was going to devote a separate post to each of the categories in this whole life satisfaction thing, but I’ve changed my mind on that, especially upon seeing the results of the poll. As you may have guessed from the title of this post, the majority of respondents reported that they feel they are ‘living’ – nothing more, nothing less – and I’ll get into what that means in a bit. But first, I want to give a little clarification on what this post is and isn’t about.
Life Satisfaction, Happiness, and Quality of Life
These are different, but not necessarily unrelated, things. Both life satisfaction and happiness are cognitive and emotional self-evaluations, and thus completely subjective. The former is more of a long-term feeling about one’s status on several life factors, while the latter is an in-the-moment feeling that is both spontaneous and unexamined. Unfortunately, happiness is something we are taught to believe should be a constant state, and that there is something wrong with us if we can’t achieve that. I wrote about happiness in my J is for Joy post, and I’m of the opinion that the pursuit of happiness is pointless and often leads, ironically, to misery and obsession. Quality of Life (QoL) is a little different. It can be defined using standard indicators, allowing for relatively objective comparative research across time and place. However, some individuals have their own definitions of QoL to help with personal goal-setting, cognitive-emotional evaluation and subsequent course correction.
Today, I’m going to talk about life satisfaction.
Who Is to Blame for the Obsession with Satisfaction and Happiness?
It’s a chicken and egg question. Which came first: our great dissatisfaction with life or our obsession with it? I suspect that people didn’t really think much about how they felt until societal change and human rights became possible. After that, our feelings and obsession with them probably fed off one another, so much so that men developed an entire psychological discipline centred on life satisfaction and happiness. We even have something called the ‘World Happiness Report’, which includes a 10-point, self-reported life satisfaction scale. I’m including a link to an interactive world map where you can check out how your own country ranks on self-reported satisfaction. It’s interesting to note that Canada has lost half a point in satisfaction over the last 10 years, while China has gained over a whole point in the same amount of time – these are significant changes on a 10-point scale, and I’d bet that increased poverty in the former and increased wealth in the latter have played a significant role here. Anyhow, believers in this type of evaluation have even gone so far as to happy-slap the dead, much in the way that TRAs have transified dead homosexuals. We are told, despite lack of evidence on what is a wholly subjective measure, that people were happier in the past, with some eras being more ecstatic than others. What a shameful abuse of authority to draw these impossible-to-draw conclusions.
The satisfaction and happiness movement was an outcome of humanist psychology originating in the mid-20th century and its spawn, positive psychology, born in the late 1990’s. All I’ll say about that here is that if you’re interested in a host of rich, mansplaining and obnoxious white dudes telling you what to do to achieve bliss, you can boil it down to this: don’t regret the past, be happy and grateful in the present, and be hopeful for the future. To me, much of this is what I consider to be toxic positivity worthy of cult status, and if you’ve been following along on YT or my blog, you know what I think about happiness and hope.
So you might be wondering, hey Story Ending, you seem really critical of this topic, so why did you create a poll? Yeah, good question. See, this is a bell that cannot be unrung. We see from research that life satisfaction is linked with mental and physical health, although I think this is an interdependent relationship. Being unsatisfied makes you feel unwell and being unwell makes you feel unsatisfied with life. So, there really is no way back to the acceptance of suffering and lack of change of the past. Us modern folk have grown up with the idea that having expectations to improve and change, and even being deserving of something better are human rights.
Measuring Life Satisfaction
The World Happiness Report I talked about earlier uses a measure of life satisfaction called the Cantril Ladder, a 10-point scale ranging from ratings of hopelessness to prosperity and grouped into the satisfaction categories: suffering, struggling and thriving. Hadley Cantril, very briefly, was a researcher of propaganda and social influence and a developer of public polling methodology, and he was known for uncovering hypocrisy in the beliefs of the American public and examining the role of authority in causing public panic.
Now, in my poll, I created four categories, with an extra one thrown in to catch liars, the deluded, and the victims of life coaches or the Cult of Positivity. Luckily, no one endorsed that category 😉 I asked respondents to consider all subjectively relevant areas of their lives. These areas could, but did not have to, include: financial situation, career/job status, relationship quality, physical and mental health, living environment, feelings of safety and stability, sense of purpose, level of personal development, etc. My scale went like this:
A) Suffering: significant hardship in one or more areas of life.
B) Surviving: my head is above water, but it’s tough.
C) Living: I’m getting by better than some, but it’s underwhelming.
D) Thriving: Things are going well; I look forward to each day.
E) Transcending: I have a blessed life filled with wonder and joy.
Note that this was a single-question poll, and I didn’t ask people to report their sex, age or location. These are descriptive data and no causal conclusions can therefore be drawn. My only assumptions were that most to all of the respondents were female and that people responded honestly.
‘Living’ was the most endorsed category, and I’ll talk briefly about what this could mean. By and large, women feet they are getting their basic needs met. Things are ‘ok’ or quite average, but perhaps they could be better. There may or may not be a lot of emotional satisfaction in the process of getting by and getting things done. I see the main differences between thriving and living and as being anticipation rather than commitment to the daily grind, and a feeling of growth or forward movement rather than running in place. I didn’t get any comments on this from thrivers or livers, but I’m happy to learn if I’m missing something here.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that these are not fixed categories. As life is unpredictable, you can easily find yourself skipping around through your life, with the possibility of experiencing all four scenarios. I myself have experienced all but a feeling of thriving, and the most terrifying thing for me is that you can go from living to suffering in the space of a month. Without personal experience, I can only imagine that feeling that you’re thriving instills a sense of stability. I’ve never felt that before.
Is There a So-Called ‘Thriving Mindset’?
The quick and dirty answer is ‘no’. You cannot will or hope or pray yourself into financial success or excellent health. Conversely, being a realist or even a bit on the negative side won’t magically destroy your opportunities or outcomes in life either. Sure, to some extent we are all captains of our own ships, but a lot of you probably know damn well that you can do absolutely everything right in your life and still end up struggling in one or more areas. And while we might be able to work hard, eat well, develop great relationships and stay active of our own free will, envisioning success or joining the unofficial Cult of Positivity is not a magic bullet that will take care of everything else.
The ‘yes’ answer – that there is a Thriving Mindset – was likely concocted by the psychotherapy and life coaching professions in order to make money off of blaming and shaming you for your lack of prosperity and getting you to sign up for an expensive course of treatment or goal-setting program. One of the worst pieces of propaganda-slash-pseudo-intellectual-malarky I’ve seen out there comes from Class A misogynist, Friedrich Nietzsche: “To live is to suffer; to thrive is to find meaning in suffering.” Again with the suffering, right? I swear men are obsessed with pain and suffering – as long as it’s women who bear the brunt of it. The fact is that no one in the world has the one-size-fits-all model for how to thrive. There are many factors involved, many of which are completely outside our control, and some of which are completely controlled by men. As a result, I think it is difficult for women to achieve a state of thriving in this world. Two major things we see over time and all over the world in the data on various measures of prosperity is that women as a class experience significantly more poverty and significally more chronic health issues, especially depression and inflammatory diseases, than men. While men are more likely to die off earlier everywhere, women tend to develop issues that keep them alive, but suffering in multiple ways for very long periods of time. And this suffering has nothing to do with mindset and everything to do with being an long-oppressed class of people. You just can’t think or hope your way out of this.
What I’d really love to see is all women and girls thriving in life. I’d like to see a world where ‘experiencing challenges’ isn’t a euphemism for suffering, but rather a process of working hard towards a goal and having it pay off in the end. I want a world where living a life doesn’t mean just trying to get through it all only to find that there’s nothing waiting at the end, but to enjoy each day for what it brings. But that just isn’t possible in a world of male dominance and their female-suffering-based systems of capitalism, ‘we do it because we can’, and survival of the fittest.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
K is for Kin-Keepers
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
To be honest, this is a term I have never before used in my life, and I hadn’t even heard of it until a few months ago when I read an article that referred to it. My plan here is to introduce the term and how it pertains to women briefly, and then to take on a part of the article that inspired the post. You can find a link to the article here. Please note that it is not a feminist article, even though its topic certainly warrants a discussion from that perspective. In the conclusion, the author even tries the whole ‘suffering makes us stronger’ and ‘patriarchy-compliant women are strong’ bullshit that is force-fed to today’s women to shame them into silence about real problems, and that I talked about in a previous post. It amazes me how often women dance around disturbing issues without actually naming the problem that underlies the entire mess. It is amazing, but not surprising. If women allowed themselves to truly see and acknowledge reality, their entire world would collapse. They’d lose the perks that they get from supporting men, and they’d become social outcasts with all the negative consequences that arise from not sucking cock literally or figuratively. To be honest, most wouldn’t survive, as heterosexuality strips women of their natural strength, and most women don’t realize what exactly is being exchanged when they engage in pro-male lifestyles.
So, what is a kin-keeper? Well, it is apparently a social role that exists within a family that is taken on primarily by women. It is thought to involve three primary duties: carrying out family rituals and traditions, organizing family reunions and protecting family relationships, and maintaining family records and narratives. Basically, I call it it glue. Without a kin-keeper, you don’t have a cohesive and loyal unit with a group memory or sense of history.
Now, women typically take on the role without necessarily being asked or forced, and I think they do it for a number of reasons. On the whole, a) women tend to have better social skills than men, so it is natural for them to put work into relationships, b) they need to have social relationships both to feel human and to make up for the fact that traditional het relationships strip them of valuable social connections and outlets, c) they need to do these activities to maintain the lie of happy and successful female heterosexuality, and d) if they are housewives, they need to find a way to justify their existence and to fill their abundant free time once children are of school age and older. For some reason, liberal feminism has started trying to pass off the role of kin-keeper as ’emotional labour’ deserving of pay, and that is probably why I haven’t taken much of an interest in it. I’m sick of being pressured into fighting for the privileges of women who wholeheartedly want to maintain patriarchy and who fear and hate lesbians, the child-free and female separatists with a passion. For me, true feminism is about the prevention of women’s oppression and especially of the punishment of rebels of patriarchy, not slapping bandaids on problems so that women can continue complying and forcing their daughters to comply and submit. It is the latter mission, however, that takes up most of the limited feminist money and labour available. And of course, this ensures that women will never be free or healthy.
The Family Who Suffers Together, Stays Together
Now, before I get into the third duty of kin-keepers, I just want to say that many, if not most, kin-keepers are enablers and expert liars, and I discuss both topics in other posts in the Alphabet Series. These are crucial skills for practising straight women so that they can successfully live up to their end of the heterosexual contract. Basically, they agree to take on a particular role in the patriarchal institution known as ‘family’, and a woman absolutely cannot do this well without being able to enable men and boys and to lie as if her life depends on it – and it usually does.
The sole purpose of family is to triumph over other families. You know – that survival of the fittest type of thing that people tell themselves, especially when they screw over other people. And to do that, a family needs a narrative. Every semi-functional family has one. The kin-keeper, as protector of the family memories and records, is key to maintaining the narrative. They hold the grudges. They appoint the scapegoats. They cover up the crimes and dirty secrets, unless it is advantageous to reveal them. They dole out emotional rewards and punishments. And they take photos, maintain their collections, culling when necessary. Family, as a patriarchal institution, is about the male journey to power and female support of that journey. So the narrative, for the most part, ends up being the history of the males of the family. We all know this is true. We see it in the records kept through the ages. And we also know that male stories and success depend upon the suffering of women and girls, and that this suffering must happen in silence. No one likes truth-tellers. They ruin the narrative and upset the balance of power. Revealing that a male family member is a rapist, for example, can ruin his life, and possibly the trajectory of the family. He probably just made a mistake – there’s no need to make a big deal out of it. The female victim, however, will build character and strength through her silent and required suffering.
Kin-keepers also like to hide facts about drug and alcohol problems, incest and domestic abuse, sluts who have children out of wedlock, gay aunts and uncles, extramarital affairs, humble economic origins, and really, it could be anything that might bring embarrassment to the family and destroy relationships.
Digging into the Past
While most wives and mothers tend to take on informal emotional labour following marriage and breeding, once traditional women are faced with having almost nothing to do, they often turn to doing actual research into family history, often with the help of genealogy services. And this is where the article I referred to comes in. The article asks whether digging into our families’ DNA pasts should come with a trigger warning. Basically, as I interpret it, most women’s stone cold realities are depressing as fuck, but they are so well covered up, we all grow up not knowing the horrors that women go through. We ourselves think we are alone in our suffering because we are not allowed to talk about it. So facing the sheer amount of collective female suffering can cause cognitive dissonance – or what the author of the article calls ‘distress’. On some level, we all know we are rape babies. There are different kinds of rape, but unless we are test tube created, we are all rape babies. But no one wants to acknowledge that, so it can be distressing to find out that family members have been raped or were disowned because of rapes. We may also find out that male family members were pedophiles or rapists. There are all sorts of skeletons that can be unearthed when one goes digging in one’s family’s past. Whether you can handle it is another story.
In my own family, we had a ton of skeletons involving rapey men and abused women, and I didn’t even do any research or take on the role of kin-keeper. I found out that my paternal grandmother became pregnant out of wedlock and her parents disinherited her from the family fortune and married her off to a poor salesman who ended up beating her for her entire life as if punishing her for her first bastard child and general whorishness. He raped three more children out of her, but he refused to buy her a wedding ring as an additional insult. She was an unusual woman and had a full-time job outside the home during what was a generation of housewives. She bought her own wedding rings with her own money, and today I have those rings. But she became an alcoholic and died a very broken woman. Her second son ended up being a chip off the old fatherly block and molested his younger sister, my aunt, for years. He luckily died in a motorcycle accident at the age of 18, but as a further slap in the face to my aunt, he was turned into the young, dead hero of the family. My aunt went on to marry an abuser, but became a social worker focused on battered women as well as helping incarcerated men. She would bring ex-con boyfriends to family gatherings. We’d find out later that the boyfriend of the moment was out of the picture after robbing her or something like that. My aunt’s second son ended up a classic abuser like his father. He got his wife pregnant and then left her to be with some American woman he also got pregnant at the same time during one of his business trips south of the border. My father, the youngest child and a psychologist, refused to let my aunt speak of the molestation and would belittle her in front of me when she tried to talk about it. My father himself was both a child psychologist and sex therapist who used to bring home movies filled with violent rape scenes for my mother and I to watch with him. I learned about male entertainment at an early age…
Interestingly, on that side of my family, there was an official policy that women weren’t allowed to be the family record keepers. After I put the whispered stories of abuse together with my father’s pro-rape approach to child-rearing, I understood why this was so… I also understand why I absolutely hate the concept of family, and was inexplicably anti-marriage from a very early age.
I leave you with this thought or question: what does the modern kin-keeper do with the shit she unearths about her own family? She is uncovering the true stories of women, the truth of heterosexuality, the truth of what men do to women. How does a straight, male-supporting enabler deal with her cognitive dissonance? Does she re-bury it in order to keep the peace and to maintain her comfortable life, denying knowledge to the girls of her family, and instead slathering her conscience with a healthy layer of hope? Or does she wake the fuck up and actually do what adults are supposed to do – protect girls from the shit men and boys have been doing to women and girls since human time began?
I think you and I both know the answer to that question.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
J is for Joy
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Are you the proud owner of a virtue name? You know, names that derive from religious ideas of moral behaviour. There are some names that are more commonplace and parents may not really think about the meaning behind them when it comes time to assigning names to their property, but a lot of parents actually do want their kid to live up to moral expecations and thus choose a virtue name that may be especially relevant to their agenda. It’s magical thinking though, and unfortunately, our world is not in short supply of that.
Now, it likely won’t surprise you that female babies are more often the recipients of virtue names than males. This is because female behaviour is more controlled and policed and punished than male behaviour. As well, girls and women are also seen as the moral gate-keepers of society, and when bad things happen, such as upticks in male violent crime or the perceived breakdown of the nuclear family, it is usually blamed on out-of-control, amoral females. You know how this goes – somehow, whether or not a girl crosses her legs when she sits in public has massive power over male self-control.
As well, the virtues that females are supposed to uphold are very gendered, and therefore mostly unrealistic and unnatural. We expect girls to be quiet and sweet and accommodating and careful and the perfect doormats. When males are virtue named, they are allowed names that will give them glory and public respect. And in some non-English-speaking cultures, parents will even go so far as to arrogantly give their boys the names of gods and prophets, which, in my opinion borders on breaking their own blasphemy laws.
You can find female virtue names in most languages and cultures. In English, our most common and obvious of the female virtue names include: Hope, Faith, Grace, Patience, Prudence, Felicity, Constance, and of course, our longed-for feeling of pleasure and happiness:
J is for Joy.
I don’t find it surprising that names like Joy are common in English-language cultures, especially the US and Canada. Anglo-North America is the land of forced displays of daily exuberance and the over-medication of widespread female depression. I’ve travelled through and lived in several places in the world, including where I live now, and I’ve never seen anything approaching the insane North American drive for women to display feelings they don’t feel. I’m currently living in a country where the women are positively allowed to be downright assholes, and there is no requirement to smile. Not that I want to be an asshole, but I certainly get sick of the Cult of Positivity back home. You may have some insights into your own culture or cultures where you’ve spent significant time, and I’d definitely appreciate any details you’re willing to share in the comments of the YouTube reading of this post. Happiness mandates may look different in different places.
Let’s talk about two aspects of forced joy: smiling and happiness.
Smiling
Say cheese. Smiling is mandatory in North America, especially if you are female, and even complete strangers will remind you to put your face together or will ask you what is wrong if you’re not smiling. On more than one occasion in the US, I’ve even had homeless men tell me to “Smile, honey. It’s not so bad.” as I walked by them on the street. I guarantee you that no one says that to men walking by. Your smile has to be of the right kind, however. There are unspoken rules about what a woman’s face should do in public. Not only have I been chided for not smiling, but I’ve also gotten into trouble for having what was interpreted to be a sarcastic smile – you know, the kind that has the power to emasculate men because they think you’re laughing at them.
Other cultures are not so neurotic. I remember when I was studying in France several years ago, our textbook did a little cultural comparison on smiling. They put public professional photos of American and Western European university professors side by side, and the difference was incredible. The Europeans either weren’t smiling at all or only had a slight upturn to their closed mouths. The Americans all had toothy grins. Were the American smiles and happiness real? Who knows? Most people can actually fake a Duchenne smile or what we call a ‘real smile’ with the eye crinkle. Perhaps the question is not whether the smile is real, but whether smiling is an indicator of joy or whether it is just a culture-specific behaviour without much meaning. The smiles may be disconcerting to outsiders, but I find the scowls of Asia and Eastern Europe to be off-putting as well, even if they, too, don’t mean anything.
Now, strangely, smiling is also a racist, sexist requirement if you work as a teacher in non-Western countries. White female teachers are absolutely required to smile constantly even if smiling is not a cultural custom. In China, I was reminded to smile and be positive, even while I faced classrooms of completely blank faces. It took a while for me to get used to this lack of response while at the same time, I had to over-respond, and to an introvert, it was exhausting to force energy into something I wasn’t feeling at all. My experience in Asia completely changed the way I compose my face and I wrote about this back in 2016 in “How I Lost My Smile“. I think I used to be more of a natural smiler, as far as women’s behaviour can be natural in this world. But Asia kicked it out of me; daily misery accompanied by forced displays of happiness brought my wasted energy to the forefront of my thinking.
Happiness
In North America, regardless of how we compose our faces, we women are expected to be happy 24/7. Interestingly, women and even girls are disproportionately overmedicated for depression, and we have drug, alcohol and over-eating problems that speak of the kind of escapism that results from deep unhappiness. I think there are three things going on here.
A. Inherited depression. The heritability of clinical depression is about 50%. For severe depression, it is thought to be higher. I’ve known a lot of depressed women, and I’ve seen a common theme in what they think will solve their problems. First, they think going to a new place will give them a fresh start, and of course, they discover that problems live within them and aren’t place-dependent. Secondly, so many women think that having a baby will make them happy. And of course, that doesn’t work either. I am of the unpopular opinion that people with mental health problems should not breed. I mean, I’m an anti-natalist as it is, and I don’t think any woman is either natural or healthy enough to affect a child positively. But if you have serious problems, you risk passing those problems on to your children, and you probably aren’t going to make a great parent anyway because of your issues.
B. Patriarchal depression. Even though the world acknowledges that females suffer from depression more often than males, it is written off as some kind of female weakness. It’s biological or something. Yes, major depression can be inherited, but what about the majority of women who seem to experience chronic, low-grade depression? You probably know what I’m talking about. This is not the depression that prevents you from getting out of bed. This is the general and almost constant feeling of being low, that there is something wrong that you can’t escape. It is usually just passed off as ‘female suffering’, but which I believe is wholly unnatural. I don’t think that suffering is a necessary part of the human female condition. I argue that Patriarchy causes widespread female suffering, forces women to accept it, and then forces women to pretend to be happy. And in countries such as the US and Canada, where the pretending has to be over-the-top and very public, what female wouldn’t be depressed simply because of sheer emotional exhaustion?
C. Misdiagnosis and pathologizing. This is a huge topic and other feminists tackle different aspects of how the medical industrial complex hurts women. What I will say here is that depression is often a symptom of something bigger, not an illness in and of itself. But, it is treated as an illness. Women and girls reacting negatively – and I would say normally and naturally – to Patriarchy are seen as sick. If you, as a female, don’t embrace your role as a male plaything with gratitude and joy, then you are sick. Instead of removing the XY, which is the parasite or infection causing the depression, doctors pathologize you and pump you full of medication. But the problem is never solved, and you can’t figure out why you are so defective. Personally, I think your depression is a sign that your body and mind are behaving normally and naturally to an attack. It’s just that you will never be validated, and the true problem will never be correctly named or dealt with.
In conclusion, I propose a new set of virtue names. Tomorrow’s girls shall be called Separatist, Emasculator, Truth, Judgment, Child-Free. Aren’t these valiant and idealistic qualities for our future-builders? And, while I jest, are these names any more ridiculous than calling a girl Prudence or Chastity or Faith or even Joy? And if you think they are, then maybe ask yourself why.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
I is for Infantilization
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Although I’ve touched on this subject in other posts, I thought this would make a nice companion piece to E is for Emasculation. Emasculation is testosterone-fuelled hyperbole where men pretend that having their rapey privileges taken away or even just questioned is akin to the removal of their biological weapons of mass destruction: their cocks and balls. All men see their privilege to harm women and girls as a god or nature given right, and to even question that is a crime against manity. It’s puzzling and frankly, pathetic – if you lose your entire identity when it’s even suggested that you’re not allowed to do violence, what does that say about you and your class of creatures?
In my post, The Female Equivalent of Emasculation, I discuss whether women experience anything like what men do. My conclusion is ‘no’. In order to feel a stripping away of privilege or power, you actually have to have privilege and power, and even more importantly, you have to have them AND feel like you deserve them. Females don’t have privilege and they certainly don’t have any power, and most women don’t even feel like they deserve them, thanks to a lifetime of patriarchal brainwashing. So no, women can’t and don’t feel this unjustified and irrational rage that men often do. But they do experience something that absolutely ensures that they never will gain rights and power, let alone privilege or the feeling that they deserve anything but the suffering that is doled out in the name of male love.
So today, I is for Infantilization.
To infantilize is to constantly, and even systematically, treat women as if they are children or as less intelligent and capable than they are. It involves a whole host of language and behaviour patterns, is carried out by both men and women, and is often helped along by other patriarchal tools such as gaslighting. I’ve suggested before that infantilization is closely related to feminization, the enforcement of unnatural, gendered stereotypes that place females firmly under the male boot, ready to serve unthinkingly.
So let’s talk purpose and methods.
One could easily devote an entire book and even an entire research career to this topic. It is an international problem for over half the population, and generally seen as acceptable, if it’s noticed at all. Many men and women, including women claiming to be feminists, even consider infantilization to be sweet or sexy. But, infantilization is all about 1) transcending and erasing the boundaries of women and girls, 2) denying them power, intelligence, agency and recognition, and 3) breaking down their confidence. It starts in childhood when girls are more susceptible and vulnerable to harmful messaging. It is possible to infantilize a child by treating her as younger or less capable or less intelligent than she actually is. Boys are given free reign in all areas and bestowed with the idea that they are smarter and more talented than they truly are, while girls are protected and punished and denied the most basic freedoms and acknowledgement. By the time girls reach adulthood, they are well used to being treated like naive and even stupid children and often don’t notice that not much changes despite moving into a new phase of their lives. They are primed for heterosexual relationships and for mistreatment in the workplace.
More on the methods.
1) Transcending Boundaries
Girls are taught early on that their bodies are not their own. They are for public consumption. They see it on television, in advertisements, in the places where their clothes are bought. The entire world comments on their physical manifestation. But it comes from parents, too. The girl is over-protected and punished for things that boys can do freely. She is taught how to make her body small, to lower her voice, and silence her wants and needs. She is dressed to be consumed, not to consume or just exist. Mother presents her daughter to friends, family and relative strangers, and the girl is expected to accept being touched, held and fussed over. She is not allowed to say no as it’s rude or defiant. Denying her agency and body-privacy, mother infantilizes and thereby grooms her daughter for her future role as a compliant heterosexual fuckhole. By the time she reaches her teens and early adulthood, the average girl has little confidence, doesn’t know how to look at herself through her own eyes, and seldom holds or presents herself in a natural way in public. Out in the world, boys and men talk too much and take up more than their share of space, and she accommodates their privilege by silencing her voice and making her body smaller. Males touch her in ways they themselves would never accept, and she sees the attention as tender and loving instead of infantilizing, invasive or degrading. Males grip, and lead and force, and she goes limp, and follows, and accepts.
2) Denying Power and Capability
There are a million and one ways in which females are denied power and any acknowledgement of their achievements. I’ll discuss a few of them here.
The number one way to infantalize a woman is to focus on the physical. It might sound strange at first, as sex and sexuality are supposed to be mature or adult subjects, but in actuality, focusing on female appearance and women’s dichotomous status as either a mother or a child-free non-human, serves to infantilize women and completely ignore their achievements and actual contributions to society. Beauty is decidedly not an achievement. It is subjective and has no relevance, meaning or true value. If it had real, objective value, then men would have taken it over and made it the focus of their own lives. So it serves as a distraction and even obsession for so many girls and women, completely infantilizing them, depleting their limited finances, and turning their brains to mush. As manipulatable as children. A focus on the physical also blurs the lines between adult maturity and childhood in a sexual way, giving outlets for male pedophelia. Girls are pushed to become sexual beings and adult women regress under pressure to become more childlike and youthful in appearance. Women who eschew all things beauty and fashion-related are demonized, ostracized, and banished to a circle of hell that even Dante couldn’t conceive of.
All societies also focus on mother-worship, another non-achievement-based focus on the physical, yet considered the pinnacle of female success. The rewards women reap for getting knocked up are legion. You probably do better financially and socially if you become a mother and wife than if you go to university, and I’m not kidding. But I mean, let’s get real. How is motherhood the number one human female achievement if even cockroaches, giraffes, and mice can do it? This is infantilization – essentially, the childlike having children. And all the while, mediocre males have their career paths preserved, working mothers get maternity leave and baby showers in the workplace, and child-free women are ignored, held back, and denied opportunities and respect.
Women are also infantilized through language, either by being denied existence or by having their female status called out deliberately. The use of man, mankind or manpower is still in wide use and women are supposed to accept being adjunct, but unacknowledged, members of that group. If the tables were turned and we used ‘woman’ to describe all humans, males would start World War T (testosterone) and whine about emasculation and the pussification of society. We also refer to female doctors, but not male doctors, and on American television, female law enforcement is most often called ‘bitch cop’, which is not only infantilizing, but dehumanizing. My modern British ESL teaching materials still include words like ‘mailman’ instead of postal worker or letter carrier. And in North America, we still call female parking enforcement officers ‘meter maids’. In addition, women are regulary denied their titles that denote achievement, such as Dr. even going so far as to refer to esteemed women by their first names only. Instead, we become irrationally focused on titles denoting physical ownership status, namely Miss and Mrs., and frequently bestow diminutives, such as hon, sweetheart, beautiful, and my dear, on adult women, even in professional settings. The British even refer to elderly women, patronizingly, as ‘old dear’, while there is no infantilizing equivalent for old men.
When women demand that they be called Dr., there is often angry backlash, especially from other women. I find this puzzling as female achievement makes it easier for girls to develop professional goals and dreams and to actually have a chance at success. Higher education is a positively gruelling process, rife with misogyny and degradation, and women who have not gone through the process seem to think that educated women breathe refined air. I can tell you, as one of those educated women, that academia was in many ways, more misogynistic than other work settings I’ve experienced. I’d even go so far as to suggest that formal higher education is not necessarily the best option for women these days, unless there is a clear requirement for a specific degree. And I further suggest keeping one’s mouth shut if you are completely ignorant on a topic, especially when what is coming out of your mouth is shit directed at another woman. Anyhow, regarding language, there is no reason in the world where we need to be either linguistically sexing jobs or erasing the female sex entirely from our vocabulary. Language problems are soooo easily remedied, which makes it clear that there is a different motive for keeping things as they are. Yes, infantilization and disempowerment.
Men also constantly use their big mouths to infantilize women in another way, and this is mansplaining. I wrote a short post on this phenomenon a while back, so I’ll keep it brief here. Basically, men feel the need to talk at women. Teach them. Show them. Explain to them. But the problem is that most of the time, the woman or girl being talked at already knows. The female can be educated, skilled, intelligent, and experienced, and the male can be uneducated, unskilled, stupid, and inexperienced. And he knows all of this. But he still explains – or mansplains. It is the ultimate act of infantilization. Every single female on the planet has experienced this, usually thousands and thousands of times in her life. I’ve even had boy children do this to me. I’ve had Chinese male students try to mansplain my own language to me – even more significant as it is a very disrespectful thing to do to your teacher in Chinese culture, so there was an element of racism in there along with the infantilizing misogyny. I’ve also had a Korean man try to explain to me what arithmetic is despite the fact that I have a masters in statistics. These are only a few examples, but there are literally thousands of incidents in my life. And the more educated and skilled you are, the worse it is. Some women just accept it à la ‘we have to coddle the fragile male ego’. But I don’t. You have to be really careful though. Males are used to being able to say and do what they want to you, so reacting rationally and not in a childlike way – meaning that you challenge them – can lead to violence, and as I’ve experienced, you can lose your job and career opportunities if you dare to correct the situation.
3) Breaking Down Confidence
Research has shown again and again that females constantly underestimate their skills, abilities and intelligence, while males vastly overestimate what they can do. This is known, proveable, and we see it all the time. It is likely the number one determining factor in career success, or possibly number two, after connections (as in nepotism and Old Boys’ Clubs). We know that education and experience aren’t nearly as important as people tell us. But how well you can sell yourself, even if it’s all a lie, is. And while confidence is not always appreciated in women in the same way it is in men, an employer will still usually choose a confident woman over a hesitant or unsure one. Our world prefers shiny lies over quiet truths, so it is no wonder that men get the jobs and promotions and opportunities and recognition, and higher salaries.
It is also unsurprising that women will not only underestimate themselves, but the capabilities of other females. A woman will usually throw her support behind a demonstrably mediocre male as a potential, promising leader, than a proven, superior female. And not only is there no confidence in the women in question, but capable females will often be criticized and torn down by both men and women. You even see this in so-called ‘feminist’ communities where women discount a female voice because she is confident, outspoken, educated or appears to have a better-paying job. This is an attempt to infantilize a woman who so clearly breaks the rules about female success and confidence.
My general rule of thumb when evaluating male and female claims is this: take anything a male says about his abilities and cut it in half, and take anything a female says about herself and double it. It amazes me how many stellar, intelligent, capable, multi-talented, and over-educated women I’ve met who are barely getting by financially or who are working jobs that vastly under-utilize and under-value their skill sets. But this impacts single women and lesbians much more than married women because the latter have a husband’s income that keeps them from poverty. They don’t notice the problem unless the heterosexual contract doesn’t end up working out for them.
I can say the exact opposite of males – so many of them land well-paying jobs with opportunities for advancement and recognition despite average intelligence, laziness, lack of experience or education, and a lack of skills and capability. I believe a good part of this is due to the building up of confidence in males and the breaking down of confidence that a lifetime of infantilization inflicts on females. There are other factors that work in tandem, of course. Patriarchy is a multi-front assault on the female psyche.
What’s It All Mean?
As mentioned above, infantilization is a mechanism that serves to prevent women and girls from having power and rights and even believing that power and full human rights are possible for them. To give a female agency, confidence, and a complete sense of power over her body and life throws a wrench in the male privilege machine. Even liberal males want to maintain the illusion that some kind of equal exchange is going on, even when they know on some level that there is a power imbalance. Feel free to test this out by watching the rage flare up when you suggest to a liberal male that the so-called sex that he is having is actually consensual rape since unequal people cannot truly give consent. Men need women to depend on them for guidance, approval, and protection – the very things children require from parents. I argue that heterosexuality depends on the infantilization of women and girls, and I think it’s high time to stop dreaming about screwing your dad or grandpa. It’s time to grow up.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
I is for Individualism
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
So, one winter, five to ten years ago, I found myself at a communal breakfast table of the youth hostel where I was staying in Washington, D.C.. Generally, I’m not a fan of big groups of people I don’t know, so I tend to keep quiet, and just listen and observe the dynamics in these situations, kind of like the meat world equivalent of lurking in an online community. On this particular morning, I noticed a conversation between two women at the other end of my table – an American and a woman from South America. The latter had been reminded of and was recalling her experience at a group breakfast at an international conference she had attended a few years before. I think the breakfast she described had been a serve-yourself type of set-up and this woman had immediately taken on the unrequested and unnecessary role of dishing out food or coffee to all the attendees. Apparently, a Scottish woman had come up to her and told her that she didn’t need to do that and that it wasn’t women’s responsibility to take on serving roles at this conference. The South American woman had become quietly offended, and I think she had bridled at what she had correctly seen as a feminist attempt to invite her to join the group and eat some breakfast instead of missing out and serving. The South American explained to the American that in her culture, it is normal to volunteer to serve the group selflessly, and it had nothing to do with male domination. No way! Couldn’t possibly! But did she bolster her argument by adding that the males at the conference had also immediately jumped in to serve and clean up? No! Of course not! Because they hadn’t and they never do, and yes, this IS due to male domination. Culture is the very definition of all the ways in which women are subordinated to and by males in a particular time and place. The American listening to this story immediately did what all good little white Western women are supposed to do. She bowed her head in self-deprecation and shame, and lamented that her culture was soooo individualistic and selfish. None of this was about patriarchy, but about how Americans only think of themselves and their aggressive pursuit of fulfilling wants and needs at the expense of others. Fuck other people! I’m actually surprised that the American didn’t shit on the Scottish woman for imposing her feminist opinion on the situation. I can’t remember whether I had decided that breakfast was over at that point and I ended up missing the attack on feminism. Regardless, the whole thing was pathetic to listen to and frankly, incredibly reductionist, as all discussions of culture tend to be. But years later, I still remember this little scene so well, as I’ve always had a bone to pick with the whole over-simplified, high school debate topic – Which is morally superior: individualist or collectivist societies?
So, today, commune- and island-dwelling sisters, I is for Individualism.
I was still living in China when I witnessed this conversation, so I had been doing a lot of thinking on this topic, China being the so-called collectivist culture that it is. And I’ll say one thing right off the bat. I think if you’ve never spent significant time living in both individualist and collectivist cultures, you really aren’t qualified to make comparisons or draw conclusions about which one is better. It makes me think of another set of morally infused opposites: capitalism and communism or socialism, and how so many Americans seem to have really strong and judgey opinions about the latter without really knowing anything tangible about what it is.
The second thing I’ll say is that I don’t really prefer either type of society, and that some of the things we are told are present in one, are actually equally or more present in the other. I want to discuss a few points about both models of culture and then I’ll conclude with a note on patriarchy and what that means for women.
The Family as Individual
One thing I noticed after nearly a decade in a collectivist culture is that individualism is actually the undercurrent, but the unit is different. The individual is not the person, but the family. It really clicked for me when a student of mine was telling me about some Western soap operas she was watching. She said they were very different than Chinese shows. The characters in Western shows each had their own story line in addition to whatever was going on within a family. In China, all the story lines involve the family as a group. The members are not individuals living their own lives within the context of a family. I also, in the role of unofficial therapist for so many of my students, listened to countless horror stories of young people being horribly abused by parents while accepting the fact that they would never, ever leave and would even financially support their abusers for their entire lives. They believed and accepted that there was no escape. Individual suffering is meaningless in light of the well-being of the family. So, in collectivist cultures, you are not separate from your family. Everything you do affects its status and reputation – you function as a unit, an individual, essentially. So I consider collectivism to be almost a subtype of individualism, but incorrectly painted as morally superior. In reality, it can be colder, more dishonest and more open to abuse than any true individualistic society ever could be.
The Selfishness, Ruthlessness and Hypocrisy of Collectivist Cultures
It’s funny, so much of what is criticized about individualistic cultures is actually more true of the collectivists. It is said that individual success is not worshipped like you see in individualistic cultures. This isn’t true. Individual heroes are often created as examples to be followed, and you are more likely to see the development of personality cults among leaders within collectivism. I think without a rallying point such as a successful person, people tend to stray off the accepted path in order to create their own purposes. As well, volunteerism, as in choosing to do volunteer work, instead of being forced into it is virtually non-existent in collectivist cultures, despite it being essentially a selfless, group-benefitting act. I remember a conversation with one of my closest friends, who is Chinese, about volunteer work. She is a really smart and considerate person, but she told me she couldn’t truly understand why one would ever do volunteer work and was quite awestruck with the many stories of volunteerism that the various Western travellers she has met had. She also couldn’t believe that many so-called individuals even plan their travel around volunteering. But it is a fundamental and even moral imperative in individualistic cultures, although moreso among women than men, as males tend to believe that they deserve compensation for any work that they do. The same moral approach exists towards charities and charitable donations. In the US, data show that poor people frequently donate money to charities – it really has nothing to do with wealth, unlike what people assume. It is a moral choice, not a financial choice. Charitable giving doesn’t really exist in places like China, even among the rich. There is no drive to help strangers that I have ever seen, despite the claim that it is the faceless masses that you don’t know that are more important than you as an individual. I remember back when the Philippines suffered devasting losses due to a typhoon about 10 years ago. China as a country donated less money to relief efforts than the company IKEA. And the Philippines is both their neighbour and poorer than China. It seemed to me that collectivism has some very well-understood, but unspoken limitations on who belonged to the collective. It is very ‘in group/out group’. And indeed, collectivist cultures tend to be very, very exclusive. You don’t help anyone outside your tribe, and for many, even outside your family – the individual. You also don’t share, you don’t allow migration into the group, and you erase those who try to leave. Collectivist cultures tend to be very racist, very sexist, very censorious and rule-bound, and very unforgiving and violent, despite the ‘for the good of all’ mantra that you tend to hear. These are not the shiny happy people that communists and collectivists claim they are.
When Individualism Creates Weakness Rather than Strength
If collectivists are about grinning and bearing it in the name of sacrifice to the group, then individualists are supposed to be about survival of the fittest, and I’m referring to Herbert Spencer’s essentialism here. Individualism has done some good things for society. It has inspired creativity, some progress in human rights, critical analysis of religion and more. But it has also moved a lot of people away from contributing to the well-being of society and legitimizing some really shameful and anti-social pursuits. And while introducing the idea of human rights, it has also created a lot of confusion over the differences between wants, needs, rights and privileges, often elevating a frivolous or delusional wish to the level of a matter of life and death. Instead of creating the type of strength that would come from being forced to adapt to frequent change or normal human societal challenges, in the way that Darwin saw evolution and progress, highly individualistic societies seem to have created a population dependent on validation and being rewarded for mediocrity and even failure. We now see division and strife that can put individualistic societies in precarious and unstable situations over relatively insignificant issues. And this serves to distract from more serious problems facing our world.
Conclusion
Well, I’ve managed to shit all over everything, eh? Actually, I like some aspects of both types of society. My problem is that no reasonable system can function the way it is supposed to if men run it or even exist in it. In a collectivist society, the male drive to control and conquer will override the sharing and altruistic goals that are supposed to flourish. Female altruism and empathy end up abused and devalued, and everyone ends up suspicious and cold. In an individualistic society, male greed will create horrors and suffering for those without power and resources, and who end up forced into desperate arrangements in the name of survival. I’d love to see and actual collectivist society that acknowledges some value of the individual. It would have to be a small-scale society with clear goals, and the key element – or rather, missing element – would be the interfering destructive sex that has tended to ruin everything it touches. You know who I’m talking about 😉 But for now, if you are going to criticize a culture, remember that is it not individualism or collectivism or capitalism or communism that are the root problems, it is patriarchy. And that should be the basis of your arguments.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
H is for Hope
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
It’s the fluffy stuff of posters, platitudes, politics, and propaganda. It’s the product peddled by motivators, marketers, and movie-makers. And today, it’s the topic of yet another H-post in my Alphabet Series.
H is for Hope
This is a massive topic, and I know I won’t do it justice here. But the concept of hope is a major undercurrent in patriarchy and it is important to understand why this is so. It is also important to think about whether it is a useful concept for women or whether it does more harm than good. So, I’ll give it a rough outline and leave you with some questions, opinions and food for further thought.
Motivation for this topic came from an online conversation I had with an Indian woman I met on Saidit.net a few years ago in a more general and very blackpilled discussion of patriarchy and suicide. I had always been of the opinion, probably thanks to my long education in psychology, that hope was the driving force in keeping people keeping on. Basically, I thought, it was a good thing and should be fostered. My Indian acquaintance was of a different opinion, believing that hope was rooted in religion, which is essentially patriarchal and thus, anti-woman, and I found what she said to be so valuable that it inspired a complete rethink of my position. I haven’t encountered her since, but if she ever runs into me or my writing online again, I’d like her to know that I’m grateful for our short, but meaty, discussion.
Hope vs. Faith and the Link to Suffering
Now, I think religion is one of many symptoms or tools of patriarchy, and thus, hope is not rooted in religion, but just another symptom or tool of female oppression. You can see hope used as a tool in both religious and areligious male-dominated societies. But many often see hope as a religious concept and mistakenly equate it with faith and the non-thinking that goes with it. They do often go together and prop each other up as both require the withholding of critical thinking, but they are not the same. And faith doesn’t have to be religious either, of course. So, first, some definitions.
Hope: a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen.
Faith: complete trust or confidence in something based solely on conviction rather than proof.
So why do these exist? Why is such a state of non-thinking so irresistible, especially for women? Well, my theory is this. Suffering is always present in patriarchy, and as a result, there is a need to explain it and to develop ways of accepting and coping with it. Required suffering is part of every religion and cultural mythology, and it is often explained that women must suffer more than men. It’s god’s plan and therefore women’s duty to accept a life of suffering. We are told to have faith, despite any evidence or rational argument, that there is a reason for what we endure, so instead of thinking critically and then realizing that fighting back is the only way out of it all (aside from suicide), we then develop hope as a means of coping and trying to survive. Religions and political machines often use ‘hope’ as a way of getting people both to accept suffering and seeing it as a way to become better and stronger. And there is a heap of guilting, shaming and morality policing done to those who don’t submit, accept and hope.
Here is an example of the effective use of hope in religion and political campaigning.
…we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
a close-enough version of Romans 5:2-5 NIV
Religious use of ‘hope’ to justify and almost eroticize suffering.
Political use of ‘hope’ to manipulate hearts and minds.
The bonus to men and to patriarchy is that if we accept required suffering as women, it opens the door to more abuse by men. They can do what they want and are allowed to repent and be forgiven ad nauseam, and we are only allowed to hope for things to improve. The reality is that suffering isn’t actually necessary to exist as a human, males are never sorry for what they do, and women can hope until the cows come home, but things will never get better.
Hope vs. Purpose – Is Hope Necessary?
I’ve had the privilege of working with a lot of young people in different countries, and I think this world is filled with people who don’t have anyone to talk to honestly or anyone to just listen to them. I’ve listened to a lot of youth, and if asked for advice, I try to give them the benefit of my experience without sounding like a finger-wagging old person. They get enough of that from family and society. The young seem to be preoccupied with the elusive concepts of success and happiness, and everyone seems to tell them to be positive and hopeful and focused on the pursuit of money and love. What a recipe for mental health problems. I have found that those obsessed with hope and happiness tend to be extremely unhappy, very confused, and even quite depressed. Hope is about expectation, and the youth of today seem to have a lot of expectations. I think the internet has had a hand in this, present lies as reality and telling young people that they can expect to have everything they see even when what they are seeing isn’t real. But it’s complicated.
Anyhow, in my experience, letting go of expectations, of hope and of this silly notion of constant happiness are key to navigating a patriarchal world without entering a downward spiral and considering killing yourself. Is this ideal? Of course not. But as there is no solving the Man Problem, you need to find a way to deal. And I don’t mean adopting an “if you can’t beat them, then join them” mentality. Sadly, that is what the majority of straight women do. Denial is a little more comfortable than living in reality, but you are still suffering even if you don’t realize it for a long time, usually after it is too late. I’ll write more about this when I get to the P’s of my Alphabet Series. No, what I mean is that you should conserve your gynergy and make your efforts mean something.
Here are some examples:
- Pick your battles wisely. If you are going to fight for something, then make sure it’s worth the consequences. There are always consequences when women go against men and their handmaidens. Even if you manage to accomplish something good for women, almost no one will thank you for it – probably the opposite actually. So fight for your higher principles and without expectations or hope.
- Live for ‘moments’. I’ve tried to help young people who are confused about why they can’t attain a constant state of bliss with the following. Enjoy small things. Notice details. Take pleasure in what is happening now without thinking past its ending. Myself, I actually am one of those people who literally stops to smell flowers. Once I started doing this type of thing regularly, I was freed from the burden of not being constantly happy. I have moments. A piece of chocolate. A good conversation. Taking an amazing photo of a bumble bee. No. I am not a member of the Cult of Positivity. I am skeptical, jaded, and have very low expectations of other people and of my own life.
- Find a purpose. Hope and purpose are not the same. Purpose has nothing to do with expecting that things will get better. They can be linked, but they don’t have to be. And I think that it’s better if they are not. Having a purpose is about doing something that has meaning to you. It could be about morals or principles. It could be about achieving mastery in something. It could be anything. And while it would be great if your purpose contributed positively to the world (i.e., it is a feminist purpose), you need to start with something that helps you sleep at night and helps you get up in the morning. I think most of the world is suffering from lack of meaningful purpose and so many bad things result.
In conclusion, I’ll say this. For women, hope is a useless concept. I think it only exists because suffering exists, and suffering only exists becuase men exist. Forcing hope down women’s throats serves men by keeping women compliant, accepting of forced suffering, and illogically believing that things will get better without questioning the status quo or fighting to change anything. Hope doesn’t float; it is the anchor that pulls you under the water and drowns you slowly.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
G is for Gynocentrism
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
This post is sure to get me called ‘mean’ by other women, mostly women who call themselves ‘feminists’, and to me, that is a great indicator that I’m speaking a truth that hits a little too close to home. In other words, this is the mark of a successful post. ‘Mean’, when used in these situations, tends to end up being tone or language policing of clear or blunt words, as I try my best not to infantilize women by denying their role in their own oppression or using euphemisms to downplay the ridiculousness of behaviours and situations. And calling feminists ‘mean’ can also be a standard and unintelligent way of coping with the cognitive dissonance associated with knowing on some level that, despite proclaiming to be a feminist, one’s own behaviour is harmful to women as a class. In fact, I’m not a mean person at all, and I actually regularly self-examine and give up behaviours that I consider to be harmful to females. So I don’t take name-calling or ad feminem attacks by other women seriously at all. I think that being ‘nice’ goes hand in hand with telling lies. Both are a waste of energy and accomplish little, even if you end up making people feel good about their poor and sometimes stupid and harmful-to-others choices. Being critical in order to analyze nonsense is not mean; being an asshole for no reason other than to cause havoc, is.
So what, pray tell, is going to rattle women today? Well, I’m going to propose that feminism that doesn’t centre women is not feminism. When I write and then read this, it sounds obvious and ridiculous that I should even need to argue this at all. But it is amazing how many women will promote the most woman-hating of behaviours and call it ‘feminism’. And they are not a mentally disturbed minority, but the oversensitive and fragilely constructed majority. I’ll also even go so far as to say that anything that doesn’t centre female liberation from males isn’t really feminism either. Enough with “What about the men?” The question that nobody ever asks, but should, is: “What about the women and girls?” Can you believe that that is not the central question in most feminist theory or practice these days? Mindboggling.
All this is to say that today, G is for Gynocentrism.
The fact that most people don’t know what this word is, let alone find it in mainstream sociopolitical philosophy or movements is a testament to our poor education systems, the enforced mandate to be ‘inclusive’ in feminism, and the fact that our psychological and material realities reflect something else entirely: androcentrism. Here is a very simple definition of gynocentrism:
It is a dominant or exclusive focus on females in theory or practice.
Some definitions try to include stuff about femininity or a ‘feminine perspective’, but I won’t include it here as gender has no place in gynocentrism or true feminism, and I have no idea what a ‘feminine perspective’ is except that you probably have to apply lipstick before expressing your point-of-view in a sexy, pouty, TikTok video sort of way.
There also seems to be the belief that gynocentrism is just the opposite of androcentrism, which likely comes from the limited male perspective that females aren’t their own entities, but just male wannabes. While androcentrism can also be called patriarchy, I wouldn’t say that gynocentrism is the matriarchy of male testerical fantasy. Gynocentrism is not the opposite of androcentrism. What men do is all about domination and hierarchy and creating slave classes and disenfranchising groups and causing and perpetuating suffering and violence. And you’ll notice that all of this is present in every single sociopolitical system that men have ever devised, including those claiming to make people equal. In fact, some of the most violent and unfair systems men have created were those borne of the quest for equality in society. Men don’t believe in equality. It’s not part of their DNA. Interestingly, a lot of people, including some feminists, think women can be just as violent as men, and of course, this is nonsense. If that were true, we’d have destroyed male power long ago and established some sort of similar dictatorship-matriarchy, because although women are not physically stronger than men, they are actually naturally smarter, more organized, more patient and more strategic than men, and brains always win over brawn if you’re playing the long game. As well, what we aren’t is more violent or psychopathic than men. So no, gynocentrism is not androcentrism, but with tits and twats on top. That’s just not how we roll, genetically speaking. Rather, I see it as separation or separatism, first and foremost. Then, it is about peace, learning, co-existence with the natural world, and progress stemming from logic-based sustainability, rather than greed-based, uncontrolled and unlimited growth.
Now, before you accuse me of idealism, I’ll say that I don’t believe women could sever ties from males today en masse and magically create a feminist utopia. I believe that so much would have to happen before women could ever create a high-functioning female-only society, and it would likely take generations, although not for lack of trying. Today’s women and girls are so severely damaged and brainwashed and immersed in male filth and violence that I don’t think it is possible to heal completely in one’s lifetime, even if one managed to magically live completely separately from patriarchal influence, including other damaged people. Further, there is epigenetic inheritance evidence that experienced trauma can be passed on to offspring. While it is acknowledged that this inheritance affects how our cells function, but doesn’t cause permanent changes to DNA, the field is so new that we don’t know how the effects can be remedied. All this is to say that for women to be natural and thriving, not just surviving – meaning undamaged by patriarchy and living in a pro-health, female-focused way – the sociopolitical world would have to undergo massive structural change. That’s not to say that adopting gynocentrism and, naturally, by extension, female separatism, isn’t worth pursuing. Not at all. I just think it will end up being a personal and political health choice. For some, a matter of life and death. For others, the only option that makes sense. It’s not easy and it can be lonely, but it is what needs to be done in order for women to be free.
The Second Wave: The Zenith before the Plummet into Slut Feminism
The Western feminists of the Second Wave got it. I mean, they really got it. They were single-minded, focused on women, extraordinarily hard-working and generous. They did consciousness raising. They built communities. Many created a world where they could live as separately as possible from men. They made the personal political, and they made life choices based on those beliefs. And these choices weren’t sacrifices or suffering in their minds. They were natural and logical. And necessary. You absolutely don’t see that today, or at least it’s rare. I don’t think most young women can understand what it means that the personal is political, or that most of what constitutes ‘identity’ these days is constructed, or that what you do can affect other women negatively. I think women spend a lot of time making excuses for their selfish and woman-hating choices, and they tend to focus superficially, but loudly, on the easy stuff that doesn’t require lifestyle or thinking style changes. Most don’t really want to self-examine too closely because they’d have to deal with serious ethical and philosophical mismatches in their lives. I wish we could all teleport back to the time of the Second Wave if only to be inspired and enlightened and to see what is possible for women. I find a lot of today’s so-called feminists criticize the hell out of Second Wave feminists for one stupid thing or another – usually ad feminem attacks involving being white or educated or middle class or anti-sex or something made up, clearly showing how far women have fallen intellectually since the Second Wave. I find it embarrassing, but not surprising. Critical thinking is not encouraged these days, and it is amazing how often women read an article or book and completely miss the point, choosing instead, to focus on things that fail to fit their own personal and limited experience of the world.
From what I’ve gathered, once the diversity and inclusivity movement coupled with the pro-male, sex-positivity movement started to gain momentum, the Second Wave was dismantled. It’s sad that men always win, and the loudest women show themselves to be very, very stupid, or perhaps lazy is the better word. I think most women end up giving in to male demands and pretending it is feminism because it is so much harder to do what is needed to be free. It is so much easier to become a slut than a human, for women.
The Diversity/Inclusivity and Intersectional Feminist Movements
I remember for kicks, a few hundred years back, I watched the entire Six Feet Under television series. I’ll sum it up as follows: I’ve never cheered the death of a male character more than I did Nate Fisher’s. But it was short-lived; like with a poorly functioning toilet, the turd kept coming back again and again. And annoyingly, in the form of hallucinations. I won’t go into endless detail about him, but let’s just say, if the picture dictionary had an entry for Liberal White Male, this fuck’s picture would be there. Anyhow, there was this episode in Season 2 where the pathetic, uber-Martyr, housewife-mother-monster, Ruth, has one of her frequent uncomfortable interactions with her self-hating daughter – this time, about feminism. It’s sad and maddening and really typical of how feminism is approached today, thanks to intersectionalism, its spawn, inclusivity, and the post-modernist movement. Feminism is whatever you want it to be, which means it’s meaningless.
Ruth says: “Feminism means being accepted for who you are.” What the fuck does that even mean?
One of the most negative and damaging outcomes of the whole forced diversity, inclusivity and intersectional movement is the watering down and sometimes even the complete eradication of potentially very powerful groups, systems, and frameworks. See my 2016 post on what I call the Ice Cube Effect – the watering down of feminism. See also my 2016 post on the problems with intersectional feminism. Inclusivity and post-modern thinking have also depoliticized key political issues for women as a class, namely sex and sexuality, while politicizing nonsense such as identity and emotions. This is a time of censorship. A time where feminists spend more time attacking each other, and especially major feminists of the Second Wave, than they do men – the actual oppressors. I expect non-feminist women to be assholes, but I hear time and time again from women who seem to be on the right track, that they are more often attacked by other women who call themselves ‘feminists’ than by anyone else. It is very strange that this new focus on diversity and inclusivity and intersectionality has resulted in less freedom, more silencing of female voices, and more in-group distrust and abuse. I think this is a very complicated issue that deserves a separate post, but suffice it to say that today’s Western women, especially white women, experience more propaganda and gaslighting about their own experiences than do people in the China I worked in for nearly a decade. I wonder whether Western women are less free than they have been in a long, long time, and end up venting their frustrations on each other because they are not allowed to speak about real problems in a public forum. I think Western feminism, if you can even call it that, needs a very serious paring down and needs to return to its basic roots: a focus on women, or gynocentrism.
At this point, feminism, like Ruth Fisher put it, is a free for all. You don’t actually have to follow any kind of philosophy, framework or guiding principles to be a ‘feminist’. You just have to be a female. And these days, you don’t even have to be a female. A woman has an opinion, and she is a feminist. A television show has a female lead character, and it’s a feminist show, regardless of the content or message. A woman puts on make-up with a fierce intensity, and she is a feminist. A woman devotes herself to housewifery and propping up a male’s career, and she’s a feminist. Do whatever the hell you want! Call it feminism. Anyone can join the club! And to question it these days is mean and disrespectful and grounds for censorship and ostracism. No other sociopolitical movement is so lax, so inclusive. Blacks don’t invite the KKK to their activism. Vegans don’t welcome meat-eaters and hunters to their tofu-socials. But feminism can be whatever you want it to be, even if it hurts women and girls and benefits oppressors: men. At this point, do you understand why gynocentrism is necessary to true feminism? Jeez, I hope so…
I do intend to write something more comprehensive on this topic, but I’ll end this post by saying the following. Real feminism, gynocentrism, can save your life. It’s not easy. It requires hard work, a lot of self-examination and life changes. But it is comforting in the way that a blazing wood fire is at the end of a long, cold day in the woods on a winter’s day, which perhaps only a true Northern person can understand. But I’ve always believed that nothing worthwhile comes without a fight or dedication. And I don’t mean suffering or sacrifice. I mean the kind of effort that kicking an addiction might entail.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
E is for Emasculation
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Forgive the backtracking with another E post (I’m currently on the O’s at the time of this writing), although really, this is my blog and I can do what I damn well please. It is because I am in the throes of preparing my audio upload to YouTube of the reading of my 2021 post E is for Enabler. It might sound easy to some – just read the damn thing while recording and then throw it up on YT, but no. Actually, I take a serious look at the written post beforehand. What I didn’t appreciate on the level that I do now is that not all posts meant solely for written consumption are 100% translateable to audio. For example, I noticed a while ago that, for some reason, I developed a bit of a weakness for parentheses, and I’ve been trying to weed myself off them in my writing for a lot of obvious reasons. So since starting to record audio, I’ve been taking a closer look at my existing posts and have been doing a little editing to make the writing more ‘readable’. A long time ago, I published an academic book in Taiwan with the help of a major publishing company that ended up screwing me financially, but I learned a lesson: everyone needs an editor. But when you’re writing for free as a hobby of sorts, you are both the writer and the editor. It’s an imperfect system, and all writing needs fresh eyes to improve.
Anyhow, as I’ve been going through the E is for Enabler post, I realized that I really needed to write something about an absolutely fabulous E-word that is near and dear to my heart, probably because of the special shears that I keep by my front door to enforce my separatist principles. Just joking! Or am I…? Oh, don’t be so sensitive.
So, what was I saying?
E is for Emasculation
Now, apparently, I wrote and published what should actually be a companion piece to this one back in 2020, and I’ll include bits and pieces of it here. In that article, I ask whether there is a female equivalent to emasculation. Hint: the answer is no. So, read on, explorers!
What the hell is emasculation? I know, it seems a bit obvious, especially because men are constantly moaning about their feelings and how everything is women’s fault.
In the most literal sense, it means castration – full on twig and berries removal. Men are very emotional when it comes to their junk – they take their feelings about their genitals as seriously as they do actual harm to their bodies. It is not an exaggeration to imagine a physician asking a wounded male: “Should we remove the bullet from your brain or save your partially severed left nut first?” with most men responding by looking south. You get the ‘special shears’ joke now, right? Male testeria is kinda hilarious and absolutely begging for satire – but also really dangerous as their insanity is always backed by the law.
But males don’t mean literal castration when they speak of emasculation. As with everything, it is always about their unstable psychology, insecurity and hair-trigger feelings. So, within the realm of male sensitivity, we’ve got the following definition of emasculation:
the reduction or removal of a man’s sense of masculinity, as by depriving him of a culturally sanctioned male role or the exercise of male privilege.
A few things here with this male definition. First, the use of ‘depriving’. The implication is that there is fault on the part of the other party – the one not experiencing the feelings, and that party is always female. Women and girls don’t deprive males of ANYTHING; they can’t as they are of the prey class and ALL males are historically and currently part of the oppressor/predator class. Saying ‘no’ to what amounts to misogynistic treatment by the male, is not deprivation in any way, shape or form. The second missing thing is that, following feeling deprived by women and girls, men believe that what is warranted is violent vengeance against their target. So basically, male becomes unhinged of his own doing, finds a female target to blame, and then victimizes her in a self-sanctioned rage. Sound familiar? We’ve all been at the receiving end of some form of violence because of some male’s glimpse into his own obsolescence and inadequacy. Let’s talk about the triggers of feelings of emasculation and then a bit about punishment.
The Triggers
Words
I’ve written about the selective censorship of women in a past post. Generally, women and girls are only allowed to speak if they are upholding male descriptions of reality and belief systems. Men don’t like hearing things that challenge their world view or even worse, oppose their domination and control of females. Any attempt to uphold an opinion or argument, to correct errors or lies, to assert or reclaim power or control over her own life are dangerous for a woman when dealing with men. Even the word ‘no’ can send men into a spiral of rage. We’re seeing frightening proof of male power and insanity these days among men pretending to be women. They are destroying the lives of countless women throughout the Western world for very logically and simply publicly speaking unassailable biological truths that males cannot be female. It defies understanding in what is supposed to be a ‘progressive’ world, but it is more proof positive that males are still male, no matter what they are feeling or wearing. And in all situations, it comes down to this: in the male mind, women’s words strip him of his perceived right to do whatever the fuck he wants to them. Often, women have no idea what they have said to inspire the insanity that inevitably results. But in truth, they have said nothing wrong and don’t deserve punishment.
Actions
A woman doesn’t even need to open her mouth to offend the fragile emotional state of a man. Males, even liberal males, believe they are owed deference and respect by all women and girls, although what this behaviour actually entails differs from male to male and from culture to culture. I’ve experienced male attacks numerous times for not acting correctly or being adequately submissive or deferential, although most of the time, I think I, and most women, are attacked because of the last two categories. Most women are too afraid to say or do ‘wrong’ things when it comes to males. The other two categories are passive in that you don’t even have to be aware of doing anything specific to be targeted for causing feelings of inadequacy in males.
An example of emasculating behaviour may include looking at a male with disgust or derision or fear. I think of the complaints of black males or of homeless men who get super pissed when women act like they are afraid of them. The women are attacked with accusations of racism or classism and the like. Of course. However, women should be allowed to be afraid of males for obvious reasons and without having to justify their behaviour. Every one of us is assaulted by a male at least once in our lives. But showing that justifiable fear, can for some men, take opportunities for power and control away from them. The retaliation can help reclaim this lost power. And male feelings are always more important than women’s human right to be and feel safe. And we are seeing similar backlash against women who have stood up to men trying to use women’s bathrooms and change rooms. I really believe that these men don’t truly believe they are women; they are just getting off on forcing women to accept having their boundaries and privacy and human rights destroyed. The utimate male power and control. And nothing a woman does to ‘inspire’ male insecurity and the inevitable backlash is wrong or deserving of punishment.
Reflecting
One of the objects men turn women into is that of a mirror. We exist to let men bask in their own reflections. The problem is that sometimes, men don’t like what they see looking back at them. Looking to a woman to validate them, in other words, doesn’t always work, epecially if she isn’t applauding enough, or smiling enough, or if the male in question isn’t feeling good enough about himself to believe the lie of his amazingness. He sometimes just looks at the woman and sees her completeness, which reflects back his own incompleteness as a male. He feels a loss of standing or power. It’s enough to inspire his rage at her. She has done nothing wrong and doesn’t deserve punishment.
Existing
Most men don’t even need an excuse to attack or punish women. All men are misogynists, even if they claim that they’re not, and all men benefit from misogyny, even if they don’t see how. Some men are more dangerous than others and may even believe that females deserve to be punished for existing or that the punishment is just the ‘suffering’ that seems to be part of what all major religions proscribe for females, and as males, they must do their part to enact their god’s plan. So for some men, it goes like this: see woman, feel the existential male insecurity, feel the rage burn, direct the rage to woman, enact the rage. Repeat ad nauseam.
In various times and places, we’ve seen men’s rights groups start up that seem to be fuelled by this notion that female existence is a threat to masculinity. Not that they want to get rid of women. First, masculinity would no longer be a thing, as it exists as a social construct only because there are two sexes. Likely, if women disappeared, men would still follow their biological wiring to dominate and control and create a caste system, with an underclass, among men (discussed in this post here). It wouldn’t be peaceful.
Black American men have an expression – walking while black – that actually is a much more appropriate, serious and pervasive thing for women and it exists on every inch of our planet instead of only in select areas of the US. Walking while a woman (WWW) can end up in your death, your rape, your beating, your sexual assault, your stalking, and more. And much of the time, these 3W experiences are the result of males feeling emasculated because of your existence, your presence, the way you are dressed, the way you do or don’t look at them – ANYTHING. What you do or don’t do doesn’t actually matter. You have no control over men’s feelings, but they project their anger and insecurity on you. You, as a woman, are responsible for everything wrong in their lives, and your very existence highlights their inadequacy and incompleteness.
Every single female on this planet has experienced this at least once, and usually thousands of times over her lifetime. We are used to it and most don’t even notice it. And many learn to deal with this constant threat by developing the skill to placate, to coddle, to make excuses for, to self-harm, to enable and to act as a ‘flying monkey’
Existing does not equate to doing something wrong and no female deserves punishment for being alive.
The Punishment
There is always punishment. I’m going to say one thing here, and I’m going to bet that most if not all women would agree if they were honest with themselves. With one or two extreme exceptions, I’ve never seen a woman act as batshit crazy as a man. I’ve never seen a woman overreact like a man does. I’ve never seen the kind of emotionality and rage in a woman that I’ve seen in so many men – and women actually have real reasons to be angry, and even burn-the-city-down rageful. Standard male behaviour is a sign of their sex-based immaturity, lack of control, irrationality, instability and insanity, and it is incomprehensible that males are allowed free reign in this world. They have projected their own flaws onto women, and then have used them as the ‘rational’ basis for keeping women out of all areas of public life and power. And I say this to men, if women truly behaved as you actually do and chose to act on injustices done to them by you, you’d all be dead, and by your standards, the homicides would be justifiable. Think of how men act when a woman denies him something. Then think about all the times men have denied women a human right. If we acted like men do, all males would be dead. Every. Single. One. But we are female. We are the mature ones, the controlled ones, the rational ones, the stable ones, and the sane ones. Males exist to punish and women exist to be punished. The punishments can entail anything that the creative male mind can conceive of, and in the Western world, women are even being sold the idea that being punished is sexy.
Conclusion and a Note on Male Privilege
The claim of emasculation is a statement of privilege. The sheer number of privileges and advantages that males have over females is astounding, especially when you consider that so many people believe that males and females are ‘equal’ now and some people even believe we live in some kind of ‘matriarchy’. It is even crazy to think that any other oppression can even compare to that of females by males. It partially explains why so many other oppressions are championed these days – there isn’t that much to fight, comparatively speaking. I strongly suggest that you have a look at this massive, but incomplete list of privileges that males enjoy. There are 79 of them – and I can add another one to make a round 80. The privilege to be praised for supporting feminism, or perhaps more succinctly, the privilege to own feminism. Women are attacked for pointing out misogyny, and even for devoting their lives to liberating women. The list I’ve provided (a pdf hosted on my site, but with an attribution to the ‘original’ poster) was compiled by a man and published on his popular and applauded ‘male feminist’ website (including linking to one of my articles outlining the hate that leftie atheist men have towards all women). All of the material was taken from or contributed by women and feminists, and all of these women have been criticized and attacked and worse for writing this material. And this male gets a big fucking round of applause for supporting feminism, even though he is just listing the work that WOMEN have done. Please stop sucking these men’s dicks. Please support women – the actual women doing the difficult work that helps us all.
So, a conclusion to the conclusion: male feelings of emasculation are not oppression. They are infantile and they are borne of misogyny. When a man feels emasculated, he believes you are taking away his millennia-long right to hurt, dominate, and control you as a member of sub-class female. You never need to be sorry for speaking, acting or existing.
This post is part of the Alphabet Series, and will also be included in the Conversations with Men series.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
O is for Other
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Don’t worry I’m not like other girls
From the song ‘Not Like Other Girls’ by Melbourne-based Bares (fronted by Ella Sterland) – released on their self-titled album in 2017.
I’m a cooler better version than what you have heard
About what women enjoy and what they like to commit to
I’m not like other girls because you treat them like shit
And I’m not about that..
Once in a while, I go back and read old posts. I like to see if and how my thinking has changed over the years and also whether I can include links to past articles in my new ones. I vaguely remembered as I was preparing the current article that I had written something about Other before, and lo and behold, in my first month of writing back in 2015, I posted something called Otherfucker, a sort of tongue-in-cheek proposition to rebrand, but with an alteration, one of our best-loved female slurs (popularized in my generation by good old Samuel L. Jackson in the movie, Pulp Fiction). Note that I’ve never tried out this new word, probably because, believe it or not, I very seldom use cuss words in the meat world, unless I’m swearing under my breath in reaction to something really bad or someone has actually assaulted me and I decide to let loose on them.
Anyhow, today in O is for Other, I plan to talk about the following:
- Women Defending Men – aka Not All MenTM or Not My NigelTM or some variation on Unicorns are Real!
- Men Defending Themselves – the scourge we know as ‘male feminists’
- Women Pandering to Men – or what online misogynists have labelled ‘pick-me girls’
- Men Manipulating Women – à la ‘you’re not like all the other girls’
- People Silencing Women – e.g., ‘at least you’re not a Muslim woman’ or ‘other people have it worse, so shut up’
- Men Depersonalizing Women – or creating an ‘other’ for the purpose of punishment
- Men Dehumanizing Women – the basis of patriarchy, capitalism and porn culture
One thing you’re going to notice about all of these categories is that every one of the people who fall within seems to have an aversion to dealing with reality. Men don’t like reality because it would require them to take responsibility for their crimes and other shitty behaviour. Women don’t like reality because they know they would look very stupid because of their decisions and they’d realize how much of their energy and lives they’d wasted on males who approach relationships very differently than women do. Just a note to the women, it is very good to self-analyze. It is okay to realize you’ve made a mistake (or mistakes!). The important thing is to admit them and learn from them. Then you can get better and go on to help other women do and be better.
So, let’s start with a definition.
In and of itself, ‘other’ is a neutral word. It just means different or distinct. But it can take on a negative connotation in its adjective form, but especially when it’s used as a verb. To ‘other’ someone means to view or treat a person or group of people as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself. Othering can serve to demonize certain people and groups as well as sanitize. One hard, fast rule, though, is that in this game, women always lose and men always win.
1. Women Defending Men. 99% of women are desperate to believe that men are redeemable. They birth males, they let males fuck their bodies, and by and large, women have marginally better relationships with fathers and father figures than they do with mothers. As a result, they are deeply invested in looking for Good MenTM. These men are not like other men – the convicted rapists, the sexist bosses, the gropers on buses and trains. The bar is very low when defining ‘good’. All a dude has to do is not get caught raping a woman to pass as a stellar example of manhood. I’d bet that the average wife or girlfriend would be shocked (and then would rebound with denial and fierce defence of Nigel) to find out what her owner actually thinks and does without her knowledge. In reality, Good Men are unicorns – they don’t exist. There is no ‘other’. There is just a spectrum of shit. The awfulness of the smell is therefore relative.
2. Men Defending Themselves. Lots of men, even gynocidal psychopaths, believe they are special and innocent. They are not like other men. Some of the most dishonest and repulsive these days are what we know as Male Feminists. These are leftie, human-rightsy males who are the strongest proponents of female sexual power. You know, the power to inspire boners! They organize slut marches. They march at the front of Take Back the Night rallies. They attend and dominate the discussions at feminist events and in online discussions. They are super great at leading women and telling women how to do feminism, and more importantly, what they’re doing wrong. And not that they explicitly demand it, but if women want to show their gratitude by sucking their dicks, they fully support them because they believe that women have the agency to do so. See? They’re amazing! Very un-self-serving and humble and feminist. But. Yes, there is a but (if you actually need one). If you are a real feminist and astutely question or challenge this male feminist, you are in for a treat. You will discover a viciousness and misogyny under the surface to rival any MRA or trannie. He will let you know that he is not like other men, and you are unfairly victimizing him by acting like a man-hating, angry, hairy, crazy lesbian. He might express sad-feelz at your total stupidity and/or the obvious trauma you’ve experienced and haven’t yet gotten over. Bottom line is: Support withdrawn, bitch!
3. Women Pandering to Men. Pick-me girls. This is a real phenomenon, but of course, the labelling and awareness of the phenomenon has been influenced by American television and social media. Women have, throughout history, pandered to men out of necessity. When half of the population has the power of life or death, comfort or poverty, safety or vulnerability over the other half, then pandering and many more degrading behaviours result on the part of the oppressed group. You can’t blame the panderers for starting the whole thing, but pick-me girls/women do deliberately sell out their sex for the approval of males, and are thus accountable for their behaviour, especially in a day and age when it isn’t necessary at all for survival. They make a public show of not adopting standard gendered behaviour (such as applying make-up, dressing in a feminine way, or acting like a sexy child, etc) while appearing to adopt the stereotypical, gendered behaviour of males (such as liking sports, being unemotional, and over-eating without concern for gaining weight), and thus are not like the ‘other’ girls. And they publicly point out this otherness to males to show how they are better. Ironically, they are just as woman-hating and dick-sucking as the women they denigrate. All women who pander to males or the male gaze exhibit internalized misogyny. It is possibly even more pathetic than when a female thinks she is doing something ’empowering’, such as wearing make-up, but is actually perpetuating misogyny. But in the end, they are two sides of the same coin that ends up in men’s pockets. There is so much self-hatred and psychological trauma fuelling this behaviour. And despite their sabotage of women, they just end up used and abused like any other ‘heterosexual’ female. One day, these women lose their special ‘other’ status because no woman can be better than all the others forever. It’s not the woman, but the man that decides when she has finally joined the masses.
4. Men Manipulating Women. This is the male counterpart of the ‘pick-me’ female duo. Men have a lot of weapons in their arsenal for use in manipulating, using and abusing women (see my post: That’s Some Arsenal You’ve Got There, Gentlemen). The relevant one here is that of bestowing the backhanded compliment of ‘otherness’ on a target. You’ve likely had a dude try this on you before. He’ll say something like, “You’re cool. You’re not a bitch like other girls.” So he pays you a compliment, but he is also insulting you at the same time. You don’t have to be young, naive or inexperienced to fall for this hardcore manipulation technique. Most people want to be appreciated and loved for some special quality. The problem is that the specialness that so many men point out in women is that they don’t act like women, but rather, more like men. (Geez, just go get a boyfriend already, you closeted omnisexuals…). So males will praise females for being accepting of porn use, being open to trying anal sex, or for being thin while also eating as much as a man. It is hyper-misogynistic, but the love-starved female will eat up these pseudo-love-bombs. Her internalized misogyny will be reinforced, and she’ll doubly commit herself to not stepping out of line (i.e., acting human, rather than… god forbid, female). What she doesn’t realize is that one day she will fail. She may question her sub-human status or make a demand on the relationship that doesn’t suit her owner. Or she may not actually do anything different at all. All that needs to happen is that the man gets tired of her. All he needs to do is manufacture a fault or just notice that she is human, rather than an object catering to his every wish. And she becomes just like all the other girls. Again, such a waste of a human life.
5. People Silencing Women. This one, I’ve written about before. These days, it manifests as racist misogyny, it is a form of othering for the purpose of scapegoating, censoring and cancelling, and it is predominantly done to white women. It is a standard reaction to the perception of a group of women getting too much attention. There is always backlash when women get too powerful in the eyes of men and their supporters. In reality, the actual power achieved has been negligible. White women have never had and still don’t have power, have never been equal, and have never been over-represented or even proportionately represented in any line of work, despite what people need to believe. And like all women, they have only had a voice when orbiting the privilege of a male through marriage or male family members or speaking about issues that concern anyone and everyone but themselves. Anyhow, like mentioned in previous posts, calling up a handy acceptable victim group, usually brown or black women, is the fastest way to shame and silence white feminists, even if they are poor or in desperate need of help for rape or violence victimization.
6. Men Depersonalizing Women. As a woman, have you ever noticed that we have limited choices for our ‘identities’ simply because they tend to be discrete boxes or categories that don’t seem quite natural? You often feel like you don’t fit what’s available, and the choices available, as it is, seem equally challenging or unappealing. And if you are a WGTOW – woman going your own way, eschewing categorization – you face serious hardship, unlike men who are worshipped for forging their own path when they do the exact same thing. Men put us in boxes for a reason. Power and control. To create ‘us’ and ‘them’ or ‘other’. And in addition, it is easier to other and dismiss and move on to dehumanization when you can lump a bunch of things/people together. A group has no identity, no face. Without a face, you don’t need to see them as like you. They are undeserving of sympathy or empathy. So it is easy to apply stereotypes and use them as weapons. Men can demarcate the rules and limits for each group. They can judge and punish when a member oversteps or errs. They can designate certain groups as scapegoats and blame them for the very things they themselves perpetrate. Men have done this to the class of women known as prostitutes since the ‘oldest profession’ was forced into being by men. No other class of women has been so used and abused as convenient blame targets for problems that men have created. And many heterosexual, married women have piled on over the centuries, blaming prostitutes for men’s abuses, despite their actual roles as women not being much different.
7. Men Dehumanizing Women. This is the basis of patriarchy in general, and capitalism and porn culture, specifically. Dehumanization is the removal of human status or qualities from an individual or group. Men are human. Women are ‘other’. Sub-human. Non-human. Object. No oppressed group has ever been more dehumanized than females. We see this in language with the sheer number of slurs heaped on women, which include reducing women to body parts, objects and animals. No oppressed group has ever experienced the range and amount of dehumanizing language that females have. And females are still the most slurred and dehumanized group on the planet today even though we focus on every group BUT women. It is so pervasive and normalized that no one even notices it, and women are shamed if they call attention to it. Women and girls even adopt the language of their own dehumanization, which reinforces continued male use. “If women accept it and use it, then it is a-okay! Carry on, boys!” We also see the dehumanization of females in the use of ‘she’ to describe tools and machines. Cars, boats, and aircraft are among the many inanimate objects that are called ‘she’. Men also, throughout time, have referred to the manipulating and using a woman’s body as if they are playing of a musical instrument.
It is only when women are ‘other’, completely dehumanized, that we can be commodified. Women’s bodies are for sale and for rent, and it is the foundation of capitalism. Without the dehumanization and commodification of women’s bodies, capitalism cannot exist. What is even worse, however, is that not only do males consider it ethical to buy or rent a woman’s body, but because she is a thing, they also don’t acknowledge her suffering. Objects don’t suffer; they exist to be used. When a man adopts that attitude, he can justify anything he does to the object as it is his for the period he has paid for.
And I’ll leave you all with this final thought. Otherness is perfectly fine and natural in a world where human complexity allows for individual and group differences. Strict, unthinking conformity is seldom a good thing. Problems only arise, when otherness is forced upon others for the purpose of cruelty or blame, or when you adopt it yourself in order to claim a special or uber-victim status and to manipulate or silence others. It’s all likely easier to navigate if we try to understand where our own personal human rights begin and end, and when they start to trample others’.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
M is for Mother
I’ve been avoiding finishing what has been a partially-written post for months, but I’ve been inspired to action thanks to an unsolicited advertisement reminding me to worship at the feet of the most sacrosanct patriarchy-perpetuating, girl-destroying women on the planet: mothers. In addition, I really want to cut this albatross loose, so today is the day I finish and publish. Plus, I really want to move on to some juicy P is for ___ posts in this Alphabet series. So, let’s get started.
Today, there is a small set of taboo topics that is considered ‘dangerous’ – so dangerous that bad things can and do happen to the speaker or writer. The topics in question concern realities – truths, if you will – both subjective and objective, both relevant. Highly observable and measurable, hard to deny, and universal across time and place. What, pray tell, are these dangerous topics? Unsurprisingly, they are those concerning women’s status as human beings and the role males play in preventing and/or controlling that status. When these topics are talked about honestly – and they seldom are as it is dangerous to do so – shit gets real very quickly. Males get scared and angry and aggressive for being named correctly as the predator class. The males issue threats and commit actual violence, and they rally support for the male sex class, often painting themselves as victims. As well, many females get scared and angry and defensive on behalf of males, but also themselves as enablers who keep the shit show going. Females issue verbal threats against female truth-tellers and provide unanimous support for whatever male violence ensues.
Much of what drives these illogical female reactions is that women are not supposed to speak about their reality unless they are parotting the male version of female reality. Women’s reality is what men say it is, and even then, women are not supposed to talk about it publicly, at least in an analytical or critical way. So when a female person decides to speak publicly about female reality in a ‘no bullshit’ or even slightly critical way, you are almost always hearing about information that has been, throughout history, censored, erased and denied. And the speaker and the information will be attacked relentlessly, with attempts made at further censorship, erasure, threats of violence and other (social, political, economic) punishment, real violence, outright denial and various means of discreditation and silencing, such as ‘crazifying’, making false accusations of some -ism or -phobia, and application of bullshit lables such as ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘man-hater’, etc. Only females as a class experience this, and the attacks are always gang bangs with a lot of fellow females joining in to quell their cognitive dissonance and to keep socially and financially benefiting from staying on the path of least resistance (aka sucking dick, literally or figuratively).
Also note that the more important the subject matter is to upholding patriarchy, the more dangerous it is to talk about it. My post today addresses one of these taboo topics and is probably one of the most ‘dangerous’ a woman can address. Its official title is Aiding and Abetting, but as I am including this as part of the Alphabet Series, it gets a second special title:
M is for Mother
Lest anyone start reading this and then deliberately miss the point by focusing on an imagined ‘tone’ problem – something that ALL women who talk about ‘dangerous’ topics are accused of (in addition to being crazy or bitter or ‘phobic’ or hairy man-hating dykes or prudes or fundies, etc.) – I’m going to state right here that there is no sarcasm going on. This isn’t an ‘attack’. There is no intended sneering, no condescending tone. It is straight talk. There may be positing or hypothesizing here and there, but this is not satire or parody or fun-poking or whatever genre of writing you want to explain it away as. It’s just an un-sugar-coated description of how things work. Note that the point of this post is not to blame mothers for all the problems in the world, which is how many readers might wish to interpret this. It is a critique of the system and the role or archetype of Mother that arises from that system that are so crucial to keeping men in a position of power and to keeping women and girls utterly destroyed inside and thus, controllable. It is also a criticism of how thoroughly women have embraced their subservient role and of the role they DO play in making sure our daughters stay shackled and victimized and accepting it without serious resistance. After men, mothers are the next biggest whiners about martyrdom and victimization and their unsung heroism of toeing the party line, so deliberate misinterpretation of what I say is expected.
Now, I don’t for a second believe that women cause the majority of the world’s problems – seriously, why the hell would women ever devise a system that oppresses and dehumanizes them??? – BUT they do allow problems to continue in various ways, and critique and criticism are therefore warranted and necessary. But, men are the problem and the chief beneficiaries of the system they run and the roles that come out of that system, period. This post, however, is neither about men nor about biological motherhood, but about the male-created role or archetype of Mother that women both willingly and unwillingly take on and groom their daughters for, and how these women, as a result, keep the cycle of female oppression in place and never-ending. The whole point of creating boxes for women and girls to live in is to control their behaviour, to ensure that this behaviour supports and perpetuates male freedom to control and brutalize, and to make it impossible for women and girls to discover their own true freedom and selves.
Also note that I’m not writing this preamble to apologize in advance – something ALL women are not only required to do when they speak publicly, especially about taboo topics, but are criticized for doing by those self-appointed analysts/critics of women’s ‘inferior’ speech tendencies. I apologize for nothing. Speaking about reality is not akin to doing something wrong – again, something all girls grow up learning in order to keep them silent and compliant as adults. So, if you start reading this and you find you can’t handle it, here is my suggestion. Move on. Go watch a cat video. Go suck a dick. Just don’t stay here and dare to think deeply about this timeless, universal and highly problematic issue. (Okay, there was a little sarcasm there, but it ends here.)
So, what was I saying? Oh yes, M is for Mother.
This truly is a massive topic, but I’m only going to cover the bits that are relevant to my thinking at this point in time and try to break this thinking down into the following categories that make it easier for your to follow.
- Motherhood: A Relationship, Not a Job
- The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Mother)
- Welcome to Shit Mountain: The Woman Hierarchy
- Martyrdom: The Blame Game vs. Responsibility
- Boy-Moms
- Mommy Dearest: Narcissistic Mothers
- The Future of Humanity: Redefining Motherhood
1. Motherhood: A Relationship, Not a Job
One of the major complaints that is getting more and more play among mothers these days is that motherhood is a ‘job’ and compensation should absolutely be required for said ‘job’. I find the whole discussion bizarre, to be honest, and for a few reasons. I want to comment on a) compensation and b) what ‘job’ means. I also want to discuss choice briefly.
a) First, by and large, mothers ARE compensated for being mothers. If you go the housewife/mother route, and you enter the heterosexual contract, then this is what you have agreed to: you exchange your domestic services, including childrearing, cleaning, cooking, and male ego-building, as well as lifelong access to your cunt for a home, food, clothing, entertainment and spending money, as well as protection services. I have never worked a job where I get accommodation, food, clothing, spending money and safety. If you are a mother and you are not getting these things, then you fucked up. You don’t have an understanding of the hetero contract and you fucked up. Sorry.
I would not have survived financially if I had not had a child.
Private conversation with a single mother in Canada (May, 2021) where she told me that her child was, essentially, her ‘meal ticket’ and her protection. She got subsidized housing, more nourishing food, financial assistance, and more – simply for being a single mother. For women, motherhood is the fastest and easiest way to stay alive. And men designed it to be this way.
There are also some societies – Canada is one of them – that will provide various compensation to mothers for doing nothing other than popping out a kid. The quote above comes from a much longer conversation I had with a single mother in Canada last year. I was stunned at everything she was given and that she had access to. She, of course, commented at how unfair it was to men that she got better quality food than everyone else, but she couldn’t see that the single, childless women living in poverty were the most vulnerable. During that same time period, I also briefly lived with a social worker who told me stories of lone women living in homeless ‘hotels’ run by the government where they would wake up in their beds mid-rape after homeless men had targeted them and broken into their rooms. Safe, subsidized housing NEVER goes to these ultra-vulnerable women. Sometimes, they end up in shelters with predatory trannies pretending to be women, as well.
b) It is a little off-putting when mothers see their role as a job. There are several things that distinguish motherhood from an actual job. First, for such a ‘skilled’ and life-or-death ‘job’, there are absolutely no standards required for candidates. Literally anyone can breed. There are no qualifications needed, no intelligence or skills required. No social skills. No references are demanded. No experience. No proof of competence. As a teacher, I’ve had to do multiple RCMP, fingerprinted criminal record checks to prove I’m not a child rapist or abuser. Mothers? Nope. Never. You also can’t be fired from being a mother. Very few children are ever taken from abusive mothers, especially the kinds of abuse that are just commonplace or that don’t involve broken bones. You can destroy a child from the inside out over the course of your lifetime, and never lose your ‘job’.
c) Finally, and on a related note, motherhood is a choice. In most parts of the world, and increasingly so in more and more places, there is no gun to a woman’s head. Women are allowed to earn their own money, even in strict, religious countries. Unlike jobs, motherhood is not required for survival, but it is certainly the easiest route to survival for a female if you don’t want to have to compete and suffer and truly work hard in the real world. Motherhood is a choice, it is a relationship, and it is a privilege that raises your status in society (among women). You bring a creature into the world without their consent, which means this is a completely selfish act. Acting like the child is forcing you to care for them is pure delusion, although this is a common way of thinking in places like China, where parents regularly make their children feel guilty for existing and taking up family resources.
2. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Mother)
Only if you define and break down the role of Mother in the patriarchal sense, can you understand why there are so many problems for women. Mothers complain endlessly that they are held up to impossible standards or that they are blamed for everything in society where children are concerned. Note that they don’t see breeding and serving men as the root of the problem, and if you can’t see the root of a problem, that problem can never be solved. When we talk of motherhood, we are not talking about biological motherhood, we are referring to the role or archetype that has been created as a category for women. Social categories or archetypes for women are lose-lose situations. No woman ever truly wins in a society where she doesn’t have the freedom to be fully human. When men define our roles, it is not for our benefit, even when they paint it as such. Let’s look at what being a ‘Good Mother means in male-dominated society.
You know we live in a male-controlled society because the expectations for men are much lower in all possible senses, if expectations or standards exist at all. Being a ‘Good Father’ is almost meaningless. At most, it means having a paying a job so that his property can eat. Fathers don’t have to talk to the kids, spend time with them, help them, nurture them, teach them, cook for them, or anything requiring time and attention. They just have to pay the bills. I’ve seldom seen men deemed ‘Bad Fathers’, even when they run out on the family, don’t provide money, or even abuse the children or wife/whore. But I’m not criticizing this as it’s pointless and a common pastime of hetero breeder women who aren’t really interested in fighting to change a shitty system. And this system has been in place since marriage was invented by men. To be a Good Mother, you have to possess a whole host of supposedly innate female characteristics and skills, including nurturing, cleaning, cooking, empathizing, worrying, nagging, being sweet, self-sacrificing, mamma-bear-fighting, advice-giving, being omniscient, forgiving. And I could go on. The thing is that if you list the entire host of skills and characteristics that make up a Good Mother, you’ll find a lot of contradictory stuff. And a lot of the characteristics and behaviours that Good Mothers are supposed to exhibit are exalted one minute and then criticized or made fun of the next minute. It’s designed that way for a very specific reason. Male dominance is about keeping women off-balance and insecure, always faced with catch-22’s and constantly questioning whether they are measuring up to impossible or contradictory standards.
Reality: if you get past the long and strange list of what mothers are supposed to be, there really are only a few requirements. a) Good Mothers breed sons and ensure they are made well aware of their male privilege from Day 1 (to be discussed more in the section on Boy-Moms), and b) Good Mothers break down their daughters psychologically and groom them to accept eventual heterosexual victimhood as rape-slaves (wives) and mothers. Bad mothers produce gay sons, or even worse, lesbians or asexual daughters who decide not to breed. No mother wants her daughter to hate men and she certainly won’t teach her daughter about rape and how self-respect and serving males don’t go together. (Delve more into the destruction of girls in G is for Girl.)
3. Welcome to Shit Mountain: The Woman Hierarchy
In our patriarchal world, hierarchy exists. Males are very much about domination, and you should hold suspect any male who claims he is an ‘equalist’ or any kind of communist, socialist or feminist. Men, despite what they say, don’t believe in equality between the sexes. They may believe that males can be equal or at least have the ability to rise above their station, but if you have the skill to really pin a man down with regard to what he truly believes, you’ll find that every one of them has caveats and conditions that prevent females from attaining and deserving the very freedoms he believes he, as a male, is entitled to. So, males and females exist on separate planes. I’m going to describe them in the following way. Men exist on a ladder. They can rise above their station, and they can also fall. Their hierarchy is based primarily on wealth/ownership. In the distant past, physical strength may have been more important in attaining power, but in these modern times, this is not the case at all. Power is all about ownership.
It is a different scene for females.
Picture, if you will, a massive shit heap. It stinks, it begs cleaning, but cleaning doesn’t work, the shit is not just stuff to clean, but also physical and sexual danger as well as poverty, and the contributors to the pile are mainly those who oppress you – males, whose ladder hangs above you out of reach – or women who are benefitting from the oppressor class slightly more than you are. All women live on the shit heap – a hierarchy that is based almost exclusively on sex – or in other words, how you use your vagina and uterus. The easiest way to climb shit mountain is to sell your vagina to a wealthy male and to pop out some kids. The air is a little fresher near the top, you are safer with more money, and you can shit on women beneath you and feel smug about it. The surest way to the bottom, where eventually you will realize you cannot move up at all (given that sex is tied to age for women) is a) not to have kids, and b) not to let men rape you with your consent (aka you’re a lez or asexual) in exchange for protection, a home and more buying power.
It should also be noted that those lower on the hierarchy always do more to support those above them, especially those who hurt them. Interestingly, we are always told the opposite. Rich males somehow provide jobs to those lower down. But think of this. Who pays for all the male criminals in prison, keeping rapists alive so they can go out and rape again? Women’s tax dollars go into keeping alive the men who instill fear in them. All men benefit from rape – men who don’t rape indiscriminantly are ‘good men’ and can also offer their protection racket to women who fear being raped, for example – so their tax dollars are an investment. Further, there is a disproportionate, and unreciprocated, amount of lesbian labour, threats to safety, and money put into heterosexual and breeding women’s issues, such as birth control, abortion, domestic violence shelters and more – issues that are seldom, if ever, an issue for these toiling women. Lesbians also devote a disproportionate and unreciprocated amount of time and money into gay men’s (and these days, tranny dudes’) issues. Again, the lower on the shit heap you sit, the more you support your oppressors and better-offs.
Conclusion: mothers do NOT sit at the bottom of the shit heap, despite their claims that they do. Following society’s rules gives you a leg up, not the opposite. If you are breeding and suffering as a result, you likely don’t understand how heterosexuality works and failed to play the game correctly. You may not be able to save yourself at this point, but you can make sure you save your daughter(s) from forced heterosexuality and some of the evils of the world. But you won’t. Of course.
4. Martyrdom: The Blame Game vs. Responsibility
All female archetypes or roles created by men are designed for a) usage/consumption, b) control, and c) convenient scapegoating and shaming and playing us off against each other. Despite what you may want to think, I am not a denier of the fact that men have tended to blame mothers for all sorts of shit throughout history. Males in the psychological domain have been some of the worst offenders. I’m a defender of the reality of psychological mechanisms and such, but I also don’t believe males have any business working in any of the ‘helping’ professions. Male help almost always ends up further damaging women who are already damaged thanks to men and their handmaidens.
Having said that, mothers do a shit load of damage in this world, especially to daughters, and they SHOULD be called out for their often complex roles in destroying girls and building up future rapists (sons). As mentioned earlier, very few females are qualified to parent children due to a lack of standards for the ‘job’ of motherhood. Our world acknowledges that there are many problem parents, but gasp in horror if you suggest that there are people who just shouldn’t breed. Just standard patriarchal thinking, where we protect those who should know better and punish the innocent who have no choice in the matter… And I verge on digressing.
I want to mention two things mothers SHOULD be called out for in the blame game. First, they are quite happy to take responsibility for the role they play in the successes of their children, but are magically innocent and ignorant when their child ends up as a failure, screw-up or, worse, a monster. It’s just not possible to have such selective effects on behaviour. Either take full responsibility, or take no responsibility or get a clue about the extent of your sphere of influence.
Second, mothers have always protested being blamed more than fathers are for things that happen to their children or how their children end up. At the same time, they use the argument that they are the primary care-givers in custody cases. The vast majority of the time, it is the mother who is present 100% (or significant percentage) of the time for the first 5 years of a child’s life – not the father. Many fathers spend little to no time with kids, and when they do spend time, it is often ‘fun stuff’, not care-giving. And women enter breeding relationships with this understanding – if they don’t, they are definitely not qualified to breed… If you are the primary influence, then you bear the brunt of the responsibility for the shit that happens to your kid. Period.
Bottom line: if you want to want to take on the role that can be one of life or death for a minor, then you also have to be willing to take responsibility for your fuck-ups. You can’t be an adult and refuse responsibility at the same time. Don’t play the martyr.
5. Boy-Moms
They have always sat at the top of the lady-hierarchy. Even though the most blatant girl hatred manifests differently now, son love is still a thing in all cultures. As mentioned above, it is the job of a Good Mother to make sure her sons walk the planet with a distinct and internalized sense of their deservedness and privilege as males. The boy-mom of today is an uber-enabler of their son(s). Like a good mother is supposed to do, she will love him unconditionally, and will even cover up his crimes, including the most grievous woman-hating of them. Mothers rally behind a rapist son, and will go so far as to attack or censor his female victims.
As much as these women make me ill, I have to admit a fascination with the truly fucked up psychology any woman who breeds a son must deal with. You have to do mental gymnastics to let a dude fuck your body, but to create and birth a son and to watch him inevitably go from innocent, sexless baby to what so many young lads turn into, and to make the endless excuses for him over the years? To me that is just endless mental trauma to constantly have to deny reality. I’ve talked to and watched tons of boy-moms deal with the shit that comes out of their sons’ mouths. Even in the last few months, I got to know a boy-mom whose 7-year-old was constantly displaying what I consider to be budding psychopathic tendencies. She showered him with kisses constantly, while at the same time not being able to explain why most of what he talked about was hurting and/or killing people. Personally, the kid gave me the creeps, not just as someone who used to work in forensics and personality disorders, but as a woman with her eyes wide open and with no emotional or biological ties to this mini-monster-boy-child.
Advice: I’ve said this in the past and I’ll say it again. At the end of the day, boy-moms are no friends to women. They are more trauma-bonded to males than any other group of women, and when push comes to shove, they will destroy any innocent woman or girl who threatens the privilege of their son, even if that son is a killer and rapist. These women also tend to be worse to daughters when there is also a son in the picture. I’m speaking from experience, and I’ve heard enough personal anecdotes to give credence to the theory.
6. Mommy Dearest: Narcissistic Mothers:
Most of why I so wish women had freedom from forced heterosexuality and forced breeding is because of the young female victims that result. Girls are relentlessly conditioned from birth to hate themselves, and by extension, all females. So how can an adult female with a lifetime of such abuse possibly be an adequate mother to a girl? I mean, as explained above, this is part of playing the patriarchal role of Good Mother. Your job is to destroy your girls so that they make good, subservient, heterosexual victims and breeders in adulthood.
The average, ‘normal’ mother is dangerous to daughters. But what happens when your mother has Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)? These women will abuse boys, but they will absolutely destroy their daughters, psychologically. I experienced this, myself. And unfortunately, my father was co-dependent with narcissistic tendencies and a mental health professional, on top of that. It was a bad situation to grow up in (understatement!) and I went No Contact at the age of 20 (!), so let’s just say I understand manipulation and abuse on an expert level, and have a bit of a saviour complex when it comes to girls with abusive parents, especially mothers. Breeding just wasn’t even an option for me – can you imagine how selfish you’d have to be to potentially put a child at risk after growing up abused and also potentially exposing that child to abusive family members? You have to stop cycles like these.
Narcissistic mothers are often children of narcissistic parents. The thing about personality disorders is that while we may be born with certain traits, our environments can certainly make things so much worse. It isn’t a cut and dry nature-nurture situation.
Konstantin: “And your mother?…? …? No, Villanelle.”
Villanelle: “She deserved it.”
Konstantin: “Of course she deserved it. Everyone’s mother deserves it. But you’re not supposed to do it. You were supposed to grow up and realize she isn’t actually evil. She is just insane.
From the series, ‘Killing Eve’. Conversation following Villanelle’s return from Russia after killing her abusive, NPD mother.
If you are female and believe your mother was/is NPD, I have a great link in my sidebar to a site called Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers. It was recommended to me years ago by a fellow traumatized woman, and it helped me a great deal. You can spend most of your life feeling like you are insane or imagining things in this horrible and bizarre parental situation. You’ve stopped telling people because no one will ever believe that your mother is abusive – mothers are more likely to be lionized and defended than blamed, despite what mothers say. And it is really hard to describe narcissistic abuse to people who have never experienced it before. You do end up sounding like there is something wrong with you.
7. The Future of Humanity: Redefining Motherhood
I am a staunch anti-natalist. I don’t support human breeding. I don’t believe it is possible for humans to continue on a positive trajectory as long as males exist, as I don’t believe women can be free if males exist. I don’t believe males can redeem themselves, and women exist as male-defined social constructs. Things aren’t getting better socially, politically, demographically, environmentally, economically, and they won’t.
I like to spend time thinking about three human scenarios that seem positive to me and that most people find scary, mostly because most people are self-centred and human-centric and are often infected with male-created religious values, which are anti-life (ironically, given what they say they believe in).
a) VHEM – the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. This is based on the idea that humans are a failed experiment of sorts. More males than females sign on to this ideology, which makes sense to me, as women tend to buy into male-defined roles, and thus cannot develop identities outside of being sex objects. The idea of not breeding, like men have told us we must since time began, strips so many women of their identity, sadly. Anyhow, male believers in this ideology typically and erroneously like to share blame for the state of the world with women. Myself, I acknowledge that males have created overpopulation and all the shit that has resulted from that. I have no problem with humans just stopping and giving the world over to the remaing creatures who absolutely are able to control their populations simply because they don’t have the ‘intelligence’ to fuck with the system. Human intelligence in the hands of men means that male irrationality reigns and we live unnaturally.
b) A New Model of Motherhood. If we were to continue the human race, one option is to eliminate males, put breeding firmly in the domain of women, who after recovering from slavery, would rediscover their natural biophilia. Multiple options would exist to continue the species. Parthenogenisis or use of artifical wombs coupled with a female model of population replacement rather than the male model of out-of-control growth would allow humans to downsize to a small unobtrusive population, replenish and maintain healthy resource levels, and remove biological child ownership from the mix and surrounding all children with multiple sources of love and learning. Humans can live more like similar mammal species instead of necrophilic zombots.
c) Hybridization. I’m a big fan of human transformation. Male elimination, as in the previous category, is a given and is necessary for healthy evolution, and the best traits of humanity could be blended with say, plants. Plants are incredible and responsible breeders, and I’d be perfectly keen seeing how other human systems, such as communication, would be improved and simplified with a different kind of connectedness such as use of a plantesque root system.
Conclusion
There is so much more that could be said on this topic, but I’ll end here with the following. I would truly love to see what humanity could and would look like if women could live completely separate from or without the existence of males. Nothing but horrors have resulted from male domination, and the world is certainly not thriving because of it. Our accomplishments are not true accomplishments, especially when held up against the widespread suffering of all species. I would love to see motherhood defined differently, or not at all. I would certainly love to see women and girls free from being forced to define themselves in terms of their uteri and vaginas. Queer theory does not address this problem by erasing women as a category. The problem is not having female body parts, but the fact that we are oppressed by males because of them.
If you want to be part of the solution, don’t breed (if you haven’t done so yet). Support girls unconditionally and believe them and believe in them. Stay away from male-identified, toxic females if you can. And don’t devote your time, money and energy to males if that is possible for you. And finally, remember that we women exist publicly, and often privately, in male-defined categories. It’s best, but hardest, to fight against this categorization. Remember that almost all women you meet gave in a long time ago. Hold them responsible for their actions, but not for the creation of these limiting boxes.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Addendum
For those who would like a wonderfully done audio version of this post, please head to Radical Ramblings’ Youtube channel.
L is for Lies
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Women lie about their age; men lie about
their incomeeverything else.William FeatherStory Ending
I know, I cited myself, and that is tacky as hell. But I’ll give the cop-out that it isn’t a full-on self-quote, but rather, an improvement on something dumb that some dumb man said. Even so, the improvement isn’t quite accurate either. I actually believe that women lie quite a bit more and are more accomplished liars than men do and are. Does that sound sexist? Don’t worry, I’ll get into it. What I’ve said is more a comment on who holds the power in this world and the role that psychological survival mechanisms play in the power game rather than any kind of attempt to tar and feather women.
As you may have deduced, today’s sweet little topic – the next in the Alphabet Series – is L is for Lies.
I considered other L-possibilities, of course. I felt rather hellbent on L is for Liberated! (complete with an exclamation point) for a while, and it is a topic that is worthy of discussion if you’re interested in how the women’s liberation movement gradually devolved into the mess that is male-centred, (L is for) liberal feminism, today. L is also for lesbians, which I’ve talked about here and there already, labels, love (see my Love = Hate Series), and language (and who controls it). But for some reason, lies rang true for me when I really thought about it. I’m not sure whether it was Annie Lennox’s “Would I Lie to You” popping up randomly on my playlist or accidently running into sexist, racist, nails-on-chalkboard-voiced Chris Rock’s comment on lying and sex differences. But I knew I’d met my topic du jour.
So let’s dig down into societal prevarication and get down to the reality that is life.
I’ve often felt that the world men have created is like a house of cards. It is fragile, susceptible to attack, like a card house, which necessitates a shitload of ammunition in the form of literal violence and anti-woman language, and an even bigger shitload of lies as protection or mortar to prop the whole damned thing up. [See my post on Censorship (truth-blocking and lies of omission, essentially) to get a sense of how dictatorships stay in place.] Question the lies and the physical and linguistic violence kicks in.
The system of lies is so well constructed that women are often the most active in keeping it going, believing it (or pretending to) and policing the behaviour of other women and girls, especially their daughters. They have the most to gain from demolishing societal lies, and thus the barriers are high in fighting against them. It is easier to believe, follow and perpetuate. And it is for this reason that I say that women are the most adept liars and lie most frequently. It is not that they are natural liars, it’s that lying is a survival mechanism that men don’t need. Men lie, and all women are aware of it, but because men hold all the power, they can lie unconvincingly and get away with it as there really aren’t any consequences. Telling the truth or failing to accept lies can have dire consequences for women and girls.
Now interestingly, research confirms this: women lie more than men. But they don’t really tell us why this might be, and that’s where I come in. What they also tell us is that men are twice as likely as women to believe that they are good liars (typical male overconfidence that you see with every ability they self-assess on). They are also much more likely to tell self-serving lies (to get laid, sympathy, money, etc). Women are supposed to be more likely to lie on behalf of others. But I would bet you a million golden feminist turds that women are more likely to lie for MALES (especially sons, male family members and male friends) than for females, and in this way, the lies are self-serving. Serving the master gets them handmaiden benefits or simply allows them a better chance at survival. In the same way, I would bet my riches that women are more likely to believe a male’s lies than a woman’s, and both males and females are more likely to believe a male’s lies than a woman’s truths.
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance a special type of lying, common in all humans, but necessary for women who choose not to question patriarchy. It is basically the situation where a person is faced with evidence that they hold contradictory beliefs or they behave in a way that conflicts with their beliefs. The cognitive dissonance is the discomfort, guilt or shame one feels upon realizing there is conflict or a contradiction. Dealing with the discomfort can lead to all sorts of fun behaviour, including rationalizing or covering up the discrepancy – essentially lying to oneself and others. The thing is that many women don’t realize they have conflicting beliefs and behaviours. This is especially true of most women who call themselves ‘feminists’. The vast majority of ‘feminists’ say they support women, but then centre males in their feminism. Liberal feminists have managed (in their minds) to get around potential discomfort, say, by pretending that tranny-dudes are women, when in fact, they know that it is NOT possible to change sex (note that they know damn well that we can’t change race, but magically sex is mutable???), and especially by attacking women who speak the truth. Focusing blame on truth-tellers removes the discomfort of their own conflicting beliefs and behaviours.
But seriously, the vast majority of women live with their heads in the sand and make willing and practised ignorance an essential part of their existence so as not to experience cognitive dissonance. I’d bet more of my valuable feminist turds that the women who are the most antagonistic towards other women are the ones who do actually experience finger-wagging dissonance. The antagonism is a defense mechanism and a way to relieve themselves of the discomfort of realized inethicality. Keep that in mind when some patriarchal henchwoman attacks you for speaking truth about men.
Let’s take a look at my take on the top 10 lies that women believe (or pretend to believe). Note that unless willingly ignorant, women who believe these lies will experience cognitive dissonance and will react accordingly in some woman-hating way.
10. Sacrifice is a virtue. But strangely, only for females, and women who adopt this thinking spend a lot of time pressuring and criticizing other females for not sacrificing their humanity, time, identities, careers and sanity for males and children. It is a mark of a truly miserable person to pick at others’ behaviour, while cherry-picking the elements of their own lives to highlight. These folks are often massive hypocrites, and when aware of it, they end up shifting focus onto other women’s ‘selfishness’.
9. It is better to be with a man than to be alone. This is the pathetic dirge of the so-called femcel, the anti-lesbian (and anti-woman), the weak, and/or the traditional. Now that I’m back in a traditional country, I’m hearing a lot of educated late-20-somethings wax on about needing to get married. I always ask ‘why’, as that is my favourite question in the world, and passionlessly, they monotone about not wanting to be alone or musing that they should have some kids. And of course, we need to attach ourselves to a penis if we want a brat. A pile of lies here. At least none of these traditional women goes on about ‘love’ and the lie that men can love women in a way that is different from loving a tool or a sport. The lie of male love is predominant in non-traditional cultures.
8. God/Goddess exists and has a plan for us. One of the (many) major criticisms that men have of women is that they are more likely to believe in a religion than men are. It is seen as a weakness of mind rather than a symptom of colonization or slavery, which is what any system based on lies depends on. There are many things that explain how religion takes hold in the mind of a person and why that person might not overcome their early brainwashing in catechism. Level of intelligence, amount of education, and training in science are only a few of the explanations. Poverty, desperate circumstances, poor health, and the threat of community/family ex-communication are also major factors. Given that women are more threatened and susceptible to violence and poverty in this world, and that they are still the only colonized people who haven’t fought back against their oppression in a major and organized way, it makes sense that systems of lies and illogic become ways to rationalize their oppression. Religion provides a framework for women to make sense of why they are put into the shitty positions they find themselves in, as well as constant reminders of the punishments they will suffer for breaking the rules of their ‘justified’ oppression. Males just aren’t oppressed like women are, so they don’t need to take comfort in irrationality. Men tend to take religion seriously when it gives them moral carte blanche to go to war or to hurt women (another kind of satisfying war).
7. Women are biologically wired to seek out and enjoy subservience, abuse and other sexy mistreatment. This lie is becoming more and more common in Western cultures (and perhaps Japan and other First World countries), and I see it as another attempt at backlash from men against women seeking to free themselves. Previously underground and alternative lifestyles that were seen as deviancy or perversions are becoming ‘cool’ and mainstream. I’ve spent time online in research mode in BDSM communities, and I’ve had the most bizarre conversations with men trying to convince me that not only is female slavery fun and sexy and natural, but that it is actually the slave that has all the power rather than the Dom. At first, I thought these guys were putting me on. I mean, it sounded so scripted and unbelievable, like the dialogue in a typical porn film. I’d laugh my ass off at these incredibly obvious lies, but over time, I came to realize that it was much more sinister, and so many women were falling for it, strangely and pathetically. And it reinforced to me that men are really terrible liars, and they don’t have to be good because only the weak and powerless have to be skilled, so as not to get killed.
6. There is a ‘good one’ out there… somewhere. This lie is hilarious, and I think women tell themselves this in order to hold out hope that the Prince Charming of childhood fairytales exists. It is such a commonly held belief, and it is probably gaining strength thanks to the Cult of Positivity and adherents of “The Secret” and other deluded types who think that the universe will deliver your deepest wishes and make your lies come true if you just put it out there. Note that one women reach adulthood, the bar for ‘a good one’ is set very, very low, and it gets lower as she gets older and more desperate. It has to be. I mean, can you imagine men having to meet the standards that women and girls have to live up to in order just to be ‘average’? I’ve never met a woman who claims she has one of the ‘good ones’ describe him in a way that convinces me that he is anything special. Half the time, women are lying about the feats of amazingness of said male, and are withholding details about the shit he does the other 99% of the time. Not only is it a lie that there is a good one out there, but women have to continue lying to themselves once they have procured the amazing specimen in order to avoid dealing with their cognitive dissonance-related discomfort.
5. Motherhood is a job. I’m going to try to restrain myself as I have a separate post devoted to mothers. I just want to say here that motherhood is not a job, but a RELATIONSHIP that is chosen. Motherhood is rewarded by society and women are already compensated by male partners, despite women claiming that they are not. If you are smart enough to have the kid with a male master who actually has money and resources, you will be compensated well for your services. At the very least, you get a free place to live, food on the table, a clothing allowance, and entertainment funds. For the wealthier, you won’t even have to do anything except fuck in return for your payment because less fortunate women will be rented to take care of your offspring. If you don’t understand the game, then you have probably married a poor dude or a complete loser in some other way, and you really shouldn’t be complaining to the world about how your poor choices or your ignorance about how heterosexuality works are somehow society’s fault or responsibility. Let’s just say that complaining that you should be paid by society for choosing to bring a completely helpless and dependent creature into the world is ridiculous. Unlike with a real job, in the filial relationship that is motherhood, you can be stupid, unlettered, incompetent, lazy, and reference-free, and you can’t be fired even after you inevitably abuse your daughter and release another rapey boy into the world. Women who work actual jobs live under the constant threat of being fired, even when they are at the top of their field and especially when they are threatening to male egos in the workplace.
4. Killing a pedophile, rapist or woman-killer doesn’t solve anything and is morally wrong. You just sink to their level. First, eliminating a rapist or femicidal man can in no way be equated to raping or killing women because of male privilege. To sink to that level, you’d have to have some kind of power over a group – for women, that would be children or animals, perhaps – and then to sexually assault them (women cannot physically rape – rape is solely a male crime) and/or to kill them for no reason except that they are children or animals. And women generally don’t do that kind of shit. Rather, killing predators of females – which all species of creatures EXCEPT HUMAN FEMALES are allowed to do and actually do – solves a few important things, including removing a dangerous monster from the streets and preventing more innocent females from being destroyed by said monster. I think these two reasons alone more than justify execution. You don’t, however, solve the problem of general, biologically wired, malicious male violence. To fix that, you have to remove the entire male sex to allow women and girls the peace and safety they deserve. The morality argument? Yeah, I love this. It’s better for an innocent female to be raped or killed than it is for a male monster to be eliminated. While males came up with this illogic, many women wholeheartedly support the idea that a male monster has more value than a female victim. More females than males take to the streets to keep a rapist alive and certainly more people rally to support a rapist than a rape victim. Again, the mark of the colonized and enslaved in service to those who control them.
3. Males can be educated out of raping. This is what ‘logically’ follows #4. You can’t kill the fuckers because it is morally wrong, so we just need to teach them not to hurt us. If we just educate men enough, they’ll see the error in their ways. But wait, haven’t we been doing this already and we know it doesn’t work? Well, I guess despite thousands of years of males raping and killing females and women begging males not to do it, women just haven’t found the right way to get the message across. So either we haven’t found the exact right way to access the tiny learning centre in the male brain, or…. MALES ARE BIOLOGICALLY WIRED TO RAPE AND DESTROY WOMEN. It’s not the G.D. porn! Rape has been going on forever and internet porn? – a blip on the human timeline. I mean get real. Some problems in the logic department for that one.
2. Women lie about rape. A lie about lying. Fun times. Statistics actually tell us that for all crime, including rape, the rate of false reporting is about the same – quite low (I think it is around 2%, if I remember correctly.) I’d actually bet you more of my sweet ass golden feminist turds that the rate for falsely reporting rape is lower than that for other crimes as there is no stigma or victim persecution for crimes that men experience too. Truthfully reporting rape hurts you further, and this phenomenon occurs because rape is the only crime that happens ONLY TO WOMEN AND GIRLS. The victim of a murder is not blamed for being murdered. The victim of a carjacking is not blamed for being carjacked. The victim of a pickpocketing is not blamed for being victimized. All women and girls are blamed for being raped. They are also disbelieved. So, why would you falsely report knowing that you will be persecuted and disbelieved, and knowing that in past cases when women have reported real rapes, their rapists have seldom seen courtrooms and are rarely convicted. Let’s put it this way: a woman is much more likely to deny being raped or to frame the assaults as consensual than to make up a fictitious story about being raped. If you are wondering how you can help women and girls in this world, start with this one thing: always believe them when they speak out about being raped.
1 Heterosexuality and feminism are compatible. Yeah, I said it. The biggest and most accepted lie on the planet. If you’re fucking dudes, your so-called feminism is compromised. No other oppressed group on the planet actively seeks out intimate emotional, financial and biological ties with their oppressor. Heterosexuality is the only oppression on the planet that keeps males in power, and if women said ‘no’ en masse, male dominance would crumble, althought I suspect they wouldn’t go down without a fight that would likely destroy the planet altogether. So to avoid this harsh reality, women embrace a complex web of lies about their needs and wants and purpose, with the cherry on top being that all of this subservience is the source of woman-power.
Attempts to shine a light on female oppression usually don’t name the problem in its entirety, and end up subverted anyway. For example, in all countries that bother to pretend to care about women’s history month, it is usually either a month of silence or more concerned with racism or trannyism than misogyny. And it very seldom addresses uncomfortable truths or addresses the slavery aspects of women’s history or the slavery of women is taught to us as a romantic or patriotic or ‘natural’ thing. This is not how other groups are taught about their oppression, and it is because women are still colonized, still enslaved, still groomed from birth to serve and submit, and as a result, they still say yes to, make sacrifices for, and compromise with the oppressor – men. Imagine, if you will, that black Americans had said that they would continue to work the fields for white males, as long as they could have better accommodation and, I don’t know, sick days. Do you think they would have achieved as much as they have by continuing to accept most of the trappings of slavery, but making minor superficial demands? Of course not. Yet women think they can get somewhere significant or different while continuing to serve the very people who have oppressed them and continuing to participate in the very system that has always enslaved them (marriage, hetero child ownership models, etc). Arguing for minor concessions or for more slavery dressed up as liberation also doesn’t achieve anything. I think it’s like slamming your hand in a door repeatedly and then complaining that you keep breaking your fingers. Why would you expect different results? Remove your hand from the door jamb. Basic logic.
Conclusion
In short, lies are what make the world go round. They are what keep men in power and women continuing to suffer and then complaining about it in willing ignorance. Face the truth. It might be painful at first, but there will be so much less tragedy and agony in the long run.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
K is for (Mr.) Kaplan
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Greetings one and all. Did I not promise a post sometime in the month following the last one? Well, I’m delivering. Kaboom! To be honest, I am writing this to take a break from the massive amount of work that I’m currently immersed in. Writing is relaxing to me. Teaching is not. So, I’ll do a little segue here before launching into my main topic.
After years of teaching university in the poorly paid, Chinese public education system, and after a pandemic-inspired, lengthy, unemployed period that was awesome for my physical health, but not great for the soul or pocketbook, I managed to land a job in a high school back on the Asian continent. Now, I haven’t taught high school in over a decade and there is definitely a reason for that… But the world has been closed, jobs have been nearly impossible to get, and Canada is one hell of an expensive place to live when you are a deliberately single female – and especially one without children and the myriad financial benefits that go with that. So, after hundreds of applications and then being dicked around by a few potential employers and then again by several abusive online companies looking to pay experienced, educated teachers $5.00 an hour, I felt lucky to land a job at all. I felt lucky even though anything below university level is usually a nightmare simply because outside the Western world, teachers actually have to work harder than the average worker, and certainly harder than any Western teacher. I’m talking 6 teaching days a week, including evenings and Saturdays, and then all the prep and homework/test grading that always ends up leaking over into most of your Sunday.
But here I am. It’s not all bad. I think the hardest part is being a seriously introverted (although feigning extroversion) person forced to be ‘on’ and interacting with people for hours and hours and hours at a time. A true introvert may actually like people, but their energy comes from non-social sources and they can be seriously depleted and weakened with prolonged interaction. Introverts forced to deal with extroverts may come away feeling ‘vampired’. Energy-sucked. (I made the mistake of spending 8 hours with a major extrovert who was a straight breeder, male apologist, and BLM-supporter on top of that, this past spring. I had to spend much of the next day in bed recovering, I felt so horrible.) So let’s just say, that after a week-and-a-half of classes and being forced to spend my non-classroom hours in a teachers’ room used by 60 teachers, but that only seats 25, I’m feeling like absolute shit, energy-wise. But it’s a job, right…?
Back to the topic at hand, though. The next post in the Alphabet Series. Interestingly, and not planned in any way, I could have used my newly adopted region as my K-word, but I don’t know enough about the place yet to write anything truly interesting. Maybe in the future if I ever get time out of what feels like a new cage…
But for today, K is for (Mr.) Kaplan.
I considered a few uninspiring options before settling on the great topic of Mr. Kaplan. Who could forget ‘Karen’ – a racist, sexist, ageist slur and silencing term used against middle-aged white women who dare speak out about anything, including their own rapes. I’ll refer you to RadFemSpiraling who does this topic justice in a way that I haven’t and who, in my opinion, is the de facto leader of the unofficial celebratory Karen Klub. Rock on. K is also obviously for kill, something men like to do to women often after raping them or just because they are throwing a mantrum and can’t handle their own blatant obsolescence. K is for kink, now mainstream rather than an ‘alternative lifestyle’, and used as a weapon to shame women into consenting to sexual abuse, torture, and rape by men so as not to appear boring, prudish or a goddamn lesbian of the non-man-fucking variety (!) K is for kindness, one of the new obnoxious, finger-wagging words used by the Cult of Positivity to shame women into accepting abuse by men and their bitches and into keeping their mouths shut to prevent their ‘toxic negativity’ (aka truth-telling) from spoiling the illusion that everything is hunky dory in the world. K is also for knowledge – the barring of the accumulation of which is a cornerstone of slavery – prevent education and slaves don’t realize they’re slaves. Finally, k is for kitchen, as in “get back in the”.
But let’s get to Mr. Kaplan.
Many of you may be wondering who the hell this is, and may have noted that this is one of the rare times that I’ve written about a person using their name. Mr. Kaplan is, despite the honorific, a woman, and she’s entirely fictional. She, in and of herself, isn’t that important, and it doesn’t really matter whether you know who she is or where she comes from. It is what she represents that is important here. She’s a supporting character on a way-too-long-running American television show.
She’s fictional. She’s in her 60’s. She is neither especially masculine nor feminine, and is what society would call ‘plain’. And she is a lesbian. One of the few on television, and certainly one of the very, very few who is over the age of acceptable fuckability. In fact, there are so few older lesbians portrayed on television that there isn’t even a stereotype for what they should look like.
Mr. Kaplan, aka Kathryn ‘Kate’ Nemec, played by the spectacular Susan Blommaert, is the highlight of, and dare I say, the only reason to watch a series called The Blacklist. In a nutshell, James Spader (the lead actor) plays an international criminal who turns himself into the FBI to get close to a young and silly female agent for unknown reasons in exchange for helping to catch major international criminals. It’s not the most interesting of premises, and I feel like we’ve seen this theme before many times. Mr. Kaplan is the Spader character’s ‘cleaner’, and we get to know her gradually over the four seasons that she is allowed to exist, including how she came to adopt the nickname ‘Mr. Kaplan’ and how she came to be forced into the employ of the Spader character. In my opinion, if you feel you need to watch the show, you can stop when she is killed off; there wasn’t much to stick around for after that.
As you may have guessed, I don’t actually recommend The Blacklist. It is a misogynistic vanity production – James Spader is not only the lead character, but also one of the Executive Producers, which may explain why such a show managed to stick around for 10 excruciating seasons. I’ve read male commentary on the show and found it hilarious and typical how ‘versatile’ they think Spader is as an actor. In reality, he’s pretty 2-dimensional. Since his youth, he has continuously played weird and aggressive, often psychopathic, males with some sort of inexplicable sex appeal. Whatever looks he may have once had disappeared long ago, but he still embarrassingly tries – unsuccessfully, I might add – to pull it off in his older years. Even in one of his last major television roles as the narcissistic psychopathic CEO of Dunder Mifflin for a season of The Office, he was almost a carbon copy character of what he does on The Blacklist. It’s a role he does well, but it is only because he’s a bit of a one trick pony despite the undeserved kudos males give him. And it is actually rather easy and natural for males to play narcissists and psychopaths for obvious reasons, and I don’t credit male actors with much talent when they manage to pull off a convincing bad guy. Anyhow, The Blacklist exists to give the flagging Spader a platform to monologue endlessly, especially about unbelievable sexual exploits and to give cameo appearances to other ugly old male actors with waning careers. It also helps that the female lead is not only poorly written – a standard post-year-2000 stupid smart girl who gives an abusive male 1001 chances to stop abusing her – but she is also sadly played by a rather untalented actress, Megan Boone, who spends more time striking a pose than delivering convincing lines. But for men to shine as actors, they must surround themselves with greater mediocrity than their own and prevent the real talent from showing up. Boone makes Spader look good, relatively speaking.
To get back to Mr. Kaplan, she does have a major flaw, and I blame this on male and straight female writers. She has this bizarre devotion to other people’s children. Despite being medically trained with graduate degrees, ability in multiple languages, talent and intelligence, she devotes her life to being a nanny and subordinate of glorified housewives and tantalizing, slutty, bad girl-mommies who order her around and treat her like shit. I guess this is supposed to sit better with the ignorant, lesbian-hating, American viewing public. If you must have a lesbian character at all, and especially one who isn’t young or hot, then you absolutely must make her obsessed with children as the poor dear clearly laments not being born a straight breeder – a true woman.
But despite this flaw, Mr. Kaplan’s final season as a live character is worth watching as she finally grows a pair of ovaries and takes her revenge on the Spader character for his years of bullshit. But even that comes to an acceptable end in the eyes of the American public when the male-powers-that-be decide she has to be killed off for being too interesting and multi-dimensional. Seriously, she is infinitely more interesting than the Spader character, and we couldn’t have that now, could we…? Curiously, the creators of the show initially wanted Mr. Kaplan to be played by a man. But I guess men can’t play nannies… unless it is supposed to be a joke. And this character wasn’t created for comic relief. Nevertheless, I can’t even imagine Kaplan as a male now – they did such a surprisingly good job of casting Blommaert in the role. Really, she was the only really interesting thing about the series.
So I conclude with this: Will the portrayal of an existing and significant, but largely deliberately ignored segment of the population open the door to more lesbian characters, especially of the non-stereotypical variety? Probably not – at least not in the way that gay males and even male trannies have been embraced by television writers. But perhaps slowly, over the next thousand years, if we still have television and haven’t completely destroyed the planet and our couch potato lives, we’ll have a few more interesting lesbian characters to follow.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
J is for Joke
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Well, jumpin’ Jehoshaphat, I nearly lost my head there for a mo’. I had started writing my K-post, and then luckily realized early enough that I wasn’t yet finished writing my jeremiad – my J-post.
Anyhow, I blame it on the very recent, record-breaking heat wave we’ve had here in BC. I was living in a tiny, windowless room with debateable ‘ventilation’ from a pipe that supposedly brought in air from outdoors during a week of 40+°C (104°F for Imperial types) – it was a fucking oven, and my brain cooked. I hate Canada and the capitalism that operates under ‘socialism’ here. Money-grubbing and liveable conditions don’t go together. Anyhow (to nip a new jeremiad in the bud), welcome to the Alphabet Series, and today, J is for Joke.
Before I jump in, I did consider a few other J-words before settling on Joke. J is for justice (briefly considered in part of the last post I is for Innocence, where we find out by and for whom exactly the justice system is designed – and it ain’t women); joy (wait for my upcoming book, The Joy of Man-Hating!), judgement (or judgment if you’re American, although no matter how you spell it, all girls and women know this word and the whole ‘screwed no matter which of the equally shitty options I choose’ situation very well! If I feminize, I’m judged; if I don’t feminize, I’m judged. Ad infinitum.) J is also for… jism or jizz, which I wish I knew nothing about – one of those slang words of unknown origin, but which originally meant ‘energy’ back in 1842. Sadly, there is a Bollywood movie called ‘Jism’, which is apparently an erotic thriller, and I have no intention of seeing it, as much as I find the elaborate dancing scenes of Bollywood film to be entertaining and oddly come-join-innable.
I am not going to delve into the content of male humour too much in this post. Rather, I want to get into the ‘just a joke’ mechanism that men use as a get-out-of-jail-free card when they deliberately offend, intimidate, and/or threaten women, especially in public or the workplace. Don’t be fooled by the feigned ignorance and innocence that they pull following your negative reaction to their words or behaviour. All males know exactly what they are doing when they target women for abuse. If a woman dares to call out a male for some misogynistic comment or gesture, or blatant hate speech, he’ll just whip out the whole ‘Jeez, why are you so sensitive? Can’t you take a joke?’ stance. The woman always ends up looking stupid or crazy or troublesome, and can even be blacklisted in workplaces because she is being antagonistic or unstable or unprofessional. Most women will, as per their lifelong training, laugh along with the rape and cheap ho’ jokes, and the feminazi will find herself alone and ostracized.
This ‘just a joke’ mechanism works similarly to alcohol, and to a lesser extent, drug intoxication, where you see men-under-the-influence avoid responsibility for rapes and other sexual assaults they commit. You see, there is a whole series of safeguards built into our patriarchal social and workplace cultures that allow males to push boundaries and shift responsibility for their aggression, persecution and outright crimes onto their victims if they are caught. It’s psychological warfare, and it is effective in dividing and destroying women.
Having said that, what I really want to get at today is another aspect of male jokery. I want to use an example to demonstrate that even when males and females face, what on the surface, looks to be a similar issue, it is usually a much more serious problem for the females. And males, comparatively unthreatened, although possibly a little bothered or inconvenienced, will treat the issue as a joke. They’ll even go so far as to criticize women for taking the issue too seriously, and to turn women’s reactions to the problem themselves as an additional joke.
There are a million and one examples to choose from, but I’ll focus on one that comes from an article published earlier this year (in 2021) by The Right Scoop, an established conservative political and media news blog based in my own country, and that skates just below the edge of general acceptability for reliability and bias according to the Media Bias Chart put out by Ad Fontes Media. As a sidenote, I read all sorts of stuff, liberal, conservative, weird, wonderful, and truly fucked. You have to get out of your comfort zone if you have any hope of having something to write about. I’m not male, you see, so I don’t enjoy circle jerks 😉
I have a copy of the article and some of the comments you can access here on my site. If you want to see all the comments, google the magazine name and “gay campground” and that should get you where you need to go. I try not to link to sites like that directly for obvious reasons.
The basic points of the article – and it is basically a re-quoting of a Queerty article sandwiched by two tiny, original paragraphs – are a) to point out a ‘problem’ – that a small group of trans men (aka women who pretend they are men) got pissy for being banned from a gay-male-only campground, b) to criticize liberals and liberal politicking, and c) to make fun of the constantly devolving LGBXYZ community.
The comments following the article are, as often is the case, just as illustrative as the article, but perhaps from another angle. My link provides enough of the comments to get the point across, but if you love comments sections, google and head on over to the original article to get ’em all.
What you’ll notice from the Queerty article is that the gay male perspective on the trannie issue, while on the surface or without consideration might seem to be a general homosexual problem, isn’t. Gay men are not women and the issues they face with ‘trans men’ (again, aka women) are not the same as what lesbians face with ‘trans women’ (aka men). Gay males generally don’t take trans males seriously – I mean, they are women, and gay males don’t take any women seriously. We are jokes or usable objects, as it is. And women don’t pose a threat to men, on the whole. What the gay dudes see as the main problem is that a gay campground is going to be sex-oriented (big surprise, eh?) and they only want to see dick – REAL DICK – flopping about here and there. They don’t want to see pussy and they definitely don’t want some frankensteinesque frank and beans in their faces. Seriously, man! Come on! Men have problems! And this one is big and hard (or not…?)
The comments, mostly, but not only, by conservative men, turn the whole thing into a joke, even bringing in hilarious comments about lesbians and males in women’s spaces. Complete ignorance about what trans means to women, especially lesbians. There is the requisite reference to feminazis, and a few more rational comments about the gay community not being what it once was, sadly. But the general air is that this is a laughable issue.
Now, for women, trans identified males are a different matter. Lesbians and gay men do share one thing – forcing them to uphold ‘inclusivity’ is an infringement of their rights and freedoms as minorities. I don’t have a problem with closed groups, minority or not. This isn’t the same thing as preventing women from being in the workforce or paying women less than men (wait, that STILL is an issue – and we’re quibbling over the hurt feelings of trans banned from social groups!!!??? Jezus christ.) But that is where the similarities between gay and lesbian problems end. Women, lesbians in particular, have to deal with males who are trans-identified, and we don’t need reminding that no matter what a dude is wearing, he still has the inbuilt, violent, woman-hating, rapey, impulsivity and dominance problem. Tranny males are still super aggressive and scary fuckers. They also go tranny for different reasons than women do, and a lot of it for the males is sexually-motivated entitlement and perversion and mental illness and wanting to dominate. Their approach to penetrating women’s groups has been through aggression, threats, and outright violence. Trans men have not been beating up gay men or raining terror down on them. Trans women have been hurting and threatening and erasing women, however. We know from data, that their rates of violence mirror that of non-tranny men, despite any hormones they take or brain differences that they say they have.
So bottom line here is that like every shared problem that males and females may have, for women, there is always an extra threat of violence and danger, physically and sexually. And that is simply because males, regardless of whatever disadvantages they may have are all still members of the master class, the predator class, the weaponized class, the rapist class. And females are ALL members of the oppressed class, the colonized class, the prey class, the raped class – a dynamic that has existed since human time began. And you can apply this to anything – women are always more at risk than men. Homelessness – more of a threat to women. Death of a spouse in a traditional het relationship – more of a threat to women. Travelling alone. Surviving a natural disaster. Living in a warzone. Speaking out in public. All of these situations are much more threatening for females because of lack of social, political, economic and legal resources. And because of rape and the threat of rape. Yet, despite the fact that on some level, every person knows this is true, when women face problems, they are often joked about. Even acknowledged dangers and risks and possible outcomes become jokes. Rape is a joke. Even when not specifically talking about a political or social issue, rape and sexual violence against women are a source of yuks and bonding for men.
Some women may write off the joking in the same way that they write off men’s ogling and wandering eyes. They ‘need it’ or ‘they can’t help it’ or ‘they are oppressed’ or ‘they are visual people’ or ‘they cover up emotion and insecurity with jocularity’, or whatever fuckery they come up with to justify maintaining their cosy trauma bonds with oppressors. But it is because of this enabling coupled with what I would say is the predator’s natural inability to empathize, that women’s ‘issues’ will never be taken seriously, will remain a source of joke material and will continue to invalidate a class of people. I mean really, what could be funnier than watching a woman’s overreaction when you jump out at her and scare the shit out of her? When you don’t live with a physical and sexual threat hanging over you 24/7, like all females do, how could you not see their crazy reactions as laugh-worthy? If it doesn’t affect you, then it is funny. If it doesn’t affect you in a way that will hurt you physically, sexually, legally, or financially, then it is downright hilarious.
♀️ 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. ⚢
H is for Hate
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Holy hell, time flies when you’re not having fun! I swear, I didn’t mean for nearly 2 months to go by before writing another post. I had a topic chosen and everything. Really! But I find time is moving strangely during this neverending pandemic. Likely, many of you are discovering strange feelings and experiences are entering your small viral bubble world, and you probably feel you don’t have much control over…, well, much at all. You are not alone, even if you feel you are.
But while later than planned, I am here now with the next post in the Alphabet Series.
H is for Hate
I was going to choose helplessness at first, and it is probably a good post topic for another time, but I was inspired by a post I read back at the end of March, written by a more mainstream, academic type of ‘feminist’ on the topic of whether hate crimes and hate speech apply to women as a class, and who decided by the end of her post that while women experience sex-based issues (she seemed almost loathe to call what women experience ‘hate’), the legal system is not the way to deal with it. The legal system works for all the other hates, but it would just create more problems for women (or more likely, she meant for men) than it could even begin to solve. And we can figure out why this might be true – a) crimes and ‘lesser’ harms done to women are constant, committed by most (if not all) males, and against most (if not all) females. I mean, seriously, every single male would go to jail for some period of time in his life if we actually had justice for women and girls. And let’s face it, there would be a shit ton of brainwashed fembots out there protesting holding men accountable for their crimes against women… But it tickles me to imagine males actually justifiably (i.e., being held accountable) living with a fraction of the fear that females unfairly (i.e., simply being born female) live with. And secondly, b) most women ‘consent’ to fucked up, convoluted and demeaning relationships with males. It is impossible to police woman-hate when women seem, on the surface, to say yes to so much of what is done to them.
Now, did this mainstreamer suggest what might work? No, of course not! She works for a university and is a white woman (a dangerous status today), so taking anything other than a milquetoast stance on women’s issues isn’t possible in this age of group-selective Western censorship. There was the obligatory hint that education might be the way to go… And I think it was at this point that I realized that my topic was going to be Hate, specifically woman-hate. You just CANNOT educate males out of raping, out of their innate violent natures, out of doing everything possible to make sure that females lose in every aspect of life and in every corner of the world. Myself, I am a nature-AND-nurture theorist when it comes to human problems, and I believe that to choose either one alone to explain our human world is just plain silly, and even ignorant. But, I regularly read different kinds of self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ who do take these irrational essentialist stances for several reasons, only one of which seems to be that I end up with plenty of stuff to write about. And if you’re wondering about the woman in question, I won’t name her as she is fairly typical of most liberal-leaning feminists out there, although more educated and articulate than the average one, and besides, I don’t believe in publicly shitting on women unless they are doing something really evil and need to be taken down. And even then, I am decidedly not an activist, but rather a writer and navel-gazer and educator. I write to add a perspective, rather than to try, futilely, to change the world.
But back to hell. I mean Hate. There was a nice assortment of h-words I could have chosen for this post. Like I said, helplessness was a tempting choice and you may see it in the future. As well, H is for honesty, hope, hetero/homosexuality, housewifery (definitely want to write about that sometime), homelessness, his/herstory, harmony (key concepts in places like China, but also with the Cult of Positivity crowd — “Why can’t we all just get along, waaaah…?!!?”), and harm. And there are tons more.
Now, if you’ve read further on this blog, you’ll possibly be aware that I already have an ongoing series called Love = Hate. Hate, in general, is a massive topic. It is the prime current (coupled with greed) that runs through and guides the course of all male-dominated societies (basically, every society on earth since the beginning of time), but that is often called love, justice, fear, retribution, morality, the natural order – everything but hate. But as this is a woman-centric blog, my focus is on woman-hate or misogyny. So I’ll stick this post in there in addition to here in the Alphabet Series.
My plan here is to address a couple of the thoughts I came across in the article on hate, or rather non-hate, where it concerns women. And I’ll try to reach a conclusion or at least a suggestion, where the other author couldn’t bother.
Domestic Violence Ruins Progress on Woman-Hate Issues
I’m going to re-word this as I certainly don’t think women deserve violence from males. Ever. But I do take issue with female’s willing ignorance when it comes to putting trust in males. We are swimming in evidence that males hurt females constantly, and that proximity to males vastly increases the probability that a woman or girl will be raped, physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, and/or killed. We know that at least 25% of hetero-partnered women experience severe physical violence at the hands of their loving male partner. But despite knowing this, mothers still groom their daughters for heterosexuality and for relationships where although they will probably live an economically better life and be vastly more protected from other males than women who don’t partner with men, they will have to endure some form of misogyny, including manipulative and consensual rape, in exchange. This is the heterosexual contract, and we all know this in our lizard brains, even if we refuse to acknowledge or accept it. In the situation where domestic violence happens and a woman manages to escape it, many will still jump back in the dating pool with this delusion that there is a ‘good one’ out there waiting for her. It is pure insanity, especially in places where women can freely choose to support themselves financially instead of being forced to exchange rape for a home and food. But it is a psychologically complex issue. And even in more progressive places, it hasn’t been all that long for women to have had this choice. Change in thinking takes time especially when traditional thinking and behaviour are always more rewarded.
So, if you boil it down to a single basic truth, heterosexuality is the problem. Go with males, and you are asking for trouble, and will ensure that the system never changes for ALL women and girls. So I’ll reword my header of his section to “heterosexuality ruins progress on woman-hate issues”. Until women reject heterosexual relationships with males, progress on addressing actual hate crimes against women, which I would argue MUST, for the time being, exclude crimes committed within a consensual relationship, will go nowhere. The fact that women consent to male abuse (and this is learned at an early age due to grooming for abuse by mothers, fathers, entertainment, schools, social institutions, etc) is the number one roadblock in sussing out what is going on in any reported hate crime against a female. If you look at all other groups who experience hate crimes, not a one of them is groomed from birth to consent to abuse from or seek abusive sexual relationships with members of oppressive groups. It is because of this that I believe that heterosexuality is morally wrong, irrational from a female perspective, unnecessary for human existence and the continuance of the species, anti-progress, intellectually, for the human species, and inherently violent and destructive to over half the population of the world. And of course, as I’ve said many times before, no one is born heterosexual, so this is a circumstance that absolutely doesn’t need to exist. If we stopped forcing girls into heterosexuality, male violence wouldn’t be the guiding force of human existence. But of course, preventing this is another matter altogether and adult females would fight tooth and nail against stopping the harm of their daughters, likely on the basis that isn’t fair to deny pussy to males.
Woman-Hate Isn’t Really ‘Hate’
One point the author danced around is the idea that all of the currently protected groups under hate crime legislation experience real hate whereas women experience, not hate, but the effects of male entitlement. The reasoning is this. The motivation for persecuting racial or religious groups (and even gays/lesbians) is to eradicate them, whereas males see a use for females, so don’t want them dead, but rather, subservient. So, I call bullshit here. In the history of the world, more women have died at the hands of males than specific racial or religious groups have at the hands of their oppressors. Currently, more women and girls die each week because of men and because they are female, than all persecuted groups combined in any given week. The woman writing is British, so if you look at how many non-whites are killed by whites due to racism in the UK every week, I think there is no comparison with femicide. And I think we’d find the same situation if comparing the prevalence of other lesser hate crimes, such as harassment. There have been what I’ll call ‘episodes’ or blips on the long timeline of human existence, where one group has tried to eradicate another group. There is nothing close to the comparitively short Nazi eugenics program for Jews today – in fact, they are generally, a very wealthy and powerful group now, and frequently show themselves to be effective oppressors of other groups, including women and children. My other favourite go-to oppressed group, American blacks were never targets for eradication. They were seen as a resource to be used and abused – kind of like how men have used women in the past and still do today. So the definition of hate as the desire to obliterate in total doesn’t work. Not all accepted hate targets are targets for elimination, and on the flip side, many males actually do want women to die.
I’d also argue, as I have in several past posts, that most, if not all, oppressions stem from woman hate, the reasoning being that males covet the vaginas and uteri of the females of their tribe, and any group (racial, ethnic or religious) that threatens these possessions and the bloodlines of their group are attacked. So males don’t want males from other groups raping or stealing their women and knocking them up, so they do what they can to take away the power of those ‘others’. So all racism is based in misogyny. Pretty simple to understand. With gays and lesbians, it is still woman-hate that fuels homophobia. Men are supposed to rape and possess women (instead of being penetrated like a woman), so gay dudes are a problem. Women are supposed to be raped and possessed by males, so lesbians are a problem as they are way too goddamned free and how dare they reject those who are superior to them? So how can groups that are persecuted on the basis of woman hate experience legitimate hate, while women are not truly hated?
Solutions?
Now, I agree with the author when she says that the legal system does not solve societal problems. The legal system was designed by men, for men. I think it can help racial groups and any group with males in it. And given what has happened, legally, to validate the trans, we know that male trannies are still male, no matter what the hell they’re wearing or what is going on in their Y-chromosome-filled brains. And it is for this reason that the law will not end problems specific to women. Women are not men, so the system doesn’t work for them. Males cannot conceive of being held universally accountable for their actions, even though they may throw a paltry few under the bus to keep up the appearance of ‘justice’.
But if you don’t advocate for the legal rights for women, and your only suggestion is education, which hasn’t produced any results in the millennia that women have been pleading with, and reasoning with, and educating males not to hurt them, then what hope is there?
Well, personally, I don’t think anything is going to change for women until they reject heterosexuality en masse, and that is NEVER going to happen. So my solutions are based on pure fantasy, meaning that they will never happen in the West or any place that pays lip service to human rights. Males would never allow women to take their power away, and there are too many handmaidens working against female liberation, human rights and dignity already to ever achieve a critical female opposition to changing the legal or social systems.
I don’t believe in system change, as I said, so any solution I would ever come up with would be grass roots or individually- or small-underground-group-run. I do, personally, like the idea of vigilantes working on behalf of wronged women. In Canada, our native people’s have some legal traditions for dealing with conflict in their communities, so why can’t women go further and develop their own justice system to deal with sex-based crimes? In my opinion, if a system doesn’t work for women, then they are justified in taking matters into their own hands. Males have done this many times in the past. Why can’t women? It can be organized, or it can operate more on a vigilante or extra-system level.
The Gulabi Gang founded by Sampat Pal in India is one of my favourite women’s vigilante groups. It started out very grassroots and individual – an single woman’s natural and justified response to a situation involving an abusive husband, and it has grown into a network of over 400,000 women. Women supporting women, armed with sticks and chasing down and beating the shit out of rapists. Not only would that never be allowed in the West, but I can’t even imagine Western women getting their thinking past the utter unfairness to men of giving them a taste of their own medicine. As an update, sadly, I found out that some of the Gang took issue with Sampat Pal over how she was running things, and turned on her, beating her with the very sticks meant for men, and she eventually got kicked out of her own organization. I think back to what I said in my last G post about women needing a few generations to heal before they could ever create their own high-functioning, woman-centric society.
Oh, and one last note, as no doubt someone is wondering why I haven’t talked about ‘misandry’, which is the current whiny accusation of Western males in response to feminism. Misandry – unjustified and pathological hatred of men – isn’t a thing. Males are oppressors and hate women reflexively for no rational reason. When women hate males, it is in response to the oppression and violence done by said males. It is therefore justified, not illogical or pathological or bigotry. This purported prejudice against males that is gaining traction in both testerical incel and liberal circles as something that must be addressed because of the increasing number of ‘poor suffering males’ doesn’t exist. The lies men tell are flimsy, but widely believed, and I’ll address this in my L is for Lies post. We all seem to like to believe males’ crocodile tears. But never fear, males are still on top, doing whatever the fuck they want, and they laugh, if they even notice at all, as women and girls suffer.
Again, this is part of the Alphabet Series as well as the Love = Hate Series
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
G is for Girl
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
I’ve been hemming and hawing for days now over which of my select g-words to choose for the next post of the Alphabet Series. But it was settled for me this morning as I was walking down a relatively empty downtown street and noticed a series of posters serving as advertisements for a convenience store. Each poster featured a larger-than-life head and torso shot of an individual consuming one of those disgusting slushie (crushed ice and flavoured sugar water and various chemicals) drinks. Different ages and races, and males/females were represented. And here is what stood out for me. There was a single poster that had been mutilated, and it was the only poster featuring a young white girl. All the other posters were intact – no non-white females of any age were mutilated and no males of any race or age were touched.
There is something about posters that gives them a sort of dog-whistle-like ability – a silent beacon, if you will – to attract the less intelligent and more passive aggressive of society. And it isn’t anti-capitalism activists who heed the call – it is assholes and the stupid. For some reason, they see a poster and the drive to destroy kicks in. Is it funny? Is it a safer and more accessible outlet than hurting actual people? Who the hell knows. I’ve never felt the call to vandalize. But I do notice the results. No blind eye turned here! I notice poster content first, and then I look for the requisite mutilation and, most importantly, who the targets are. Here is what I’ve noticed over many years.
- Females are targeted for mutilation most of the time.
- Males are seldom targets – even the poor Oppressed Black Male TM is seldom mutilated. (Could it be that black male lives matter more than women and girls’ lives…?)
- White female poster characters are more likely to be mutilated than non-white females. [An aside: White females are also more likely to be sexualized/pornified in posters – and I’ve seen this in non-Western countries as well as Western. And the more capitalistic the place is, the worse the white female sexploitation there is. I’ve documented a tiny sliver of the public portrayal of white females, including posterized females, in a few posts listed in my White Girl series.]
Now the big question here is whether girls are mutilated more than adult females… And so we get to the larger topic here.
G is for Girl.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to break out into song with Madonna’s “What It Feels Like for a Girl”. Super dumb song with super dumb lyrics – I mean, really, can you take seriously anything said by a straight (or whatever the hell she is calling herself today), super-pornified, proud sex-pozzie that has capitalized immensely off of peddling sexy, sexy slutdom to impressionable young girls? From birth, for the last few decades, girls have been bombarded by:
- mixed messages from adult women about womanhood,
- grooming for enthusiastic sexual servitude by adult women (see this post here as one small example if you don’t believe me, and be prepared to be creeped out and saddened), and
- evidence of the complete inability of adult women to understand the actual and more serious root (aka male domination) of whatever minor oppression they complain about when not actively engaged in sucking a dick.
And to make things much worse, these influential, ignorant and mindfucking adult women are, first and foremost, the very mothers of these little girls. Confusion or what! This is what it feels like for a girl – at least in Western cultures. No wonder there are so many bloody identity and confidence problems here. We’re all supposed to grow up to be honourable, sexual, innocent, slutty, compassionate, fierce, subservient, empowered, sexy bitches (don’t forget the bitches!!!) What an incongruent mix of incomprehensible, archetypal bullshit! Welcome to being a girl in the Wild West.
Anyhow, before I dive in in a more organized way, I’ll just say that I considered other g-words for this post, including: G is for gaslighting (one of the most important tools in a narcissist’s toolbox, and something ALL females experience), g-spot (it’s not the 1990’s anymore, so we don’t need to talk it about ever again, right?), gang rape, grief, gynocentrism (which I consider to be real feminism and of course, it is much criticized and), god/goddess (why is replacing an imaginary male with an imaginary female an improvement, btw??? Please join reality, ladies. Please.), and grooming (which I’ll talk about in this post).
And of course, the g-word that I wish I could garrote, then swing at with a machete and then hack at with an axe, and then finally shoot in the face 10,000 times just to make sure it’s dead: <<< G is for Gender >>> Some might have thought I would have chosen that one to focus on – it is extraordinarily relevant to female slavery, after all. But I’ve commented on it a lot in many past posts, especially those dealing with the trans cult. All that needs to be said is this: gender is a social construct designed to force females into the inferiority box and keep males running the show, violently with impunity; biological sex is an immutable fact and there are only two of them (sexes) contrary to the delusions of the psychotic (trannies) and liberal child-abusers. These are non-negotiable terms with long-established real meanings. And trying to reverse their meanings (which has been hugely successful – evidence that trannyism is an anti-woman movement) just smacks of a complete lack of intelligence and is embarrassingly and unacceptably anti-science in this day and age.
Anyhow, today, G is for Girl.
I’m going to be very careful here not to delve too deeply into mothers and motherhood or the process of brainwashing / grooming because the former is going to be my M-word in this series, and the latter is going to be the subject of an upcoming separate series and, to me, a fascinating subject. But I’ll touch on them because they are both crucial in completely breaking down and then reconstructing girls into the scary robot-monsters that 99% of adult women are today. As a disclaimer, I am a partially blackpilled feminist-type, and while I do believe males and females are born with different stuff that makes it easier for one to violently dominate and get away with his behaviour and the other to be dominated and to accept her fate relatively unchallenged, I also believe that sociological and psychological processes play a significant role in making sure things don’t change on a systematic level. They are interdependent. But unlike adherents of either camp, I believe that women can escape aspects of their biology and ALL of their socialization. You seldom see it happen though, because it will be an uphill battle with NO support. But it is possible.
Okay, let’s dive in. Keep in mind that I am writing from a Canadian perspective, so in your part of the world, you may see differences. But the thing that is similar for girls around the world is that they are treated as less than boys EVERYWHERE, and will be brainwashed to remain and accept being less in preparation for adulthood.
Let’s Get Real, So-Called Activists
There is no segment of the population anywhere in the world more vulnerable, abused, neglected, unprotected, and un-advocated for than girls. And by girls, (christ, I shouldn’t have to define this… but I realize science or logic or critical thinking aren’t cool or hip these days…) I mean XX-chromosomed (aka ‘female’) humans under the age of 18. Not ‘sissy boys’ who like wearing nail polish and masturbating while trying on their mother’s clothes. Not grown-ass men with mental health and sexual perversion and violence problems. Not even females 18 years of age or over. I don’t care about people’s self-developed or enforced identities that contradict biological facts. Thinking you are a donkey doesn’t turn you into a donkey (although, you may make a credible ass…), if you catch my drift.
Born to Submit and Whore
Girls have things stacked against them even before they are born. If you think about sex-selective abortion, a female is more likely to be scraped or sucked out than a male. And note here that I am not lamenting that abortion occurs – I am an anti-natalist – I just have a problem with the incomprehensible belief that males have more value than females… but I guess if you like weapons… If you look at Wikipedia, they say abortion is “most common where male children are valued over female children”. I laughed for a bit – clearly this was written by a male or cock proxy. There is no place on earth where male children aren’t valued over female children. So let’s reword Scrotalpedia’s error: it’s “most common where either a one-child policy exists or where the resources available to maintain familial dependents are severely limited”. Because let’s face it – if any ‘advanced’ or ‘rich’ country suddenly had a one-child policy forced upon it, guess what would happen??? Exactly. Female fetus abortion and female infanticide would suddenly be a thing.
The sexualization and genderization of females also begins before birth. First off, no matter how open-minded parents think they are, I guarantee you that almost all parents have expectations that their girl-child will grow up to be a nice little heterosexual breeding machine. She’ll go to school, meet a boy, get married, maybe have a job that doesn’t upstage the husband, and will have baybees. Most parents will have no problem with the idea that their daughter’s career will be put aside, maybe permanently. She’ll also take care of her parents when they get old. There will be some variations on the theme depending on where the girl grows up, whether religion is present in the house, and how traditional the family is. But no matter how free-thinking, no parents envision a life for their daughter separate from males, and they certainly don’t wish for lesbianism or a child-free life.
Parents who know they are having a girl child will often decorate baby rooms with cutesy shit and pink everything (or whatever colour that represents femininity and softness and sweetness in their culture), and fantasize about all the little dresses and bullshit they’ll put their sweet girl in. After birth, all people will say is how ‘beautiful’ the girl baby is. Boys will be allowed other compliments and predictions about his future success. But hey, guess what? All baybees, male and female, look pretty much the same for the first couple of years – guess why they colour-code the clothing… so they can tell which ones are girls and treat them accordingly – as future fuckholes – and will start planning her cutesy girl life with a focus on fashion and appropriate (feminine) extracurricular activities. All the toys will involve dolls and fashion and maybe cooking/cleaning/care-taking activities, regardless of what natural proclivities or talents the young girl shows. A few parents might consider ‘gender neutral’ toys, but by and large, there is still always a massive amount of unconscious parental grooming and socializing of the girl. She also almost always has heterosexual parents who model male domination styles, even if they don’t think they are doing so. There is no such thing as an ‘equal’ heterosexual partnership, so the messaging that is sent to girl children in a thousand and one ways is that mother does X and father does Y, with X always being the shit end of the stick. As I’ve said before, I plan to talk about hetero-female brainwashing in a separate series, so I won’t get into all the psychological mindfuckery parents inflict upon their daughters here. Suffice it to say that almost all parents successfully prepare their daughters to be future, unquestioning, pliant victims of men and male-dominated society. And the sad thing is that under the child-ownership, family unit model of raising children, many girls grow up with emotional, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse (much more prevalent for girls than boys) and no way of either reporting it or escaping it.
School, Teachers, and Other People’s Monsters
Parents get a good start on destroying their girls, but then the latter have to enter society in the form of school. And it is here where even girls with a relatively good start, family-wise, really get broken down. At the age of 12, in Canada, only a third of girls say they have self-confidence, and suicide is the third most common cause of death. By the age of 15-16, the percentage of self-confident girls drops to 14%, and suicide is the second leading cause of death. School-aged girls in Canada are 3 times as likely to be medicated for depression and related issues than boys, are hospitalized more than boys for ‘mental health reasons’, are self-harming in unseen-before numbers, and are twice as likely as boys to be cyberbullied. Sexual assaults of girls are common, but the numbers are hard to get a grasp on. Girls are NOT taught about sexual assault or harassment either at home or at school as a rule. They are also not believed if they are brave enough to report inappropriate behaviours or full on assaults. Girls are frequently punished for fighting back against boys who attack them, especially if they trounce the predator in question, and especially if a boy-mom gets involved in what will end up being a career of defending her son’s future rape and assault charges. And the social repercussions of reporting can be devastating as females are almost always blamed for what boys and men do to them. So it’s a no-win situation. Basically, they are fucked no matter what happens. They are punished first through the assault itself regardless of whether anyone finds out. Then, if it becomes known, they are punished for supposedly ‘causing’ the assault, they are punished for fighting back (especially if they win), and they are punished for daring to cause a fuss. I strongly suspect that as trannies are more embraced in schools and trannyism becomes part of the liberal educational curriculum, sexual assaults of girls by ‘trans girls’ (aka boys) will skyrocket. The interesting thing is that despite the constant violence and intimidation of girls, they still do better academically than boys. I am a long-time educator in multiple countries, and I’ve written about male student inadequacy before. The thing that bites here is that despite girls’ clear superiority, their childhood brainwashing, the continuous violence and intimidation they experience in school, and the universal societal hatred of females that manifests on every level of the system ensures that female competence won’t pay off, females won’t fight it, and that incompetent males will always be undeservedly rewarded and supported by everyone.
Myself, I remember being beat up by a group of boys for the first time when I was 5, my first sexual assault by a boy occurred when I was 6, and then it is a blur of being punched in the stomach, being punched in the pudendum, punched in the tit, and countless other violations by boy students over the years. We are always told that when boys do these things, it means they like us. So we learn early on that being female and being loved are about suffering and violence. If you don’t accept it, there is something wrong with you and you are going to end up unwanted and alone. If you were abused at home as a girl, this is an additional threat, as love was always conditional upon you accepting the abuse there, too. And if you got ‘loved’ it was always accompanied by suffering.
I had at least two male pedophile teachers. My grade 6 teacher (I was 11) was very touchy with me and other girl students, and there were endless sexual comments, bra snapping, prejudice and more throughout years of public school. Not once did I ever say anything to anyone. Not about the male students. Not about the teachers. So how can we estimate the prevalence of the breaking down of girl students through sex-specific violence and intimidation when even an above-average student won’t speak up? We know early on that we are in no way protected. Home isn’t always safe, school is seldom safe, and once you hit adulthood, you are fully groomed for large-scale systemic woman-hatred.
Oh, and as an aside, girls friendships don’t do much to help protect against systemic childhood misogyny. See my post on friendship for more on what girls can expect from each other.
Girls and Sexual Abuse
Much, much more attention is paid to the sexual abuse of boy children despite the fact that many, many more girls are sexually abused – and this is contrary to what boy-advocates would tell you (i.e., that girls get all the press). Why might this be? Well, my theory is pretty simple. Boys are not defined by their sexual attributes, while girls are only defined by their sexual attributes. Parents and societies do not build a boy’s identity on his sexual attractiveness. His success will never be dependent upon his physical looks. He is allowed to be smart, and talented, and good at sports, and strong, and social, and a whole host of other things that are allowed to full humans. Girls, from birth, are defined by how they look, and it increases as their bodies develop. By the early teen years, it is apparent (in Western culture, at least) that a girl is three fuckholes and a pair of tits. And every girl knows it on some level. If she has an attractive face, all the better, but even a ‘butterface’ (gross slang meaning that everything about a girl is attractive but her face) has some value as a fuck object only. So a girl is seen as little more than a sexual plaything for males. But, as I said, boys are human. If we pay too much attention to assaults against girls, then boys will somehow lose. And besides, we have to keep grooming little girls for what they will be required to accept in teen dating and adulthood dating and marriage. If you get girls to accept sexual assault as normal, they will make the perfect heterosexual adult women.
Pedophiles: Most pedophiles, are of course, male. And of course, there is a movement (like there always is when male violence and depravity have a spotlight briefly shone on them) to try to prove that there is a larger than life female pedo population. I call bullshit. I have never once seen a female teacher speak or behave sexually inappropriately with a child (except on TV…), but I’ve witnessed and experienced tons of male teachers do so. I’ve never, ever once met, overheard, or read anywhere a woman waxing on about sexy little boys (or even teenaged boys) they want to screw, but I have heard and read it literally thousands and thousands and thousands of times by men talking about wanting to fuck/rape/mess up girls. And there is the presence of deliberate violence in a lot of men’s words. But this makes sense to me as I don’t see male sexuality as separate from their violence. Having penetrative sex with women and girls is ultimately a violent act.
If you read the professional literature on pedos, we hear that roughly 1% of males are ‘true pedophiles’ (i.e., a ‘preference disorder’). But pedophilic fantasizing is present in 5% of males. I think that is very, very conservative, and the idea that fantasizing about raping little girls and teen girls doesn’t make you a pedophile is nonsense. Personally, I think if males knew for certain that they would never, ever, ever get caught, most would rape a child (mostly girls, but probably a few boys would figure in the mix too). I also think many would violate an animal, and of course, most men already stick their dicks in inanimate objects on a regular basis. (I’ve written about male sexuality before.) Males are born wrong, become more wrong through the sociological system they construct and fight to keep, and no one does anything about it except lament that life isn’t fair. Hmm, this isn’t exactly an issue of ‘fairness’.
I also wrote a post in the past considering how many female ‘beauty’ rituals are just ways of keeping pedophilic male tendencies focused on adult females.
Sex Trafficking: The only reason we have pornography and prostitution is because males exist. I firmly believe it wouldn’t exist if men/boys weren’t around. If you are a het woman who is reading this and are yelling at the screen that this isn’t true, I would suggest that you have been well and fully brainwashed and need to deprogram yourself. Many women have managed to escape from the porn-watching loop that males have introduced them to, and they tend to report being unable to believe they ever were able to watch it and pair it with love or female sexuality. Pornography, like prostitution, is dependent upon sex trafficking and forced drug addiction in females, so that they can make it through the pain, suffering and degradation, and then somehow stumble back for more. Most victims of the sex trade are female and almost all are forced into it as children (average age 12-14 years). They can be domestic and internationally enslaved girls. The former are very often runaways that end up in terrible situations that started out on the surface looking like protection. One might find it hard to imagine how a girl can be tricked into slavery, but it is quite common, especially when a girl is afraid, vulnerable, desperate because of poverty, and already the victim of childhood abuse. There isn’t a parent on the planet who talks to their daughters about trafficking (remember, girls are taught to trust males, not suspect them like a feminazi would…), and many of the girls who end up in the sex trade were fleeing sexual and other abuse anyways. They are primed for male ‘protection’ (abuse).
(The Internet Watch Foundation works to protect child victims of pornography – they remove 1,000 pages of child porn from the internet each and every week. And the porn never stops. Because of men. Never fear though – lady porn remains because women can ‘consent’ to their abuse, while children cannot. Fine line, imo.)
A Few Other Things To Think About
I want to close this long post, but before I do, I’ll mention a few other notes that are relevant to girls. First is infantalization and how it leaks into adulthood. I wrote a post on the topic here as a comment on how there is no true equivalent to ’emasculation’ for women because you can’t strip power from someone if they had no power to begin with. Women as a class don’t have power, so the closest you get is ‘infantalization’ – which is a way to prevent women from ever having power or even feeling they deserve to have any. The instilling of powerlessness in females starts very young. And this leaks into the next thing I want to mention: referring to adult females as ‘girls’. It is part of infantalization, and men don’t experience it. This is common in the West, but I’ve also noticed it as a common acceptable practice in places like China. Women refer to themselves as ‘girls’ and almost never as ‘women’. Woman refers not to a regular adult woman, but as a mature, matronly type – an older person, which no woman is supposed to want. Many young women even go so far as to call themselves ‘baby ladies’ or ‘baby girls’, which is this idealized, infantalized, but also desirable/sexy adult female. It is so bizarre and repulsive to me. But it is very common.
I also ran into the whole ‘girl’ thing when I was a young grad student in the US. I noticed a rather yucky poster one day on the wall in my department talking about girls and men, and I emailed the contact on the poster to ask them about the sexist language. I got a nasty, racist, elitist reply from a black woman, sorry – girl – who said the poster came from her black sorority that was, she was proud to tell me, filled with wealthy, prominent, black women. And this was the way they talked. So there. Well, fuck me. Rich, super-privileged black ‘girls’ promoting sexism, and expecting an economically disadvantaged, foreign-with-no-legal-rights, white female to support their leg-spreading cock-suckage. I love this world, and what constitutes oppression and who is promoting it and making sure it never dies… I don’t engage with racists or misogynists as a rule, so I didn’t bother answering this rich American woman. My personal philosophy is to refer to adult women as women to give them the respect they deserve, instead of infantalizing them in the name of supporting male pedophilic tendencies.
Conclusion
Now, like I said earlier and have said many times before, I am an anti-natalist. For many reasons, actually. I have been since I was about 10 years of age. I once, as an early 20-something, had a dream that I was holding a swaddled child and realized that I was preparing a bowl of dog kibble for it, and when I looked down, I had a puppy in my arms. That is my idea of having a child. I’ve since expanded my worldview to include cats… Anyhow, I’m an anti-natalist. I have a massive amount of experience with children throughout most of my life – probably more than most mothers who turn their noses up at the child-free – and I would say with honesty that I’ve helped many. But I wouldn’t say I have a general love of them. They are exhausting. I dislike boy children immensely, and find myself looking at them wondering when they will start raping and creating problems for more than just their mothers and sisters. I am a bit mixed about girls. I feel protective of them, generally speaking. I know they have no advocates or protectors; their mothers are often their biggest betrayers and earliest destroyers. But many girls start showing their future brainwashed fembot monster selves even in childhood, and although it isn’t their fault they are turning out that way, I cringe in revulsion at the child abuse that creates that sort of crafted persona. I don’t like tomboys much either. Yeah, really. I don’t like either end of the gender-spectrum, and tomboys and adult butches don’t solve anything for womanhood, in my opinion, as gender expression is constructed, not innate. But as long as they are not sexist or abusive to women, I don’t really care too much. They may not solve anything, but they generally are not the problem. I do, however, have a very soft spot for quiet, intelligent girls who defy forced gender streaming altogether – and are what I call ‘divergent’ (not to be confused with the definition from Veronica Roth’s book series, but the idea has some similarities). They aren’t masculine, they aren’t feminine, they are adaptable and versatile, and they are able to feel comfortable doing any number of activities regardless of for whom they are deemed more appropriate. It is also harder for them to find their community as they don’t fit into any kind of stereotyped box. These are my girls, and if I am lucky enough to find one, I’ll do anything to support and protect them.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
~~~
A few links with stats, etc.
Barriers for Girls – the Canadian Women’s Foundation
Child Pornography – A Few Stats – Children’s Advocacy Center
F is for Friendship
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Well eff me, it’s another post in the Alphabet Series. So many great f-words to choose from – some are obvious picks, some, not so much. You mighta thought I’d have gone for the word ‘feminism’, and trust me, I am going to do a post on the various feminisms and ‘pills’ that are confusing the hell out of everyone – but not at this time. I do have an ongoing series exploring my Birth as a Feminist, if you’re interested in development and evolution in the ways of what men and their lib-fems call ‘man-hating’.
F is also for ‘fuck’ and all its various offshoots – another obvious target and subject of some debate regarding usage in feminist circles, and I’m not talking about that today either. Same with F is for Freedom! which I will address in another post as it is something I want to explore in depth – it is just one of those words that means something different to each person around the world, and is the subject of an annoying lie and source of propaganda churned out by Western countries in order to finger-wag at countries outwardly proud of their racism, sexism and dictatorships. As well, F is for the fight-flight-freeze-fawn set of reactions to threats; fantasy (check out my ongoing Year of the Fantasy series); feminine vs feminizing (an upcoming post); forgiveness (part of the Enabler toolbox and also addressed in a 2015 post here); and family (a fragile, but crucial, cornerstone of patriarchy and female oppression and isolation. Family will come up a little bit today as it is hard to talk about the actual topic without addressing family.
So, we’re going for something different, and on the surface, seemingly juvenile – well, it is, in the sense that it starts in childhood and shapes the trajectory of adult lives. But in reality, this topic is an extremely serious issue for women and girls, and one that is seldom talked about for a few very obvious reasons that I’ll get into.
F is for Friendship.
As ‘friend’ is one of those words that can be a bit of a catch-all in that it can mean everything and nothing at the same time, I’m going to attempt to define it first, with the aid of some categories that describe different functions of friendship. I’ll mention a few differences in how males and females see friendship. And then I’ll get into why friendship is the most important kind of relationship for women, despite not being treated as such, and why it just isn’t possible for women to achieve authentic friendship as long as male dominance and compulsory heterosexuality (they are inseparable, actually) go unquestioned. Finally, I’ll fantasize a little about what female friendship could be.
What is a Friend?
The concept of friendship has been around and written about for millennia, and I won’t delve into the history here because it is vast and has been written about extensively by researchers of human evolution, sociology, philosophy, psychology, and cross-cultural studies. In addition, I’m a little more concerned with the here and now as well as the meaning and mechanics of friendship for women, specifically. A lot of the writings focus on men and how fucking awesome they are (or how deprived they are, the poor dears), and often, tsk-tsky articles are written about female pettiness and bitchiness towards one another without examining why or how that may have come about.
So I’ll start with a simple definition and jump off from there. Briefly, friendship is supposed to be a bond of mutual affection or genial affiliation between two people on equal footing that exists separately from sexual or familial ties. Friends are supposed to enhance your life and provide benefits that you don’t typically expect to get from lovers or family. And it is in engaging in friendship that you are supposed to have the most choice in members and freedom to be oneself – compared to family and other forced or ‘necessary’ ties, that is.
For many people, even today, friends have ended up being neighbours and classmates and (for men for all of history; women only recently) colleagues at work, simply because they were convenient, necessary for survival, and may have had something in common, even if it was only living on the same street. However, as life has become more global, with more migration and travel, and of course with the onset of the digital age, many things have changed, including the possibilities for and definitions of friendship. Traditional childhood friends still exist, especially if one is a person who stays in the town they grew up in, but many people now have ‘friends’ who are random digital strangers who have connected with them through Facebook and who ‘like’ their cat videos. There may, in fact, be no conversation, ever, and they will never meet in person, but they are called ‘friends’, nonetheless. Another modern development in friendship has come with the breakdown of the traditional family and with the gradual disconnect of parents from the lives and health of their children. Increasingly independent of their family, friendship has, for some people, become more important than family relationships, so much so that people may choose to spend holidays with friends rather than family.
There has been some hysteria over the last decade or two about a ‘loneliness epidemic’. Some of you may have seen one of those freaky documentaries about the Japanese and their widespread self-isolation and lack of social connections. You’re left with the impression that Japan is a country full of rape-cartoon-loving, capsule-apartment-dwelling people who pay strangers to eat meals with them because they have no friends. And then you’re wondering whether it’s going to spread around the world because porn is taking over, and more and more of our lives are lived online (especially in light of this never-ending pandemic bullshit). Never fear. First, documentaries, while I love them dearly, aren’t about normal people. How boring would that be, right? The Japanese are a social lot, well-travelled, and rather adventurous. Every country’s got their incels and their extreme social anxiety sufferers, though. Some live in basements, and others live in teeny-tiny apartments, depending on the culture and space available. If you look at the research (here’s an example), there is no actual evidence of widespread loneliness when you compare generations now, or the same age groups across time. One study, in fact, found that today’s teens report less loneliness than those in the past. That’s not to say that the quality of human connection hasn’t changed over time, but people are not really any more or less lonely than they used to be. They do have other issues that arise from an increase in social media involvement, however. I suspect the hysteria over loneliness is just propaganda designed to a) shit on ‘rich’ countries, b) encourage traditional values and heterosexuality by falsely equating being alone with loneliness, and c) to try to prove that the digital world leads to fewer real friends. Let’s just say that this is a massive and complicated issue.
Types of Friendship
I’m a psych person by training, so I sighed and settled in with familiar discomfort in my search for how the ‘experts’ define types of friendship. Everyone needs to put their own stamp on things, so there is a ton of stuff all basically saying the same thing in different ways. I combed and combined what I found into roughly four accepted categories.
- Friendships of Utility: which exist between you and someone who is useful to you in some way
- Friendships of Pleasure: which are maintained between you and those whose company you enjoy
- Friendships of the Good: which are based on mutual respect and admiration
- Friendships of the Right: which are bonds based on shared values, morals, or ethics.
Now, that is what I saw, but I take issue with the first category. Friendships of utility are relationships, but I am loathe to call them ‘friendship’. There is no affection or geniality there, which is basic to the definition of friendship. I strongly suspect that this category was posited by males, because this is generally how all males see people and things. “How can I use that thing/person?” “How is that thing/person beneficial to me?” And if it has no use, it doesn’t exist. If it does exist on their radar, males usually want it destroyed. Basic male psychology. Follow that easy rule, and you will have a much, much simpler life with much, much less agony. Now, males also make use of category two, and if there is pleasure, there is always utility. This describes the whole ‘friends with benefits’ scheme that males cooked up and sold to women as modern female liberation. No commitment or investment from men, but they can use and take pleasure from women. Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free, right?
Friendships of utility are also the most common connections that straight and breeder women have with other women. Once a woman is committed to a male and especially after she has popped out a kid, she only sees other women in terms of how they can help her or fit into her busy and crucial-to-society lifestyle. Even though she chose her situation, she still feels burdened and believes it is other women’s duty to pitch in for free or get together to listen to her endless complaints about her choice for a shot at a privileged life, especially if these ‘friends’ are less burdened and less ‘woman’ in her mind (e.g., lesbians, singles, and the child-free). It is extremely difficult to maintain friendships with women once they go off with a male and go into breeder-mode.
The third category of friendship doesn’t exist for men in relation to women. No male admires or respects women regardless of the line he uses publicly to appear like a Nice GuyTM. Don’t listen to the words, observe his actions, especially the ones that he assumes aren’t being watched. Likewise with the fourth category, which is a common ploy used by men to get women sexually, and which is extremely common in activist and religious groups. Nothing gets an activist female doing free labour or spreading her legs like believing a male shares her world-saving agenda.
Also note that most women are incapable of seeing their ‘friendships’ with men clearly and accurately. The male will have a friendship of utility with a woman, while she is feeling respect and admiration for and possibly shared values with him. And she usually assumes it is mutual. It is not. Even with a friends-with-benefits situation, women will generally assume there is some kind of mutual respect going on, while it is actually completely one-directional from her to him. It is pure delusion, and eventually, the willingly ignorant woman encounters evidence to show her the truth. But she seldom accepts what is going on, choosing instead to remain used and often abused. Or she’ll assume it’s a one-off and move on to the next Machiavellian mister, who will respect her for sure, she assumes wrongly.
Hetero Pair-Bonding and Friendship?
How often have you heard a straight woman say “my husband/boyfriend is my best friend”, and did you manage not to laugh? This is a very, very recent development in hetero relationships. I strongly suspect that is is part of the velvet backlash against feminism and female economic freedom. For many years, ‘protection’, ‘romance’ and ‘love’ were the hooks/promises/lies used to keep women marrying men, but most recently, friendship has been sold to women as a great reason to keep spreading their legs and diverting their newfound financial resources (still much less than men’s, but still enough to live on) into male consumption rather than actual female freedom. Of course, men make better friends for women than other women! How could you believe otherwise? Today’s male is emotional and sensitive and a great listener. Males and females are EQUAL now (a requirement for friendship). He does half, nay! more than half, of the household chores. He wishes he could be the one to become pregnant and put his career on hold and cut ties with his friends and lower his IQ by engaging in baby-talk most of his waking hours for numerous years. Now that is friendship! I’ve never personally met one of these awesome friend-men, but hey… But, of course, it is friends with benefits. So you still have to let him fuck you, and you have to do it. No male is going to stay with you if you say, “Hey friend, let’s stop having sex, ‘kay?”
So, it’s not really a friendship. Males and females, despite liberal protest, are NOT equal. It’s still a sex slavery relationship, but this time, you’re choosing to be a subordinate instead of having no options except public prostitution, nunnery or suicide like throughout almost all of women’s history. And by the way, best friends are usually good for sharing secrets. For hetero women, that means having someone to bitch to about what your owner does to them that annoys or even hurts them, or how marriage isn’t what they expected it to be, or jeez, he really changed after getting hitched… Are these chicks seriously telling their hubbies that they’re sad they get one orgasm for every 50 that he gets and that porn makes them feel sub-human? I wonder to myself, in the absence of an actual friend to talk to, whether these women just live in more denial than a 1950’s housewife… As a long-time student of psychological warfare, I truly admire the husband-best-friend campaign as a smashing psychological success in maintaining female slavery despite the cage door having been sitting wide open for several decades now. Well done!
Same-Sex Friendships
It is really hard to find modern research on friendship that doesn’t address sex, sexuality, romance, or dating. The more ‘free’ societies and people supposedly get (meaning distance from religion & magical thinking and the embracing of science, human rights, social justice, etc.), the more that fucking, sexuality, identity, and the objectification and abuse of women (and the justification of it!!!) seems to be a part of absolutely every aspect of daily life. Men have always polluted society with their sexual deviancy throughout time, but we are living in a time where it is in your face 24/7 and has been normalized. And friendship has not gone unaffected by this. In traditional societies and in the traditional past of Western societies, female intimacy was common and relatively unstigmatized. But today, in ‘free’ societies, women are afraid of friendly intimacy with other women for fear of appearing to be lesbian – the absolute worst thing you can be labelled as a woman anywhere in the world (possibly worse than being called a prostitute).
In traditional China, where I spent many years, it is very common for women to walk around holding hands. And it is not strange for same-sex (both male-only and female-only) friends to be very physical with one another. I remember tutoring a small group of 14-year-old boys at their home one time, and one of the boys was giving his friend a calf massage. Hilariously, I was relating this information to a ‘trans man’ – aka a woman – I was forced to live with last year, and her comment was “that’s weird”. Yeah, women holding hands is weird, but a woman taking hormones and pretending she is a male isn’t weird at all… fucking idiot. Traditional societies are homophobic as hell, but physical intimacy that doen’t involve genitals is not necessarily seen as sexual in same-sex situations. Likewise in the past in Western cultures, adult female friends could share a bed and cuddle one another and it wasn’t polluted with sexual accusations.
I suspect the stigma against non-sexual, friendly, female intimacy is part of the move to keep women serving men and having it ‘make sense’ as I mentioned above. Women today are supposed to focus on finding a single male friend who will eventually become a best friend and then a husband and sperm-donor. Becoming too close, especially affection-wise, with female friends is a strong indicator of lesbian tendencies, which is only cool if you still fuck men the majority of the time and bring the friends home for your male partner to take advantage of.
Let’s explore same-sex friendships more.
Male-Male Friendships
Male friendships have been celebrated and described in literature for millennia and in film since its beginnings. These bonds are rich and layered and they form a very important psychological part of male identity. Men are able to bond over so many things, and seem to be able to forgive one another anything (especially if they can bond over blaming a woman for whatever is wrong). Although I’ve never seen this myself – ever – it seems to be a commonly held belief that males can solve a disagreement by punching each other out and then moving on. I don’t know if that is true. Like I said, I’ve never once seen evidence of this. Males generally don’t compete with one another over that much, and when something goes wrong, there is always a convenient female to gang up on and blame.
But boys and men have always been allowed to have rich lives of freedom compared to females. Able to go anywhere they please with few threats to their safety. They are also given a lot of freedom and forgiveness as children, so they learn that to take and demand are their rights. They aren’t forced to deal with limited freedoms and resources, and are not forced to compete to survive or get attention, so friendship between males is, on average, much easier than that between females.
Female-Female Friendships
One of the most disappointing and angst-producing things in my life is my lack of quality female friendships. Coming from an abusive home with a domineering and severely mentally fucked up mother, and then eventually going no-contact with the entire narcissist-enabling family horde in very early adulthood, I’ve always taken friendship more seriously than most. But from an early age, it was hard to relate to other girls and to deal with the constant, bizarre betrayals. I am neither overly masculine nor feminine in behaviour or appearance, so I didn’t automatically fit in to either the male or female camp and my friends fit two categories. Misfits or outcasts of both sexes. And abusive girls. Both probably stemmed from child abuse patterns I was living. I had a damaged identity, so I couldn’t find a community, and in addition, was a ready-made target for domineering females resembling my mother, until I figured out what was going on and learned to avoid these kinds of people. Once I got to grad school and had a gay community, which, in the 1990’s was blessedly before the trans popped into existence and destroyed everything lesbian, I was in heaven as no one was really what they were supposed to be and revelled in it. But childhood and the teen years were pure hell. I was always a bit of a community surfer – and have remained that way as I fit in less and less, especially in an increasingly lesbian- and reality- and woman-hating world.
With age, experience, and growing feminist awareness, female friendship got even harder. I lost friends to marriage and children and traditional, small, stay-in-place lives. I moved around the world, lived a simple, low-income and portable life, and realized how easy it was and still is for males in my situation to make same-sex friends in any culture. It’s much harder for women no matter where they are in the world. While I can meet child-free women my age in Western countries (although most of them are still hetero, male apologists/enablers, and liberal morons), in a traditional culture, it is next to impossible to create bonds with women who are all married by 25. Even if they are working outside the home, these jobs and potential friendships take second place to family duties. Friendships, if they have any, tend to be long-time ones and they certainly aren’t looking for new ones.
If you are a non-traditional woman and not a man-chaser, finding even partially like-minded women in the meat world is really, really difficult. I’ve learned to let go of any and all expectations of substantive friendship, and I focus on compartmentalized, shared interests. And I don’t seek to push the acquaintance beyond that interest. Female friendships just feel so fragile to me. And there are many reasons for this.
As I alluded to above, most females are forced into sensitivity mode from birth. We’re criticized, micromanaged, punished, and forced into adopting submissive and apologetic behaviours in order to get along in this world. It doesn’t work for all females; some just have the right combination of attributes to withstand brainwashing, and they end up stronger and freer as a result. But if you’ve ended up molded because of this brainwashing, you learn very quickly to be on guard. You’re never really safe. Criticism is a comment on your whole person, your value, your identity. The effects of this are even more pronounced if you have experienced narcissistic abuse as a child. So to be blunt and frank in a friendship is a risky business. You have been taught to accept male aggression and not to stand up to it, but at the same time, you expect other females to be like you. You have been groomed to keep the peace, and to withdraw if there is a hint of war. So what does that mean when you have a relationship between two sensitive people (i.e., two average females?) who are afraid of rocking the boat? You have a very fragile friendship. Misunderstanding is rife.
Add to that the competition for scarce resources and attention that males don’t experience, and you have a recipe for constant war between women over very little. It comes across as petty and bitchy, but it is the natural outcome of repeated punishment and grooming that all girls go through. Males just don’t experience the punishment and deprivation as a class that females do, so they don’t turn out the same way, and they certainly aren’t capable of understanding this kind of psychological slavery.
What ends up happening as girls get older is that there is always the natural draw to other females, but because of the hetero brainwashing, women and girls become ‘placeholders’ instead of real friends. ‘Friends’ are there until they are not needed (meaning a male comes along who needs servicing). It’s like putting the salt and pepper shakers away after eating a meal. You take them out when you need them, then you put them away and forget about them. And in the case of women, friends are there for emotional support, especially after the male master enacts his privilege upon his servant. Women also provide free labour, financial support, entertainment, a safe haven, and the like to their female friends. And when the male snaps his fingers, the friends are put away. Forgotten until needed again.
Of the women who are born with the types of attributes that lead to resistance to brainwashing, and are fortunate enough not to be abused as children, things can go a few ways. Some become very devoted to women, especially if lesbian. If they are lucky, they can find a community, and friendships become more like those men experience, although much richer and more valuable. Frequently, though, many girls who are considered tomboyish as children get turned off by the nonsense that girls get herded into. They may tend to say things like “most of my friends are male” or even “I’m not like other girls”. This is a red flag for me. These are deeply misogynistic women. I mean, I get it. They didn’t fit in with the average female trained idiot and were probably frequently treated like shit by girls as a result. Why would you beg to be let into a club you don’t fit in with or are abused by for petty things? Males treat females like shit in different ways, but it is easier to navigate, and if you are a tomboyish female, the boys will treat you differently. Not equally, but they may not treat you blatantly like a cunt on legs like they do to more naturally feminine girls. The incorrect assumption these girls make is that males respect them as they do other males. Wrong. You may not end up getting raped like a feminine girl (or you might; you just don’t know what males will do), but you will never be one of the boys.
What Could Female Friendship Look Like?
It IS possible for women to have high-quality, lasting, satisfying friendships. I believe it. Truly. Is it going to be common any time soon? Hell no. You need a certain set of conditions in order to allow women to have the qualities necessary to make friendship work. I’m mostly working on fantasy here, but I will say that I have one friend who is as close to ideal as is possible. I’ll describe what we have, and then I’ll talk about necessary conditions.
My closest friend is more than 20 years younger than me. We are from two very different cultures. We don’t agree on everything, and we each have life experience the other can’t relate to. We have had a couple of big arguments, and have recovered pretty easily. We have travelled together. We have helped each other out of a few pickles. She feels like what a sister should be like, but is nothing like what I had with the disaster of a sister I grew up with. We have bonded over a few things: we both have horrific, NPD mothers and suffer similar shit as a result. We both enjoy reading and philosophy and travel and independence. We love animals and don’t want children. Neither of us is interested in men. We can talk about any topic and dig into it, argue about it, theorize, argue some more, and then come to some sort of conclusion (unless it is paused for continuation another day). We comfort each other and offer both serious and funny and sweet support. She is the best hugger I know, despite not coming from a hugging culture. And as of going on two years now, we live more than 10,000 km apart, which kills my soul and hurts my heart. Often. Luckily, we chat online a few times a week. Except for the geographical distance, this is what female friendship should be. It has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with intimacy on multiple levels.
So what conditions do women need to foster this kind of incredible friendship? No heterosexuality, no demanding males in the picture. Preferably no kids, although I’ll say no boy-children for sure. Compassion. Empathy. A firm grip on reality. No enabling behaviour – you should be able to be supporting and critical (meaning, able to point out stuff without being an asshole). Acceptance. You don’t have to agree on everything, and you should know and accept their imperfections. And BOTH people have to be this way. Equality is the key to friendship. Otherwise, you end up in some co-dependent shitfest.
Finally, and ideally, a female friendship is a combination of categories 2, 3 and 4 that I talked about above. Pleasure in another’s company, respect and admiration, and shared values. Utility is for tools, not friendship, and the only human tools are male 😉
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
E is for Enabler
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
Welcome to another post in the Alphabet Series. So many great E’s to choose from. E is for excuses, egocentric (and a bunch of other ego-related words), emasculation (check out my Emasculating Shears. Oh, I’m just joking or it’s just fantasy or satire or art or free speech – don’t be so sensitive, boys… sheesh), education, equality, eggshells (as in ‘walking on’), etc. But I’ve chosen to take a little dive into a world so many women know well, both as a player of the role and as the victim of our E-word.
Hold on tight because E is for Enabler.
I’ll define it and a few other jargony words first, so we’re all on the same page – dang it if psychologists don’t love their effing jargon. Next, I’ll talk about the Cult of Positivity – my little moniker for those sunny, but vicious, defenders of the world as it looks through rose- and usually penis-coloured glasses. Then, I’ll get into the machinations of enablers in two specific contexts a) male domination–female servitude (patriarchy), and b) Narcissistic Personality Disorder. And finally, I’ll provide some examples of things enablers love to say to victims of the abusers they support.
So let’s all think happy thoughts with the goodest of intentions and get on the train bound for the Land of Reality Denial!!!!!!
Enablers: What Are They and Where Did They Come From?
Compassion and empathy – concern for and an ability to understand the suffering of others – are good things. They are a uniquely human quality; marks of an advanced intellect; and of course, devalued because they are much more biologically common in females. Because of the way males are biologically wired for sadism and violence, compassion and empathy are quite rare to find in a pure form in them. So, in a world run on male violence and manipulation, these qualities end up being vulnerabilities, rather than strengths, highly exploitable and twisted and weaponized through patriarchal socialization. As a result, for women who are biologically wired for compassion and empathy, being raised in patriarchy means that these qualities are used to maintain the system through supporting the masters (males) and using them as weapons against their fellow oppressed (women and girls). If one knows how to manipulate the naturally compassionate as well as how to falsely play the victim, one can do an enormous amount of damage and keep a steady supply of real victims at the ready for one’s own personal use.
Very simply, an enabler is a person who supports or facilitates (aka ‘enables’) harmful behaviour in another person. The behaviour being supported can be self-harm or it can be harm towards other people. And the support can take a number of forms such as providing substances or tools used in the harmful behaviour or a whole range of psychological support that protects the abuser from taking responsibility or paying consequences for abuse. A lot of people immediately think of those in co-dependent relationships with substance abusers when they hear the word ‘enabler’. But these folks exist in all sorts of abusive relationship dynamics. Sometimes, enablers are completely unaware of what they’re doing as they’ve grown up with abusive and dysfunctional family members and are just living the patterns they’re used to over and over and over. But there are plenty of enablers who have more going on than a twisted version of empathy in the mix in addition to their history of abuse. Some of these folks have an idea of what they’re doing, couldn’t give a shit that they are doing harm, and may themselves be narcissists or psychopaths with their own host of enablers.
Co-dependent: Enabling is part of a co-dependent relationship, which is what you’ve got when one person is very needy and has a very weak sense of self-worth and identity. The co-dependent requires outside approval to feel loved or valued, is in poor touch with their emotions, has trouble making decisions, and is willing to completely subordinate themselves to a seemingly stronger (but in many ways, just as weak and damaged) persona in order to feel of any value or have a sense of purpose. These are people who’ve been emotionally abused as children and gravitate to relationships that are familiar abuse-wise. There is usually a sense that they are helping, even when they are facilitaing harm.
‘Flying Monkeys‘ – as much as I hate this stupid term, it is very commonly used when talking about narcissism (which I’ll get into later). I wanted to define it to differentiate between these folks and enablers, although it is possible to hold both roles in an abusive relationship. A flying monkey – a term that comes from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – refers to people who do harm on behalf of an abuser, just as the flying monkeys did evil deeds on behalf of the Wicked Witch of the West in the book. These people are a sort of proxy or stand-in with their own sense of nasty power, while the enabler is a bit of a cum rag wiping up after the abuser. Now, like I said, a person can act as both an enabler and a flying monkey, both covering for/propping up and dishing out shit on behalf of their overseer. It really depends on personality (disorders) and history.
The Cult of Positivity
Have you heard the term ‘toxic positivity’ before? Well, don’t worry if you haven’t; I can guarantee you that you have met at least – at LEAST – one member of the Cult, and likely, if you tried to have a real conversation with them, the encounter left you wanting to shake them, at the very least.
These are the folks who wax on about forgiveness and bliss and gratitude and cultural sensitivity and everyone having good in them and sending positive thoughts out into the universe and why can’t we all just get along???!!! They also have a whole fuckload of annoying platitudes that they trot out when you attempt to talk about REALITY that say nothing, but are designed to shame you, guilt you, and shut you up. It is impossible to have a real conversation with these people, and if you have bothered trying, at some point early on, they are going to call you ‘negative’ or ‘toxic’ or make some passive aggressive, superior comment about it being really difficult for them to be around negative thinking (meaning you and your cloud of doom). Note that talking about reality and problems are not negative thinking – they are essential to raising awareness and developing strategy for solving problems. Let’s look at an example illustrating the difference between how different approaches sound:
Cult: If we just try hard enough and send out our positive intentions around the world, global warming will be like over! I’ll knit some owl arm bands for solidarity and start a prayer circle for polar bear luv on Facebook! What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger!!! Grrrrl power!
Realist: At our current global effort, the effects of global warming will take a greater and greater toll on both human and animal species. I do my part so I can sleep at night, but I don’t have much expectation that everyone will do what’s needed to make a difference.
Toxic, Negative Thinker: Humans were doomed before they even started. There is no point in even trying to solve global warming, so you may as well do whatever the fuck you want. Drive your SUV to go to the corner store ten times a day! Bring back aerosol hairspray cans! After you’re dead, are you really going to care?
Okay, that was fun, but what about enablers? Don’t worry, I didn’t forget. Well, you will find an army of these folks in the Cult. Enablers don’t like to face reality – it is very threatening to them. They have been taught from an early age that talking about problems or having a complaint will inspire anger and punishment in people who are supposed to love them unconditionally. They learned to keep the peace at home by keeping things light and happy and non-threatening. And for most, it persisted into adulthood. Pure avoidance and people (abuser) pleasing. As a result, they end up letting bad people get away with things and hurt actual victims by silencing them. They are weak people, but you still may want to hit them when they gaslight the fuck out of you when you try to talk about something bad that happened to you. Stay away from them. You exist on two different planes of reality, and they will always support an abuser over you, while telling you to forgive and give people a second chance and that so many other people have it worse than you.
Enablers and Patriarchy
I don’t have data on this, but I would strongly suspect that most enablers are women. Females are abused psychologically, physically, and sexually more as children, they are the ones groomed for subservience to males through heterosexual programming, and as mentioned earlier, they more often are born with the capacity for empathy. And all of this abuse, grooming, and exploitation and twisting of a good, but vulnerable, natural trait serves to give males a free pass for the disgusting shit they do to us. And it’s not just blindness to or acceptance of the shit, it is the excuse-making, the rationalizing, the forgiveness, the second (50th, 100th, millionth) chances given, the actual victim-blaming and prey-policing, and the whole range of enabling behaviours that are taught to young girls so that they have mastered male bolstering in time for marriage. Most women enable men. They are not all Cult members, but even the most skeptical, negative Nellies will give a male a free pass when he hurts women.
Now, if you consider yourself to be a Black Pill type, you’ll think that females are born to do this. I have to completely disagree. I’ve talked about this extensively – I see nature and nurture working together in complicated ways – and I don’t think people realize how ubiquitous pro-male programming is in the world. So let’s put it this way. If it were natural to enslave ourselves to men, men wouldn’t need to brutalize us, or punish us for rebelling or fighting back, or threaten us with rape. Remember that the natural needs no forcing. It just happens. And if you really look closely at what little girls are exposed to – the way they are pushed and taught and punished for natural behaviours that don’t serve the male agenda (over and over and over), you can see that there is nothing natural about the behaviour you see in adult women. They are as programmed as robots.
But you can get out of it. You can deprogram. You can stop enabling males. It is just really hard, and living in the world post-programming is freeing, but demoralizing, and really, really fucking isolating.
Enablers and Narcissistic Personality Disorder
If you grew up with an NPD parent or parents, I’m so sorry. Truly. I know what you have gone through, and how you feel now as an adult. Both of my parents were narcissists, different flavours. My mother was the chief NPD. Father was her enabler, a psychologist, and NPD himself. It was an absolute fucking nightmare, and it took years and years to figure out what I had gone through, and to name it, as both parents were abusive in different ways, and the psychologist-enabler-dad did a really good job of making me feel like I was the one with the problem. And when a ‘professional’ is telling you that you have a problem, should you doubt it? When you’re a kid and you don’t know anything except that you’re doubting your sense of self, your very identity and experience of reality? Well, I’m still working through it all decades later – not sure I’ll ever heal completely, but I know what’s what now, and let me say, I’m an expert on NPD and mindfuckery, and sadly, how to effectively destroy a child from the inside…
So yes, enablers can be male. They can make excuses for narcissists who are male or female. The husband-wife / father-mother tag team where the female is the narcissist is a common dynamic. I can’t remember how many times I heard from my father (moreso later in my teens and early adulthood) that my mother loved me, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite some of the completely fucked up shit she did to me. Parent enablers are sort of trying to keep the peace (at least they think they are), but are actually making things worse in the long-run by allowing abuse to continue for years and years and years. And those years are crucial in breaking down the identity that is supposed to be forming in a child. From the child’s point of view, the enabling parent’s key feature is under-protection. And when you are not protected as a child, you grow up never expecting to be safe or even knowing what it means to be safe.
You can also run into enablers of narcissists in your adult life, especially in the workplace, and although you can escape this more easily that you can in a family situation, it can make life difficult. If you have grown up in an NPD family, you have been groomed for this kind of abuse and will mostly likely find yourself in relationships of this sort without meaning to. It will be familiar to you, but still damaging. If you didn’t grow up with narcissistic abuse, you will be thrown for a loop and wondering what the hell is going on. How you deal with the narcissist will depend on a whole host of personality factors stemming from your biology coupled with how you learned to deal with problems growing up.
Some of the things enablers of narcissists will do (and all involve elements of gaslighting) include:
[1] The enabler uses some excuse of victimhood to explain away abusive behaviour.
You’ll be pressured to forgive, negate your own victimhood, give second chances, etc. The narcissist doesn’t mean to abuse you or they can’t help it – they had a rough childhood, or have a lot of pressure at work. Result: You feel guilty and feel like you are the one picking on the abuser.
[2] The enabler reinterprets the intention of the abusive event.
“They didn’t mean it.” or “I think you’re misinterpreting what happened.” Or some variation on this theme. This gaslights you or paints you as oversensitive or crazy or just plain wrong. Result: You question your experience of the abuse.
[3] The enabler tells you that no one else has had the problem/abuse you are claiming to have.
It is clearly not true. The narcissist abuses many people – even the enabler themself. But the enabler isolates you and implies that perhaps it is you who has the problem. Result: you feel alone and unsupported, and start to question whether it really happened to you.
[4] The enabler tells you that everything will get better soon.
Cult of Positivity anyone? This is a clear denial of reality. Abuse doesn’t have an end date, so the implication here is that there is no pattern of abuse, what happened is not serious, and that you are blowing things out of proportion. Result: you hesitate to speak out again because what you think is serious is being dismissed as temporary or a glitch or that you are too sensitive or paranoid. The temporary abuse of course, ends up going on and on and on.
[5] The enabler tells you things aren’t so bad.
Immediately, the abuse is minimized, and this false sentiment may be coupled with another silencing statement that other people have it worse than you. They may even try to tell you how privileged you are. Result: you question your experience of the abuse as you haven’t been validated – clearly you must be oversensitive or seeing something that isn’t there.
[6] The enabler tells you that you are making too much of a fuss.
There is nothing like complaining that someone is complaining to make them shut up. Sometimes, this is accompanied by a listing of the narcissist’s positive contributions (especially if you benefit from them) in order to excuse the behaviour in question and to invalidate your complaints. After all how can such an amazing person be so bad? Result: you feel guilty for complaining, and wonder if the narcissist can really be that bad if they are doing so much for you. Likely, you are some kind of princess used to getting your own way.
Conclusion
There is a ton more I could say here, but this is just a blog post to help you understand what you may have experienced and to validate your feelings of helplessness when you encounter people who minimize or negate your reality. Enablers can be just as dangerous as those they enable. Many of them don’t realize what they are doing due to their own personal trauma, but I’ve never been one to excuse bad behaviour because of a sad personal history. My advice is to avoid enablers if you can, as they will screw with your head and can’t have a frank conversation with you anyhow. And while some believe ignorance is bliss, it is ultimately healthier to live in reality. Wait til I get to talking about psychosomatics 😉
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
D is for Diversity
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
And so we are on to D of the Alphabet Series, and though my posts are usually helped along with a little bit of D is for Drinking, I’m doing this one stone cold sober. And I’m choosing a different D word. There are so many delightful words to choose from. To name a handful, D is for disease, dick (and all the fun words you can make with it), deprogramming, double standard, delusion, domination, degradation, danger, death penalty, doormat, double D’s, damsel in distress, death, and more.
But no, I’m choosing one that, if I had a shit list for overused and obnoxious words from the year 2020, diversity would be on it and near the top. And at the rate things are going, it’ll be on my 2021 shit list as well. Oh, hell, who am I kidding – I DO have a word shit list. It’s on my About This Site page that I wrote back in 2015 when I started this blog, and which I’ve been updating over the years as I find yet more people I have no desire to interact with. There, you’ll find a word/phrase shit list (under Reason Number 2 why I don’t allow comments on this blog) made up of liberal / po-mo goober-speak. And my d-word has been on the list for a few years now.
D is for Diversity.
Now, I don’t want to give the impression that I think diversity is a bad thing. Not at all. But like with most things, I embrace the natural, and abhor the forced. Natural diversity is an awesome thing, and I’ll spend a little time talking about that. Then I’ll get to the problematic shit: the forced and unnatural (intentional and unintentional) diversity. If you’ve read anything from my sexuality series, you’ll know I believe that the human male, in his need to control and destroy in the name of love, creativity, and curiosity (but which is really just arrogance, ignorance, selfishness, sadism and a quest for power at all cost), has ended up forcing a lot of unnatural conditions. Diversity is only one of these situations.
So let’s get to it, and in the name of flowers and sunshine and happy stuff, let’s talk about the positives, first. Natural diversity.
Natural Diversity
During the second half of 2019, while I was embarking on the risky adventure of leaving employment in China for unemployment in not-China, I found myself enrolled in a community college Bachelor transfer program in the US. I’m not going to get into that whole bizarro experience in this post, but looking at it now, a year after the school thing fell apart due to the pandemic, I regret choosing the US over France, which was the other option I’d had at the time. But there were glimmers of excellence – there always are, even in the shittiest of circumstances. One of these glimmers was the fall semester I spent in an Ecology course. I’ll admit that I only took the class because I was forced to take electives – don’t get me started on one-size-fits-all models of education… – but luckily, the instructor was stellar and loved her subject area, and ecology, at least, was related to my major. It’s actually a subject everyone should study at the very least online and for free (I highly recommend Coursera for free courses in many different subject areas. And while there, do a quick search on ‘ecology’ to see what they have going on.)
One of the key concepts in ecology and related disciplines is biodiversity, which very basically, means variety of life (species). Biodiversity is the hallmark of a healthy ecosystem, meaning the greater the number and variety of species naturally cohabiting in a region, the healthier the area, ecologically speaking. Greater biodiversity equals better adaptation to threats (e.g., human fuckery, natural disasters, etc.) There are several well-known, and mostly poorly conserved, biodiversity hotspots around the world – I’ve pulled a map and legend from the World Wildlife Fund (I’ve enlarged it – and you can click it for the full size) that shows unique and/or rich biodiversity zones around the world.
(Click to Enlarge)
The key thing to remember is that when we talk about biodiversity, we are talking about the natural. Things grow where conditions are optimal for their biology, and Nature has her way of keeping populations in check. The forager-food / predator-prey foodchain is one of these common systems of balance-keeping. Adaptation is another effective system – change to accommodate things happening in the environment, or die out. And these natural balancing mechanisms work extremely well with all but one species, and I’ll give you a billion imaginary dollars – golden feminist turds, if you prefer – if you can guess which one 😉 Which brings me to the less-pleasant-to-contemplate portion of this post.
Unnatural and Forced Diversity – Male Greed, Ignorance and Hubris
It is natural and biological for human males to brutalize and destroy. They do it in the name of creativity, problem-solving, exploration, and they even try to explain it away as ‘survival’. Very few call it what it really is: the quest for power and control.
So, building on this, let’s say you have a beautifully functioning system. I’m talking about natural, bio systems primarily, but you can apply this to any system you can imagine. Then you introduce human males into the system. In less time than it takes to say “hot mess of the scrotal variety”, you will find a massive dick-shaped wrench thrown into what was originally a well-oiled machine. And while some systems (biological ones, especially) will work things out over time if left alone, they NEVER get the chance to do so for two reasons. First, it is written into male DNA to mess with things, even if told not to in no uncertain terms. They fiddle, they diddle, they poke, they prod, they take, and they kill, and then they shrug it all off. And while utterly self-congratulatory about this fiddling, diddling, poking, prodding, taking and killing, they NEVER actually make things better. And second, males are always trying to deny their obsolescence – in other words, instead of making things better for the majority, they deliberately create problems so that they have something to fix or to ‘overcome’. If there are no problems to apply their maniliness to, then why the hell do they exist? Males dictated long ago the purpose of Woman – to breed and service men, and most women are too afraid and brainwashed to question this MANmade cage – but males have never really answered their own existential question. And this is what every single one of them wrestles with over the span of his life. And we all know what happens when males lack purpose and develop angst. They get really insecure and emotional, and take it out on women and the planet in the worst way they can manage. Sometimes, this destruction becomes a ‘purpose’. After all, for some, even god has a violent plan, right?
So, let’s dig deeper and look at intentional and unintentional unnatural diversity next, and then we’ll finish by addressing forced diversity and its evil twin: inclusivity. I’ll also address forced lack of diversity or forced uniformity. This won’t be comprehensive, but I’ll provide examples to illustrate what I’m talking about. Likely, people will become offended for one reason or another, even though I am just outlining observable phenomena and sometimes the personal experiences of myself and others. Try to hang in til the end.
1a) Unintentional, Unnatural Diversity
One of the best ways to illustrate this type of unnatural diversity is through the idea of invasive species, and despite not intending to cause problems, humans (most often men) are usually the reason it happens. Increased global travel over the centuries, and especially in the last century, has meant that travel vessels as well as import-export goods and shipping containers have been exposed to plants, sea creatures, insects, and animals in one place and then have moved on to another place. Plants, critters (and their offspring), and the various diseases and microorganisms that depend on these larger beings can ‘catch a ride’ and suddenly find themselves in a new ecosystem. Organisms that manage to survive the voyage and then find themselves undiscovered, released into the wild, AND without any natural predators to hunt them down can easily begin to take over the local flora and fauna. Ironically, an invasive species, while initially increasing biodiversity, technically, usually ends up causing a lack of diversity, and in some cases, serious ecosystem destruction.
On the human diversity side of things, I’d argue very strongly that complete denial about how racist, sexist, religious men operate coupled with lax border control and weak liberal politics over the last few decades in Western Europe have led to the massive influx of aggressive, but ‘oppressed’, Muslim male migrants and refugees of various ethnicities. This tidal wave has resulted in a diversity situation with unintended, semi-“invasive species” consequences. And note here, that it is not women who are the problem. The majority of refugees are female, as women are always the majority of victims of war, and they must be supported – although, I’d prefer only to allow their daughters to accompany them – not sons, for obvious reasons. Males, on the other hand, regardless of whether they are migrants or refugees, are always problematic and bring their local brand of misogyny and violence with them to the countries that welcome and support them and allow them to practise their woman-hating religions freely. One of the major problems is that young, single males visit a heap of sexual assault on local and tourist white women. And likely, out of fear of being labelled ‘islamophobes’, no one does anything about it. It’s only women being assaulted after all. Not humans.
***One prime example was the rash of sexual assaults of white women on New Year’s Eve in 2015 – including a volunteer policewoman – by gangs of Arab males in a Cologne, Hamburg and Frankfurt, Germany. Videos taken by locals of the events were pulled off YouTube within hours of upload and mainstream news delayed reporting on what amounted to about 120 reported sexual assaults, including one confirmed rape. Who knows how many ACTUAL assaults occurred – the speed at which white women are deemed racist these days when they report sexual assault by men outside their race defies logic. To add insult to literal injury, the mayor of Cologne, a woman, even laid the blame on German women, and instead of deporting the offenders, suggested that women keep strangers at arms length. The implication was that they were behaving like standard white Western sluts deserving of rape instead of like proper Muslim women who should be helped and pitied.
I myself have been physically and sexually assaulted by Arab and sometimes black males in every single European country I’ve been to except Czechia and Greece and on all but one trip I’ve made to Europe since 1996. Belgium, Germany and France have been the worst, by far. I wrote about a violent gang assault I experienced in Belgium when I was 24 – the first time I’d ever been strangled – where I thought I was going to die. So to me, and other white females I’ve talked to, and who, by the way, like me, have never reported their assaults – because what’s the point? – ‘invasive species’ is an apt analogy. When illegal and non-citizen males are given free reign to assault the local or a targeted race of women, the victims have no power to fight back, and when there is no one ‘predating on’ or exerting control over the interlopers, you have a near-definition of an invasive species. It may not have been intended, but the unnatural and unplanned diversity is highly problematic to females – not males, who ironically, tend to be the most vocal in opposing liberal policy on immigration. Women, stupidly and just like they’ve been trained to do, welcome diverse expressions of misogyny in with open arms and then are shocked when something inevitably happens to them. Why isn’t female safety a human right? Well, we all know the answer to that one. Only penis is human – even a raping penis.
1b) Intentional, Unnatural Diversity
There are times when men deliberately introduce species into foreign environments to serve selfish human purposes or add ‘variety’ to local options, and the results are unpredictable, but usually a problem. Other times, a desirable species from another place is brought in for labour or human comfort as we see with many domesticated pets and farm animals. There are often problems with deliberately introduced species catering to human selfishness. I’ll address food crops, and leave the pets and domesticated animals for now. Let’s explore.
When human males started exploring the world hundreds of years ago, they began to bring back the exotic to their homelands. New foods and spices, plants, animals made their way into local taste and customs providing an unheard of variety of flavours and experiences. This is part of every culture. All cultures have things they use that originated elsewhere, but that may have become ‘traditional’ after years of assimilation. A funny example from China – and I use China because I know more about their culture and their silliness than other foreign cultures, and also they get very superior and snobby when it comes to their culture. Food is an especially annoying area of snobbery. But did you know that the crucial ingredient to the important Szechuan (Sichuan) and Hunanese cuisines – the hot pepper – isn’t native to China? Indeed it is not. The Chinese have the Spanish and Portuguese of the 15th century to thank for introducing oral fire power, originally from the Americas, to their precious traditional food. Likewise with the regularly consumed peanuts and corn – and did you know you can get corn-on-the-cob at McDonald’s in China!
It has been reasoned by Russian plant researchers that the place with the greatest diversity in food crops indicates their origin (i.e., you’ll find more varieties of chili pepper in Central and South America than anywhere else because that is where they are originally from). Logically, as crops move to foreign lands, local peoples will select the varieties that taste and grow best, thus immediately increasing diversity in their diet, while decreasing diversity in plant genetics over time. And today, all around the world, we are seeing much less crop diversity – even in places where plants are native! – due to human meddling in genetics, industrialized farming and the loss of local, small-scale farmers who traditionally planted very local varieties. This doesn’t bode well for the food system at all. And yes, if you trace this problem back to its roots, it is because of male dominance, female slavery, the resultant overpopulation problem and male expansionist tendencies for appropriating resources from other lands and increasing their economic power. It always comes down to something along those lines if you are willing to examine modern problems honestly and in depth.
Check out the food origin map. Click to enlarge.
2a) Forced Diversity (and Inclusion)
Ring-a-ding-ding! As you may have guessed, this sub-topic is the one I’m most interested in from a political standpoint. It stains the entire political landscape in the modern Western world, and it represents a world of illogic, unfairness, sexism, racism, doublethink, and censorship, all wrapped up in a faux moral superiority / virtue signalling shit sandwich. It is, in short, one of the major accomplishments of modern male supremacists dressed up as anti-racism warriors.
All across North America and possibly even extending into Western Europe, you’ll find signage with slogans telling the world how wonderful (forced) diversity and its nasty sibling, inclusivity are. But when you’re forcing something to happen that isn’t natural, it ends up being kinda fake and giving privileges to some while trampling the rights of others. I’m not talking here about making white males mad because they don’t get all the available promotions through nepotism and old boys’ networks anymore. White male supremacy is forced exclusivity, and is thus unnatural. And I’m also not talking about making sure the sub-populations that are already present are represented in their communities. Organizations need to reflect the communities in which they operate – that is natural diversity and a matter of fairness. What I am referring to is deliberately hurting people for characteristics that they can’t change (race and sex), and forcing diversity where little to none may exist to begin with. Just as we don’t look down upon parts of the world where plant species aren’t as diverse, we should not do so with less naturally diverse human societies. And just as shipping a bunch of tropical plants to the tundra isn’t going to achieve anything, forcing human diversity has no objective value or purpose, which is to say that political agendas don’t necessarily have much value or meaning outside of winning popularity contests.
The basic premises of liberal Western diversity measures are that:
a) All white people are evil and racist and should be blamed for everything wrong in the life of a person who is not white,
b) A city or region or group that is unintentionally predominantly white MUST be injected with people who are not white – otherwise, it is not ‘diverse’, has no cultural value, and is therefore, evil,
c) Females are no longer permitted to call themselves women to the exclusion of non-females, and must allow their boundaries and privacy to be invaded and colonized by males. Not to do so is anti-diversity and literally [sic] akin to murder, and
d) Straight, bi or ‘queer’ are okay. Gay or lesbian are NOT. If you have to be homosexual, then you must still fuck people of the opposite sex (even if you have to pretend they are the same sex), because not to do so is not inclusive. Besides what is ‘biological sex’ anyways? Biology is not a science, but rather, a state of mind. Yes, a feeling. And stating facts is discriminatory and anti-diversity. So male is female is male is… wait, what? Well, you know what I mean.
The forced diversity gang (and it is a gang) runs on all sorts of bizarre anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-logic, catchy sound bites that are designed to rally approval-seekers, and to prevent women from talking about interracial oppression and crime, and preventing lesbians and other women from talking about having their rights as women taken away by men pretending to be women. I see the words diversity and inclusivity, a word meant to paint opponents as racist, anti-male, or anti-trans and to silence them, everywhere I go. On front lawns of private homes, on web sites, in store-front windows, and on public school billboards. It is creepy – like the communist propaganda posters you still see in China. You are likely familiar with some of the following:
Forced diversity means that women still aren’t getting ahead. Women are more than half the population everywhere, except where they are deliberately killed off by men and their handmaidens, and yet they aren’t included in this political push for diversity. They are still pushed aside so that males can take jobs, awards, and recognition. It is more important to change the natural composition of a local society for no logical reason other than racial guilt, than to ensure natural diversity is upheld (i.e, including women). [Hint: there is no guilt over misogyny since women will still fuck men regardless. No reparations necessary!] So this means that white women pay the price economically, legally, and socially for what white men have done in the past, while the white men remain untouched and highly employable. It might not be such a big deal to a straight white woman married to a safely employed and highly paid white male, but single white women get thrown under the bus in a number of ways, including being excluded in diversity mandates. And of those added to the mix, they tend to be male as well. Like I wrote in a past post, while looking at a PhD program at a university in a region of Canada that happened to be predominantly white, I looked hard at the composition of the department. I’ve had plenty of experience in departments where I’m not represented, and felt way too old to go through that again. I noticed that the department had no full-time female faculty, despite the field not being particularly male-dominant normally, but they had plenty of foreign males of other races and ethnicities, as well as the requisite stable of white males. I noticed that the university patted themselves on the back for upholding ‘diversity’, but if they truly embraced diversity, that department should have been half female. Forced diversity hurts women, and I’ve never seen an affirmative action program fix anything.
2b) Forced Homogeneity/Uniformity (and Exclusion)
Let’s finish off with the opposite of forced diversity. You know the words ‘pest’ and ‘weed’? Well, these are relative terms. In reality, all species of plant and animal has an equal ‘right’ to go about its business on the planet, and all have a place and purpose, no matter how small. It is only when humans decide that they are more important than all other living things that different species are valued or devalued. Some problematic species are easily managed through hunting or trapping, as in large game that venture into urban areas and kill innocent children, livestock or house pets. Usually, the problem isn’t the wild species; it is the fact that humans have taken its living space and it is hungry with limited access to food sources. Very quickly, species can become endangered if fear of them is high and if their bodies, body parts or body coverings have value. But sometimes, species are hard to manage solely through these means. One brilliant idea, especially with small critters, evasive critters, or critters living in large areas is to introduce what humans consider to be a ‘natural’ predator. Usually, it isn’t local, and the idea is that it will serve the intended purpose – eliminating or just managing unwanted or ‘dangerous’ species – and then either just die once the food source is gone or just blend in and chill. But that seldom happens.Very quickly, the target pest can become endangered, and you may even find out exactly what important role they played in their ecosystem. You also may suddenly find that the introduced species (which has no local predator itself) becomes an invasive species.
On the solely human side of things, we’ve seen many examples of this throughout time in the form of ethnic, sexual and religious genocide. Men of all ethnicities have sought to eliminate other ethnic and religious group, especially women and girls. It isn’t new, and it certain wasn’t a white invention, despite what people are saying these days. But it was and is male. Very, very male. Personally, I don’t understand the drive to have everyone look like you or to relegate a group to a sub-class. These days, race and ethnicity issues are probably more of a problem in countries that are fairly mono-racial and nearly to totally immigration-prohibitive than they are in most Western countries. But they are front and centre in the West despite the fact that the true need, the one that is being sadly neglected, is women’s progress. There seems to be a recent drive to erase women completely as natural beings – a sexual genocide of sorts. Pornification is a form of genocide, I believe. One thing to remember: there is no natural predator for the males in control… And unless there are males in the prey group, there is no hope for fighting back in a way that will work.
Conclusion
Natural diversity, good. Forced diversity, bad. Male meddling, fiddling, and diddling always backfire. I truly suspect that we wouldn’t see any of these issues if men didn’t exist. And if humans didn’t exist…? Well, check out the documentary: “Life After People” (stream for free here) to think about the idea that we wouldn’t be missed at all 😉
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
*** addendum, with regard to my discussion of the mass Muslim gang attacks of white women in Germany, please note that the number of assaults and rapes reported varies WIDELY. The numbers I cited were at the low end. Various sources indicate that there were upwards of 1,200 sexual assaults from all over Germany, including at least 50 rapes. We will never know the exact number because a) most white women don’t report rape and sexual assault, especially when the attackers are not white, and b) the Western world doesn’t take rape seriously, especially when it threatens multiculturalism policies. It is shocking, but unsuprising, that while it is internationally acknowledged that these attacks happened, nothing has changed to keep women safe. It is more important to protect male privilege, rapist privilege, and Muslim privilege, and guess what? White women aren’t human either, and our rapes certainly aren’t taken seriously. Sorry, liberals.
Story Ending Never 
M is for Manvasion
Sep 16
Posted by storyending
This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀
In the name of the alphabet and the power that it conveys, I am merging and manipulating a couple of long-ago-written posts into something for the ongoing series. I wrote a single M-post last year – M is for Mother – and it was very nicely read for a YouTube audience by a fellow Canadian a few months ago. And I’ve got a few more M-posts coming over the next few weeks, so stay tuned for that.
Today, I’m talking about war, well, the daily battle that constitutes existing in a world where women-only space, even of the electronic variety, is not allowed.
M is for Manvasion: yes, I know. It’s a made-up word, but it works well here.
I’ve hung out on different online forums at different times, very often as a lurker. I don’t often participate because what’s the point? Most places are run by men and heavily populated by men and their female acolytes. You either get censored, ignored or attacked when you comment as a non-handmaiden. Pointless to waste your energy.
One thing you will find, however, no matter which forum you find yourself on, is that if there is a woman-only space or a woman-pertinent topic, males will come and jizz all over it. And no matter where they are from or what age they are, they are all exactly the same. It is a bit eerie actually, but as a result, they are completely predictable. I’m trying to figure out whether all males share a mind or whether they are all given a handbook at birth: “How to derail a discussion group of women in the most male way possible in 10 easy steps”. I’m going to ignore the Neanderthal infiltrator. He is the guy who just stomps in and announces, with poor grammar and a ton of misspellings, that all women are bitches or that women are destroying men somehow. And then he just waits for women to freak out (which they usually don’t because they’ve encountered this asshole a million times before). No, today, I’m focusing on the guy who saunters in and attempts a dialogue. There are a million of these guys too, but they are often a little more successful at derailing women. Here’s how it always goes:
And as a close, note that I have lurked on blogs and forums representing other special interest groups, and you don’t see this level of infiltration and sense of entitlement by members that wouldn’t normally be included in that group. This seems only to apply to women as a class, especially feminists, lesbians and other hard-to-control females.
It is up to you to decide why all these guys sound the same. This is not a war that can be won as long as women willingly mix with men. The rules are set by men to benefit men, and in their minds, consenting to one boundary invasion is blanket consent for the erasure of all boundaries. There is only prevention and damage control, and the only thing I know for certain is that unless you are prepared to do serious battle, it is just best not to respond to them. They hate it and will go away faster. They’ll be back, maybe with a different name, but the damage and waste will be less for you.
♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢
Share this:
Posted in Feminism, Male Privilege, Online Hate, The Alphabet Series
Comments Off on M is for Manvasion
Tags: comments, internet, manvasion, online misogyny