Category Archives: Language
Karen Carpenter. A literal Karen rather than what was talked about in the post referred to above, but hey.
So I’m marching around, enjoying relatively perv-ball-free streets, and into my ears flows the following, which I hadn’t listened to in years and years.
What do you get when you fall in love?
A guy with a pin to burst your bubble
That’s what you get for all your trouble.
I’ll never fall in love again.
I’ll never fall in love again.
What do you get when you kiss a guy?
You get enough germs to catch pneumonia.
After you do, he’ll never phone you.
I’ll never fall in love again.
I’ll never fall in love again.
You get enough tears to fill an ocean
That’s what you get for your devotion.
I’ll never fall in love again.
I’ll never fall in love again.
Sorry, the video is really just an audio version.
Well, I laughed and laughed right after the part about catching diseases from men. I wrote something to that effect recently. Now, this song was written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, and being male, they originally wrote the lyrics with the sexes reversed. Poor hurt men – as if men can fall in love, right? And of course, women are the source of disease – like how they’ve always blamed prostitutes for venereal diseases. Anyhow, the song was made famous by Dionne Warwick, and she reversed the sexes – probably more out of not wanting to appear lesbian than fighting the power. And honestly, it makes more sense and rings truer when a woman sings it. Men don’t really love or cry over women, unless they are crying because their slave is gone, and they don’t want to go to the effort of procuring another.
Just because I felt like it, I decided to write a few of my own lyrics for the more modern survivor of male love and attention. I took the fall in love lines out to conserve space, but you know they’re there.
What do you get when you fall in love?
Stockholm Syndrome with a side of shame
That’s how it works in the hetero game
What do you get when you fuck a dude?
Chlamydia, AIDS, or a yeast infection
Knocked up, and finally, his rejection
What do you get when you deny the trans?
Death threats, rape threats, no-platforming
Loss of your space unless you confirm him
Feel free to come up with your own and then you can dance and sing along.
Let’s get back to Karen Carpenter. She was a superstar, but undervalued. Unfortunately more famous for her death from anorexia (what some racist, sexist black women have called ‘white girl disease’, even though it is very common among many Asian girls and women, as well) than for her amazing musical talent. What a lot of people don’t know, is that she was a kickass drummer – better than most of the famous male drummers out there. She was forced by the producing powers in her life NOT to drum, and to focus more on the lady-like singing. Women have always been cut out of most aspects of music due to the unseemly nature of playing an instrument that might require body movements or facial contortions.
Her joy was in drumming, however.
I include below, this incredible video of her in her element. You see joy in her that you don’t see when she sings. And it boggles my mind how her clearly decimated body is able to put so much power into communion with the several drum sets on stage. Please try hard to disregard the creepy, douchey brother presence. He can play the piano well, but there is something odd about him that I don’t want to examine too deeply.
Well, my goodness, I haven’t written in a year-and-a-half. That was not intended, but it has been a stressful and odd, but ultimately productive time since the summer of 2018. I became busy self-empowering and exploring and working through a lot of China-rage. And as I may have alluded to or come right out and said in past posts, I was actively seeking to get my ass out of mainland China. And by gum, I did it!
China was becoming a scarier and scarier place over time. As a Canadian, I began fearing for my life – I was even threatened by a Chinese male colleague at the college where I was working part time. Google the Huawei debacle if you’re interested and find out how the US put Canadians in danger. It’s great being a chess piece on an international game board used by psychotic capitalist dictator (Trump) on the one side and psychotic communo-capitalist dictator (Xi) on the other. Long story short, China began arresting Canadians right left and centre, and even more scarily, revisited an already sentenced and jailed Canadian and changed his sentence to execution in retaliation. Americans were oblivious, as usual, but my Canadian friends were sending me regular messages urging me to get the hell out of China. That’s not why I left, but the timing was appropriate. And now that China has developed another nasty virus to export, I’m even happier that I’m not there. Hopefully, that will be contained. We’ve just seen the first international death (in the Philippines) from the Chinese coronavirus.
I’m in the US, currently, but I may, in my next post, discuss why it really is not the place I fell for many years ago. Especially as a woman. But I’m getting off-track here. Forgive me, it has been a while.
I wanted to discuss something that has been on my mind plenty in the past, and now again, since I’ve been back in the US amid whiny black, white and other non-white men. And that is this thing called ’emasculation’. It is a word that inspires an immediate and instinctive chuckle in me, for a few reasons. First, in the literal sense, I love thinking about men losing their dicks. Personally, I think all baby boys should have their dicks removed at birth. The Jewish had half a good idea – they didn’t go far enough. It wouldn’t harm males at all, and it would solve so many of our current problems. Messes in the bathroom on the annoying end of the scale of male problem-causing, and rape on the most serious end of male scourgedom. Men seem to be so much more obsessed with anal sex anyways, so it would be a favour to them to refocus their attention on their butts instead of their dicks. So yeah, literal emasculation sends thrill chills up and down my spine.
But when men talk about emasculation, most of the time, they are talking about having their
rights as men privilege taken away. By women – that is the important part. It’s pretty much just over-emotional over-sensitivity – something most feminists call ‘butt hurtness’. But the scary part is that this feeling – and remember it is only a feeling, and an irrational one at that – fuels a lot of the violence and hate that men have for and enact on women. Boiled down, man believes he owns the world (and women) and is owed respect by all women. Pretty much anything can ’cause’ a man to feel emasculated. All you have to do is just stand there as a woman and if a man feels that you have dissed him in some way, you have emasculated him. But really, it is any word, behaviour, look on your face, thing you’re wearing that can be irrationally understood by men as being an attack on him as a man. I think it is connected to his ‘intuition‘.
A man really has to subscribe to the religion known as gender to feel emasculated. And that means he believes intrinsically (even if he says the opposite publicly) that men are superior to women in all ways that matter. He also has to believe that there is a different set of standards for women to adhere to, and which includes, serving men. The standards would be degrading for men to have to follow, but they are perfectly acceptable to force on women. Again, he may not publicly admit he believes this, or may not be intelligent enough to even articulate it to himself. But the fundamental belief in the inferiority of women drives the whole irrational over-sensitivity machine that men seem to constantly experience.
So let’s turn this around. Is there an equivalent to emasculation for women? Short answer here is a resounding ‘no’. The gender religion negates this possibility. Let’s explore why this is so. [I did write a post on the close link between infantilization and feminization, which is related, but not exactly what I’m talking about here.] There are actually women who get pissy if you take away their ‘woman essence’ as it is dictated by men and embraced by female hetero sheep, but it isn’t an equivalent. I’ll give some examples below.
So for men, a feeling of emasculation means that he believes his right to intimidate women, have economic, sexual, political, legal (insert anything else here) power over women has been taken away. Example: a woman earns more than her husband, therefore she is emasculating him (his economic power as a man over her as a woman is taken away). He is justified in getting angry and blaming her for his irrational feelings, and if he wants to beat the shit out of her, well, can you blame him????
There isn’t actually a word for this phenomenon for women. That should tell you everything you need to know. Degradation – and that is what this feeling or state is all about – is ACCEPTABLE and normal for women. Women don’t have power. Women don’t have privilege. So they aren’t there for you to take away and women can’t feel like they have lost something. Only a member of the master class can create these feelings in themselves because they have all the power and they know it on some level. And most women don’t believe they are superior either – that is key. If you aren’t factually superior, and you don’t believe you are superior (even if you can’t articulate your feeling of superiority, even to yourself), then you can’t feel like something has been taken away.
Now, let’s come back to those women who truly subscribe to the gender religion. There are women who feel like their societally-contrived gender role is being taken away – usually, it is a response to ‘feminists’ who are actively fighting against gender roles and the forced inferiority of women by men and their henchwomen. For example, these are the women who get angry when people call them the more humanizing and equalizing ‘Ms.’ instead of ‘Mrs.’ because marriage is supposed to be some kind of achievement (instead of an institution firmly rooted in female slavery). They are also the women who get angry or disgusted when women wear pants suits instead of irrationally showing up at work exposing their legs in skirts (why is it only important for women to expose their bodies in the workplace…??? Can you imaging a man showing up to a business meeting in assless chaps?) And there are millions of examples of this weird pissiness at opposition to forced femininity. Gender role adherents will feel like their ‘womanhood’ is being attacked. Their right to be weak and helpless and feminine and exploited, as if that is the very definition of what a woman is according to a god or Nature (which, of course, it isn’t – purely MANmade). And encountering these types of women is confusing, frustrating, and ultimately sad and harmful to women as a group. And of course, this symptom of Stockholm Syndrome isn’t a true equivalent to men’s irrational feeling of emasculation. The only thing natural about it is that it is a normal and non-threatening response of the colonized mind to rationalize harm by male power. Otherwise, women would have to fight men for their freedom to leave gender in the dust. That can get women killed, beaten, raped, etc. Easier to nod and smile, wear the flipping pink skirt suit, and attack one’s fellow slaves regularly.
Language Corners. Phenomena popular in, but likely not limited to, China, most often take the form of loose to semi-structured informal events where people gather to practise speaking a particular foreign language. I have years of experience participating in ‘English Corners’. For many years, I was forced to organize and participate in Corners at the places where I worked. They were horrible. Students would come to be entertained rather than learn and participate fully, and to ask me the same boring questions about whether I could use chopsticks and if I loved China. But I’ve managed to live in a few large places where locals organize Corners for anyone who wants to participate and that aren’t dependent on the attendance of native speakers. Nanjing, former capital of China, has a long-running (well over 25-30 years now) and excellent English Corner that meets in a local park at night once a week and is attended by people of all ages and abilities and walks of life. It is quite fabulous.
The city where I currently work has a number of language Corners. Some are held at universities and some at public parks. I’ve attended several, and as might be expected, some are better than others. I once attended one that seemed to attract aggressive and annoying men seeking to perv on the young Chinese girls who attended and to engage in antagonistic and exhausting ‘conversation’ with yours truly. Mostly though, if I attend an English Corner at all, I attend the private one held by the enthusiastic students at my own campus. They’re good kids, and I’m the first person to preserve and foster any natural desire to learn and better oneself. You can’t buy curiosity, and it is hard to find in this world in this day and age.
Recently, I’ve been motivating myself for a major life change. I’m really thinking about moving to France as early as next year. It is a work in progress. I speak passable French and I can think in the language, but I have to admit, I am far from bilingual and years of disuse has done a number on my grammar and vocabulary. Years in China hasn’t helped. But I recently discovered a local multi-language Corner. The bulk of the participants attend to practise speaking English, but there are small groups of people there wishing to speak Korean, Japanese, Spanish, and as luck would have it, French. Needless to say, I am ecstatic. I made a pact with a friend of mine to attend every week with her- she wants to work on having more intellectual discussions in her already excellent English. And I need to reawaken and tone my French muscles.
The other night had a decent turn-out. Some weeks, there may only be one other person wanting to speak French, but there were three native speakers from Africa this time in addition to a few regular Chinese attendees I’ve gotten to know. Unfortunately, they were dudes, and to my great surprise and dismay, they were part of a large international group of special forces soldiers in China for a year-long training program. Creepy, scary, and weird. China is training the world’s elite, state-sanctioned rapists and murderers now!!! Anyhow, I stuck with the group until the Africans started asking the locals why there is no young Chinese pussy available to them. Apparently, everyone has a boyfriend!!! These black dudes may be here for military training, but they are definitely also here to fuck local bitches and possibly to find one to marry. Barfo. I am so not interested in heterosexual female slavery or men of any colour (sorry, liberal feminists, it isn’t just white men) whining about not finding a line-up of women on their backs, legs spread waiting for them.
I left the group to look for my friend among the ESL’ers.
And I found her in a weird situation. It was a small group, and a Chinese guy was lambasting her in an aggressive stance jabbing the air with his finger in an accusatory fashion. You know this type and this move. Very male, very threatening. So he notices me approaching, turns on me, and with no preamble, salutation, or welcome, immediately gives me a task. “YOU are going to settle this for us.” Now, I don’t like being told what to do, especially by men, but as my friend was involved, I asked what was going on instead of just turning around. From what I could gather, they had been discussing ‘single life’, which I think was one of the topics of the evening. I am not sure what exactly my friend had said, but dickface had gone on the offensive. I think she must have challenged his heterosexual assumption that women’s bodies were the property of men and that to be single was a female crime against humanity. He was speaking loudly and started describing her as a ‘gentleman-lady’, which was supposed to be an insult, in addition to insulting her intelligence and existence.
I stopped him and concluded that she had won the argument hands down. That made him mad. He looked for ways to put his natural violence and anger upon me. He accused me of being American (classic move for many anti-Americans as if it is some sort of point-scoring argument), to which I suggested that he wasn’t very smart if he was making stupid assumptions that ended up not being true. I’m not American. Then he started suggesting that obviously we were lesbians and should kiss. He kept saying that over and over, which I think was at the root of his original anger at my friend. It was positively immature and scary behaviour. It was also clear that my friend, whom I later found out had been further attacked by the other males in the group for other incomprehensible reasons, was forced into a position where she was trying to defend herself. I’ve been there. When you’re 21, and for most women throughout their entire life, you are constantly forced by males and some male-focused females to defend your human status. A few of us manage to learn that self-defense is futile. You can’t win nonsensical arguments. And men love the fight. They gain energy. You lose yours to them. You are derailed, and often, your small confidence is further shaken. You shrink and eventually give up trying to be human. And there is always the fear that there will be violence. Not just verbal violence.
So I decided to start the fucking party. I’m not 21 anymore, and I don’t believe men can or even want to end their violence. Every second you give them is a waste unless you are taking them down with certainty. I have various strategies for dealing with assholes. You have to be careful, though. You have to know who you’re up against and how dangerous they are. Sometimes you can you embarrass them. Sometimes you can intimidate them. Sometimes, you just have to walk away and find a safe place. But regardless of douchebag type, I always recommend never entering a pointless argument where you’re put on the defense. It’s like arguing with a religious person – they don’t come from a place of truth or fact, and have massive power behind them that will put society on their side if things get weird for you. So this guy? Stupid, a coward targeting a very young woman, and possibly violent if alone with him. But in a group setting, he needed to be controlled and dismissed. So I took the upper hand. I pointed out that he was rude and aggressive and not very smart, and that I wasn’t going to join a group discussion with a shameful person like him in it, and I moved to take my friend with me. He put himself on the defense, trying to negate my statements about him, which was exactly what I wanted, and he soon realized he couldn’t win against me since I wouldn’t engage. He walked away with a buddy of his. Lack of easy prey made English Corner much less appealing, apparently.
Now what made me really angry was that no one would speak up against him. Quietly looking on as he destroyed a young woman was apparently just dandy. This is very Chinese. People do not defend or help one another here unless they are family. Everyone else is persona non grata. I’ve seen it in countless situations, myself. But it happens everywhere, every day. A Chinese will literally let someone they don’t know die on the street in front of them instead of help them. And I’m not making it up. Every month or so, some embarrassing cell phone video or news story shows up online shaming all Chinese because someone let a child hit by a car die on the sidewalk without help, or some homeless old person dies of neglect despite pleas for help, or a foreigner ends up saving some local person drowning in a lake as a heap of Chinese look on apathetically. So, I was angry, but not surprised that an entire group of adult people said nothing while this man got progressively more aggressive and abusive with a young woman.
The guy walked away, and the group re-formed. And suddenly, everyone was telling me that they had seen him at another English Corner behaving in the same way. Ha! And the best part – everyone was insisting that he was not from China!!! Excuse much? Of course he was from China. I’ve met a shit ton of Chinese dudes like this one. Domineering, argumentative, aggressive, and mansplainy. And all I could think was ‘why hasn’t anyone stopped him?’ as this particular Corner is generally known for having some sort of decorum and civility thanks to the volunteer organizers supposed vigilance. But this happens to a certain extent in all cultures. We make excuses for men. We allow them to dictate proceedings. We allow their violence, their aggression, their abuse. They can’t help it, you see. Especially if their targets are women. Women are expected to shut up and put up. And to keep the love and support flowing while pretending that nothing is wrong.
I’m perfectly happy to break an ego or abusive cycle if the life of the party is a homophobic, racist misogynist.
This is Part III in my exploration of the human obsession known as sexuality. The other parts are:
Part I: An introduction to male omnisexuality and why heterosexuality is even a thing at all.
Part II: The sex drive and sexuality – human obsessions and two misunderstood and badly abused concepts. Also a brief consideration of homosexuality, asexuality, and forced sexuality.
Although their actual life-or-death needs are exactly the same as those for women and are exactly four in number – food, water, sleep and shelter – in their natural proclivity for violence, power and control, men have elevated ‘sex’ (defined as dick servicing) to a life-or-death need. It isn’t. No man has ever died from lack of sex.
Using standard male logic, men will try to argue that women should be made available to them, either through unpaid or unequal barter-based sex slave relationships (girlfriend, wife), or through paid rent-a-sex-slave situations (prostitution) because without it they will a) become more violent and agitated, in general, b) will lose control and rape, and c) it is magically ordained by some sky-god or by Nature. The conclusion (threat) that follows from this (non-) logic is: “let us rape you or we will rape you harder, and cause lots of other problems as well.” And a lot of women will believe this ‘men have needs’ illogic and give in to what, in a nutshell, is coercive or manipulative rape. There is all sorts of mindfuckery that accompanies the threat so as to paint rape as an expression of love and to paint women’s reluctance or denial of service as some sort of cruel punishment or selfishness or prudery. Coercive or manipulative rape, the most common and least acknowledged form of rape, will be discussed in another post.
Simplicity vs Complexity: Men and Women
Men are easy to understand. Get a handle on understanding the motivations of power, control, selfishness, violence, and high emotionality within a limited range, and you’ve pretty much got them down. Even their omnisexuality and why they choose to gravitate, for the most part, to declared heterosexuality (despite what they do behind closed doors) is very, very easy to understand.
Women, on the other hand, are much more difficult to pin down. And there are a few very good reasons for this. Part of it may be that we are more complex beings to begin with. Men often say this as a criticism, but that only speaks to their inability to understand complex systems and their failure to control us completely. Our inner lives are deep and rich. We understand things on so many more levels. We are detail-oriented as well as big picture thinkers. We think both concretely and abstractly. We are connected with nature on a fundamental level and yet our minds and spirits soar beyond all horizons. We are more in touch with our instincts, and at the same time, have the capacity to override our lizard brain gut reactions and act with logic, compassion, empathy, and compromise. Yes, we are complex beings, and in this way, are usually hard to put into the categorical boxes that men design for us.
But there is another reason women are hard to pin down. Unlike men, women are not allowed to be natural. I wrote a whole post on the interaction effects of nature and nurture and how only women are not allowed to realize their natural selves, forced instead into a male-defined, simplistic, discrete system of stereotypes and categories. Our exploitable natural qualities are reinforced and used against us, while the natural abilities and tendencies that threaten the male dominance structure are punished and suppressed. In reality, we have no idea what a natural woman is. We don’t know what female power looks like. We don’t know exactly how strong female energy burns. What we do know is that the way men force us to define ourselves is not only inadequate, but completely unnatural and self-destructive. And we do know that the natural woman has not predominated because we are not violent by nature. You can’t fight natural male violence with reason, logic and intellect despite what many feminists say.
So What About Female Sexuality?
I have a young, female friend here in China who suggested to me recently that all women are lesbians. She is 21, she has no sexual interest in men, she is not sure if she is sexually interested in women, and she is trying to figure out what she is. This is what everyone who doesn’t succumb to hetero brainwashing wrestles with. What are they? You MUST be sexually attracted to something. It is mandatory. But what if you aren’t? When I talk to my young friend, I know she is drawn to women. She feels comfortable and safe with them. She likes to experience a rich, deep perspective on the world that only women can give. She has, at an enviably early age, discovered the joys of reading women’s writing – mostly from other countries as Chinese women don’t have much of a voice in Chinese literature. Like myself and other women, she has realized that men’s writing offers little. It has no depth, no nuance, no intellect, and too much literal and figurative violence. You cannot recognize yourself in male writing if you are a woman who has escaped or started to escape your heterosexual programming.
So, is my friend a lesbian?
Unfortunately, we are forced to define ourselves through our sexuality, thanks to men and their simplistic way of thinking. It can be very confusing to those who don’t fit into boxes and those who haven’t embraced their programming completely. So using male language and self-concepts, being a lesbian primarily means you get sexually turned on by women. You can still hate women, hate yourself, support harmful gender parodies, and be completely unable to connect with women on all levels but a sexual one. You can be a complete misogynist and still be a lesbian as long as you lust after girls. And ironically, you can connect with women in many ways, but be excluded from the lesbian team if you don’t connect sexually with women. Although I don’t think men are smart enough to have engineered this sad situation, through their violent sexual machinations throughout history, this genital obsession and sex-based club formation has become the perfect way to divide women and keep men supported.
In order to really examine women’s sexuality (if it exists naturally), you have to remove the male voice from the equation entirely. Nothing a man does, says or thinks ever truly helps women understand their natural selves or their needs or desires. I have never, ever, ever met a male who doesn’t include himself, his ‘needs’ and his desires in his plans, opinions, reactions and interactions. Men cannot talk about female sexuality without thinking about themselves, even if they cloak the language in something that seems objective on the surface. Women are too quick to hand out blow jobs to male people who pay some kind of faux lip service to women’s ‘choices’ and ‘freedom’. Men are not objective. Remember, they have too much to lose from women discarding them and discovering their natural selves and their true freedom. And as predators, men are expert manipulators. So, to explore women’s natural state, you have to remove male influence, the male voice, and the male threat. It is very difficult to do. We are not taught to think about ourselves, and male people of all ages have a way of tapping into the altruistic and/or sympathetic parts of our natural selves and derailing us from taking care of ourselves.
To explore natural sexuality, you have to examine needs. What do women need? Forget those asinine women’s magazines which are basically outlets for the male voice. Women don’t need to feel sexy or beautiful. Women don’t need a closet full of clothes or the right colour lipstick. Women don’t need the ‘right man’ or flowers on her birthday or a special night to focus on her orgasms instead of sucking her master’s cock.
First, women need food, drink, sleep and shelter. Those are the basic survival needs. After that, we start talking about needs related not to survival, but quality of life. Women need love, affection, human connection, acceptance – all of those things related to human interaction and relationships. And to escape from male language control, when I say love and affection, I’m not talking about sex or orgasms. I’m talking about feeling loved and appreciated and having emotional exchange, all free from threat, duty and coercion. I suspect all men and most women don’t truly understand what this means as we have been so corrupted by male thinking on what love and relationships are.
Women also need dreams, goals, confidence, aspirations, inspiration, motivation, hope, and empowerment. Again, these are needs related to quality of life – those things that make life worth living, and that make having consciousness make sense. These are not related to the material world or to sex. And while no one dies from lack of love or lack of empowerment or dreams, they will likely live in a depressed state with plenty of physical and mental health problems. This is how most women currently live, and I’d argue that it is because of forced heterosexuality and living in the male system that relies upon it. Forcing women to submit to men deprives them of those needs that make life worth living. And all of their energies instead are poured into ensuring that men not only achieve all of these personal needs, but they also have an abundance of them to draw from any time they wish. Further, introducing a sexual element to a relationship, especially, but not only with men, redirects energy away from women having their own quality-of-life-based needs met and into ensuring the male partner is well cared for and sexually catered to.
The best friendships I’ve had with women have been those that tap into quality-of-life needs, and those friendships, if they break down, are always because of the intrusion of a demanding parasitical male. Hetero-programmed women are hard to be long-term friends with, I’ve found, for this very reason. There is always a parasite lurking, whether it be a husband, a new boyfriend, or a male child. Marriage and breeding paradigms – systems invented by men to support male supremacy – have always served to divide women, break down female friendships, and redirect female energy into male goals and success.
Friendships with men, regardless of their age, have never genuinely addressed affection needs or empowerment needs. Males in friendships have their needs addressed, as they siphon female energy. And I can’t think of a single friendship with a male that didn’t end up destroyed by sexual propositions or downright sexual harassment, sometimes after years of supposedly platonic interaction. By design, I currently have very few males in my life. One of the last remaining ones, a former student here in China, 21 years my junior whom I’ve kept around only because I have had some success mentally desexing male students and seeing them only as ‘students’, just ruined our two-year, ongoing interaction last week by announcing that he is ‘in love with me’. It was so utterly disappointing and confusing, especially because I am open about not being interested in men, and I stupidly thought I was immune from most sexual predation from men because I’m 45 and I don’t feminize. I’m not sure if there are mommy issues going on or the idea of converting the possible ‘lesbian’ was irresistible. Regardless, the teaching point here is that there is no such thing as an exception when it comes to men. They are all predators. They make everything about sex. And no woman is safe. Ever.
So back to the question: what about female sexuality? Are women sexual beings? I suspect this wouldn’t be an important question if men didn’t exist. I don’t think sex would take on even a fraction of the importance it has now if men didn’t exist. I don’t think relationships would form and break up on the basis of sexual activity and attraction if men didn’t exist. I think without men, women would take physical pleasure in each other, but it wouldn’t form the basis of relationships, and wouldn’t be the stuff of obsessions. Life would be rich, complex, layered. As it is now, everything is sex. People kill themselves and each other over it. Half the population is enslaved because of it. Without men, there would be so much less pain and destruction. With men in the picture, women are not naturally heterosexual. Nothing about heterosexuality is naturally good for women. If women were naturally straight, programming would not be needed. Violence would not be needed. There is so much effort put into turning women into men’s sex and labour slaves, it is impossible to argue that heterosexuality is natural for women. I think women are naturally drawn to women, but I would define ‘lesbian’ differently than it is currently understood in system of male dominance. There may be a sexual component, but the affinity is based on more complex things that override any kind of central sexuality.
In short, I don’t think male language and thinking are adequate for describing what women are naturally. Categorical male thinking and vocabulary – heterosexual, bisexual, queer, homosexual, asexual – may be fine for describing men (I prefer omnisexual as a more accurate description of what men are), but not for women. Ideally, women need be released from male control and male demands for sex so that they may discover what they need and to realize and embrace the quality of life no woman has yet achieved, but so very clearly deserves.
I seek to address problems that make people uncomfortable, and I talk about issues that even most feminists won’t address. I plan to do the same here. I’ve been wanting to write this one for a long time. It is an exploration. Stuff to think about. Impossibilities, likely.
Is it possible for women to achieve what racial and religious groups have – to make discrimination a no-no; to achieve federal human rights protections; to have crimes against them designated as hate crimes; to eliminate group-targeted slurs from daily public, media and entertainment usage; and to legally make language used against group members into hate speech?
Men Succeed, Women Don’t
Unfortunately, the group we call ‘women’, despite being the largest and longest oppressed group on the planet is missing something crucial that every single other group has had and that has worked to their advantage. Men. All oppressed groups in history, except for women, have had male members. And note that men who think they are women – trannies – are not women, but oppressors of women and mentally ill men. They don’t count among us despite what they force us to call them, and they should never be included in the class known as women. They are a class of men, and they are oppressors, not the oppressed. We know they are men because of their XY chromosomes, of course, but we also have evidence that they are men because we see how quickly they have changed policy to destroy and further oppress women. No group of women ever has achieved or ever could achieve what trannie men have. In fact, no actual oppressed group that includes men has ever stayed oppressed for long. We know the ‘why’ (because men have power and women don’t), but it is not entirely clear ‘how’ (how do men exert power so effectively?) this can be. We can consider some of the following possible explanations for how men succeed in overcoming oppression while women don’t.
1) Men tend to resort to violence to get what they want. Women tend to cower and submit when they are threatened. Programming from birth ensures that boys’ aggression and violence is deemed natural and acceptable, especially when acting in self-defence, while girls’ aggression is punished and any self-defence is absolutely NOT allowed and often turned around to appear as unnatural, and even persecutory aggression.
2) Men are more respected, in general, regardless of group affiliation, and it is easier to get what they want because of the normalized and universal respect for cock, even oppressed cock. Having a cock automatically gives you a voice in public. Vagina is universally hated – you can’t respect what you hate, and consequently, most believe on some level that you can’t oppress what you hate because they deserve what they get, and so women’s progress is barely measurable. It further helps that male hate is often called and accepted as ‘love’, so they can argue that their oppression of us is actually a demonstration of love. Note that having a vagina automatically disallows you a voice in public unless you are a cock proxy – directly supporting a male dominance agenda, in other words.
3) Men are very good at getting on board with self- and group-serving agendas and can achieve a sort of strength-in-numbers kind of situation when they perceive themselves to be oppressed. Women, on the other hand, very seldom support one another, let alone push for policy that would benefit themselves as women. Feminists have never achieved a critical mass, as a result. It is hard to win freedom from men when some of the most aggressively opposed are women themselves. It has nothing to do with an inability of women to organize en masse. No, women are actually better able to plan and get organized than men are. Rather, women are programmed from birth to support males and hold females under suspicion. Women will fight to the death to keep men doing the horrible things they do with impunity. But ask a woman to support a feminist? Get ready to have your head cut off and paraded on a pike. Even some feminists eat their own.
4) Men tend to expect others to sacrifice for them, are very protective of their own perceived rights and freedoms, and have a very strange conception of compromise. Women tend to compromise easily. They also tend to sacrifice, but instead call it compromise just as they have been taught by their male-serving mothers and male culture, in general. In this way, rather than stand up for themselves, women are more open to propaganda, guilt-tripping, and oppression. Expecting rights and freedoms as women is seen as selfish and greedy and uncompromising.
5) Oppressed men, with very little effort, tend to collect numerous fawning women to support their cause, doing grunt work, sacrificing their bodies in violent situations (cannon fodder), acting as warning systems, spies and saboteurs, providing free food and cleaning services, bolstering and building male confidence and egos, and acting as free prostitutes to service the troops. Men, on the other hand, don’t support women’s fights. Superficial supporters always have their own agenda (getting laid, scoring political points, etc.). Most actually tend to suppress any female efforts to liberate through violence, threats, abandonment in relationships, denial of free speech through no-platforming and refusal to publish, and denying female activists a place in academia and other influential areas.
6) Giving men rights and freedoms doesn’t hurt other men or affect economies detrimentally. The world economy we have known throughout history has, on the other hand, been completely dependent on female slavery. Male freedom (which isn’t an ethical freedom, but debauchery and inhumanity) requires female slavery. Capitalism cannot exist without female slavery and neither can communism as men have envisioned it. To give women rights and true freedoms and an escape from male tyranny would require a complete rethinking and reconstruction of the world economy. This scares men of all colours, who for all of history, have called their male privilege their god- or nature-given rights.
Personally, I believe that as long as males rule within the system we call ‘patriarchy’, a group that doesn’t contain males cannot succeed in achieving human rights and freedoms or be taken seriously politically, legally, socially and economically. But while lack of male membership is a major factor in continued female oppression, there is one other significant contributor: any oppressed group that supports, colludes with, and literally sleeps with their oppressor will never be set free. And no group save women has ever done this. I mean, can you seriously imagine blacks joining a neo-Nazi group and calling it freedom and equality and contentment – the natural order of things?*** And there isn’t a single underprivileged group, save women, that would be denied the right to live apart from oppressors in their own community. These days, even women’s associations and events are attacked and forced to accept either infiltration or disbandment. But women are brainwashed from birth not only to ignore the dangers men pose to their well-being and contentment, but to embrace rape and slavery and humiliation and call them something else entirely. For those few who reject male domination, there is absolutely nowhere on the planet that is safe and free of men, male influence, male violence, male domination, and of course, the colluding, cock-sucking henchwomen who attack them for saying ‘no, thank you’.
***I did know a super-scary black dude in high school who joined the local skinheads, but that was only so he could beat the shit out of gays and lesbians as part of a cowardly group at every opportunity instead of as an individual – it wasn’t to support a white agenda.
In short, as long as the majority of women agree to unequal rape-based relationships with men and to breeding male children – and note it that isn’t true agreement since they are oppressed and programmed, and thus don’t come to the table on equal footing with men – ALL women will be oppressed by men. And it is this fact that keeps male power in place. If men can argue that women agree to their circumstances, then there is nothing wrong with it at all. To men, and to brainwashed women, agreement means free will/choice. And of course, no two things could be more falsely equated. Remember that brainwashing, programming, and social influence are powerful tools, especially when they are implemented at the most vulnerable stages in one’s life, such as in childhood or in desperate situations involving poverty or serious illness/injury. [Brainwashing, programming and social influence within the patriarchy will be dealt with in another post.] Those who manage to escape their programming, such as separatist, asexual or lesbian, non-breeding feminists, are very threatening to the system, and so the silencing of these opponents through several means is swift and brutal.
Lady Slurs Are on the Rise
If you listen to music, watch films or television, tune in to any kind of hard or soft news outlets, read magazines or other material – basically live in the world, in other words – you *may* have noticed that brutal language attacking women, including slurs (i.e., bitch, cunt, slut, whore, pair of tits, broad), denigrating comments (i.e., run like a girl, acting like a woman, bitches be shopping), and callous jokes (the various iterations of the 10-dollar whore joke), are on the rise. More than likely, like the majority of people, you’ve just become desensitized to it. It’s much like not noticing that the violent, sensationalized content of public materials has escalated. Interestingly, racism in the media is on everyone’s radar – racial slurs produce a very physical ‘cringe factor’ in most people – but the woman hate has not only escalated, but has become business as usual, accepted and parroted even by the targets of the hate. And the abuse comes from people of all races. In music, blacks are the worst perpetrators, but in television and film, everyone participates. Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, the targets of the violence and hate, especially in television and film, are more often than not, white women.
Blind as most are to escalating woman-hate, many people might respond to valid observation with something like:
- what’s the big deal?
- they’re just words – they don’t hurt anyone
- women are too sensitive
- women use them tooooooo!
- you’re exaggerating (crazy, bitter, stupid, or some standard dismissal of female truth-telling)
- you’re a man-hater, obviously
And my response is: if it really is no big deal, then why are slurs against all other groups termed ‘hate speech’ and have been removed from all public media and entertainment and can get you into serious trouble if you’re caught using them in public? Why is it legal to use a female slur in a business name, but not a racial slur? Why do some American television stations bleep out the F-word, but not the word ‘bitch’? What might it mean that women have internalized woman-hate and use the hate-speech themselves against themselves and other women? And why is pointing out real examples of woman-hate itself an example of women hating men??? Logic fails, all.
See, slurs are a big deal. Words have meaning and power, and a tool of control. Those who control language, control everything. And throughout time – and today is no different than any other time period – men control language and thus control women. Male hate speech against women poisons every aspect of women’s lives. Hate in language translates into hate in behaviour. When hate is condoned or written off or normalized, women suffer. Do you want to be interviewed by some man who sees you as a bitch and a cunt and masturbates to violent rape-porn? Do you think he compartmentalizes? No one is capable of separating the messages they internalize from how they treat others around them. And the fact that the hate is escalating, as evidenced in the language we hear and use, is very worrisome for women, indeed. It is a very big deal.
What’s on TV?
Media and entertainment are important propaganda machines existing under the guise of relaxing fun-times. People are much more likely to absorb messages, if they are delivered with humour or drama.
I was just watching a British television show that had been recommended to me by one of my more advanced Chinese university students interested in socio-technology (or techno-sociology, you pick). In the very first episode, the man who is playing the Prime Minister calls one of his white female employees a ‘stupid bitch’ and then proceeds to try to strangle her and then punches her in the face in front of a male employee. And I thought American entertainment was bad. Nope, woman-hate comes from all countries, all races, all religions, all ages. Some of my weirdest memories of blatant sexism during my childhood hetero-bitch programming years came from horrible British television (The Benny Hill Show, anyone?). But they are not alone.
On the American side of things, in the 2017 season of Veep, a political comedy starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus (whom I enjoy as an actress, but who saddens me in this role), was an episode entitled “C–tgate”. The episode partially revolved around the female president trying to figure out which of her staff had called her a ‘cunt’. In 28 minutes, the word cunt – probably the worst, most demeaning, single-word slur in today’s usage and possibly in the history of slurs – is used 15 times. Note that never once in the 6 seasons of this show has the slur ‘nigger’ been used, nor any other racial slur. Liberal, or conservative for that matter, television doesn’t use the big bad, notorious, racial slurs. Never once is the Chinese-American presidential candidate ever referred to as a ‘chink’. Never once is the Mexican-American woman who eventually becomes president ever referred to as a ‘spic’ (or even a bitch or cunt, for that matter). Cunt and bitch are words to use against women, primarily, but not exclusively, white women. And it is hard to imagine an entire television series devoted to a bumbling black president who is constantly undermined and continually racially slurred. Can you imagine an entire episode called ‘N-rgate’? It would NEVER happen. On the rare occasion that a racial slur is used, it is to call attention to racism and to use it as a teaching point about respecting men and women of colour.
Go back a few years, and take the American series ‘Boston Public’ which followed the work and personal lives of a bunch of teachers working at an inner city high school in Boston. In the first season, the white female teacher is called bitch constantly by everyone, and a violent, racist, misogynist, black male student spray paints ‘bitch’ on her blackboard, calls her bitch in public and then SPITS DIRECTLY IN HER FACE, none of which he is held accountable for. But the woman – the actual victim – is called racist, of course, and she spends the rest of the series feeling white guilt and accepting abuse and slurs from all the black characters as well as the white males on the show. Misogyny, which is more common on that program, is never addressed as a ‘teaching point’. It is just what women should accept. And white women are expected to accept abuse for what white men have done in past generations. THAT is the teaching point. Men are violent. Women pay the price so that men can continue enjoying the good things in life.
If you want to get your ‘bitch’ on in an older, but immensely popular series, watch the 15 seasons of ER like I did during a short, but intense period of boredom and misogyny research this summer. It was brutal. I don’t think I’ve heard the slur, ‘bitch’, used so frequently in a television series. Interestingly, there was only 1 official racial slur used in the entire 15 years of programming. A white supremacist used a Latino slur ONE TIME. For jokes, everyone was fair game, but the bulk of the jokes were about women, then gays, and a few racial jokes tossed in here and there. There was a shit ton of sexual harassment as entertainment. If you think women don’t internalize this hate, you are dead wrong. Now that my own eyes are open to patriarchy and brutal misogyny, every time I hear slurs, rape jokes, and sexual harassment, it is a slap in the face. It blows my mind that every single girl grows up swimming in this shit. And most girls and women never understand why they hate themselves so much, why life seems so much more difficult than men’s. Why they have no confidence. Why depression and PTSD occurrs much more frequently in women than in men. Why they are afraid and feel like they need protection. The propaganda serves to weight the chains around our necks and bodies and primes us to accept abuse from all men around us, and even to call their hate ‘love’.
The Slurs and What Men Mean When They Use Them
A little while back, I wrote a post on where the bitch and the whore came from. Let’s explore a little further to find out what men mean when they use the most common slurs. Note that anti-woman slurs are often used to insult men. The men aren’t really being victimized – simply being called a woman is a bad thing. Even men who ‘love’ women hate to be called or compared to a woman. That’s love and respect, right?
Honestly, this isn’t a word that I have much connection to or use for. I don’t recall ever hearing the word used when I was in high school. Skank, yes. But I never heard the word slut used. My parents never used it either, despite their frequent use of colourful language. The word has supposedly been around since 1450 to, very basically, describe a woman who behaves exactly the way men always have and always will without consequences. It is the essential representation of sexual double standard. I’m not sure there is a another word that captures the double standard like ‘slut’ does. Use of the word has led to ostracism, poverty, rape, beatings, and death for millions of women across time. While men designed the word to hurt and control women, it has also been used to drive a really fucked up wedge between women by essentially putting them into categories of ‘good’ (marriage-rapeable) and ‘bad’ (prostitution-rapeable and the unmarried stranger-rapeable). The term has been applied by men even to ‘virtuous’ women out of revenge or sadism to serve the male agenda. And even women themselves have used the term against other women, sometimes out of jealously of a perceived, but false, freedom or power of another woman. The simple application of the term to a women has had, in the past, the power to destroy her life completely. You really can’t say that about any racial slur. No one has ever been destroyed by words quite like women have.
Sadly, when women embrace this word, it changes something in the brain’s logic centre. Women who see themselves as sluts, proud or not, suddenly don’t know what to do when they have been raped. Can a slut be raped??? What is rape? Does he have to hit me since I seem to fuck anyone who expresses interest? Am I allowed to say ‘no’ since I have embraced the word ‘yes’? There is no handbook for women trying to navigate the liberal male agenda.
Every once in a while, you hear the word applied to men. ‘Male slut’ pops up once in a while, but it really has no impact on men, their reputations, their relationships, their jobs, or anything. Men might even laugh if they hear it, and it is doubtful they would find it offensive. It is a clear demonstration of who holds the power when you cannot reverse the offense with the same negative outcome.
Personally, I don’t see any use for this word, even if redefined or attempts at reclamation are made. I think we focus too much entirely on sex and sexuality, and would love to see this word fade away because of lack of use rather than repurposing. But after nearly 600 years of use, that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.
Prostitute is a rather recent and slightly more narrow term for a woman who sells her body to men. ‘Whore’ has been around in several languages (e.g., hore, hora, hoer, huora) for centuries (likely 16th century) to describe prostitutes, sluts, and women with very apparent sexual desires. The shortened ‘ho’, most likely from black American male slang, has been popularized as a way to refer to women, in general. It is most often applied today in the way that slut is. You also sometimes get constructions used to insult men, such as ‘son of a whore’. It’s actually still an insult to women, but men love playing the victim whenever they can.
This slur is used so often, I’m beginning to think it is a new replacement term for ‘woman’. In fact, I think the trannie dudes have taken over the word woman, and actual women have now become ‘bitches’. Black American men did a great deal of damage in repopularizing the word as a slur to use against women (circa 1990’s).
Bitch has a lot of usages. You can call anyone a bitch, yet it is still an insult to women. The term comes from female breeding dog and it was specifically used to insult women, dehumanize, and to designate one of her few allowed roles. Today, it can mean:
- woman or girl, in general
- woman or girl you don’t like or have anger towards
- a woman or girl who has stood up to a man and pointed out his privilege, unethical dealings, crimes, etc
- a woman or girl who is confident and does something that a man or boy might do but would not be insulted for, or even would be commended for
- a female boss, or woman in any kind of position of power
- someone forced to do your bidding and who will remain under your control
- (in prison) a weak male who will be forced to submit to sexual assault
- a man who displays emotion and who makes other men (and sometimes women) uncomfortable (e.g., “Stop crying like a bitch.”)
- ‘son of a bitch’ – used on men to mean something like asshole, it is still a slur on women above all else
- (verb) to complain – the implication is that women complain and should not, even if it is warranted
- ‘bitch slap’ – physical abuse to be used by men on a woman who is not acting the way he wants her to
- a thing you don’t like (e.g., “That was a bitch of an exam.”)
Probably the worst thing you can call a woman. It is not as popular (yet) as bitch, but it is on the rise. It is an abusive slang for vagina, but when used as a slur, it has similar meanings to that of bitch. It is generally not used on men as a female slur, however. Less commonly, it can be used to describe a situation that isn’t liked (a cunt of a meeting). The British and a few of their colonies unfortunately use the word, but in a non-negative way to refer to one of their dude-bros, as they might use ‘mate’ or to a random dude.
As mentioned above, the American series, Veep, will likely have a normalizing effect on this slur, thanks to devoting an entire ‘humourous’ episode to calling their first female president ‘cunt’ over and over and over and over…
Like a Girl
If a girl or woman is behaving naturally, then there is nothing wrong with what she is doing. There is nothing wrong with how girls run, throw, speak, walk, think, etc. If they are acting naturally (i.e., not gender-programmed into looking stupid or under-performing or trying to be ‘sexy’), then their actions will be efficient and effective. With behaviours that require skill, both boys and girls might perform poorly without training. The thing is that more effort is put into training boys. When equally trained, both boys and girls are effective. So the insult to males about performing like a girl is more about the very female-hate that prevents girls and women from being trained or even accepted as different than male people than any kind of natural ineptness. It also highlights the universal insistence that male performance is the default and thus the correct way, even if it isn’t correct at all.
Note that many of the ‘like a girl’ or ‘like a woman’ insults are actually projections. For example, ‘stop crying like a little girl’ (or screaming or tantrumming) doesn’t make sense because boys cry as much, if not more than girls. They also throw bigger tantrums and make more fucking noise than any girl I’ve ever encountered anywhere on the planet. And plenty of other claims like failing to use logic, or being bad at math – all of these are projections as well. Women tend to be better at logic than men and are equally good, if not better at math.
Body Parts and Animals
Female slurs are the worst in the world simply because women tend to be dehumanized more than any other group. They are reduced to their body parts, and they are referred to as animals. It is how women are treated both verbally and non-verbally in daily life and the workplace and in marriage, and it is how women are represented in language. Women are referred to: ‘a pair of tits’, ‘tits and ass’, ‘broad’, ‘cunt’, ‘pussy’, ‘fish’, ‘twat’, ‘legs’, ‘sugartits’, ‘piece of ass’, ‘cow’, ‘bitch’, ‘sow’, ‘heifer’, ‘filly’, and much more.
Black Men Succeeded
Some time ago, black men reclaimed the term ‘nigger’ and made it their own. The slur, rooted in Latin, Spanish and French from the word for ‘black’, lived for a short spell in a limited geographical region as a negative term for black people. It is no longer accepted or acceptable for use in public or in entertainment. It tends to be used only when a racist character is portrayed or when black dudebros are talking to each other. I won’t attempt to explain who gets to use it, or how, or why, or in which circumstances. I’m not a black dood, and mostly, I don’t really care about the intricacies of what men do to and with each other. All I can say here is that black men successfully got ‘nigger’ removed from the entire Western consciousness except as a term with punch-in-the-gut impact and out of mainstream derogatory use, with the support of the liberal white community. That speaks of some pretty serious social, legal, and political power. You can’t claim you lack power or status if you are able to get a slur thrown out of the public consciousness and usage. I mean, seriously, do you truly understand the implication of this? Controlling language is the ultimate evidence of power. But we’re talking about men here. And likewise, there isn’t a single racial or ethnic group that hasn’t succeeded in getting racial or ethnic slurs put on the chopping block – in Western cultures. But those groups contain men, and all men have power. Women of these groups benefited as well, which is probably part of why women of colour seldom side with white sisters under feminism. On some level, they understand they’ll achieve more power hitching a ride with men, even if those some men are making their lives miserable, acknowledged or not. White woman have no power, and neither do women of any other race, so gravitating to male people makes sense to those who don’t think, won’t think, or can’t think in more than a limited, short-term, very concrete way. If women could get over cock and band together, they’d be a force to be reckoned with in theri discovery that unified female power can conquer anything and is a long-term solution to rape and the threat of rape. Why do you think hetero-brainwashing is so intense…?
So we come back to the question: is it even possible for women to eradicate female slurs from public usage and consciousness in the way that all racial and ethnic slurs have been tarnished and banned? Women are universally hated and feared – even by themselves! What would have to occur to instill the same cringe factor into even hearing (nevermind using) the words bitch, slut, whore or cunt to take down a woman? As it is, hearing or using those words generally brings power to the user, and I would argue, a feeling of smug satisfaction at denigrating a woman who is the recipient of those slurs. I would further argue that the power and satisfaction are even greater if they are hurled at or heard directed at a white woman.
But let’s get one thing straight. There are more slurs directed at women than any other group in history. And the slurs against women have a longer history than any racial/ethnic slur. Further, slurs against women have carried more damage to women than any racial/ethnic slur has ever had on a racial/ethnic group member. And another thing, all slurs – racial, sexual, religious, anti-gay – were designed and defined by men, the controllers of language. Not women. The origins of all harm lie in men. Use of slurs can bring satisfaction to women, but they benefit men most of all by their continued use.
1) Eliminating Usage of all Slurs and Offensive References
As I said, those who control language hold the power. To be able to change an entire culture’s treatment of your group speaks of massive social, legal, and political power. It is actually quite impressive and astounding how completely racial and religious slurs have been completely removed from English-language entertainment and public usage. I’m so often puzzled at those anti-racism warriors who speak of their lack of power. They live in far-off decades or centuries, methinks. They haven’t performed a modern-day reality check and taken a look at who really has power. And just as important, who really doesn’t. Women of all colours are the powerless. And so many of those ‘oppressed’ men hold massive power over women of all colours. They are often some of the worst perpetrators. How could women possibly go about removing from public and common usage an entire vocabulary of hate that is larger than that any other oppressed group has ever been attacked with? I suspect it is not possible. No group of women has ever had the political, legal, economic, or social power to control language, let alone achieve basic human rights. And I doubt they ever will as long as women keep sleeping with men – those creatures who slur them, demean them and hurt them in the name of love.
2) Criminalizing Usage of Slurs and Offensive References
Men tend to get their pubes in a twist when women even hint at criminalizing male bad (criminal) behaviour. The idea of women defending themselves and forcing men to be held accountable for their actions is taken as some kind of irrational attack on male ‘rights’. All men believe they have the right to rape, demean, threaten, slur, harass, molest, objectify, and kill women and girls without anyone batting an eye, and to live freely to do it all again the next day. Actual cops have been known to admit that if they prosecuted men for all the horrible things they do to women, most if not all men would be in jail. Racial, anti-gay, and anti-religious crimes are easier to deal with as they are much less common, because men belong to those groups, because these groups are ALLOWED to live separate from oppressors, and because men fight back, while women don’t (and aren’t allowed to anyway). Crimes against women happen all day, every day, to all women. They are so frequent that even the victims accept their victimization as ‘just another day’ or ‘business as usual’ and trudge on burdened by fear, depression, PTSD, and other psychological problems that manifest as pain and debilitating disease. And while sticks and stones break bones, language is still the most powerful weapon out there, able to dehumanize and demoralize. If language didn’t have power, hate speech would never have been created to protect the religious, the non-white, and gay males. As it is, women will never succeed in achieving enough power or respect to warrant protected legal status with regard to hate speech, let alone bodily autonomy.
3) Redefining the Offending Words
I think it is safe to say that anti-woman language isn’t going anywhere. I’m curious to see whether women can achieve what the all-powerful black man has achieved: to take possession of offensive language, redefine it and keep it within their own group, likely to eventually fade away with increasing educational opportunities. To successfully take control of lady-slurs, we’d have to do something to the language to give it the cringe-factor that, say, the word ‘nigger’ produces in all people. For women, this is a near impossible thing to achieve, I believe.
Slut: A small, but vocal, contingent of liberal, white women in Western countries (and the men whose dicks they suck) has tried, but failed, to reclaim the word. While their basic premise is correct – women should not be judged differently from men when it comes to how many or few partners they have – the way they have gone about it has served to hurt white women (not women of colour – white women) and to keep the liberal male agenda securely in place and with more ammunition. You see liberal men, who also want to control women, have told us that our freedom lies in fucking as many of them as possible, and for free!!! The shame lies not in eschewing virtue, but in withholding our pussies from the world, from being prudes! And this small group of young, brainwashed, white women has enthusiastically swallowed this self-serving male agenda and proudly call themselves sluts. And by embracing this male philosophy, men can say that ‘well, women don’t seem to have a problem with the label, so I guess it’s okay, yuk yuk yuk.” Notice that more men will support a slut walk than an anti-pornography protest, and the reason is that a slut walk is as pro-male as the very problem these women think they are fighting, while the latter protest is pro-woman, anti-slavery, anti-violence and at its very core, feminist. I’m not sure that this slur can be repurposed as it cannot be separated from it’s original meaning and to do that, you’d have to end heterosexuality, which would effectively render the slur meaningless and it thus wouldn’t require reclamation.
Whore: Like the word ‘nazi’, this word has become overused and misused through people’s ignorance, rather than effectively repurposed or redefined. ‘Whoring’ yourself in order to get ahead at a traditional job just sounds wrong, and smacks of ignorance and dismissiveness of the sexual slavery women have had to endure since time began. The slanging of the word, thanks to black American men, into ‘ho’, has not helped women at all, but rather, increased its casual, demeaning usage in everyday life. The word, like ‘slut’, was created specifically to hurt women through classification and shaming. I’m not sure that it can be redefined. And when men make demeaning changes or redefinitions to words designed to slur women, it achieves nothing for women. Often quite the opposite.
Bitch: This word wasn’t originally created to slur women, so there may be hope there. There has been some redefinition by women that I would argue isn’t that effective. Calling oneself a ‘bitch’ in a proud sort of way has sometimes come to mean ‘badass’. [Here is a prime example of this usage – skip down half-way through.] I can’t imagine calling myself a bitch in order to convey bravery or guts. Whenever I hear a women use that term to describe herself, there is this weird implication of sluttiness or sexiness that goes with it that is really repulsive. I think it is also a bad idea to retain the word ‘bitch’ to describe a woman who stands up to men because it can still be used by men easily to slur women for behaving normally (i.e., unprogrammed).
I think a good repurposing or redefining of a slur should have at its goal, the fading out of its usage. It should have a definition that men don’t really understand as it isn’t connected to them in a simple and concrete way. If they don’t understand it, they will be less likely to use it (one hopes). And it should also feel bad to women if they use it to describe themselves. It shouldn’t be a source of pride.
The way I understand a bitch (I have redefined it for my own understanding) is as a woman who serves men and male agenda, and who hurts women. The former is actually one of the less common male definitions (a submissive object), but what should be stressed is that a bitch hurts women. These are the women who ditch their female friends for the boyfriend or husband. Women who give birth to sons and make sure they grow up to know their privilege. Women who feminize themselves and their daughters. Women who support marriage. Women who blame and/or don’t believe rape victims. Women who oppose lesbians and asexuals. Women who hate the feminists who fight for their rights. These are bitches.
Most women don’t really think about how they treat other women. They probably can’t articulate that they hate their sisters – except for those clueless, but dangerous, women who say ‘most of my friends are male, and I’ve never really gotten along with women – but they are trained to do so from birth, despite it being a completely unnatural thing. I really believe that if women were made aware of their woman-hate, they would be shocked and might be motivated to self-examine and to change their outlook on sisterhood.
Cunt: This word is much less used than bitch, but it is on the rise. I think it can be repurposed in the same way that bitch can. It is a more extreme version of bitch. A cunt is a woman to purposely tries to hurt other women and girls. A cunt is a mother who abuses her daughter. A woman who turns a blind eye to a daughter-molesting husband, boyfriend or relative deliberately or in willful blindness. A woman who defends a rapist son or family member and heaps blame upon his victims. A woman who holds a girl down while her clitoris is cut off in the name of Allah. A woman who calls herself a feminist, and then in her personal definition of ‘woman’, commits ideological genocide when she tells us only women of colour are women because the percentage of white women in the world ‘isn’t large enough’ (try using that argument with Native Americans when defining ‘person’ or ‘human’ – their percentages are lower than that of white women). Women who physically attack the women their husbands are cheating with instead of getting rid of the husband. These are cunts. Is there any help for these women? Unlike bitches, they are likely aware of their actions and their actions are often deliberate and cruel. There is no excuse for hurting another woman unless she is physically trying to kill you. And I believe in holding attackers accountable. Change has to happen in the language and cognitive processes of all women first. Perhaps, if women become more self-aware, we can eliminate newly-defined words altogether. But really, who knows if women can ever transcend male hate and the internalized woman-hate they are inundated with from birth.
4) Juxtaposition as a Tool to Highlight Misogyny
This is especially relevant for media and entertainment, but can be used in every day conversation. Now, this one would be hard to implement in media simply because it opposes the male and liberal agenda, and thus won’t be allowed to happen. Women don’t run media or entertainment outlets for the most part, and those few that do tend to be liberal and completely on board with male-defined ‘female freedom’ policies. Implementing this experiment in daily life would prove hard and would likely get women killed because misogyny is an accepted part of how the world runs. But just to explore the possibilities, here goes.
For every anti-woman slur or reference made, a racist slur or comment or violence against men must also be made. So when you hear “run like a girl”, which is a nasty way of putting a male down by calling him some sort of subhuman, you must also use “run like a chink”. Or, for example, when the black male character says to the white female police officer, “hey, bitch cop”, she can respond with “hey, nigger rapist” and then shoot him in the head. The anti-black slurs are probably the best to use because blacks have been the most successful oppressed group in gaining political, legal and social power. Slurs against them will stand out immediately in juxtaposition to every anti-woman slur that is used. Where no racial slurs can be used, violence against men can be used. For example, a slur against a woman is used, and a man or boy gets kicked in the head or balls. The point of this exercise is to pair every denigration of women with denigration of a highly respected group (racial, religious, male) to question the necessity of the anti-woman material.
The big risk here is that people are too stupid to get it. Non-whites are respected infinitely more than women and girls. All races and cultures hate women and girls and embrace patriarchy and misogyny. All cultures have only flourished by enslaving females, forcing heterosexuality, and making sure that female persons learn very early in life to hate themselves and to accept abuse. To use racist slurs (or religious slurs or violence against men/boys) to highlight the frequency of anti-woman slurs may not work because stupid people or willfully blind liberal people would likely see the contrast as evidence of racism, anti-semitism or ‘islamophobia’ or ‘manhating’ rather than a highlighting of how much women are hated. Never underestimate how stupid and/or ignorant people are.
Will women ever control language or, at the very least, have enough power to stop male abuse of language and subsequent control of women’s lives?
Upon a great deal of consideration, I conclude that it will never happen as long as women accept and practise heterosexuality. You can’t be pro-women and sleep with the enemy. And if you need evidence, look at how every other oppressed group on the planet has broken free of their circumstances. They don’t live with, sleep with and fuck their oppressor, have their children, coddle their feelings, and support their policies. It really is that simple.
This post consists of some background to my most recent survey on rape, which is still open to participants (click the button below):
The survey was designed to explore people’s understanding of and beliefs about rape. The content of the survey was drawn from collected data and research, a wide range of reported personal experiences, news stories, and myths and propaganda propagated through various entertainment outlets. If you plan to take the survey – and it would be immensely appreciated if you did – please click through before reading further. My personal views are not important to the survey, and I don’t wish them to colour participant responses.
After years of thinking and examination of the number one influence on and limitation to my existence as a girl first, and later, a woman, I have to conclude that any discussion or consideration of rape must begin with a discussion of language. Indeed, any thinking on hierarchy, power dynamics or control mechanisms (which is where rape finds its roots) must take into account the role of language.
Humans vs. All Other Creatures
In considering the differences between humans and other mammals or any creature for that matter, there are some significant differences that set us apart. And note that this is in no way a comment that humans are superior to animals, as I don’t believe that for a second. Each species has its strengths and weaknesses, which makes hierarchy-development a rather stupid and pointless endeavour. In considering humans, language and the capacity for deep and complex self-awareness set them apart from all other living things on earth. Other creatures may have systems of communication and a limited ability to reflect on simple behaviours, but none rivals human capacity. That is not a judgment, just a fact. Dolphins don’t conjugate verbs and chimpanzees don’t chronically and masochistically self-sabotage or even commit suicide over lack of purpose or meaning in life. Non-humans also don’t develop systems of ethics or morality – even misguided, faulty ones. These are uniquely human ‘achievements’ and are only three of many, many examples of the complexities of human language and self-awareness.
Humans are also the only species capable of malice. Now, note that I am not talking about survival instincts. Men and silly women who defend men often argue that male violence is just a reflection of the instinct to survive and is comparable to the killing that any other species does. This is classic male logic designed specifically to try to justify violent male behaviour. Some of my Chinese male university students will state without blinking that we ‘live in a jungle’. Now, I do believe that males are naturally violent. They are wired for it. But as I’ve written before, as humans, we also have self-awareness, and it is this unique and incredible ability that allows humans to override violent impulses. But, as humans are also uniquely malicious creatures, instinct and deliberate cruelty frequently play off each other. No creature other than the human (male) kills for pleasure. And no creature other than the human (male) tortures other living things. There is no evolutionary or ‘survival’ purpose for killing for pleasure or for torturing. I’ve met a lot of men who try to argue with seriously twisted logic that there is a need for these things. This is when I back away, and wish I had a weapon at the ready in order to do like all other creatures do out of instinct – remove a dangerous threat to one’s survival. But, alas, human females are the only creatures on earth who are NOT allowed to defend themselves.
And this is where language enters the scene.
The Role of Language in Power, Control and Hierarchy
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Language is one of human’s oldest tools. Like all tools, it can be a beautiful mechanism or system used to do wonderful things and inspire the best in all of us. But like all tools, it can also be used to destroy everything in its path. In the hands of men, language is frequently used to express male ‘love’ and ‘creativity’, which as most women eventually come to find out, are dangerous things and not at all what female love and creativity are.
As human males have come to realize, weapons alone will not get you sustainable power. Sure, you can overwhelm a perceived enemy, but it is really difficult to maintain that victory for any period of time without a much more powerful weapon. That weapon is language. Language is, in fact, a much more powerful weapon than any ‘sword’. But they work together. Just as it is hard to sustain control with only swords, it is also difficult to gain and keep power with only words. We’ve all heard that common description of successful evil dynamic duos: ‘You have the brawn and I have the brains’ (cue the Pet Shop Boys here…). Well, that is an apt description of the sword and the pen. Employ the brute force, overwhelm the enemy, enact the mindfuckery of the brutalized population that only language can achieve (e.g., “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”), and then all future brutality just becomes an accepted part of the system. Those few who see beyond the language mechanisms and refuse to believe have no leg to stand on, and find themselves very much alone and often questioning their own sanity.
Whoever Controls Language Controls the World
As a tool and building block of control and power, it is safe to say that if you aspire to megalomaniac status, you need to master language. I don’t mean that you should learn to speak several languages. I mean you need to learn how to use language to manipulate people and situations, and to obscure facts. You need to weaponize language. You need to see where language has its greatest influence. My Oppressor Triangle discusses a few major centres of influence, but there are other arenas. Language has had its greatest influence in the areas of politics, law, economics, academia, and the health care system (industry). These areas don’t function separately. There is much overlap. The language enacted in the political sphere can and does affect all other spheres of power, for example.
The question becomes: who controls language? And the answer is: men. Men have always controlled language. And they control it as much today as they have in the past. It’s not a race thing, as much as some people might wish it to be so. It is a MALE thing. If you are a big picture thinker, if you think internationally across time and place – and really, you have to be if you are ever to hope of ending oppression – you have to accept the truth that males control language, and as a result, they control everything. If you get bogged down on other group affiliations, you’ll change nothing. Only the truth can set you (and everyone else) free.
How do we know that males control language, and as a result, the world? It’s pretty easy. You have to take an overarching look at lifestyle and living conditions and determine who overwhelmingly benefits and who overwhelmingly is denied choices and freedoms. Look at any country. It is the same no matter which country you look at and no matter which race is being considered. Who is the poorest group? Females. Look at any field of research: who is studied meticulously and who benefits from the research? Males. Look at entertainment in any country. Who makes the most money, and who is hired based on talent rather than physical attributes? Males. Who is human trafficked most often? Females. Whose social justice complaints actually make progress? Males of all races and orientations. Who receives the poorest health care, and the most needless and harmful surgeries? Females. Who has been hurt most by the field of psychiatry? Females. Whose bodies and decisions about bodies are controlled by the state and institutions like religion and marriage? Females. Who is barred from politics, employment, education, and safety on a regular basis? Females.
And more. So much more.
There are data to back up each of these. Easy to find. Google, government web sites, academic journals. I’m not doing that here. This is not an academic journal article. And it is tedious to state and restate everything that has been said by women a million times before. What I find important here is the theory that it is language and the control of language that facilitates control on every other level.
Language and Rape
Men have been raping, torturing and killing women since they realized they could. It has nothing to do with evolution or survival. Any man who tells you that it does is dangerous and you should get away from him before he hurts you.
Male control of language has had its greatest impact on the one thing that has allowed them to maintain control over women. Rape. Without rape, men don’t have a hold over women. Control the language surrounding rape, and you control the crime itself – or whether it is even considered a crime, or who can commit it, or who is responsible, or who can be raped. We know that women have no power, and certainly have no control over language, because rape is so rampant and that they are on the receiving end with little ability to avoid it or seek justice for it.
It is only relatively recently that rape was even considered a crime, and only extremely recently that rape was considered to be a form of torture. In Western cultures, the rape of a woman was considered to be a crime against the man who owned her. And it could only be committed by a male who did not own her. She herself, as a rape victim, was deemed dirtied, rendered an embarrassment, and often tossed out like so much garbage from family and community. Even today, rape victims often end up in prostitution or suffering from mental health problems that leave them unable to self-actualize, let alone take care of themselves properly. The propaganda and brainwashing campaign that all societies provide to women to get them to accept rape as reality, as normal, often succeeds in neutralizing female protest to unlivable conditions. Rape is a crucial part of Western entertainment – drama as well as comedy – although Western men are not alone in their enjoyment of female torture. Many women will suppress their experiences or deny that rape even happened. Rape victims who don’t follow the rules are often punished by society, and frequently by other women who prefer to lash out at other women than to name the real problem.
In non-Western countries, rape has gone through equally horrible control by men. In some countries, raping girl children isn’t considered rape. Elsewhere, rape cannot occur within a marriage or family. In others, rape has only occurred if a woman can get a handful of male witnesses to support her claim. No, women aren’t in control of language at all. Anywhere in the world. I mean, no woman would ever set up the linguistic, social and legal hoops/barriers to proving rape that are currently in place in every corner of the earth. We aren’t that masochistic or stupid of our own free will.
Men Can Be Raped, Toooooooo!
Likely, in response to women calling more attention to rape and violence against women, men retaliated. Men always retaliate. They are allowed. There are always repercussions to women gaining even an ounce of freedom or power or justice. And language is always at the centre of any retaliation. And there is always violence to back it up.
So recently, men decided to change the language surrounding rape. They decided that rape no longer meant ‘male forcibly entering a female through her vagina using his dick’. Suddenly, males could be raped! And further, women could be rapists!
These revelations served a very, very important purpose. You see, if you can show that a crime or negative circumstance ALSO affects men, it is no longer a sex-based inequality or a hate crime. Men no longer are forced to be held responsible. Men are no longer predators. They are no longer deficient in some way. If you can show that they suffer tooooo or that women are doing the same evil deeds tooooo, then men no longer will be examined as the sole source of a major problem or epidemic. Once males can name themselves as victims, all focus can ‘justifiably’ be removed from women and recentred on men and boys. All we need is one male victim to negate the suffering of millions of women. And all we need is one female predator to negate the predation of millions of males. That is the male control of language at work. Change one word or one definition, and you can change the lives of millions. Control is regained.
Predictably, women got on board with the rebranding of rape, as they usually do when males find new ways to name themselves as victims, to detract from female victims, and to blame women for something. Women are usually the first ones on board with helping men hurt women. And men are experts at painting themselves as victims and martyrs.
Rape, in the minds of many, now also means a woman ‘forces’ a male to pop a boner and stick it to her. And strangely, rape now also means a dick forcibly entering an anus. But the thing is this, even if the former is forced, it is not rape. It may be a sexual assault, and if so, it needs to have its own label. The latter is NOT RAPE. It actually already has its own label. It is called forcible sodomy. Women are also frequently forcibly sodomized by men, more often than men are forcibly sodomized by men, and often in addition to being raped. But ignoring and/or broadening existing definitions has achieved its goal. We’ve taken the focus off what men do to women. And sex crimes are no longer seen primarily as the domain of male perps. Congratulations men and the dangerous women who support them.
Letting Victims Define Crimes
I wrote a short piece in the past on the problem of letting perpetrators define their crimes. Interestingly, it is only with male violence against women that this is allowed. As in my example in that previous post demonstrates, it sounds ridiculous say, to allow a thief to define his crime. But we don’t bat an eye when men get to define crimes against female bodies.
Women need to be allowed to define the crimes against them. As it is, so many victims fall through the cracks because currently, men define what happens to women. Men control women’s and girls’ bodies, and that is a serious issue.
There are several problems with how we deal with rape and sexual assault – besides our unwillingness to name men as the primary perpetrators of sex crimes and the sole perpetrators of rape. One is that we don’t have enough clearly defined categories of crimes. We also have too many barriers to victims coming forward. And finally, our punishment system is inadequate and doesn’t take into account that a) crimes against women are hate crimes, and b) men who commit sex crimes are more likely to commit again than any other type of criminal, even after being ‘punished’ (i.e., no man ever, ever, ever rapes once). Personally, I want all rape, sexual assault, torture and murder of women/girls by men punished by death. This has nothing to do with deterrence (which we know doesn’t work), or revenge (which is a male ‘logic’ thing), but everything to do with protecting future victims. It does not make sense that victims and potential victims have fewer rights and considerations and access to safety than hate-crime-sex criminals. In other words, only a dead rapist can’t rape again.
Other things to consider:
- Many women don’t report rape if their attacker is seen as ‘at risk’ or ‘vulnerable’. This includes non-white men, immigrant men, homeless men, disabled men, unemployed men, etc. It is a mixture of fear and compassion that drives women to negate their victimhood and protect their attacker.
- The burden of proof should be on the perpetrators, not the victims. Men should have to prove that they did not rape. In no other crime is the burden of proof on the victim. This exists ONLY because rape is a sex-specific hate crime committed by MEN against WOMEN, where males, who are in control of language, get to define the crimes they commit. Rape is the only crime where all the perps are male and all the victims are female. And men don’t want to take responsibility or stop raping. This needs to change.
- Consent has always been a problematic issue. It is rooted in property disputes. Bodies should not be seen as property. Further, in no place on earth do women come to the table on equal footing with men, and as such, they cannot give free and equal consent in any agreement with a male.
- Orgasms are erroneously seen as evidence of consent thanks to 2-dimensional male thinking on sex. Females are trained from birth to see servitude as a duty and a pleasurable activity. Orgasm has nothing to do with acceptance or lack of coercion.
- Many people believe that rape must involve weapons or threat of bodily harm in order to be considered rape. I’d argue that most rape is of the coercive or manipulative variety. I’d bet all of Donald Trump’s money that almost all women have ‘sex’ with the men in their lives (including husbands) because they fear abandonment, rejection, cheating, emotional and physical beatings, etc. All women know on some level that male love can turn on a dime if they don’t live up to the constantly changing expectations.
- Male children are born with a weapon – their penises. They learn about how to weaponize their dicks early in life thanks to parents, television/film, porn, and school. I’d argue that if they are using their dicks as weapons, then they need to be treated as dangerous. Sex predators never stop. I don’t have a problem with killing sex predators who are children – innocent child, my ass. And I also have no problem with holding mothers and fathers responsible for the crimes of their boy children. Rape destroys girls’ lives. No girl ever ‘gets over it’. I know I’m nearly alone in wanting boy sex predators eliminated from existence, but you’re deluded if you think predators are ‘born’ in adulthood out of nothing.
- I think statutory rape needs to be rethought. It’s not that I believe that girls are capable of free and equal consent with a boy the same age. No female of any age is ever on equal footing with a male of any age. This one is a hard one for me though. It saddens me that children are fucking. I truly wish girls were kept separate from boys for the duration of their childhoods so as not to have opportunities, educations and futures destroyed by the straight mandate and public school crash course in fuckholery and blowjobbery. One final note: Adult males who fuck girl children and teenagers need to be shot. Period.
- ‘Sex workers’ / porn actresses – paid sex is rape as far as I’m concerned. There is a lot of disagreement on this. And people get mighty pissed when a feminist suggests that sex work is abuse, not work. Abused people often lash out and get defensive when they feel attacked (even if they are not being attacked, but rather someone is trying to help them). All I can say is that women would not sell their bodies if men didn’t exist. It is almost always done out of desperation and/or resulting from childhood sex abuse. These are the conditions that make rape easy peasy to dress up as legit in a capitalist, male-serving society.
- Drugs and alcohol are convenient get-out-of-jail cards for men, and eternal damners of women. It is no coincidence that males joke about helping women relax with a drink. ‘No inhibitions’ is just man-speak for ‘no credible defense’ in a rape trial.
This really is a huge issue. So much more could be written. But it is some background to my survey. Again, if you wish to participate and let your thoughts be known, it would be very much appreciated. The link to the survey is below.
Not super-original, but I’m in a foul mood, and I feel like lightening things up a little. And nothing lightens the mood more than taking a look at the ‘insults’ that men hurl at women.
When a woman, especially, a feminist is called any of the following – shrill, bitter, humourless, prudish, or a man-hater – I really have to laugh. I don’t consider these insults, perhaps because I have a lot of interest in what words mean. Other than the last one – man-hater – all of the terms have broad application. They weren’t designed to hurt women, specifically. The insults that really bother me are those with very specific, woman-harm in mind. I’m talking b****, c***, s***, w****, etc. Those terms, which are becoming much more common, normalized, and publicly used in entertainment accessible to impressionable children, hurt women. They hurt women in the same way that the n-word hurts blacks. But racism is taken seriously these days – you won’t hear the n-word used as a slur in the past few decades of television or film unless you’re looking at a character who is specifically a race-supremacist or within an historical context. Woman-hate or misogyny, on the other hand, is becoming mainstream and embraced. Misogyny has always existed, but it is no longer buried under innuendo in the public arena, and this is reflected in the language. Slurs against women are hurled at females (or as a grave insult to men) in entertainment as comedy and or as hate by male and female characters alike, by all racial groups, and by characters of all ages. I was watching an American show the other day where an older black man forced his way into a white, teen-aged girl’s house, called her a ‘bitch’ with hate behind the word, and when she tried to stop him, he yelled out to the street, “Racism!!! This white girl is oppressing a old, black man!!!” Yeah. That’s where our world is going. Slurs against women are fine and dandy, and men of colour are often leading the pack as some of the most protected perpetrators. ‘Art’ reflects life which, in turn, is informed by ‘art’.
Now here’s the problem. The slurs that are really bothering women, especially feminists, these days, are not the ones I just talked about. Hell, call a lib-fem a ‘slut’, and she’ll take her top off and shake those titties at you with pouty lips and a defiant “yeah, I’m a slut, so what?’ look. No, what really gets women a-scampering these days is being called a prude or a man-hater. And even radical feminists will bend over backwards to demonstrate exactly how they couldn’t possibly hate men or want to stop men from putting their dicks into people.
Let’s break these suckers down, why don’t we?
Shrill refers to a sound that is high-pitched or piercing. It is used by men to refer to their dislike of women’s speech. They even use the term to refer to women’s writing, so we know it may only partially refer to the actual sound. The content plays a major role, too. You see, strangely, the voices are more piercing or ‘shrill’ when women are trying to fight for their basic human rights. Personally, I’ve encountered very few women’s voices that you could categorize as ‘shrill’. Occasionally, I’ll run into one that is hard to listen to because it is high-pitched. But on the whole, for me, voices that are annoying or difficult to pay attention to are that way for more complicated reasons. No two are exactly alike. It can include geographically-based accent, pitch, timbre, loudness, and/or whether someone whines or slurs. And a bad laugh can make things worse. I find men’s voices equally or even harder to endure than women’s mostly, but not only, because they are so loud and the content is so boring. I remember years ago, participating in a weekly trivia group thing in grad school, and there was always this one dude sitting across the room who would drive my ears fucking crazy – like poison-ivy-itching crazy – with his freakish, weird, loud voice and laugh. If I’d had a steak knife with me… Anyhow, shrill is more about men not liking to hear about human rights for women than any objective qualities of women’s voices.
I’m not sure if I’ve ever met a bitter feminist. I’ve met a lot of bitter men, that’s for sure. And I’ve also met a few women who are IN relationships with men and who defend the penis who are actually bitter. What does bitter actually mean? It refers to someone who is “angry, hurt, or resentful because of one’s bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment”. The bold is mine because it is the important part of this definition. Having a sense of being treated unfairly doesn’t necessarily mean you are actually being treated unfairly, and this is why ‘bitter’ doesn’t apply to feminists. Women ARE treated unfairly. Regularly. All over the world. For thousands of years. Women SHOULD be angry and hurt and resentful. Men, who often have hurt feelings and anger because they may not get what they feel they are entitled to (i.e., free access to as many women’s bodies and free labour and attention as possible), are bitter. They think life is unfair for them. But it is decidedly not. Bitter. Bitter men.
Of course men are funny. To call women humourless is the funniest thing EVER. But seriously, men’s humour, which mostly relies upon slamming the oppressed (women) through rape jokes, cheap ho jokes, female biology jokes, or through boring, repetitive jokes about farts, poop, masturbating, etc., is not funny. Men are humourless. Women are funny. They really are. Now, we’d have a better sense of this if men didn’t control the entertainment industry. As it is, to become a female comedian, you have to be fuckably hawt first. Being hawt is unrelated to comedic talent, so we miss out on probably 98-99% of the funny women out there. Funny women who are not hawt are barred from speaking, performing, acting. I have my personal (growing) list of female comedians whom I like to watch and laugh with, two of my faves being Tig Notaro and Janeane Garofolo. But there are many. Many. Google. Watch. Laugh. They are women and they are funny. And somehow, they don’t need rape, whores, shit, farts, or penises in the mix to do it.
Oh, this one makes me tired. Countless rad-fems have spent time doing justice to the ‘we’re not prudes, we just think PIV (penis-in-vagina; aka ‘dude-sex’) is harmful’ argument. So I’m not going to go through the whole thing here. Femonade is a great resource for this, and FCM does it better than I ever could. There is a massive difference between hammering home (yes, I know the imagery I’ve created) the point that penises are the source of most, if not all, of women’s problems, and doing the religious, woman-hating, anti-sex, guilt-hate-shame parade. Feminists aren’t anti-sexuality. They wish for women to be free from men’s sexuality so that they can finally figure out what theirs is about. As it is, men define all sexuality, and it is all about serving men and harming women. Period. There is nothing prudish about wanting women to be free to be or not to be sexual beings on their own terms.
Perhaps my favourite insult? Maybe. I also like the word misandrist, but most men can’t pronounce it and so don’t use it. Plus ‘man-hater’ is catchy – like a venereal disease! All I know is when men call women ‘man-haters’, it makes me laugh and laugh. Men are so fucking insecure. It is an unassailable truth that men hate women. We’ve got that down, right? And since they can only envision hate, it is impossible for women to exist in a state where they don’t hate men. Or perhaps it is this. Men know that if women treated them the way that men have always treated women, hate would be the inevitable and rational effect. Simply put: “We men treat you women like you are maggots on shit. How can you not hate us?” And craftily, men will use this assumed hate to justify more shitty treatment, anger, ranting, violence, etc. And really, whether we hate them or not is actually irrelevant. All men need is the belief.
But so what if a woman or group of women or all women do hate men? It is justified, reactive, defensive hate. And when we hate, we don’t follow it up with violence. In fact, most women will feel the hate burn, and then find excuses for men, allowing them to continue trying to destroy us. Men, on the other hand, have aggressive, unjustified hate for women that is the fuel for all the violence they do to us. We have done nothing wrong – except exist – they hate us and try to destroy us. And then they blame us if we speak up to defend ourselves.
So ‘man-hater’? Give me a break. Take a look in the mirror, assholes. Read the papers. Take a look at the women around you in a human, non-pervy way. You are more likely to see fear in women’s eyes than hate.
To women and feminists, especially, stop defending yourselves against male accusations in the form of ‘slurs’. It is a waste of gynergy. If you really must fight something, then fight the real slurs – the b- c- w- and s-words. The slurs that actually hurt us and are designed to do so.
We live in a world where men are allowed to follow their thoughts to the very end and announce them in bold caps, surround sound and techni-colour.
Men are the censors, the thought police, the free-speakers, the fuckers, the threat-issuers, the policy-, law-, and rape-makers, the law-breakers, the judges, juries and executioners, the johns. The Free.
This is how they turn their fantasies into reality. This is how they turn their crimes into rights. This is how they turn their mediocrities into merits. This is how they turn their hate into freedom.
Women are not allowed to speak freely. We must support Dick or shut up. If we don’t shut up, we will be shut up. Women may not state the facts. Women may not question the status quo. Women may not ask ‘why?’ Women may not fantasize in response to what men put out there in the name of ‘free speech’, in the name of our annihilation, in the name of their orgasms. Women may not defend themselves.
It is a rare woman who dares to follow her thoughts to the end, and she pays dearly. A few applaud her bravery within earshot, eyes gleaming and then darting, careful. A few more silently support, nodding in privacy and anonymity. And the majority wish her harmed, silenced, erased, dead. Sometimes, they get their wish.
I wish to see, hear, read more women who are ‘out there’. Daring to follow their thoughts to the end. Speaking the unspeakable – women’s words. Daring to be seen, heard, read… potentially silenced. But ultimately, daring to be believed and joined.
During my first go-round in graduate school in the US, my closest friend was this brilliant, quirky, and tortured Dutchwoman. Through her and other Dutch I’ve encountered, I, the over-polite Canadian, came to appreciate their delicious bluntness. I’ve since found that they have a just-so way of putting things that hits the nail on the head without destroying your thumb.
I’ll always remember something my friend said that has since had great application in various situations. While she was speaking literally, her words provide a great metaphor.
We were talking about bathroom habits for some strange reason, and I think she was commenting on what she believed was the American tendency to spray perfume or some other artificial smell after doing one’s business in the bathroom. She said:
“I don’t know why people do this! I’d rather just smell your shit than a mixture of your perfume and your shit.”
The implication, of course, is that you can’t cover up reality. And to follow: why should we try? It doesn’t actually work.
I’ve found myself coming back to this simple, but brilliant, comment on the recent human tendency to put a positive spin on political/social/research conclusions and theory. And recently, I’ve been reminded of it in critiques of certain feminist conclusions about the state of things. Conclusions and theories are discarded with the sweep of a hand simply by calling them ‘pessimistic’ or ‘depressing’. It’s not even a valid argument. Something may well be depressing, but that is unrelated to its veracity. This kind of dismissiveness can show up when feminists rightly point out that men have behaved as vicious sons-of-rapists for millennia, and if they wanted to change, they very simply would. Dick supporters will start in with their “That is too pessimistic! Too depressing to contemplate!” spiel. They insist that men can and will change if we just reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. They just need our bottomless female understanding, coddling, and education. But smart feminists have pointed out that men already have been sucking our helpfulness dry for a long, long time. We’ve done all of the above and then some. To no avail. Men don’t want to change. And they never will change. And hell, yes, it is depressing. But it is true. The truth usually isn’t roses and puppy dog kisses. The truth is slavery and rape for women and girls, ad infinitum.
And there are other arguments/theories/conclusions about the state of things and the state of things to come that receive similar reactions. To be honest, it is much the way many women are treated when they try to talk about their experiences of rape and assault – their reality – people don’t want to hear it. It’s too depressing. Too… real? You can lose friendships, family ties, and partner-relationships if you try to talk about your depressing reality (been there a few times, myself).
Why can’t people handle truth? I think this is subject matter for a future post. I want to get into suicide and death and such. People absolutely hate those topics and I think they are very important. Not only does each person have to face reality eventually, but we are soaking in effects of the male death drive and all that implies from the day we’re born. Ignoring it gets us nowhere but a world of hurt.
I prefer the Dutch approach. I may not want to smell the shit, but I’d rather smell it than have my brain confused by the conflation of two incompatible scents. You can’t spray optimism on the toxic air of Patriarchy and expect to find a viable solution or ‘hope for the future’.
The 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.
I teach a few different things in China. My least favourite course is ‘advanced oral English’. First, there is nothing advanced about the abilities of the majority of students – ‘advanced’ is just a word that, in typical Chinese fashion, is for appearances only . And second, I am not an orator. Decent teacher, yes. Orator extraordinaire, no. Oh, and third, trying to have a heavily interactive class when the standard number of students in a small, participation-based university class is 50 is a waste of everyone’s time.
If I must teach communication methodologies, I prefer to teach writing. But if I had my druthers, I’d be teaching a variety of other things within the analytical realm.
Anyhow, I’m in the middle of two weeks of the dreaded speech-making unit. This is where I give a choice of topics (ranging from easy to requiring more insight and imagination). One of the topics requires these 18- to 23-year-olds to think about what they want their lives to look like in 20 years.
If they choose this topic, inevitably, they talk about the family they want. If you can believe it is possible, the Chinese romantic narrative is even more boring and standard than the Western one. Everybody says almost exactly the same thing. I have never, ever, ever met anyone here who wants something different than the rest of the 1.35 billion people.
While it is depressing to hear the young women spout the romantic dream that is the curtain that hides their impending slavery, it is worse listening to the men. And sadly, most of my students are men. Even though I spend an entire class talking about how to describe personality or character, and get them to brainstorm adjectives, they ALL describe their future wives in exactly the same two-dimensional way, and unsurprisingly, there is never a reference to character unless it is to imply that she exists to wait on him and provide children, which is still not really ‘personality’. They describe Future Wife as ‘beautiful’ and that is it. She has no substance. The only thing that matters is that she is beautiful. One of the better speakers did say: “I don’t like girls with strong opinions.” So there you go.
Interestingly, when I teach the class on character and do the brainstorming exercise, most of the students include beautiful, pretty, or cute on their lists, and I do the requisite explanation that physical attractiveness is not a personality characteristic. And although you could, in English, call someone beautiful and refer to their personality, that is not at all what people are thinking here when they put it on their list of personality traits.
When describing men, there is a much richer palette. Men are allowed to be intelligent, talented, creative, hardworking, diligent, responsible, etc. Oh, to be multifaceted – dare I dream?
If you do manage to get people to describe women in any detail, you get a more intense and benevolently misogynist list than you get in the West – today’s Western woman might be called strong, but what is meant is that she is a sexual being with all that entails regarding character (wild, masochistic, uninhibited, slutty, etc). It’s just as superficial, in my opinion. In China, it is all naiveté, innocence, and purity – these are all ideal ‘girl’ qualities. The ideal woman is ‘a girl’ – she acts like, looks like, and thinks like ‘a girl’. It’s so ingrained in the culture – even trying to get people to refer to females over 18 as women is really hard to do. They have no problem calling 18-year-old males ‘men’, though.
I decided I have to stop assigning this topic for speeches. As my educational techniques regarding women and personality and human status are clearly not working, I am now going to give my barf trigger mechanism priority.
In another post, I’ll tell you about a) Chinese misogyny in hero/role model discussions and b) how my writing classes approached their assignment on short fiction.
Part one: That’s Some Toolbox You’ve Got There, Ladies.
In the previous post linked to above, I talked about several of the tools and techniques women have at the ready in order to survive as slaves in a patriarchal system. These are the mechanisms that lead women to:
- accept abuse, rape, heaps of discrimination without complaint;
- seek out and stay in romantic relationships with men where anything can and does happen (keep in mind that no relationship between men and women is equal);
- comply and perpetuate Patriarchy by attacking potential allies (non-compliant women/feminists) and indoctrinating children in the ways of gender; and
- fail to notice the millions and millions of daily messages, large and small, direct and indirect, aimed at women to let them know that they are members of the sex class, meant to serve men, and undeserving of freedom or respect.
That post was about defense. This one is about offense. I want to talk about the tools and mechanisms – or weapons – men have in their arsenals to reinforce their supremacy by keeping women in line. Note that ALL men are given starter arsenals as boys, and most grow up to add more vicious and effective weapons as they get older – even the liberal, so-called ‘Nice Guys’.
I’m not going to talk about physical weapons like guns or knives or physical violence like rape or beatings or BDSM torture. These are obvious. Instead, like in the previous post, I’m going to talk about psychological warfare and what men do to mindfuck ‘loved’ ones, acquaintances, and strangers.
In case, you’re prepared to jump in with a standard, knee-jerk “But women do it tooooooo!” whinge-fest, please note that a) this post is not about individual women attacking individual men as DOES happen, but is not a systematic problem, and b) this post is about class warfare – by men as a class against women as a class. There has never been a war waged by women against men. If so, there’d be millions of dead and maimed men out there. As it stands, the only ones killing men in any number are MEN. So zip it and read on!
Note that some of the defense mechanisms talked about the the previous post can be used by men as attack mechanisms. Projection, for instance, can work the following way in the hands of a man on the attack. As a rule, men have a socialized, underlying hatred of women. Many men will project their hatred of women onto the women themselves claiming that women actually are the ones who hate men. This is the current chant of the MRAs (morons’ rights activists), and is why terms like ‘feminazi’ and ‘man-hating, lesbo feminist’ exist without evidence for them. Men’s hatred is turned into women’s hatred to make men feel justified in issuing rape threats, actual rape, beatings, and psychological warfare.
This is a form of denial, but it is denial used to attack or manipulate. By refusing to admit that something is true, often repeatedly, the attacker causes their victim to begin to question their perceptions and lose confidence. The more off-balance a victim is, the more likely she is to remain in thrall to an abuser. The victim is increasingly likely to overlook often outrageously bad behavior, especially if they are in a relationship.
Example: On an individual level, imagine a newbie to the BDSM scene. She feels like what she is experiencing is abuse, but her dominant repeatedly says it didn’t happen or reframes her experience as something entirely different – submitting isn’t abuse, it is freedom, it is love. It is actually she who has the power. He invalidates her perceptions and she comes to doubt herself. She becomes primed for a deep commitment to submissive status.
We also see this in the low incidence of rape reporting – we can apply gaslighting to women as a group. Women are almost never believed when they dare to speak out about being raped. As a result, women as a class, often doubt their own experiences of rape and don’t bother to speak out. Women are not believed, so most women believe their experiences aren’t real.
It is common for those who don’t conform to mainstream expectations to be pathologized. If someone doesn’t meet expectations, there must be something wrong with her. She needs to be fixed, medicated, given therapy, subjected to surgery, controlled and brought to heel.
Example: The current craze in pathologizing is, of course, centred on sexuality. These days, women need to be ready for sex and thrilled about it 24/7. Of course, sexuality and sex are still defined by men for men, so the perfectly reasonable avoidance or lack of desire on the part of women to engage in something that will not benefit them in any way (and is actually dangerous in many ways) becomes ‘a problem’. Instead of seeing and accepting it for what it actually is – a normal response to sexual slavery and erasure – women are labelled ‘frigid’ or ‘depressed’ or something that indicates that they aren’t fulfilling the expected role. Out come the drugs, sex therapy, psychological abuse, demands for polyamory, and porn.
Shaming and Guilting
Very simply, the act of inspiring feelings of guilt or shame in someone to get them to do something they don’t want to do or to back down on requests for fair treatment.
Example: Men love to push women to the edge and over it in relationships, and inspiring shame or guilt – some of the first powerful feelings young girls experience in all cultures – is a very effective way for men to get what they want. Men often play the victim. Their lives are so hard, and according to them, women make their lives even harder with their nagging and unreasonable demands for respect or consideration. It is these techniques of shaming and guilting that inspire the following: “If you loved me, you would…” and the demands almost always entail some demeaning, degrading, brutalizing, unfair sexual performance or concessions on the part of the woman.
Shaming and guilting (in addition to spreading lies and misinformation) are the key tools in the Pro-Choice movement’s assault against women who need abortions.
A tool used to silence another person by claiming greater victimhood status.
Example: This has recently become a very effective tool in our modern age of oppression status. Everybody is being oppressed. It is a common tool used by men of colour against white women who rebuke their rape or harassment attempts. These men will scream ‘racism!’ or society will do it for them if the rape attempt becomes public knowledge. It is one reason I didn’t report being violently raped by my Arab Muslim boyfriend 8 years ago. ‘Islamophobia’ is a buzzword right now, and current Liberals can get enthusiastically on board with the idea that a white woman is using her poorly suppressed Islamophobia/racism to make a false rape claim but have an incredibly hard time believing that a man has raped a woman.
Some of these men know exactly that is what will happen when they scream racism – it is a joke and a get out of jail free card since racism is taken seriously, but misogyny and violence against women are not. For others, they truly believe they are being oppressed when a woman refuses or fights against their violence. Men of all colours (and SES, religions, etc.) are taught from birth that they are entitled to pussy any time they want it.
Others argue that this is also what is happening with some of the male-to-female trans community trying to silence women by one-upping them on the oppression scale. By using male tactics of aggression and claiming status as ‘women’, actual women are forced into silence. Again, some of these folks know exactly what they are doing, while others may wear oppression as clothing and truly believe everyone is hurting them personally.
The most egregious examples of one-upping occur when a white dude with no true difficulties in life claims victimhood status that is more important than a woman – any woman. This happens CONSTANTLY (see MRAs, for example).
I truly can’t count the number of men – white and non-white – who have silenced me by shouting me down with examples of how they perceive themselves to be the most unfortunate victims on the planet. It has been especially effective when coupled with guilting.
Hope / Manipulated Forgiveness
Hope, is probably one of the most powerful forces out there. Giving someone the impression that things will get better can erase the effects and memories of an incredible amount of abuse.
Example: The most common scenario is that of the battered spouse/girlfriend. Despite the well-known mantra of psychologists and statisticians that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, the battering male will erase this idea by promising that he will change. And he seems to… until the next time he beats and rapes his wife/girlfriend. It helps that women are programmed from childhood to forgive.
There are many more psychological attack devices that men use against women to keep their system of dominance firmly in place. This is just a taste.
You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.Ray Bradbury
I’d go a step further with that quote. After all, it was said by a man, so he doesn’t see the whole picture. I’d say, the best way to prevent a group of people from existing, from contributing to a culture is to prevent them from writing and/or being read. Most people don’t read or take seriously those women authors who are allowed to be published. And most women are not allowed to be published unless they are willing to tell men’s version of the truth. So essentially, the world doesn’t get to read what is not allowed to be there. And that is the story of women.
There are tons of people who don’t read. They can read, but they just don’t. Can’t be bothered. It’s too much work, and requires too much sustained attention, I reckon. I was watching a documentary about the future of reading, and I recall a PhD student commenting that she had to retrain herself to read proper articles in a focused and analytical way after her modern immersion into social media skim-reading. I imagine that an actual work of literature must seem a sisyphean task when you normally spend your day ‘reading’ Twitter and Facebook feeds.
Even among the supposedly superiorly educated Chinese (according to people who’ve never been to, let alone worked in, China), reading non-mandatory books is not common. Last year, I brought in a pile of English language books from my own collection of modern literature to my writing class full of English majors here in China. I’d told them that to become a better writer, reading was a requirement. Only two of my students borrowed books. No one else even attempted to look at the books. Disappointing. But unsurprising. Only occasionally does a Chinese student tell me that they both read and enjoy reading non-mandatory books. It’s all about texting and reading other people’s constant status updates – just like in the West. How is this interesting?
Regarding documentaries, I know plenty of people who’ve never watched even a single one. And those don’t even require a fraction of the attention that a book requires!
But of those few who do read – and I’m talking about great works other than Fifty Shades of Shit or Maxim (seriously, I once dated a British dickface who told me with a straight face that Maxim was the ‘thinking man’s magazine’) – they are still woefully and willfully ignorant of topics and authors who should be a required part of school curricula. The tired old classics are standard, and those classics are written by penises for penises. For most school children and college students, women don’t exist on paper or in politics.
Women authors of literature and feminist philosophy and politics are unsurprisingly absent from school curricula all over the world. Dangerous thinking relegated to Women’s Studies programs, I suppose? As I mentioned, the classics are priapic, but even the edgy or avant-garde have a phallic bent. For many students, misogynists, J. D. Salinger and George Orwell and their social and political commentary have possibly appeared on school reading lists, but who but an English major in Canada has read Margaret Atwood (who is actually a better writer than both of those men)? And everyone knows who Karl Marx is, but Andrea Dworkin’s vast collection of work remains in obscurity in danger of complete obliteration.
But all of these works are available in the public domain, at least for now. There is no reason not to read, not to know.
There is something I find very interesting. I think about my liberal-minded male friends, the few of them I still keep around, and I know they read. They watch documentaries. They learn stuff. They know stuff. They can talk about a number of topics with a level of understanding. And they have one thing in common. They know zero, nothing, nada about women, women’s struggles, the women’s movement, the status of women today. About the movement that concerns half of the world’s population directly and the other half in an important way – they know bupkis. They can talk about other social movements. They know something about racial struggle.
Some of these men, once they come into contact with struggling groups, go out of their way to learn about what these people go through. One friend in the American TV and film business, upon meeting Albanians who had fled their country’s turmoil, went out of his way to learn about the history of their country and plight. But when he was casting actresses for one of his films, he couldn’t figure out why they made sexual overtures to him (other than the idea that all women are sluts always looking to service men). The idea that the film business requires female actors to ‘consent’ to rape in order to get jobs and how that came to be (female subordination/male domination) was completely beyond his educated mind. He got angry when I tried to tell him what many people have said about ‘his business’, the film industry, as an outsider. Yet, while I don’t work in entertainment, I am better read about the plight of women in film than he is. I’ll bet you money that he hasn’t read Rose McGowan’s recent whistleblowing of Hollywood’s widespread sexual assault of its female acting population. He doesn’t have to know about it. He benefits from women’s slavery and to know about it means he has to take responsibility and change the way he does business.
This is the willful ignorance of supposedly intelligent and educated men. The one group all of these men actually live in close proximity to, and sometimes in the same home with – women – they know nothing about. They can’t be bothered to learn about what their close female friends and loved ones have endured and continue to endure. Women don’t matter except when they stop delivering that which is taken for granted. They are objects. They serve men and men’s struggles. The struggle of men is assumed to be the struggle of women. There is no struggle outside that. The concerns of racial groups, religious groups, and gay people matter because men are members of those groups. Women aren’t men, so their continued slavery does not matter.
But these knowledgeable men do know about what the fun-feminists are doing. Oh yes, they are well aware of topless events in the name of political reform. They do know about slut shaming and the movement to embrace sluttiness as a defiant, ‘feminist’ response. They know those powerful ‘feminists’, the Suicide Girls. And by knowing about this kind of stuff, they think they have their fingers on the pulse of feminism. Women just want to fuck more! That’s all. And men don’t need to know more than that. They don’t need to explore the history of struggle. To look for real information might push them out of their comfort zone. Fun-feminists have given ignorance their stamp of approval as per historic male agenda.
Willful ignorance is dangerous. And it comes from failing to read. That failure to read starts at the school level with the censorship of books written by and about women. And it continues through college and into the world of work and survival. We destroy our culture by promoting willful ignorance, by de-emphasizing reading, and especially by negating the contributions of women writers. After all, you can be well read by today’s standards, and still incredibly ignorant by choice.
Not that I feel bad about disabling comments on this blog, but now that the university semester has started up, any pause that I might have had has definitely gone out the window.
You see, I’m forced to listen to the stupid shit my overwhelmingly large classes of male students say. It’s China, it’s traditional, and my classes are almost completely populated with young men. Blech!
The comment of this past week came after asking students to work together to describe where they were from. I put people from the same provinces together, and within the province of my university (as most students stay in their home province for schooling), I grouped people by town.
And of course, there were the standard, meaningless Chinese comments. “People from my hometown are very friendly.” Which, by the way, I guarantee you they are not – people hate outsiders here in China – even among Chinese people – and parents teach their children not to talk to or help strangers EVER. Only family and those in your guanxi (business-social network) count. Outside classroom assignments, my students tell me what their parents really teach them about strangers.
And then of course are comments about girls and women.
The comment winner this week jizzed out the following.
“The girls from my hometown are very beautiful. The men from my hometown are very hardworking. So if you want to get married, you should come to my hometown.”
And this is the general worldwide view of women. It’s not just China, of course. Women are there to serve as eye candy, fuck-holes and baby factories. C’est tout! Despite the fact that women almost always work several times harder than any man on the planet (for anywhere from less to zero compensation), it is the men who are always deemed hardworking and smart and strong and interesting and funny and good leaders, and and and just so fucking multifaceted.
I’ll say it again, I miss having predominantly female classes. The women are just as brainwashed by dick-think, but they say much more interesting things when they have a receptive, non-punishing, woman-supporting audience (me). Only in these classes have I ever heard young Chinese women speak the unspeakable: “I don’t want to get married.” I always give them a loud, enthusiastic round of applause when they are brave enough to speak their minds on female slavery.
I don’t necessarily think that the hatred men have for women has either increased or decreased over the years. What appears to be the case (and one could say this holds for every aspect of societal evolution over long periods of time) is that how the hate manifests can appear to intensify. The hate levels and proportion of infected hater population can stay the same, but the manifestations of the hate can appear to escalate in horrificity. With globalization and improvement in modes of communication and information sharing, there has definitely been a change in the spread of hatred towards women.
A handful of years ago, whilst living in rural China, a local teacher explained to me that the internet made people bad. It is still a commonly held view in China that information censorship is a good and necessary thing. My immediate reaction was to oppose her view. I like freedom of speech despite that the principle does not yet serve the oppressed like it does oppressors. We just don’t live in a world where the principle is applied equally. Oppressors (men, religious people, straight people, breeders, etc) use freedom of speech to spew hatred and perpetuate violence, while those they oppress (women, atheists, lesbians and gays, non-breeders, etc) are often censored. And I think the definition of ‘speech’ is often twisted and abused in order to include and protect violent acts like pornography that serve to hurt the oppressed and make money for the dominant class.
Communication tools can be harmful and beneficial at the same time. Unlike the Chinese teacher, I don’t think there is a simplistic and direct, one-way, causal relationship between tools and people’s goodness or badness. That is not to say they don’t influence each other. They do. I would argue that there may be more harm than good being done, but then again, I don’t think any society in our world is set up to reward good behaviour to the extent that they do bad behaviour. That is Patriarchy, and it’s not a good system for most people. The internet was created as a tool to serve Patriarchy, and while some have managed to do good things with it, it still serves its masters: men.
Anyhow, back to the people.
Assholes existed before the internet was created. Awesome people existed before the internet was created. And then came the internet. Assholes became more assholish (perhaps a few stayed the same or reformed). Lots of people found ways to become assholes thanks to this thing called ‘relative anonymity’ – one key, defining element of the internet. And many awesome people became more awesome. Some people used the internet to learn and self-improve, or help isolated people organize and overcome various hardships. Other people found convenient and rewarding outlets for their hate and self-indulgence that they never had before, or found ways to make money off peddling hate. In short, like any other tool, it is impossible to label the internet as good or bad. It made some people better, had little real effect on several folks, and it made lots of people worse. And of course, people had an effect on the internet in a myriad of ways. Cause and effect are hard to discern.
Let’s get back to the woman-hate problem.
Woman hate has existed for a long, long time. The internet has provided a means for that hatred to manifest in disturbing ways. And these manifestations are colouring human interaction in the meat world, which then continues on to affect the online world. Now, the internet has:
a) provided a common, virtual space for men to meet and bond regardless of race, age or religion in a new kind of brotherhood of hate,
b) provided a platform for manifestos and other writings advocating for hate of and violence against women that can be accessed by anyone in the world. Unlike in previous times, ‘publishing’ is no longer limited to those who can write well or think well, or who are connected enough to find a respectable publishing outlet, In essence, any dickface can jizz online and be read by millions of other dickfaces,
c) increased men’s boldness and willingness to hurt women by allowing anonymous hordes of dudes to e-threaten or e-gang rape a woman who dares speak in public. The kind of repulsive hate speech you can easily find online is like nothing we have ever seen before. These dudes far outspew historic sex-based hate writers, such as de Sade. Previously, men had few places where they could go to bond with other men over rape and sexual violence (e.g., strip clubs) and were limited to private hate at home, in the office to a certain extent, or during the clandestine paid rape of a prostitute. Before the internet, men who couldn’t find support for their hate may have suppressed or localized their violence, and may have even questioned themselves, out of fear of repercussion and lack of support. But these days, group think and group acceptance has increased male boldness and made it easier to let loose on women violently, both online and off.
d) provides unlimited access to free or inexpensive depictions of horrific sexual violence (e.g., porn, ‘edgy photo art’ and BDSM sites) for many who never before had access, including young boys. The latter are getting their sex education primarily from sites fetishizing gruesome sexual violence against women and girls. And pairing this ‘learning’ with boners and orgasms (previously not possible in public, but now possible anonymously at home) is unnervingly effective.
There is plenty more to say on that, but I’ll stop at four.
On the positive side of things, the internet has:
a) allowed abused women who have been socially isolated by patriarchal structures such as marriage and poverty to find support, strength and the courage to escape in online support groups,
b) allowed women who haven’t found a community of like-minded women in the real world to find hope and support in online communities,
c) provided knowledge of and access to feminist literature that cannot be found in most libraries due to censorship of women writers/radical material or bias towards providing published penis’ pointless pontification,
d) allowed marginalized radical feminists an outlet and a voice in the form of blogs and web sites that they themselves can control. Men still try to attack them and derail them, but women can choose how much to interact or allow on their sites. They can also choose anonymity and still speak to promote positive change. This is impossible in the real world, and many women have stayed silent in the past due to very real, constant threats to their safety at the hands of men and sometimes patriarchy-supporting handmaidens,
And of course, there are other ways women benefit from the internet.
How does it balance out? Impossible to say, exactly. The positives are encouraging and do provide help to individuals, although I doubt women are taking advantage of it in the way they need to to effect real change on a societal level.
The negatives are disturbing, and I’d hazard a guess that one of a few things will eventually happen.
1) Violence against women will become so normalized that we’ll regress as a society and end up with a repressive something-or-other akin to what Margaret Atwood depicted in her classic novel or the way things went in Iran, post-Revolution.
2) Western men will become so addicted to and distracted by the pornification of women that more controlled and focused societies (aka China) will easily take over global dominance. China is no picnic in terms of women’s status, but they are definitely not as obsessed with porn and normalized, widespread depictions of rape as the West is.
3) Highly unlikely, but I dream – women will finally wake up, get out of their Bibles and off their dance poles and say, “Enough is enough. Time for revolution. Either you’re for human rights or you’re against ’em. Pick yer side!” and shoot the whole place up. Not for the imposition of another dominance structure such as matriarchy, but for liberation from sex-based oppression.
I root for #3, but I suspect #2 is the most likely scenario. As I mentioned in another post, I increasingly find myself in the position of having to explain the American porn and sex obsession to my Chinese undergrads, Masters and PhD students. It’s what they’re learning about and are confused about in Western entertainment.
I love the internet. My life would be incredibly different and much smaller without it. But I worry. It depresses me to no end that so many men have used such a valuable and amazing tool for the most disgraceful, shameful, boring and base of power fantasies.
Yeah, there’s cussing in this one, too. Delicate flowers, beware.
As American television and film degrades further and further into a moronucopia of misogyny, sensationalism, sexual violence, and self-centredness, I sigh.
Racism, homophobia and the disgusting slurs that go along with them are getting the attention and derision they deserve, and we’re removing them from media. That’s good shit! Still a ways to go, but it’s on the agenda.
But for women, the misogyny and the slurs that go along with that are getting worse. I can’t watch a mainstream American tv program without hearing someone call someone else a ‘woman’ as an insult. This isn’t 1950’s “girls can’t do math” bullshit. This is a constant stream of insults and ‘jokes’ that have at their heart a deep hatred of women. Yes, today we have a disgusting, disturbing, demeaning downward spiral of woman-hate normalized through popular media that the entire goddamn world watches (trust me – I live in China and people are learning the ways of English communication, and how!), internalizes and regurgitates. And women are signing on enthusiastically in order to get jobs and keep roofs over their heads. I sigh.
Anyhow, today, I’m talking about motherfuckers. Or rather, the term ‘motherfucker’ and how to replace it with something that makes more sense. You see, like most other overeducated Canucks raised by filthy-mouthed parents, I love a good cuss. Stalking off and swearing my head off has probably saved a number of people a good, well-deserved beating or murdering. But as part of my aggressive self-removal from as much Patriarchy as I can manage on my own, I’m analyzing the language I use. We’re all guilty of throwing hate around without thinking about it. Lifelong self-reflection is a good, good thing. And as I tell my students, language is at the root of everything.
Anyhow, I’ve never understood what ‘motherfucker’ actually means. The English language is filled with slurs designed to insult people, and the majority of them are based on the universal hatred of women. Want to insult someone? As I mentioned above, these days, all you need to do is call them a woman. Voila! It’s so simple, even a moron can do it.
And so, we have delightful terms such as ‘motherfucker’. I’m not going to get into all the origins of this shitty word – there is a nice little mansplainer over at Stack Exchange who does a fine job and I recommend taking a gander at his needlessly long explanation that begins deliciously with the mansplainy: “Most fortuitously for you”. Dinkus. But at least, if you are patient enough to wade through it, you’ll get the gist and I don’t have to do it here.
I don’t use the term anymore. Consciously. As I said, we’ve all internalized misogyny. And I don’t use it despite the fact that I despise my own mother as an individual for the constant abuse she heaped on me as a child, for teaching me to absolutely hate myself, distrust acts of kindness in others, and for her rabid misogyny, racism and homophobia. (Don’t worry, Dad’s a fucking asshole, too, but that’s a separate post). I don’t hate women or the general concept of mothers. So I’m not going to insult someone by using such a stupid fucking slur against women.
As I love wordsmithery and neologisms of the non-internet-meme sort, I’m test driving the word ‘otherfucker’. Lemme explain.
First, I love the word ‘fuck’. I won’t explain my whole rationale here – that post is coming. A lot of feminists oppose use of the word, but I have to admit, I think it sums things up just about right. And for the most part, I use it to mean exactly what I think it means (fuck off, Princess Bride-quote fappers! What’s with you fuck-nozzles!?!) I use fuck to mean: to do something self-serving to another person and often without their enthusiastic acquiescence. It started in the realm of het-sex (“Did you fuck that bitch last night?”), but it’s pretty spot on for many other arenas where someone exerts dominance over another and the other can’t avoid it. And of course, it has plenty of other uses that derive from this.
Which comes to ‘other’. I assert that it is pretty hard to fuck someone you don’t consider them an ‘other’. If you hold someone in esteem as an equal or better, it is usually someone you relate to and don’t consider to be ‘other’. And the idea of ‘fucking’ them whether in the sexual sense or not, is not within the realm of consideration.
Hence ‘otherfucker’. So if I call you an otherfucker, I’m saying that you are exerting unrequested dominance over a person you don’t hold in esteem and they can’t get out of it. And that’s not something you should be proud of, you otherfucker!
Damn! That felt good to get off my chest. No murders today!
If only there were only one moron per day, we all could rest a little easier. But alas, they exist everywhere and the more moronic they are, the more they feel they need to speak.
Anyhow, some background to the moron I managed to run into online, mid-coffee, on this lovely Saturday morning.
The internet is a strange place. Unlike in the real world (for the most part), online, it takes about 3 seconds for one to start out in one place with specific intentions, and then somehow end up in the middle of one of your worst nightmares. And so it happened today. I was googling something, and magically found myself on a pro-capitalism site run by a moron that sums up capitalism in his sidebar in the form of a busty, be-bra’d bimbo holding up an ‘I’m your biggest fan’ poster. Capitalism can only exist when women are enslaved. Good job, Captain Obvious. You made your point without having to even speak!
But that is not the moron I’m talking about – although he does qualify. Morons tend to attract further morons, and no place loves morons more than comments sections on moronic blogs.
Click to the ‘About’ page. And moronic comment gold! Especially this one, whom I will call Dumbass.
I have never found a liberal to admit they are wrong or concede to a debate especially feminazis. They just keep just keep doing attack after attack and unless the fight was physical, it would never end. These liberals today are radical extremist and we have to bend to them is what our society preaches. How come society did not tolerate and still does not tolerate Nazis but embraces radical liberals and feminazis?
We’ve got the classic Liberal hate. But that shit is meaningless to me. Generic American Liberals are frequently as stoopid and misogynistic as Conservatives or Libertarians. And those labels are often meaningless and defined differently outside the centre of the world (aka the USA).
No, I’m talking about the misogyny, which is naturally part of the set meal when you go for the Capitalist Dude lunch special. First, we’ve got usage of the meaningless term ‘feminazi’. It’s so overused that it’s getting old. Although we all know it is an insult directed at women, the term doesn’t actually make sense. And as Capitalist Dumbass so blatantly displays through what I’m sure he feels is a Clever Intellectual Question, he doesn’t even understand what Nazis are. This is what happens when a) you’re not properly educated, b) you’re privileged (person who got into a university simply because he had money, pasty skin, and a penis, but alas, no brain), and c) you can’t keep your damned mouth shut even when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
To answer the question posed by Dumbass, We don’t/didn’t tolerate Nazis because they committed genocide, targeting Jewish people, gay people, and non-White people (some of whom overlapped). You know, human rights abuses. Radical Liberals and ‘feminazis’ – or let’s use the correct word, Radical Feminists – fight for human rights. The former may have any number of oppressed groups at its focus or may focus on protecting the environment rather than oppression, while Radical Feminists focus on liberating women from sex-based oppression, while supporting intersectional issues (race, class, orientation, etc.). So to make it clear for Dumbass, Fighting for human rights is a GOOD THING. Genocide is a BAD THING.
But I’m not sure if feminists are ’embraced’ as, Dumbass asserts. His comment is representative of the majority of men in the world and some women, and their hate speech – and it is hate speech to the letter – is tolerated and even embraced.
In short, hate-spewing, capitalist windbags – even genocide-supporting ones – are still tolerated and even embraced. Feminists are derided, threatened, and harmed daily, unprotected from hate speech (although women don’t classify as an oppressed group anywhere, so legally, hate speech directed at them isn’t hate speech and cannot be prosecuted). They are not embraced.
ps: I’m not linking to this web site because a) I have no intention of driving traffic to it, and b) through the magic of the internet, you’ll find it or one of the countless millions like it within 3 seconds all by yourself. Besides, I included a hint above 😉
Let’s face it. It is NOT easy being a woman in this world. It never has been, and still isn’t. When compared to all other oppressed groups, women have been enslaved the longest, progress towards their liberation has been the slowest, and it is the group with the largest number of its members refusing to fight back, remaining brainwashed into compliance and self-sabotage. Misogyny has lived and still thrives in all cultures, all nations, all eras, and all age groups.
Misogyny is so ingrained that most people don’t even notice most of it. When it is noticed, many people rationalize it away or develop defense mechanisms to cope with it. Even egregious examples of woman-hate are held untouchable, and those who dare to expose it are attacked mercilessly, even by the oppressed themselves.
Even in this supposedly enlightened day and age (a common way to view one’s current times, despite all evidence to the contrary), the willingness to see women as full human beings doesn’t exist. Those who fight for this very logical wish to be human are castigated, seen as evil pariahs, and likened to the most psychopathic mass murderers in history.
Internet feminism has served to get the word out there. It is still a dangerous, exhausting business, however. Women who speak and who have opinions are universally hated and are at the receiving end of some horrific backlash. I’ve noticed so many feminist sites start up and then die off after a few years. My guess is that having to constantly deal with the ignorance and hate and violence of men online in addition to that which every woman endures in daily life eventually breaks the writers. Part of the problem, I posit, is allowing discussion. Discussion is important for women, but opening up a forum for this online also attracts evil in the form of ignorant men (and some women who don’t want to accept reality). Constantly moderating and being bombarded with idiocy and violence is very psychologically difficult. Only a superwoman could remain immune. And so, my current policy is to write, but disallow comments/discussion. It is for my self-preservation. Writing is healing and intellectual, and getting the words out and repeating the message trumps any secondary need to interact, at this point. If someone reads and learns, that is a bonus.
I link to other feminist sites (in the sidebar) where discussion is possible to varying degrees. Each writer chooses her level of willingness to interact with men who, generally speaking, are too emotional, impulsive, and illogical to realize that they should just be reading and learning.