I swear I have a larger male readership than a female one. My most popular post is the one I wrote about the Muslim rapist, and most of the search terms that bring (men) people to my site involve porn, Arabs, blacks and Muslims raping white women, and similar concepts. Apparently, men love the idea of white women getting what’s coming to them – and they want to see it – because white women are hated more than most, I suppose. This blog has also made it onto a few hate sites set up by men – you know the kind of dinkus I’m talking about – the two-brain-celled rapists who like to call themselves ‘rational’ (LOL!) so that they can dismiss threatening, reality-based feminist writings. Banal, boring, funny if it weren’t backed by very real violence. Men hate women – what’s new? So, to celebrate my male readership, I devote this next post to them and their tiny, whiny male egos and the bottomless jealousy that goes with it. Love you, boys 😉
One day in school, when I was in my early teens, the teacher gave our class some busy work in the form of math problems so as to leave the classroom for some teacherly business. I got to work. What can I say? I love math problems. But of course, boys don’t do well when unsupervised. I firmly believe in sex-segregated education. Girls just don’t ‘devolve’ when the tiniest of opportunities arise. Indeed, my male college students can barely handle sitting, paying attention and learning in a supervised classroom. Based on my extensive experience in multiple countries, I think males aren’t really cut out for education (probably better suited to manual labour, imo). So, anyhow, upon my high school math teacher leaving the room all those years ago, of course one of the douchebags sitting near me whipped out a pack of cards and started building a house. It stole my attention away from what, in my opinion, was much more fun and productive, but mostly because all I could think about doing was letting him make some significant progress only later to lean in and blow the fucking thing down. But I hadn’t yet become a bitch♥ at that point, so I let him be and went back to my math party.
♥ Defined by society at large as ‘a woman who interferes with or even just points out the rules governing male privilege’. Note this is not the only definition of ‘bitch’, and it certainly isn’t mine. That is for another post.
Now, this post isn’t about education or math problems or even nifty things to do with a pack of playing cards. It is about fragile, unnatural, male systems that can easily be blown down if we can see past whatever distractions and roadblocks have been set up to protect them.
In order to have this discussion, I need to talk a bit about the natural and unnatural. Determining what is natural and what is unnatural has always been a confusing thing for us humans. Males define things and force females to believe them. And males have never, despite their insistence, been rational beings. So, for now, fuck the male definitions. I like to use behavioural evidence to suggest reality in many situations. So here, a general rule of thumb can help us discern the difference.
The more human interference that is required to force something to happen or exist, the more unnatural that something is.
And the converse:
The more human interference that is required to prevent something from happening or existing, the more natural that something is.
We need some neutral examples first, before I show myself to be the bitch♥ that I am.
Forcing the Unnatural. Think of dams. Men have destroyed entire geographical areas by building self-serving, short-sighted dam projects. Proponents have called them “the cornerstone in the development and management of water resources development of a river basin“, but really, any male can put a positive spin on even the worst things on the planet. Just listen to them. They mansplain all the time about how destruction = progress. In a more rational (i.e., non-male) world, one would always to do a cost benefit analysis (or more basically, a pros and cons list), and actually pay attention to what a cost is. The pros of a dam are completely human-centric – forced water supply, flood control, irrigation, navigation, sedimentation control, and hydropower – and are designed to serve human gluttony and laziness and the rape agenda of men (specifically, over-breeding and over-population due to enforced heterosexuality). But the negatives of such an unnatural act as creating a dam are not really worth what is gained. Dam projects, especially large ones, destroy local and not so local environments by causing widespread erosion, deepening ground water tables, decimated complex ecosystems, extinction of species, and encouraged migration of predatory humans to areas where high-volume human life is not naturally sustainable. Dams are not natural and they force conditions that are not natural with catastrophic consequences, many of which aren’t immediately seen. But males gleefully call this kind of stuff ‘progress’ and ‘achievement’.
Preventing the Natural. Think of what we call ‘weeds’. Weed is a relative term. Kind of like calling a woman ‘crazy’ when she opposes something men are doing. Unlike women, weeds are insusceptible to the variety of punishment women are given, and require much more effort to control as they can grow quickly and take over an area where humans are trying to grow something unnaturally. So, a weed is basically a normal plant that some human doesn’t want in his or her environment because it interferes with his or her agenda. Cyperus iria, for example, are weeds that Asians don’t want interfering with their rice fields. And dandelions are weeds that North Americans don’t want in their lawns or in their veggie gardens. (Note here that I’m not talking about invasive species that mostly arise due to humans fucking up the environment and opening the door to species that shouldn’t be there in the first place, but that take over once there.) Once a human male decides that something natural is inconvenient or gets in the way of a selfish human need or desire, it is labelled as bad, evil, crazy, etc., and most importantly — unnatural. And it is eradicated. Often the eradication causes further problems (see this post where male solutions are, in fact, ways to create more problems and justify male existence). With weeds, we’ve got a whole host of herbicides that were created and that wreak more havoc than just destroying innocent plants.
Unnatural Systems Are Fragile Systems
One thing you might notice about forcing the unnatural and suppressing the natural is that it is really hard to maintain their constant forced or suppressed state, and there are usually negative repercussions for not allowing nature to do what it is supposed to do. [*Note that what men call ‘natural’ is usually quite the opposite. Again, men define things to serve their agenda.*] Dams need constant maintenance and we are even now still learning about the negative impacts of individual massive dam projects. And weeds? They aren’t happy to stay away. You get rid of them once, and they come right back. Weeding, as a chore, is a constant thing – the bane of a gardener’s life besides natural pests and unpredictable weather.
But let’s think about the natural and unnatural on a level of human control. Men control and poison every level of life in the name of power and their own insecurity. All living things fall under his purview. And one of his favourite things to control is the lives of women. There is much more sadistic pleasure to be had from controlling the life, behaviour and body of a woman than there is from weeding a garden, doncha know.
Here’s the thing about controlling human life, though. All unnatural systems require violence and hard core propaganda to force them to remain in existence. I mean, all forced unnatural systems and all suppressed natural things require a level of violence, but when it comes to human control, there is one variable of complication. Unlike weeds, humans can and do fight back when they are backed into a corner. Humans, especially women, also generally respond well to violence and threats. So in order to force women to do unnatural things or live in unnatural ways, they must be threatened with violence. The threat must be constant, reinforced with examples of the threat coming true, and the threats and violence must be bolstered by all sorts of mythology, idealizations, romanticization, slogans, cautionary tales, and various other punishments for curiosity, boundary-testing and outright deviation or rejection of the control. Wonder whether a human system, regardless of culture, is natural or unnatural? Look at what holds that system in place. Are people punished in some way (socially, economically, physically, sexually, legally, etc) for deviating? Is one group of people treated differently than another group in the same system? Is fear a massive component in the compliance of at least one group involved in the system? Do the rules make sense for everyone if you actually delve beneath the surface and question them? How much resistance do you get from adherents if you question their devotion to the system?
These systems might seem rather tried and true. Rooted in hundreds or thousands of years of history. In fact, many people within the system will cite the long history of a system as proof that ‘it works’. But in actual fact, unnatural systems are quite fragile things. If you take away the many support beams (propaganda, violence, punishment for bad behaviour, etc), the system falls apart. Like a house of cards. Like a house of straw. Without the violence and related support, the system doesn’t work. Isn’t meant to work. Cannot work.
Heterosexuality and the Control of Women: A Fragile System
Women have been controlled by men for thousands of years. Unlike what most people will say, it is not natural. Heterosexuality, which I have posited is not natural at all (both in Part I and Part II), is in fact an unnatural and fragile system that has been forced and is enforced through sustained violence and the threat of violence and a shitload of propaganda. It fails all the tests of what is natural.
- Are people punished in some way (socially, economically, physically, sexually, legally, etc) for deviating? YES
- Is one group of people treated differently than another group in the same system? YES
- Is fear a massive component in the compliance of at least one group involved in the system? YES
- Do the rules make sense for everyone if you actually delve beneath the surface and question them? NO
- How much resistance do you get from adherents if you question their devotion to the system? TONS (for example, I’ve written about some of women’s coping mechanisms here, but there are so many more )
If the violence were taken away. If the threat of violence were taken away. If women were allowed to deprogram and detoxify. If the complex and seriously impressive propaganda machine were shut down, there would be no heterosexuality. No female slavery. The male system, which runs on indentured female energy and service, would collapse. Men certainly won’t allow that. And most women are too brainwashed and cock-whipped to allow that collapse and their ensuing freedom. Freedom can seem very threatening when it is, as yet, undefined.
Some men do realize how fragile their house of cards – their system of dominance – is and that their lives on easy street (compared to women’s) would end if they were to reject the system they currently uphold and reap the benefits of. But it would come undone so easily if even a fraction of the world’s women just stopped, took the actual cocks out of their mouths and other orifices, and proceeded to give the best blow job of their lives. A different kind of blow job. The one where our fragile male system of dominance blew down and away like I imagined that high school douchebag’s house of cards would have had I been less interested in math.