Blog Archives

C is for Censorship

This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀

Get ready for a fun topic. It is complex. It can be looked at from different angles. And it can affect women in a variety of ways all at the same time!

That’s right. C is for censorship, ladies, and you don’t have to have spent the better part of a decade living and working in a communist dictatorship like I did to have experienced a form of censorship personally.

I’m going to consider briefly what censorship means in the publicly accepted sense, and then I’ll discuss other forms that are especially relevant to women, but that are seldom considered to be censorship or taken seriously for one reason or another.

First, what is censorship as defined by the world who cares about such things? It is:

The suppression or prohibition of any words, ideas or images that are considered by the powerful to be obscene or amoral, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Okay, thank you scrotals of the Oxford dictionary. Let me just jump in and say this: censorship is about power and control no matter what kind of spin you put on it. All of the reasons men give for censorship are usually spun as some sort of protection of target groups such as women and children, but usually end up controlling those same groups even more. If actual protection of vulnerable groups were the true goals of the censoring bodies, there are more effective and respectful ways of doing it. So, no. It is all about power and control and the only protection is of the ones who wield that power and control. And who are these controlling bodies? Most often, they have been governments and religious institutions, but increasingly today, they are companies/corporations (e.g., publishing groups, media outlets, or social media giants), large organizations (e.g., the Boy Scouts, Planned Parenthood, Pride), schools (at any level), and even social groups (just look around you at the local level). The important thing to note is that censorship is dictated by men and often helped along by handmaidens of the patriarchy.

Protection can often be called ‘cultural sensitivity’, ‘public security’, ‘obscenity safeguards’ and the like. It is worded in such a way to discourage opposition by blackening or questioning the morality of or implying paranoia or conspiracy theorist tendencies in anyone who suggests that the reasons are actually more about control than doing right. There are occasional instances where there is a legitimate attempt to protect the vulnerable or to quell legitimately violent groups through censorship, but as mentioned above, whether this is the correct way to ‘protect’ is up for debate. But the ethics and morality game can be highly personal for most people and the decision about who is allowed to speak and be heard often comes down to very biased decision-making.

So let’s talk a little about recognized censorship and then about other manifestations of censorship that happen, more often than not, to women.

1. Recognized Censorship

Dictatorial Systems

I’ll tell you from experience that it is a serious mindfuck living in a dictatorship as a person who didn’t grow up in one. If you have read anything by Kafka, anything by the various absurdist writers, ‘1984’, etc., then you have had glimpses into some of the situations you might find yourself encountering in communist or fascist countries. Think lots of rules that don’t make sense, with a complementary and necessary underground system of ways to get around all the rules. Lots of contradictory nonsense and red tape that prohibits people from getting shit done or even bothering to pursue things. Lots of threats of consequences that aren’t quite articulated or clear, but that are universally understood to exist. Serious, multi-multi-level heirarchies and knowledge/skill silos such that you can never find the right person for your question or need, and no one seems to be able to solve a problem without 50 other people being involved. And constant non-answers or very circular-logic type answers to very simple questions, especially ‘why’ questions. You have to learn to go with the flow, or you leave, or you stay and go mad. Those are the options as an outsider.

Despite the fact that dictatorships are really dangerous phenomena that destroy lives, they are actually very weak systems. This applies equally to political dictatorships as to small unofficial dictatorships like traditional hetero marriages. And no matter the size, all are dependent upon the absolute control of and power over all the lesser members by the dictator (or husband, in the case of marriage). Because the systems are so weak, the dictator needs dependent members to be voiceless, powerless, ignorant, subservient, and with limited freedoms. Dependent members are mired in mindfuckery and rules, require permission for basic things, and are limited in the information they can access and generate and how much they are allowed to communicate, and the scope of their communications. Many topics are off-limits, especially those that call into question the power of the dictator or make them lose face or even appear to be the slightest bit weak. And this censorship coupled with the threat of serious repercussions for over-stepping are necessary to keep members in line and the weak system appearing unassailable and functioning better than a ‘free’ (or what one might call a democratic) system. Give power to the dependent members, and the system cracks and falls apart. Guess why the divorce rate is so high in Western countries… (hint, marriage wasn’t a female invention!)

In political dictatorships, whether left- or right-wing, the most censored groups are always the ones who have the potential to do the most damage because of their sheer numbers (e.g., women, the poor), they threaten traditional values (e.g., gays and lesbians; minority religious/cultural groups), or they aren’t ignorant and can’t be brainwashed easily (e.g., academics or educated professionals). So you see these groups frequently threatened, silenced, disappeared, and used as scapegoats. Nevertheless, in a political dictatorship, ALL people are at risk for punishment if they say something that falls within the set of taboo topics. And for those who think that the US is a political dictatorship, get fucking real. The sheer amount of material that is publicly generated and individual- or group-attributable that insults, criticizes, humiliates, and borderline-threatens the President (the supposed dictator) and that is NOT censored or punished is proof positive that Americans live in a ‘free’ society. Censorship exists, but it is highly group-selective. And btw, corporations are fast becoming the censors, not the government (e.g., think of the recent censorship of Trump by Twitter – that was corporation-driven, not governmental). So that is something to think about.

Religious Influence and Obscenity

Religious people spend a shitload of time thinking about sex and trying to control every aspect of people’s existence that is remotely tied to sex. The religious have been some of the most amoral people in history, ironically, while trying to enforce their own ‘moral’ systems. And censorship is the name of the game coupled with a very heavy system of punishment, including rape, torture and murder. And this applies to every established religion out there. It is not a surprise then that the most cited rationale for power and control masked as ‘protection’ has fallen under the auspices of censorship on the basis of ‘obscenity’. The prohibition of the teaching of sexual education in schools, forced conversions of gays and lesbians, the banning of all manner of books and art from libraries, galleries, museums, and school curricula, to name a few practices, are common manifestations of censorship.

It is actually interesting when considering ends and means that serious feminists and some religious groups may on the surface oppose certain manifestations of ‘art’ while completely disagreeing about why they oppose it. The former oppose ‘obscenity’ on the grounds that it supports and normalizes a patriarchal system that embraces rape, female slavery, human trafficking, poverty, drug addiction, and child abuse, while the religious are just woman-haters that think depictions of the female body, etc. are filthy and are a prime example of why women (not men) should be controlled. And the hoi polloi ignorantly and erroneously groups feminists with religious fanatics, which probably partially explains why many feminists who oppose pornography and prostitution are incorrectly called ‘prudes’, a term that originally was used to describe ‘sexually repressed’ religious people. Being opposed to rape and forced sexuality has nothing to do with prudery or repression; quite the opposite, in fact.

2. Censorship No One Cares About

There is no country or major organization where some form of censorship doesn’t occur. But there is a difference between the censorship that the free-thinking world accepts as a human rights abuse and the censorship that is ignored or just plain old accepted as “the way things are and is it really a big deal anyway…?” One thing you’ll notice about recognized and pooh-poohed censorship is that the former is usually applied to the entire population without egregious prejudice (i.e., in China, censorship applies to all people on all the taboo topics), whereas unrecognized censorship most often occurs in hypocritical, democratic First World countries that typically tell the world that they value freedom and honesty while erasing targeted, ‘dangerous’ populations. This is likely why so much Western censorship is dismissed/ignored – if it doesn’t apply to you, you don’t think it is a problem. And guess who is less censored than everyone else in Western societies? Men. So if censorship isn’t happening to men – the shot-callers and reality-definers in every single country – then it doesn’t exist (and we say misogyny is less serious or doesn’t exist in Western countries…) Also note that all freedom-loving countries typically have small, but extremely loud, groups of people who complain incessantly about having their rights taken away, but who are usually the most privileged/entitled members of the entire population (males, trannies, religious right-wingers, etc). The actual censored are not loud because they are actually being censored so that no one ever has to hear from them, duh. And if they do make it to public awareness, other tactics, such as painting them as ‘crazy’ are employed. So let’s look at some examples of censorship in ‘free’ countries that people typically don’t acknowledge, accept or are even aware of because it is so effective.

Patriarchy and HIStory

Despite the fact that every civilization throughout time was built and maintained and expanded using female slave labour, women seldom appear in history books or history curricula in schools. Strangely, growing up and going to school in Canada, I learned more about the short-term oppressions of aboriginals in Canada and Australia, black slaves in the US, and and persecuted Jews in Europe during WWII than I learned about the lives, experiences and history of my own foremothers in Canada, let alone the women who were my foremothers in Ireland and Scotland. I certainly wasn’t taught about Western homosexual oppression either. Why do I know more about the suffering of blacks in a foreign country than I do about the women from whom I actually descended who suffered and survived so that I, myself, exist today? Why is my history as a woman so much less important than basically everyone else on the planet who is not a white female? And why the fuck does no other woman question this about her own ancestors, regardless of race or ethnicity? Why is this not strange to women? Why in historical records do we know how many sheep and horses a European male owned, but we don’t even know the name of the wife who slaved for him and suffered his dick and often his fists every day of her life? This is systematic and long-term censorship of female existence. It exists in other cultures as well, but I am speaking for my own. And it is completely unacknowledged.

Speaking solely of my European-descended sisters, why aren’t girls taught about rape and the laws surrounding it historically in our culture? Why aren’t we taught about the origins of marriage and why it is the only legal form of slavery left on the planet? Why aren’t we taught about the things men were legally allowed to do to their wives? Why aren’t we taught about the witch trials in Europe and why they targeted women primarily, and about other witchy persecution of women on other continents (North America and Africa) and why these things happen separately in other places in time, but look eerily similar? Why is the only thing we learn about women the date we got the right to vote in our own country – and why is this presented as the sum total of female achievement in history? Why don’t I know what daily life was like for women of different classes other than what they wore? Why is there this overwhelming assumption no matter where you are in the world that women’s lives have never really been that bad, the implication and ‘evidence’ being that if it was so bad, why didn’t women do anything about it??? Why is the assumption that half the world’s population just barely existed with nothing to contribute, nothing to say and were perfectly happy to have it that way, as if it were meant to be?

There is no cultural or historical female pride in our school systems or in society that is encouraged, promoted, admired and valued in the way that every single ethnic, racial and religious group out there gets in Western cultures. Girls and women don’t seem to see the big deal in being completely ignorant of their history, the history of their FEMALE people, and there is no actual concern that they are not represented in history books, the written and taught narrative of the human race.

Coming from Canada, where there is a strong tradition of female writing and where the female writers are much more impressive and prolific than the males, why were there no Canadian female writers (let alone female writers from other countries) in my English curricula? Seriously. English was the only subject Canadian children of my generation had to take every single year of their formal education, including in our five years of high school in my province. No female writers taught in a country rich with award-winning female writers. That is censorship. Erasure.

When you are not exposed to the works, thoughts, contributions, and history of your people (in my case, white women of Canadian, Irish and Scottish descent), how can you strive to be something? How can you know where you came from? How can you know who and what you are? How can you appreciate what your foremothers did and struggled through? How can you know how little progress has been made – and perhaps that last question gives me the answer as to why girls aren’t taught about their history. We’d see how little we’ve actually progressed as a sex in the so-called socially and politically ‘advanced’ First World.

If girls and women are censored, there is nothing to compare their current conditions to, and nothing to blame their oppressors for. Hell you can’t call them oppressors if there is no record of female oppression!

Trans Tyranny: Censoring Lesbians, Scientific Women, Feminists

There are a lot of ways to tell that male trannies are men. One of them is their use of censorship to bolster their very, very weak power base. Like in any dictatorship, their claims are not logical or proveable, are rooted in serious mental illness and personality disorders, and are all about power and control, which is what all males pursue on some level. Like typical dictators, they attack those with less power than themselves (women) rather than go after those presenting legitimate threats (straight men), which confirms that they are seeking power rather than pursuing anything real.

These men have been very successful in getting other powerful bodies (governments, legal, educational, and social organizations, etc) on their side in the censorship of the little opposition there has been to their nonsense, and I suspect that the only reasons they have been so successful is a) because they are men, and b) the opponents being censored are considered politically and socially unacceptable to everyone. Who is being censored? Women who uphold the scientific / biological facts of how sex (not gender!) works. Women, especially women with daughters, who believe women and girls have a right to private space away from biological males with male socialization. Women who know the facts about male violence against women, who know the data concerning male trans violence against women, and who know the psychological literature on why males gravitate towards transing, and who have read extensively the social media masturbation of male trans talking about the things they do and want to do to women and girls. Lesbians who are no longer welcome in the LG groups they were fundamental in establishing and maintaining, and who are vilified for not wanting to be raped by male trans who insist that their cocks are magically ‘female’. Women who acknowledge how little legal control they have over every aspect of their bodies and female status. Women who oppose the further erasure of their rights and status and the censorships of important words like ‘woman’, ‘vagina’, menstruation, and vocabulary that cannot be separated from the female experience.

And on and on I go. Not many women speak out. The censorship is swift and because of the violent nature of trans and their supporters, can be accompanied by violence. Women can lose their jobs for speaking up, which is censorship. Women can have their blogs shut down, which is censorship. Women are no-platformed at speaking events, which is censorship. Women are destroyed and banned in social media, which is censorship.

And no one acknowledges this in our fucking awesome ‘free’ democracies run on male supremacy. In many ways, in my opinion, I think dictatorships are better than what we have in the West simply because the lies and hypocrisy and selective (but unacknowledged) censorship are much, much worse in the West. But really, both are male systems, and should be eliminated. And before you say it, no, eliminating the censors is not censorship.

The Rise of Liberalism, Political Correctness, and Selective Censorship

Speaking of hypocrisy, we come to the liberals. Liberalism has been a building political movement in many Western countries for a while. Forget political party names for now. A Liberal or Democratic party member in the US is not the same as a Liberal or Democratic party member in Canada, for example. Likely, your country has among its choices, some religious, right-wing group, and some hypocritical, equally nutso, science-abusing, faux-human-rightsy, identity-politicking, left-wing group. Both come from a place of woman-hate (although they pretend they don’t – the former talks about ‘respect’ and ‘tradition’ while the latter talks about women’s ‘freedom’ – all bullshit). So let’s just talk about political leanings, rather than affiliation.

Liberal groups protect themselves from criticism by cloaking their bullshit in superficial human rights jargon. To criticize them immediately makes a person look like a misanthropic, sadistic, murdering, Nazi-type, even when the latter is an actual human rights activist pointing out a hypocritical liberal talking point. These folks fool many by their gung-ho-ness and superficial, at-the-ready mantras and slogans, but they are arguably quite a bit more dangerous than a typical conservative, who puts considerably less effort into trying to appear other than what they are (usually insular, narrow-minded bigots who don’t truly believe in evidence or science). Bascially, you have to work more to figure out what is really going on when a liberal speaks or acts.

Liberals are typically anti-racism warriors, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, except that they do it only when it doesn’t threaten their lifestyles, and they do it at other people’s expense. What does that mean? First, they paint everything as a racist issue in order to censor legitimate criticism, even when there is nothing racist taking place. Second, they don’t really understand what racism is or why it exists, so they censor certain groups of people (for example, white women, who do experience inseparable racism-sexism both in their home countries and abroad) and actually make it impossible for these groups to have a voice when it comes to reporting racist-sexist crime. And think about the language they do censor in various media – American television will bleep out ‘fuck’, but not ‘cunt’ or ‘bitch’. And you never hear racial slurs in American or Canadian television, while female slurs are a given on most episodes of most series out now. I’ve also noticed the new (and increasing) occurrence of male children calling adult women ‘bitch’. Selective censorship meant to denigrate women and empower males of all races. Third, liberals are possibly worse racists than the purported racists they attack, using groups for political gains rather than to help them (think of all the times liberals trot out the poorly understood plight of Muslim women they don’t even know personally in order to censor the speech of white feminists – ‘at least you’re not a Muslim woman’ is almost a cliché now).

One of the most digusting things liberal Americans have done recently is sexist, racist and a massive, but unacknowledged act of censorship. Planned Parenthood decided to remove Margaret Sanger’s name – the FOUNDER of Planned Parenthood – from the NY clinic. They’ve decided she is racist and a eugenics mastermind. This woman made it possible for today’s women of all races and ages to get an abortion and access to birth control, so whatever masterminding she may have attempted, it obviously didn’t work. Rather, Planned Parenthood would not even exist if not for this woman’s bravery and selflessness. I mean think about this. She was born in the fucking 1800’s and fought for women’s right to have the tiniest bit of control over the consequences of their marital, incestuous, workplace, acquaintance, and stranger rapes. This, at a time when women really had little choice about getting married and raped and being forced to breed for their entire lives. And fucking PP decides this heroine has to be erased, shunned, CENSORED. Fuck you Planned Parenthood, you ungrateful, disgusting, woman-hating turds. My rage when I read about this recently could have set a city block on fire. I don’t give a shit what Sanger believed in the early 1900’s. I think there is something arrogant and ignorant about imposing today’s morality on the long dead. Sanger’s contributions to the world outweigh any personal beliefs about anything. She was still a breeder, which I personally don’t agree with, but I won’t censor her contribution to female well-being because of that. Women had no choice about breeding at that point in history, and most if not all believed that it was their sole purpose in life. Today is a different story, however, and I have no problem with holding women responsible for their breeding choices now. Anyhow, liberals are often worse censors than conservatives, and represent the hypocrisy of ‘free’ democratic countries in the same way that conservatives represent dictatorships. Both are garbage, male-defined systems, but if I had to choose, based on experience, dictatorships are so much easier to navigate as they threaten everyone equally and without pretense. But we won’t have an alternative as long as men exist, sadly.

Self-Censorship Resulting from Narcisstic Abuse

On a different note, but equally important on the topic of censorship, especially for women, is something we’ll call ‘self-censorship’. Very basically, this just means that you prohibit yourself from having a voice. This is one of the major outcomes for people who have survived years of narcissistic abuse, especially as a child. It can also be a specific outcome for women who have been outspoken on EXTREMELY unpopular topics, such as women’s rights, rape, etc. and who have not protected themselves from online public assault. One thing I will say is that all men as well as women who haven’t experienced this kind of abuse will immediately dismiss self-censorship as something that is ‘all in one’s head’ or ‘issues’, the implication being one of weakness, the crime of victimhood leading to a victim mentality, or some other misogynistic bullshit that is uniformly applied to women who have beeen abused and who haven’t ‘bounced back’ with vim and positivity. Ignore those assholes. Psychological abuse is the least acknowledged, but one of the most brutal forms of abuse and can literally destroy self-identity and the ability to properly take care of oneself.

Imagine being a child with a narcissistic (NPD) parent and you grow up in an environment where you are constantly antagonized; everything you say and your very reality are doubted and questioned and negated; you are punished for the most bizarre of things without warning; you are humiliated publicly and/or within family/friend circles; you are given the silent treatment or had love withheld for reasons you can’t discern for days, weeks or longer; you are blamed for things you didn’t do; you are guilted, manipulated, accused of lying or being cruel when you are not; and more. And defending yourself ALWAYS makes things worse. Imagine what that does to a child’s sense of self. One of the things the child learns to do is to make herself as invisible as possible, to avoid saying anything definitive, to do anything possible not to be a target or rock the boat. This can happen to adults in adult relationships too, but for a child, we are talking about the crucial identity formation experiences that are necessary to grow into a functioning healthy adult with a solid sense of self. As an adult surviving childhood abuse, you have no confidence in what you believe, often can’t make decisions, and usually avoid saying anything resembling an opinion if you even have one at all. Sometimes, you do have an opinion, but the idea of expressing it is quickly quelled as you start doubting whether it is real, valid or valuable. This is self-censorship.

Wrap-Up

There is a ton of other forms of selective and unacknowledged censorship that I could discuss here. For example, male language traditions (mankind, Man, manpower, chairman, name change for women in marriage, etc.) is a large topic that is designed to exclude women from every aspect of life, while pretending to include them and that it isn’t really a big deal. Censorship and erasure are very big deals, especially when you consider flipping the situation to favour women. Then you find out what men really think about censorship.

But I won’t get into more here as this topic is truly massive. What people don’t really realize is that the censorship of women on so many levels is so enduring, relentless, and pervasive that it isn’t noticeable. People accept things that, if they thought about it and paid attention, just aren’t right, and that wouldn’t be accepted by racial, ethnic or religious groups or by men. As a lone woman, you cannot change this system, but you can allow a woman her voice in your daily life by reading female authors, supporting women’s comments on articles or in social media, listening to female speakers, and giving the little girls in your life the chance to be heard and believed.

~~~

Previous posts in the series:

A is for Antagonism

B is for Bisexual

♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢

I Want My Own Vatican City

I like geography and all things related. Contrary to misogynistic stereotypes, I am a chick with a good sense of direction and I love maps. I do sometimes get a bit lost, but I figure things out pretty quickly.  It is not my experience that males know where they are going or are handy with a map. My most hilarious experience with this occurred in Hong Kong several years ago. I was doing a visa run from mainland China with a group of people who, like me, had never been there before. We got off the metro and had to find the Chinese consulate using a rudimentary public map posted on the wall. Myself? I got my bearings immediately and worked out the most efficient route in my mind, using visual-spatial skills that girls aren’t supposed to have. Now unfortunately, in our group, there was a tall, masculine, loudmouth, ex-military British fucker, whom I’ll call Prince George. And being be-penised, he immediately appointed himself leader and started telling us all his plan to get us to the embassy. I realized immediately that Prince George hadn’t a clue about how to get to where we needed to go. I piped up and said that he was incorrect, and people should follow me instead. But I was ignored, being female and all. And I hadn’t done military service, so obviously, I was missing some kind of navigating skills. So I said, “See ya,” and left the group unencumbered by dude-funk. Can you guess what happened? Yep, the group got lost under the leadership of the humble Prince, and I sat outside the embassy waiting for them for an annoyingly long time.

Moral of the story: Never follow a man or trust what he says about his abilities or knowledge. First, in his over-confidence and general self-delusion, he always knows less than he lets on and a woman will always have to fix whatever problem he creates. And second, males have little consideration for safety and other practical issues only a woman will think about.

I digress slightly. This is actually a post about geography and problems with dudes.

So in my love of geography and learning, I find myself taking little geography quizzes online. I made it my mission to know all of the 196 countries of the world and where they are located (I include Taiwan in this total, having lived there for a few years and having discovered how much it pisses the Chinese off when you tell them they don’t own Taiwan…). Recently, I found myself taking a country factoid quiz and was faced with the following question:

What is the only country with over 90% male citizenship?

I hesitated for a second, as my mind briefly flashed to one of those gun-toting American survivalist groups declaring an independent state. But then I realized they like rape too much, so there is no way they’d shack up officially with so many dudes. So, it had to be gay dudes or religious dudes. Or both!

Vatican City

Yes, that was it. Vatican City, the citizen (not resident) count of which is somewhere under 600. Under 6% of these citizens are female.

Now, personally, I don’t care if men want to form their own male-only countries provided there are serious protections in place against human (i.e., female) trafficking. I’m perfectly fine with separatism as a concept in practice. Male violence can be confined to its own petri dish, and women can be left out of it altogether. And if the dudes can tap into their natural gay selves (all dudes are omnisexual and thus can choose to be gay), all the better for women!

Swiss Guard Vatican City 2

Gayest uniform ever. He can probably kill you with the slightest touch of his pinkie finger, but the costume is classic for an all-male country…

So, Vatican City is the closest thing to what I’m talking about, and their set-up works for them. I argue that it only works as well as it does because it is not completely male. There are a number of non-citizen females who support the city-state both as non-resident workers and as resident ‘support’ of resident males. Further, Vatican City is a highly respected independent state, greatly funded by the larger Christian world population. As well, nobody attacks them – even Muslim terrorists, despite their chest-beating – because any attackers would essentially be waging war on the entire Western world. Also, no one questions their uber-sexist, backwards, religious worldview. They are essentially allowed to function unmolested in hypocrisy and idiocy without a homegrown army (note: the relatively small contingent of super-faggily-dressed Swiss Guard Pope-protectors (see above) would be no match for a modern military assault), and draws in major tourist dollars from a peaceful, but brainwashed, crowd of Christian sheep.

So here is my question: why can’t women create their own internationally recognized and respected women-only, non-religious ‘Vatican City’? Why don’t women WANT this?

The answer is actually quite simple. Despite the fact that women-only city-states make a great deal of sense, even if women demanded them, they would not be allowed to exist. And to be honest, I think there are actually a number of women who would go for this kind of set-up if it were a possibility. But a female Vatican City would be under constant attack by men. Why? Well, all-women communities tend to be high-functioning and non-hierarchical. While girls are taught to believe from birth that they cannot exist without men, the opposite is actually true. Women function better when no men are present. And when men are faced with the reality that they are unnecessary or obsolete, they not only can’t handle it intellectually, but they feel they must retaliate with violence and try to put a stop to female success and independence. A classic, small-scale case of this actually exists in Kenya in the village of Umoja, which was founded nearly 30 years ago by women and girls fleeing from the male violence inevitable under forced heterosexuality, and has persisted despite several different kinds of attacks by men facing their own inadequacy.

In the West, women have not been so lucky. We are at a point where even women-only events and static non-living spaces have not only come under attack, but have been infiltrated and even erased by men, backed by changed laws and hard core violence. It is not unreasonable to say that Western women have as little freedom today as do women in many countries that are supposedly more ‘backward’ or less ‘progressive’. But when you tell Western women they are so privileged and free, they tend not to stand up for themselves and instead feel guilt at how lucky they are… Anyhow, no matter where you are in the world, it is hard to imagine women successfully creating their own women-only permanent living and working community, nevermind a separate city-state or country, and remaining unviolated by men. Unlike the men of Vatican City, these women-only countries would not have the backing and respect of the world.

But wouldn’t it be fantastic? The idea of having an untainted, demarcated space (city) without a single male – even boy-children – demanding your attention and energy and hyper-vigilance. A country where you wouldn’t have to live in fear. Where you could walk alone, unafraid, at any hour of the day. Where you could sleep under the stars without worrying about getting raped or kidnapped. Where you don’t need locks on your doors. Where you don’t have to get married and agree to be raped for decades and decades by a single man in order to be ‘protected’ from being raped by all the others or to be economically secure enough to avoid having to become a hooker to feed yourself. Where female friendship actually means something and is reliable and stable. Where the concept of family is replaced by something less fragile and dangerous and more inclusive.  Where women can finally find their natural selves…

[This post is part of the Year of the Fantasy series…]

♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢

I Want to Know What a Free Woman Is Like

Men are happy to tell you that women are free. Free and equal. In fact, to men, a free woman is the ultimate whore that they don’t have to pay – existing solely to serve every male sexual perversion imaginable. To men, ever ignorant, self-serving and illogical, female freedom is actually the same thing as sexual slavery. To liberate a woman is to tether her completely to a penis, or rather, several penises, and to force her to like it. You see, when men define a free woman or female freedom, they are actually defining their own freedom. And male freedom is about penises and ejaculation and the male right to take, use and destroy everything.

A liberated woman = a free slave. Freedom for women is found in slavery to men. The submissive woman is the one with the power. Sound familiar?

It’s oxymoronical (moron being the key part of that). But dumb is what you get when you leave language and the development of constructs and identity in the hands and minds of men.

No. I’ve seen enough of that, and it sickens. Power in the hands of the least worthy and most corruptible is a sickening thing. I want to see what a free woman really looks like. A free woman is a woman free from penis. No woman is free from penis. And so all we have are constructed women, we have no free women.

As it is, I don’t trust women of the Patriarchy. They don’t have my or any female’s, including their own, best interests in mind, and their number one goal is to further the male agenda in return for crumbs of approval. Harm reduction, perhaps. A misguided and wasted attempt at freedom, often. Currently, ‘woman’ – not the biological entity, which is unambiguous and impossible to deny, but the identity, the construct, the psychology – is 100% constructed by men. We don’t know what women are. We can’t know what women are. We know what men are because only men have the freedom to realize their potential and embrace their nature (see more on this in my post on how nature and nurture function differently for males and females.) We know that males are predisposed to violence, and through violence, men claimed dominance over women early on in human existence. To defend and ensure their continued dominance, they developed a complex system of socialization. This system, with variation in the details through time and around the world, has served and continues to serve to reward men for their natural violence and self-centred ego pursuits, and to make violence and domination an accepted and revered part of almost all cultures. And the same socialization system – developed by men – punishes women for those natural behaviours that ensure separation and independence from men (strength, assertiveness, intelligence, etc) and rewards unnatural behaviours (docility, tolerance for abuse, submission, etc) and twists the purpose of exploitable, natural behaviours (i.e., empathy) that serve to keep them enslaved and supporting male violence unconditionally. So we know what natural men look like. We don’t have a clue what a natural woman would look like, despite that stupid fucking Aretha Franklin song about female cock-suckage and having an identity wholly defined by men.

This is the stuff of fantasy, and I would dearly like to know what a natural woman would be like to work with, talk to, live with, create with. I suppose anything could be possible, but I have strong doubts that she would end up being the monster that natural men are or the monster that many constructed women of the Patriarchy are. If a Natural Woman were naturally a monster, she would have given males a run for dominance long ago. No, we are meant to be something different entirely…

[This post is part of the Year of the Fantasy series.]

♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢

2016: Year of the Fantasy

I’ll start with a note on fantasy since I don’t think a lot of people really understand what it means and it is used incorrectly by men (of course) to justify any number of things they do or say or endorse. Men control language, you see, so they can define something one way, and then when it’s to their advantage, they can spin the table.

Fantasy, essentially, is

the act of imagining something impossible or very, very, very unlikely.

All of the video, pictorial, and written porn that exists supposedly falls into that category, and if men decide not to abuse the term ‘free speech’, they’ll fall back on “it’s just fantasy”.

Except that it’s not. The things that happen in porn happen to women, to quote Andrea Dworkin. So porn doesn’t fit the definition of fantasy because it is based on and perpetuates reality. It is violence. It is crime. It is rape. It is reality.

But I don’t want to be sidetracked here. This isn’t a post about men’s vacant inner lives and the need to fill their void with the worst kinds of hate and destruction.

No, this is a post about real fantasy. A woman’s fantasy. My fantasy. It is fantasy because it is impossible (or very, very, very unlikely). The purpose of a fantasy is to escape from the oppression of reality. And who needs to escape more than anyone? Women.

Perhaps 2015 would be better known as the Year of Anger because that’s what it seemed like to me. I’d like to think that this recent period leading up to and including the turn of the year, which has been filled with delightful thoughts of a world that is not possible, will continue through the remainder of the year. We’ll see. I hope so. I tend to be a realist and that is not necessarily a fun place to be – ask any woman who rejects feminism. She can’t handle it because it is a framework based on reality and reality is fucking depressing. And who wants that? Jeez.

I am fantasizing about a world with no men. I don’t care how they disappear. That has not yet entered into the equation. All I have at this point is an established world that doesn’t know men and certainly doesn’t fantasize about having them there! In many ways, it is unimaginable – as I said, it is pure fantasy. We have nothing to base the fantasy on except the negation of the current wrongs, or the opposite of what currently exists. It’s simplistic, but a starting place for a person or people who have known nothing other than slavery and whose history has been effectively erased to support the maintenance of that slavery.

So indulge me in a cursory look at the start of my fantasy, in the form of a list, which is no more than a woman’s surface look at what taking away the testosterone element might effect. At this point, I’m working from the negation/elimination of the current evils men have perpetrated and that have led to widespread destruction. I firmly believe women would not have gone down that same path as we don’t destroy ourselves of our own free will. Once you start thinking about everything you could do if you didn’t have to worry about the threat of men in all areas of life, you find yourself with endless possibilities. I truly think that without men, society would have achieved infinitely more in a much shorter amount of time. Woman-hate is a time and resource waster, a distraction.

Without men, we would have under the following topics:

Sexual Safety

  • No rape
  • No fear at night
  • No sexual harassment or intimidation
  • No sexual assault
  • Little to no violent crime
  • No gangs
  • No dominance/submission structures
  • No BDSM or sexual power play
  • No prostitution
  • No stripping/pole dancing/demeaning ‘sex work’ of any kind
  • No sex/human trafficking
  • No missing girls or women
  • No slavery
  • No pornography
  • No surveillance
  • No need for a police force (mediators, perhaps)
  • No misogyny

Global/Community Safety

  • No property ownership
  • No vandalism
  • No weapons (other than practical ones for hunting)
  • So, no guns, no bombs, no biological weapons, no nuclear weapons
  • No territorial disputes
  • No need for armies
  • No terrorism
  • No spies
  • No diplomats
  • No peacekeepers
  • No war
  • No refugees
  • No racism

Economics

  • No money-based system
  • No drive for material wealth/possessions
  • No bullshit ‘women love shopping’ myth/propaganda
  • No corruption
  • No privileged class
  • No underbelly social class
  • No ridiculous demeaning jobs
  • No strikes
  • No sweatshops
  • No greed
  • No poverty
  • No classism

Ideology

  • No religion
  • No ignorance
  • No blind faith
  • No dogma
  • No irrational punishments and requirements
  • No negation of truth or knowledge
  • No needless shame
  • No ideological persecution
  • Commitment to truth rather than preservation of lies

Social Structure and Breeding

  • No family
  • No marriage
  • No domestic slavery
  • No pair bonding
  • No forced breeding
  • Little need for abortion (medical only)
  • No pregnancy worship or denegration
  • No myth surrounding biological clocks ticking
  • Possible alternatives to natural pregnancy
  • Low birth rate / population
  • No unwanted children
  • No male children
  • No orphanages
  • No street kids

Health

  • No monetization of healthcare
  • Universal healthcare
  • No denial of services
  • Longer life spans without the obsession with longevity
  • No sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
  • Little mental illness
  • No mental illness stigmatization
  • No anorexia / morbid obesity
  • Little needless surgery
  • Easy, non-stigmatized, humane access to assisted suicide
  • Integrated, healthy relationships between patients and all practitioners of the health arts
  • Health research not tied to agendas, cover-ups, fuelled instead by a willingness to explore all avenues
  • No animal research

The Body

  • No ridiculous focus on youth or beauty
  • No gender
  • No trans nonsense
  • No body hate or image problems
  • No cutting or self-mutilation
  • Comfortable, woman-centric clothing
  • No make-up or other hate-driven, toxic/harmful masking behaviours
  • No body-destroying fashion
  • No illogical body rituals (shaving, bleaching, whitening, etc)
  • No surgery designed to ‘augment’ the body

Environment

  • No global warming
  • No needless waste
  • No needless killing of animals
  • No water, air, soil pollution
  • No massive cities
  • Only clean energy
  • No property/money/patent-oriented messing with food
  • No monocrops
  • No large-scale agriculture
  • Community gardens
  • No animal farms
  • Focus on biodegradable products
  • Composting, vermiculture
  • No chemical pesticides
  • Environment-focused, local growing
  • No introduced species (animals, plants, fungi, bacteria)

Education

  • Complementary technology for life assistance and co-existence rather than life destruction
  • No education-as-childcare mentality
  • Multiple styles of education available regardless of age
  • No rigid age-to-grade classes
  • Regular person-focused educational needs assessments
  • Universal education to all who want it
  • No priority subject areas
  • Premium information search tools and information repositories, untainted by pornography and violence

There is so much more. This is just off the top of my head. And I’ll fully admit that it is only a starting point. As I stated earlier, when living in a slave system, it is hard to imagine a world of possibilities and so you must begin imagining the opposite of what you have.

 

The Waste of a Gift

The following will be really, really hard to understand if you are a man, especially a man living in a Western country run on ‘democracy’ (there has never been a true democracy, so I put that in quotes).

If you have lived in any kind of dictatorship – and by that, I mean a real dictatorship, not a ‘democracy’ that many men will call dictatorships because they don’t get to abuse or rape women as freely as they wish – or you are a member of an oppressed group, such as women, LGB, or racial minorities, then this might be easier to understand.

In the semi-free societies that result from a ‘democracy’, people have rights or what we conceived of as (morally, legally) protected categories of behaviour. There is no set list of rights, and in fact, there are rights we likely haven’t conceived of yet simply because we live in a male-dominated society that has different priorities for human life than, say, a non-sadism-based society would have. You see, rights are not innate or natural. Rather, they are symptoms or markers of a civilized society. The more advanced a society, the more numerous and more equally applied to all people these human rights are. Likewise, the less civilized or advanced a society, the fewer rights are allowed for everyone equally. In a sense, rights are a gift to be shared by all members of society, not to be taken for granted or abused.

Even within our currently semi-free societies, these rights are not equally allowed or protected. The ruling class – specifically, men, since all societies are currently male-dominated – will be more protected than other groups, and they will often take liberties in defining those rights for themselves and in restricting those rights for other groups (first and foremost, women).

The most troubling thing about the most ‘advanced’ societies that actually build rights into their governments’ legal mandates is that the most powerful people (men) don’t see rights as the communal gifts that they are. They see them as more like property or collectibles that individuals can own. And instead of using them for good or for further social and intellectual advancement of their society – which I see as the primary goal of human life – they use them to further agendas of hate, violence, dominance, oppression, and self-centred pleasure.

If one uses the right of ‘free speech’ as an example, we can see blatant abuse by the dominant class (men, of all colours). The abuses take the form of silencing the speech of women, while promoting the voices of men. Redefining oppressed groups’ (especially women’s) non-violent speech as hate and violence. Defining or including hate and violence against women (e.g., pornography) as speech, when clearly it isn’t. Using speech as a weapon, rather than, say, rhetoric, to actively and deliberately hurt groups of the least powerful people (women) who have done nothing wrong.

These instances, and common ones at that, are abuses of a gift. And it is shocking to me that when the powerful (men) are fortunate enough to have access to a gift, the first and central things they want to do with that gift is to destroy people (women) who have no desire to harm them.

Please think, men. You abuse the gifts you have, and in that way, you hurt ALL of society in many ways you probably haven’t thought of.